Ever since Mayor Mike has been openly shopping for a political Party to back his reelection run (having renounced his Republican registration in 2007, which many considered only symbolic anyway), the five GOP county Chairs have stood firm in their opposition to Bloomberg leasing the Republican line for a third time, especially after the way Bloomberg disrespected the Party, disregarded his 2001 promise to continue the policies of Rudy Giuliani and discounted any real involvement by Republicans in his administration.
It was also widely reported that many of NY’s GOP luminaries and elected officials were making calls on behalf of Bloomberg to the five Chairs and their top committee members. This included Senator Marty Golden, who had been advocating loudly for Bloomberg, going on NY1 and other news programs urging for GOP support for this non-republican Mayor (the roots of this effort may now been better understood according to another piece here on UE).
Many have been predicting that the pressure surely to be leveraged on the Chairs would be too much to withstand. Others were indicating that some of the Chairs, namely Craig Eaton from Brooklyn, were already bought off and were just putting on a show with the other Chairs, pretending to examine the merits of Bloomberg’s candidacy in an open process.
Eaton revealed the sham his previous posture was on Wednesday night, when his Brooklyn committee met and forced through a vote to support Bloomberg, in spite of the fact that Bloomberg had been the only candidate Eaton has participated in screening. The vote was also a surprise to many of the committee members, some who abstained, because it was not on the official meeting agenda that was previously mailed out.
According to sources who attended the meeting, Eaton presented a case for Bloomberg that ignored reality. He supposedly discounted the candidacies of John Catsimatidis and Tom Ognibene, who have appointments to meet with the five Chairs in the next few weeks to be screened for a potential mayoral endorsement. Eaton claimed that Catsimatidis wouldn’t run and that Ognibene was not serious about running.
Eaton was reported to have been calling his committee members in the days before the meeting to lobby them in support of Bloomberg. Considering that the most of the committee members are employed at the Board of Elections (which has been under fire from Bloomberg recently), there has been speculation that jobs were threatened if the vote wasn’t as Eaton wanted it.
Most interesting seems to be that the “no” votes came mostly from the minority members of the committee, with the opposition being led by Yvette Bennett and Viviana Hernandez, two Hispanic district leaders and former GOP candidates for local office.
In the end, it seemed that Bloomberg’s money was the main factor for Eaton, who supposedly claimed that Bloomberg would be best because he would give the resources to the Party that they needed for party-building. He claimed that in addition to a big payday for the committee, they would also be getting more patronage jobs from Bloomberg.
Rob Ryan, who is campaign manager for Catsimatidis and a member of the executive committee, urged for the vote to be postponed, asking why there was such a rush to endorse Bloomberg when there was no justification to hurry as the process was just beginning. Brooklyn YR President Jonathan Judge made a motion to postpone, with Ryan seconding, but Eaton quickly shot the motion down and pushed for the immediate endorsement.
Is revolt now brewing in Brooklyn? Word has it that because of this vote many of the district leaders, including many who were forced to vote yes, would resign their positions with the committee as they were disgusted by the way this entire situation was handled.
One committee member was quoted as saying, “it should be clear that he was always just a puppet for Marty Golden.” Another committee member said, “I'm ashamed it was Brooklyn who whored out first.”
Other committee Chairs should beware, if they try to force through a vote for Bloomberg in the same way that Eaton did. They just might find their committee in as much turmoil. Sadly, the backlash to come may be one that could potentially devastate the NYC GOP before it sets the Party right again after 8 years of being marginalized by a hostile mayor.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 2463
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (49)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Daniel Peterson , March 06, 2009
Sounds like a lot of the brooklyn leaders disgusted by the events of the evening, are doing a lot of talking. One can only wonder what is going on in Brooklyn right now. It seems to be a borough in serious need of help.
Brooklyn has potentially three winnable council districts for Republicans. A fourth is also very possible, but it's largely jewish and many of the politicals jews in the district are registered democrats. We need to pitch a bigger tent and start reaching out to the many diverse communities in this borough, because it appears a lot of registered voters may be registered democrat or blank, but have conservative leanings.
I'm getting sidetracked. Anyway, Brooklyn seems prime for Republicans to petition for County commiteee and district leaders. I continue to stress for those interested to go to www.gograssroots.org and get the necessary information to do it on your own. It's not as difficult as you might think. And if you need YR help, you can reach out to my club [ This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ] or the brooklyn arm at \n This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by chancehaywood , March 06, 2009
It is my personal personal opinion that Chairman Eaton should be targeted for removal. That goes for any other county officer, district leader or committee member. This vote literally signals to the rest of the party that principles and ideology no longer matter. That is unacceptable.
As I told J.Judge. If we want things to change it will only happen if we change it. We hve to start challenging for committee and district leader slots.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Jay Golub , March 07, 2009
http://www.laguardiarepublicanclub.org/news.htm
The Fiorello LaGuardia Republican Club in Brooklyn had the above to say about what happened at the executive committee meeting the other day.
What I find most disturbing is that this absolutely critical vote - with so much riding on the line for the Party - wasn't mentioned in the agenda for that night (I've seen the agenda, BTW, so I know for sure this was the case).
How could Eaton, who had said NOTHING publicly about supporting Bloomberg up until the other night, conduct this massively important vote without telling anyone on the committee?
If Mr. Eaton truly supported Bloomberg and thought it was the right thing to do, why wouldn't he let everyone know what he was doing beforehand?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by RRR , March 07, 2009
If the matter was not on the agenda it is open to question whether it was a legally sound vote. Those with standing could ask for a revote with proper notice or ask for the opportunity to screen additional Republican Candidates and vote on those - which would of course supercede this previous vote. Kings GOP Executive Committee members who feel this was not legally conducted or that they were rail roaded should consult their party rules and see under what circumstances they can demand a vote. I've read that they were misinformed about the interst of two well qualified GOP candidates and that the vote was forced through. Chairman Eaton was apparently rail roaded by Golden. Golden should be primaried. Eaton should be taken out to the woodshed by his Executive Committee and given an oppprtunity to conduct a fairer meeting. If he does not have the onions to stand against Golden he won't be Chairman for very long.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by chancehaywood , March 07, 2009
It appears he is already chairman in title only if you ask me.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Jay Golub , March 09, 2009
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...l_dam.html
"Mondello, who has tangled with Bloomberg repeatedly, offered praise at a recent closed-door meeting for the county leaders who are still holding out on a decision, according to a source present at the get-together in Nassau County.
Mondello, who is also Nassau County's GOP chairman, applauded the county chiefs and stressed the Republican Party needs to "stand for something" - even if it angers the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent mayor, the source said."
Sadly, D'Amato is adding himself to the list of those destroying the Republican line. Thankfully, Mondello is valuing the principled fight being made by the holdout Chairs in NYC.
"D'Amato set up a lunch last week with Saul and pressed her hard to provide the mayor with a potentially crucial third vote - to the point where he became "abusive," according to a GOP source familiar with the meeting."
Amazing that he'd be such a sell-out as to push Bloomberg solely because he has business interests to gain. If anyone thought D'Amato was a Republican before, they certainly can't say the same thing now...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Daniel Peterson , March 09, 2009
By giving Mayor Bloomberg the Republican line, a liberal Democrat turned Republican turned independent who chooses not to identify with Republican ideals, wouldn't that be saying that the Republican Party cannot or can no longer compete in the City of New York?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by outside the shadow , March 09, 2009
I find a few things interesting here but in the interest of time share some thought as to this situation.
The committee in a massive show of support chose to vote for Mayor Bloomberg. To make the Chairman out as the bad guy is simply unfair. Did the chairman force a vote perhaps, but before attacking him talk to the 30 plus members who voted in favor of Bloomberg vs. only the 9 who did not. Lets be fair...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jay Golub , March 09, 2009
"Did the chairman force a vote perhaps, but before attacking him talk to the 30 plus members who voted in favor of Bloomberg vs. only the 9 who did not. Lets be fair..."
Why would the chairman "force a vote" if your point is that there was widespread support for the Mayor?
That is a "fair" question and one that has no answer.
Also, I saw the agenda myself - no where was it listed that a NON-Republican was going to be voted on for an unprecedented third term even before ANY other candidates were screened for the same.
Lastly, remember the influence the County Chair has over the organization at large.
Where there's smoke, there's fire, outside the shadow. And, BTW, Mr Eaton is more than welcome to write a piece to dispel any of the thoughts or comments made here on UE - I'll make sure it runs on the front-page prominently...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Paladin , March 09, 2009
"Did the chairman force a vote perhaps, but before attacking him talk to the 30 plus members who voted in favor of Bloomberg vs. only the 9 who did not."
What makes you think people who voted yes weren't spoken with? How many need to confirm that calls were made and arms were twisted? Don't forget most of those people have party patronage jobs.
As Jay pointed out, this vote was never on the agenda. They did not need to do it at this time. It could have waited another month. Eaton very disingenuously pretended to be with the other Chairs on honoring a process of interviewing candidates and then discussing as a group what they wanted to do.
In the end they were supposed to issue a joint statement giving the appearance of unity. That has now been blown thanks to Eaton and Golden trying to short-circuit and control the process.
We will see how bad the fallout gets and how many committee members resign due to this.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by outside the shadow , March 09, 2009
Im just speculating but...
Clearly there was overwhelming support for the mayor within his committee and by taking this vote it has allowed for the county to show their support for the mayor and now turn its focus to being successful this fall. At the end of the day 36 members voted in favor of supporting the mayor vs only 9 who opposed. Your being unfair to the chairman.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Paladin , March 09, 2009
You're not speculating, you're ignoring the points being made.
You just keep repeating the vote count without addressing the point that threats were made to committee members. Threats that involved their party-backed jobs. That is pretty ruthless for Eaton to do, and also pretty undemocratic.
I suppose you thought that Saddam getting 99% of the vote in Iraq was similarly indicative of the people's support of his benevolent leadership.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Jay Golub , March 09, 2009
"I suppose you thought that Saddam getting 99% of the vote in Iraq was similarly indicative of the people's support of his benevolent leadership."
OUCH! The comparison to Judas was one thing, but Saddam???
Yet, I agree with Paladin's general point, outside the shadow.
Are you saying that individual executive committee members WEREN'T threatened? And if you are not saying that, can't you understand how holding a vote under those circumstances is wrong and deserves criticism?
Either way, the Brooklyn GOP can certainly attest to the truth if they like. A simple explanation as to why there was no mention of this on the agenda would be helpful...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Daniel Peterson , March 09, 2009
I know. I didn't care much for the Saddam comparison, Jay. I believe that it is way too harsh a comparison. Even our worst closed-door back room dealings that no longer have cigars because of bloomberg are not in the same league as to the way Iraq was run under Saddam.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Paladin , March 09, 2009
If you don't like that comparison, well, I don't know what to tell you. It's not about him being like Saddam but about the validity of elections carried out where the voters are under duress.
Should I have used Chavez instead? Choose your dictator. Choose your fixed election scenario. Insert HERE.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Jay Golub , March 09, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
This is a better comparison - he forced his executive committee to drink the proverbial "Kool Aid"....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Paladin , March 09, 2009
I disagree that is a better comparison. That would be the case only if Eaton convinced them with the idea that they were doing something good for the bigger picture. That does not seem to be the case here.
Although I suppose the promises of more patronage could be considered something good by some, that seems to be the excuse rather than the hard sell. The hard sell still seems to have been though intimidation, and nobody has disputed that here.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by outside the shadow , March 09, 2009
Jay-
Which members were threatened? I have not heard or seen any members come forward with such claims. Until that happens it holds little to know weight.
As for the second point about holding the election. The Chairman decided to hold the election. People are always entitled to question a leader since it is America but at the end of the day the committee chose to endorse. They very easily could have voted no if they thought they needed more time to think about it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jay Golub , March 09, 2009
I was not at the meeting, outside the shadow - so i must allow those who were there to make such comments. I hope those who have expressed such a view privately come forward and make such claims publicly, but it would be improper for me to do so.
Therefore, you not only have justification in asking me that question and can reasonably be skeptical about the claims made above.
On your second point, the Chair exists at the pleasure of his committee. If the committee doesn't raise these issues to the level we are discussing here - we can potentially assume they agreed fully with the endorsement.
Therefore, until more direct facts come out - you have the upper-hand in the conversation...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Paladin , March 09, 2009
People don't speak out publicly for the same reason they voted the way they did - fear of retribution. That is why we have whistleblower laws and reporters and bloggers use anonymous sources.
As I said, and Jay you know how this works, many of these people have jobs at the BOE or other such patronage jobs. They will vote how ever their chairman says, or they risk losing their jobs. Nor will they openly question the judgment of their chairman for the same reason.
If outside the shadow bothered looking outside the shadows he might actually see what is going on, unless it's really not a matter of where he is looking, but why.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Jay Golub , March 09, 2009
Outside the shadow, if you are so confident in your view that Craig Eaton made his decision both on the merits of Bloomberg's record and on his ability to help the Republican Party grow, then please start a new thread and convince us. We'd appreciate some details to your overall point.
"Until that happens it holds little to know weight."
I'll leave the grammar alone, but as I said before, I was not AT this meeting, so I can only go by what I've heard. But I can't see the justification - no matter what Bloomberg "promises" - for a Republican county organization to give the line to this non-partisan liberal. Therefore, I'm prone to believing the chatter.
But if I'm wrong, please explain further...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Daniel Peterson , March 10, 2009
Just to play devil's advocate here, if Outside the Shadow feels that retrobution or fear is a non-issue, then he should post under his real name like I do. Of course, if he fears posting under his real name may cause issue, then I guess we will never see the light on what is the downright truth to this whole thing and it'll all be left to heresay and opinions.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jay Golub , March 10, 2009
he doesn't need to use his real name, Danny - just explain the "logic" as to why Bloomberg should get the Republican line...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by gberardelli , March 16, 2009
Sorry for being late to the convo - I just discovered the site.
I was there, and I voted "yes".
I think there's some misinformation going on here, or at least some exaggeration. First, as far as I can recall, only ONE person abstained, not "some". Second, the motion for the vote came from the floor, hence its absence from the agenda.
No conspiracy, no foul play. Simply Robert's Rules of Order coming into play.
I know the argument is going to be that the Chair put someone up to it, I can tell you that it wasn't my perception of the events.
I can't speak for others, but I can say that I was never pressured to vote anyway by anyone. I feel that this article gives the Chair more power than he actually has.
I listened to Mr. Ryan's arguments for delay and voted "no" to tabling, because I felt that (1) little would change in 30 days, and that I felt that, as an advisor to a undeclared candidate, that he may have something to gain in pushing for a delay, which made his arguments less than genuine.
In my opinion, the chair ran a fair meeting - all points of view were heard. There was no suppression or oppression of any views.
If you want to know why I voted the way I did, I go into detail on my personal blog. I won't link it right now out of respect for the admins of this site (I'm not looking to promote anything, just to join in on the discussion), but will do so if invited. The short answer - the issue to me wasn't the Mayor himself, it was what's the best course of action for the survival of the Brooklyn party, which I feel has been only hanging on by a thread both financially and in perception.
I will be adding this site to the blogs that I read. A lot of interesting information here.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , March 16, 2009
go right ahead and link, gberardelli. It will help the discussion and enable those of us who so strongly oppose his nomination understand the rationale of those who support Bloomberg's reelection.
As well, I personally want to demonstrate to others who are skeptical that UE is first and foremost interested in the facts coming out, that we all rely on information provided to us on a blog like this. If you were there, I want your firsthand account written here so it's on the record.
As Editor, I will always work to ensure that UE is always more interested in facts, not in perpetuating innuendo and fabricated stories...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by gberardelli , March 16, 2009
I guess I'm too new to understand what you mean - I have an open mind to the site!
Here's the link - I welcome all discussion and comments both here and there.
http://brooklynbarrister.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-i-voted-for-mayor-bklyn-gop.html
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , March 16, 2009
comment was aimed at others, gberardelli. Outside the shadow refused to explain WHY Bloomberg was the right choice for the Brooklyn GOP and decided, instead, to accuse others of being "Ragusa's goons."
I'll read the link and get back my views. Tnks,...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , March 16, 2009
http://brooklynbarrister.blogs...n-gop.html
"A motion was made from the floor by a district leader whom I will not name."
Would certainly like to know who made that motion as it would help determine if there was an untoward motive involved, as the piece above infers...
"Now, the short answer for my vote - survival."
Gberadelli, is the Brooklyn GOP better today than it was 8 years ago? How does nominating Bloomberg help the Brooklyn GOP survive when the only facts on the ground suggest he's the main reason for the growing irrelevance of all of NYC's GOP?
"Any discussion of future relevance begins with winning the majority back in the NY State Senate....The only way I see to win back the Senate is with the help of Mayor Bloomberg, who has supported Republicans in the Senate in the last Senate election."
That logic really doesn't work.
Didn't Bloomberg support the GOP Senate Leadership both physically and financially in the past? Didn't the Republican Majority disappear during that same period of time?
Money will not save the GOP. Principles, over time, will.
"Imagine how many more seats would be lost if the Mayor supported the Democrats."
I think Serf may still be in office if not for Bloomberg destroying the momentum and grassroots support for Republican candidates and issues - left in place by Rudy's leadership. Bloomberg took a good situation and made it bad - along with the union supporting policies of Bruno and Pataki.
"But here's an even better reason. I further think that if you don't have the Mayor working for you, he's likely to be working against you - think of the alternatives."
Well, let's make sure he's not in City Hall next year and we won't have this problem...
"If he loses, then he's a private citizen with a lot of money that may be looking to take out his frustrations at losing against those who worked against him,..."
I guess that's why I've been sleeping with one eye open recently...
"John Catsimatidis (another Dem-turned Republican) was the only one I could think of, but he's been hedging his bets based on the Mayor's actions. Other names have been thrown around since the vote (Tom Ognibene is one), but here's the thing - no one else has been out there campaigning!"
This is all happening because Bloomberg still has the chance to get the line. If only he was officially ruled out, John C. or Tom would be running full and strong already.
"In effect, he's the lesser of all evils."
Again, I must disagree. He is the evil undermining the present and future of the GOP. Let him move on and hold grudges against some of us who have said, "No," but let's not repeat the mistakes of the last 8 years by giving this liberal non-Republican the line again...
BTW, I appreciate your contributions above and hope you understand that the comments I make above are made only towards the same goal I assume we both share - the growth of the GOP...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Daniel Peterson , March 16, 2009
While we're at it, why don't we screen Anthony Weiner and Bill Thompson as well. Perhaps one will get the Democratic line and the other won't, but still want to run. We can let the other run as a Republican.
If we are willing to consider someone as liberal asn the mayor, if not more so than Thompson and Weiner, then what's the difference is backing someone who actually has a D on their registration form?
I am saddened that there are those that are afraid of Bloomberg if he loses in November and it's all because of Republicans. Are we to assume this man can be that vindictive? Is it worth it for him?
The mayor had an opportunity to support Republicans in 2008, like John Chromczak and Bill Buran and Saul Farber. He didn't. I would rather have the support of a few thousand registered Republicans than one person with money who may or may not support our efforts.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by gberardelli , March 16, 2009
OK, have a bit to respond to... and Jay - no need to qualify remarks! It's just good debate. We all part as friends in the end.
I think the Brooklyn GOP is a bit better today than it was even two years ago - we have a functioning committee! I was not a part of things back then, but from what I was told, independent thought was frowned upon!
That being said, I don't think the party has anywhere near the strength on its own to get much done - but it has a good foundation. The problem is that by the time we do grow, re-districting would make growth irrelevant, as we'll be drawn out of most, if not all of Brooklyn.
Re: the Senate: I think I pointed out in my blog that even with the Mayor's money, we still lost, but to me, the losses might have been greater if that money and influence swayed to the other side. We might be down 3 or 4 seats more.
I think it's reasonable to assume that while grassroot efforts are great, we are light years behind in preparation for probably the most important elections for Republicans in recent memory. I don't think grassroots alone gets us to our goal. We need the green to get that word out.
Re: Alternatives - voting the Mayor out of office will not, in my opinion, stop him from being a political force (or obstacle, depending on POV) to be reckoned with. His money and influence will be going somewhere. Should we hand it over on a silver platter to the opposition? Isn't their advantage big enough as it is?
Re: John C. and Tom - Neither have been running - blame whoever you want for that, but it's the facts. Days and weeks are going by since the term limits debacle. Respectfully, I don't believe a successful campaign can be mounted in a democratic metropolis with either leading the ticket given the time left to raise funds and build up name recognition to defeat democrats who have been in the public eye for a decade.
As an aside, I'd love a Repub primary! Why not step up to the plate and run? Even if you lose - you energize the base for the future.
Daniel: as crazy as it sounds, some people did bring up Bill Thompson's name - while his politics clearly don't match, he is well-respected.
I respectfully disagree with your last statement. In my opinion, we are talking about losing Republican elected officials in New York City for a generation. That's scary.
Again, the Mayor's money is going somewhere - either into your pocket, or your enemy's pocket. What's it gonna be?
I know - I'm pretty pragmatic, and not really talking ideals. But think of this - if things work out where the Republican party isn't drawn out of existence in Brooklyn and NYC, think of the base that would be built for those thousands of principled supporters. I think that's a future to strive for.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jonathan J. Judge , March 16, 2009
Just to correct the record, since I was there at the meeting as well, as I recall, it was not a District Leader who moved to endorse Bloomberg; it was one of the internally-elected Vice Chairs of a particular committee.
Secondly, Chairman Eaton opened up his Chair's Report saying that, after resisting Bloomberg's desire to seek the GOP endorsement, he had come around to believing that Bloomberg was the right choice for the Republican nomination and then opened the floor for discussion. The motion to endorse Bloomberg was made by that Vice Chair AFTER the Chairman initiated the topic.
Thirdly, I personally reject the argument that the party can be "drawn" out of existence, and so we have to sell-out for easy campaign donations just to keep our party alive. That's the political equivalent of a brain-dead patient who will certainly die unless the body is put on artificial life support—money won't change anything. If that's where we are right now, then we're already finished. However, I refuse to take that approach.
The State Legislature can create whatever bizarre districts it likes, but it can't redraw the neighborhood/community boundaries of Bay Ridge, Williamsburg, Sunset Park, Brooklyn Heights, etc. It can take away the concentrated power of a particular group of Republicans, and divide it up among multiple political districts to weaken its power. But in all honesty, if we were doing the real work of party building, in good times and bad, which just involves many good, honest people spending a little bit of time and a little bit of cash to get support for our party, then district lines are not a problem. If we had two county committee members in each election district, two active and organized District Leaders in every assembly district, functioning district clubs which respond to the real issues of the community and field the most qualified and responsive REPUBLICAN candidates for public office, then we do not have to fear any of the games that the politicians in Albany play. We would have independent control over our own fate, which is the only way that our party can ever find true strength.
Of course, the lie out there is that Bloomberg and his money are the easy and, therefore, correct ways out. But when we had them before, they did nothing, because the fundamental approach of our party was flawed. All that money was wasted to subsidize bad government, bad politics and bad campaigns. That's what the people reacted to at the polls last November. To convince ourselves to do the same again would be to make the very same mistake that has lead the party and our government to near ruin in this City and State.
Einstein said it best when he defined insanity to mean trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Sticking to genuine and rational principles that work will convince people to come on board. That's how we persevered in the past, and that's all we have to do to come back in the future. It's much harder to do, but it does work. Those who are just looking for access to jobs, easy campaign money, and power, well, they tend not to do much to help our cause because the Democrats have always played that game much better than we. Let's embrace our true Republicanism and practice what we all know is right. No compromising for so-called 'practical politics'. Let's put honest Republican principles at the service of New Yorkers, and let's do it right this time.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Reaganite , March 16, 2009
"I think the Brooklyn GOP is a bit better today than it was even two years ago - we have a functioning committee! I was not a part of things back then, but from what I was told, independent thought was frowned upon! "
Very interesting, and I have to wonder how that could be the only improvement after 8 years of support from your benefactor, Bloomberg.
In fact, the committee under the leadership that previously sold out to Bloomberg floundered, and only once new leadership took over and recruited new people who believed in the republican message did something happen, that didn't cost a penny, to begin the process of rebuilding the Brooklyn GOP.
Endorse Bloomberg and kill the idealism that helped you take this first step and you will be back to square one, where you were two years ago. Good luck.
"The problem is that by the time we do grow, re-districting would make growth irrelevant, as we'll be drawn out of most, if not all of Brooklyn."
Last time I looked you WERE drawn out of most of Brooklyn. You hold ONE seat in the enitre borough, the most populous county in America.
If you want to grow the part there is only one way, and money has nothing to do with it. You need to step outside the one district you hold and start communicating with the voters. But of course to do that you need a message. And that message had better be one that sets you apart from the democrats and inspires our base.
Principle will be our savior, not Bloombergs money.
Bloomberg is a wolf who doesn't even bother to don sheep's clothing. He is at our door asking to come in so he can have us for dinner, and we are debating preparing him a buffet.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Reaganite , March 16, 2009
"Again, the Mayor's money is going somewhere - either into your pocket, or your enemy's pocket. What's it gonna be? "
His money already goes into the enemies pocket. Bloomberg is funding almost every elected official in this city. Wake up and smell the coffee.
The few crumbs he has thrown the republican party pale in comparison. What we have to give up for these few crumbs is destroying the republican party. So you hold the few seats we have left, what will it really mean if we stand for nothing?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by gberardelli , March 16, 2009
Mr. Judge - we've never been formally introduced. I will correct that at the next meeting.
What you said regarding initiating discussion is true. I don't think it was a setup for anything or than a discussion, but it did happen.
I thought you spoke eloquently at the meeting, though I disagree with some of what you said.
I wish that building a strong party was as easy as you say. I also wish that the working world was as principled as you wish it to be. Politics is an ugly busiiness.
Maybe it's my cynicism, but I just don't see what you think should happen ever happening on its own without "help. Unfortunately, I've found that such things are just not that simple. But, it's something to strive towards, nonetheless. May you never become a cynic like me!
Reaganite: Just a quick bio - I didn't get involved in politics because of any "Republican movement" - I've been a Republican since I registered when I turned 18. I got involved in politics as a way to help my neighborhood after law school and the bar, and when asked to get involved in the party, simply stepped up.
No idealism. I had my eyes wide open knowing the "business" i was stepping in!
You're right, we're on the brink as it is. One of the points of what i wrote was "Why help the opposition push us over the edge?"
I feel that the way you both discuss growing a party is a great long-run strategy that could work, but the short term is the priority - or there is no need for a long-term plan, because for all intents and purposes, there really isn't any long term.
For the vote, I just couldn't put ideals in front of real life. Agree to disagree, I guess.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Reaganite , March 16, 2009
What I don't understand is how you think that selling out to Bloomberg helps us even in the short term. That was what our "leaders" have had us doing for the last decade, ostensibly because it was how we were going to hold onto our power base.
As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working for you?
We have slowly lost everything. And most of that was on Bloomberg's watch, btw. Once you sell out your basic principles for what you believe will be a short term gain, you begin a sure decent into an abyss that will likely take a generation to climb out of.
I will take a short term loss, keep my principles intact, and build for tomorrow. As long as we stand for something and people believe in our ideals, we have something to build on. Sell that out and you have nothing.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , March 17, 2009
gberardelli, your argument is all speculative, like "We might be down 3 or 4 seats more." It goes along with others, like outside the shadow, who have said things like "the lesser of two evils."
We've gone down this path with Bloomberg before and it led to where we are today. We need to go in a different direction.
"...it was not a District Leader who moved to endorse Bloomberg; it was one of the internally-elected Vice Chairs of a particular committee."
That is a much different description than was given by you, gberardelli. You made is sound almost "democratic," when after you admitted Mr. Judge was correct, it was the Chairman saying he supported Bloomberg and then one of his appointed members of the committee who then pushed with him for the vote. Clearly the description of the events in the start of this thread were basically well represented. Eaton pushed for this in a dishonorable manner.
"Politics is an ugly busiiness."
Your cynicism is astonishing and, sadly, is part of the reason why the GOP is on life support today. Although you admit you entered political life without a hardcore ideological base, there needs to be some of that inside of you. Please try to find it because most of the rest of us got involved for that reason...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , March 17, 2009
BTW, being a Republican in the most liberal city in America is not easy - no one said it would be. Those of us who persevere through these and other times recognized that by-and-large.
But the entire move to the governmental Left taken by the GOP in NY State and NYC over the last 8 years has proven to be a disaster for the Republican Party. It's now time to go in the opposite direction and get back to the anti-federalist principles that our party must represent to become effective again.
Supporting Bloomberg is the exact WRONG direction to be going today...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Bonghits , March 17, 2009
Having a person like Bloomberg who was nominally a Republican has gotten nothing for the New York GOP. It's time to start standing on principles, and if that means losing the Mayor's race then so be it.
I understand that if the GOP deny Bloomberg the line, then if/when he wins in the fall we will there will be hell to pay (as in payback) but how much worse can it be. He's already given us nothing, we already "own" nothing so what is he going to do to us?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by gberardelli , March 17, 2009
Reaganite: I'd like to know what the party had that "we lost" - as far as I can remember, there hasn't really been a Republican presence where I come from! You can't lose what you never had.
Jay: As far as I know, it was a district leader - but then again, I haven't collected everyone's name tag and job title. However, I saw nothing dishonorable about the way things happened. The Chair was giving his Report, and was reporting on his activities of late regarding Bloomberg and their meetings.
Yes, my arguments are all speculative - it's not like the Mayor is going to put things in writing! (which would be illegal, by the by!) So speculation is all we have to work on.
Would you rather him keep details to himself and not tell anyone?
As far as my "hardcore" base - believe me, it's there, otherwise I wouldn't be do any of the pro bono work I do. Don't mistake pragmatism for pessimism. I feel there's a time and place for passion - and this meeting wasn't that time and place.
The reason why the GOP is on life support today is not pragmatism, it's because in my lifetime, there has never been a concerted effort to put together a GOP that supports each other - and that actually has the goal of winning. The goal, at least in my neighborhood, has never been to win, but to cut the best deal possible. Been like that my whole life.
Bonghits: You make a good point. The answer to your question, in my opinion, is a lost generation of NY Republicans.
Guys, I'm not looking to convince you that I'm right. Only to explain my reasons for voting the way I did.
I'm glad that there are a few people who are so idealized - that's great. I just hope that you don't stick to those ideals to your and to others' detriment.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Reaganite , March 17, 2009
In case you haven't been keeping up to date on things, or haven't bothered to read the other comments above and elsewhere, what we have lost is: the state senate, governor, congress, the presidency, most of our council seats, the last nyc congressional seat, and on.
You may consider that nothing much. I consider it a tragedy when it was in our control to stay committed to our values and not have sunk into that abyss.
Our feckless selling out to Bloomberg and other special interests diametrically opposed to our values has cost us everything, including our souls.
If we simply lost we could just try harder and make a comeback. But we have engaged in hypocrisy and that is much harder to overcome. Our credibility is ruined and it will take a long time and a complete change of leadership before we can restore our credibility with the voters once again.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Reaganite , March 17, 2009
"Yes, my arguments are all speculative - it's not like the Mayor is going to put things in writing! (which would be illegal, by the by!) So speculation is all we have to work on. Would you rather him keep details to himself and not tell anyone? "
Huh? You just contradicted yourself. Are you saying Bloomberg is not alluding to anything and you are just speculating on what you hope he will do, or are you saying he is alluding to doing certain things for the Party (making promises that he likely won't keep)?
"The goal, at least in my neighborhood, has never been to win, but to cut the best deal possible."
And the trend continues. You are right, that is why the Party is moribund. And the Brooklyn GOP is continuing down that road to failure.
Hey, if you guys feel that all is lost and it's just about the money, then I feel sorry for you. I just hope the payday is grand, in the 7 figures, or your soul will have been sold on the cheap.
But when the money runs out I hope you all will step aside and let some idealistic republicans take over and heal the Party from your pragmatism.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , March 17, 2009
"The Chair was giving his Report, and was reporting on his activities of late regarding Bloomberg and their meetings."
Except that right up until THAT meeting, Eaton had been saying inside and outside that he was siding with the rest of the Chairs against Bloomberg - it was a surprise to everyone that he brought up the vote and put his weight behind Bloomberg.
"there has never been a concerted effort to put together a GOP that supports each other - and that actually has the goal of winning. The goal, at least in my neighborhood, has never been to win, but to cut the best deal possible. Been like that my whole life."
So because "in your neighborhood" they've "cut the best deal possible," we should continue on such a cynical path? If that's your "harcore base," I'd hate to see your non-ideological side...
"I just hope that you don't stick to those ideals to your and to others' detriment."
Not possible because unlike you, I think there isn't any further down the GOP can go.
And as Reaganite pointed out, as I did before, we've lost alot over the last 8 years. Just ask Marty Golden if he thinks we've lost anything, or Frank Padavan, or Vito Fossella's seat, or Anthony Como, or our upstate Congressional seats, etc...
Caving into liberals like Mayor Mike is the reason why the GOP is such a marginal party both here in NY as well as nationally.
And, BTW gberadelli, I advocate this less out of idealism than pragmatism. It is pragmatic to NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES OF THE PAST THAT HAVE LED TO ALL OF THESE LOSSES. Contrary to your view, caving into liberals is NOT pragmatic, but suicide....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by gberardelli , March 17, 2009
Reaganite: First you say: we only hold one seat, then you say we had so much... You keep switching your view from broad to marrow time-wise to fit your argument.
I"m talking about Brooklyn, not the national party. Again, the focus of your arguments are jumping to fit what you want to say - not to the argument at hand. I'm strictly talking about Brooklyn, and your own arguments regarding "what's Brooklyn got to lose other than one seat" show me that you agree with the "not much" comment.
Also, the deal cutting I was referring to was with the opposition party during elections- not with people who (presumably) would be our ally. I should've been clearer.
It's not all about the money (for me, not "you guys" - don't ever assume I'm speaking for anyone but myself because I'm not), but it is necessary to order to get idealists like you out into the public eye to make a difference! Man cannot live on ideals alone!
Wow, this site is addictive and fun - but it's cutting into work! I'll be back later.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by gberardelli , March 17, 2009
oh - Re: my contradiction. I was saying that everything about the debate on the Mayor is speculative because neither the Mayor nor anyone else is going to commit to any one course of action, in writing or otherwise. - which if you're talking money would be illegal (meant as a joke, but whatever - I have a bad sense of humor) Refer back to my blog for what I meant.
Ok.. NOW back to work!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Reaganite , March 17, 2009
"Reaganite: First you say: we only hold one seat, then you say we had so much... You keep switching your view from broad to marrow time-wise to fit your argument. "
You are mixing apples and oranges here. My comment about holding one seat specifically applied to Brooklyn, in response to your comment that not supporting Bloomberg risked losing more seats in your area.
My comment about losing everything was broad-based and was made to describe the overall effect of Republicans selling out our core values for the expediency of short-term gains. You know, the "pragmatic" approach to politics that has served us so well this last decade.
Every case I cited, whether an office or a majority in a legislative body, shows what happens when republicans get elected to serve in a republican fashion, but sell out those principles and their supporters in order to try to maintain a hold on power.
This has been our defacto strategy for the last decade and has directly led to our collapse as an effective party, both at the organizational level and the ideological level.
And you proscribe more of this in order to effect a rebuilding? History is on my side here. Judge was right on when he quoted the Einstein definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
What you are proposing is not expedient or pragmatic, it is insane. It will lead us further into the wilderness.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by gberardelli , March 17, 2009
I feel like we're two sides of the same coin - and that neither can survive alone. I think I have acknowledged that in what I've said, but if it wasn't clear, then here it is.
I've been having a similar conversation with my supervising attorney: Which is more important to have in life - ideals or realism? The answer that we came up with was to have a balance of both because either,if let unchecked by the other, leads to ruin.
That's kind of what I think we see in each other. I see unbridled passion for party with no articulated plan for a very real and, IMO, dire problem on the horizon. And I think what you all see in me is planning that sacrifices the passion that you all have.
In discussing with all of you, I can't help but wonder how you can advocate for one over the other. If anything, I've been over-arguing and over-stating the case for more realism because everything I've heard is ideals, ideals, ideals, and real-world thought be damned.
But without the support system, the ideals effectively go nowhere. Such is what is happening in Brooklyn, IMO.
I'm of the mind that Republicans in Brooklyn are screaming into a hurricane-like wind, and no one is hearing us. And without assistance, no one will hear us for a good long while.
I've yet to hear a plan from anyone else that gets our ideals to the people before we're drawn out of existence (or as Mr. Judge put it, "weaken" our Party through re-districting.) I'd be interested in hearing that.
(As an aside, I really do appreciate the give-and-take here. It's been a real education for me in a lot of ways, and given me some things to think about on the train ride back to Sheepshead Bay. I hope everyone sees that I'm trying to have an open mind here and not attacking. Part of "leading" - and I shutter to even label myself as a leader - is listening, and I've heard all of you clearly. )
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Reaganite , March 17, 2009
The problem I see here gberardelli is not that we are arguing two sides of the same coin. We are arguing that what you are suggesting is not realism of any sort that can be argued for as helpful in any way to the problems we face.
If you said that Bloomberg offered you a million dollars and that was the main deciding factor, that might be an argument. Then we could debate the effectiveness of a million dollars vs. principles and which will go further in the short term and if it helps or hurts in the long term.
But that is not what is being offered. You are asking that we consider the practicality of hoping, even after being screwed so many times in the past, that THIS TIME will be different and this time bloomberg will really appreciate our support and reward us with big contributions and jobs for our peeps.
That is not an argument, that is a wish. That's not hardball politics, that is a joke. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on all of us for even considering allowing us to be fooled a third time.
I'll gladly entertain a discussion of practical trade offs when some based in reality are presented.
The Republican Party has delivered for Bloomberg time and time again. When has he delivered for us locally? Ever? Instead he spites us.
Of course I'm sure now that Brooklyn has endorsed him, there will be a big fat 7 figure check coming your way. Please let me know when you receive it. Until then, I suggest you stick to arguments with facts to back them up and stay away from arguing for your fantasy wish list. Save that for Christmas, Santa is much more reliable.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , March 17, 2009
"The answer that we came up with was to have a balance of both because either,if let unchecked by the other, leads to ruin."
That point is too "black and white." I think there is a grey position to be had, but I agree with Reaganite in that Bloomberg is just not the guy to be trying to use what you call "realism" on.
"Realism," I think if i get what you are saying, is that Reaganite and I are NOT being "realistic" because we are putting "idealism" ahead of making decisions that will help us "realistically" win.
Supporting Bloomberg, with no guarantees of anything tangible, which I agree would be illegal to do now anyway, after he's demonstrated time and time again that he refuses to help the GOP grow (or stay alive for that matter) is without any sense of "realism"....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Reaganite , March 17, 2009
You are all caught up in what you perceive to be legal or illegal. Yes, it would be illegal for the Party to try to outright sell the line.
However, there is nothing illegal about buying the line. Bloomberg did it in 2001 and 2005, and is free to drop a pile of money on the table, in addition to whatever else he plans to do to help the republican party.
Of course, he has offered nothing, in monetary support or any other kind of support. And unless he makes some specific offers, and they include 7 figure contributions to the local party organizations, we will quickly find the local party holding the short end of the stick, while the few real suck ups like Marty Golden will personally benefit in spades.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
