Comments for Craig Eaton – GOP Judas at http://www.urbanelephants.com , comment 1 to 49 out of 20 comments http://www.urbanelephants.com Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:52:46 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3189 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. - Reaganite Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:02:23 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3186 "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".... - Jay Golub Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:26:00 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3175 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. - Reaganite Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:01:39 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3170 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. ) - gberardelli Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:11:34 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3168 "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. - Reaganite Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:16:24 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3167 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! - gberardelli Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:28:14 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3166 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. - gberardelli Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:24:12 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3165 "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.... - Jay Golub Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:23:12 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3164 "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. - Reaganite Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:06:05 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3163 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. - Reaganite Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:54:40 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3162 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. - gberardelli Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:39:50 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3156 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? - Bonghits Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:29:33 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3154 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... - Jay Golub Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:01:41 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3153 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... - Jay Golub Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:36:00 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3151 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. - Reaganite Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:32:45 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3150 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. - gberardelli Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:17:45 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3148 "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? - Reaganite Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:59:05 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3147 "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. - Reaganite Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:52:04 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3146 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. - Jonathan J. Judge Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:31:19 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/home/64/606-craig-eaton-gop-judas.html#comment-3141 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. - gberardelli Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:08:44 +0100