We've received a copy of a recent letter sent out by State Senator Marty Golden.
http://atlasshrugsinbrooklyn.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/0001bs.jpeg
http://atlasshrugsinbrooklyn.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/0001l41.jpeg
We received the following email from an anonymous source: This letter was was mailed to Marty Golden's district. He makes several errors in his statements. In 1997 during his run for City Council, Golden never defeated a Democratic incumbent. The seat was VACANT.
In 2002,Vinny Gentile switched to run for the City Council because he would be in the majority in the City Council whereas being the State Senator in the minority at the time place great strains on Gentile's political agenda; therefore, the Senate seat was also VACANT.
As the only elected Republican official in the State Senate from Brooklyn, Marty Golden should endorse and support other fellow Republican candidates instead of making deals with the Democrats!
The complete State Legislature is viewed as "dysfunctional", not just a Democratically controlled Senate.
Marty Golden is now in the minority in the Senate with his member item budget cut to 10% of what it once was. He can't buy love anymore.
Marty Golden should be very concerned about the collection of signatures for his Republican nominating petitions. He should ask his Democratic friends for help since he NEVER HAS AN OPPONENT!
The values the constituency shares in the 22nd Senatorial District are sorely missing from our current State Senator. He has failed us miserably. He is an embarrassment.
*** We have come to see the full extent of the anger that has been generated by Sen. Golden's actions in recent months. The first emails we received expressing concern were regarding the ACORN/Atlantic Yards YouTube video featuring the Senator.
Then, we received even more emails regarding his conduct in the 44th City Council District race, as he supported liberal Democrat and Vito Lopez pawn David Greenfield.
Golden was also a target in a YouTube video made by a well-intentioned, frustrated GOPer seeking reform in our party.
Now, in the letter, Golden claims he is expecting a "very tough re-election campaign."
Is that supposed to be a joke?
Sources have disclosed to us that the Democratic Party is not providing any genuine support to the only visible Democratic candidate in the race against Golden, Mike DiSanto.
Of course, deals have been made. Part of the incentive for Golden supporting David Greenfield in the 44th City Council race was so that Lopez would back off on supporting anyone challenging Golden. Without Democratic money behind him, it would appear DiSanto faces a tough challenge going against Golden's multimillion dollar arsenal.
This deal was evidenced by the numerous connections we have found between the Senator, Jerry Kassar, and Lopez and have brought to you on this very blog. To list them all would be exhaustive, and I invite you to scroll through our recent posts for further details.
The fact remains that Golden is trying to raise money by painting his situation in a dramatic, drastic way to bang the drums of war and fill his campaign coffers with more funds when no real threat exists (unless Mr. DiSanto is waging a stronger fight than we currently can tell-and we invite him to email us for comment on that issue).
It's a fairy tale.
Senator, we know the truth. Don't insult your constituents' intelligence by resorting to these desperate tactics.
The fact is you will have to answer for your actions and explain to us why we as Republicans should support you when you are doing nothing to grow our party as a whole in Brooklyn. In fact, by making your deals, you have compromised other Republican prospects.
We know the game. It's all out in the open now.
Now, it's your turn to be honest.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 515
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (15)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Quickjustice , April 02, 2010
Guys:
Either primary Golden, or shut up. Mealy-mouthed whining is unacceptable.
Sincerely,
qj
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Robert Hornak , April 02, 2010
Blah, blah, blah. QJ is right, this is just mealy-mouthed whining. What do you suggest he do, NOT take a potential opponent seriously? And possibly jeopardize our chances of regaining the majority that you decry he is no longer in?
And your "anonymous source" needs some history lessons. Golden beat Gentile for the Senate seat, and then Gentile ran in the special to fill Golden's Council seat. If you want to pretend to be reporting facts, you should check them once in a while.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Behold a Pale Horse , April 02, 2010
Robert is right. In 2002, Golden (a two-term City Councilman) ousted Gentile, who was elected in 1996 thanks to a split in the Brooklyn GOP. For the 2002 race, see
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/Ra...ceID=6177
This was the first election year after redistricting, so the Senate Republicans made the boundaries more favorable to Republicans by putting more of Staten Island in it.
The article is correct that Golden (for whatever reason) did not have an opponent in 2004, 2006, and 2008. Can you name any Democrats who wanted to run against him in those three elections but were knocked off the balliot or discouraged? Can you cite any articles from the press (the NY dailies, the Village Voice, or the Brooklyn weeklies) showing that Golden's potential Democrat opponents were knocked off the ballot, bought off, or even intimidated?
I don't know who Mike DiDanto is, but you shouldn't be quick to dismiss him. Remember Albert Baldeo, that unknown Democrat who nearly ousted Maltese in Queens in 2006? The Queens County Democratic organization gave him little support, and he lost to Maltese by almost 900 votes.
Our Campaigns reports Golden was the only candidate on the ballot from 2004 to 2008. Was a deal reached with the Working Families Party as well? They didn't put up a candidate either. What do they get out of it?
So what does Atlas Shruggs have planned? If not support a primary candidate against Golden (he had one in 2004), does it plan on endorsing the Democrat?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by DagnyT , April 02, 2010
Oh, you Urban Elephant gents always have your stomachs tied up in knots LOL
First, again, you always react with hostility over every word rather than offering constructive discussion. You nitpick or dismiss but never add anything. Don't be so self-righteous boys when you're doing exactly when you're criticizing our blog for doing.
Second, I believe the point of the email was to express the examples of genuine frustration that constituents have been feeling in Sen. Golden's district. You "political minds" might know "who got one up over who in what year and what race," but the average voter takes the situation as they see it.
Moreover, I think the point the emailer was trying to make was that Gentile was happier making a move to the council anyway because he would encounter less resistance than in the then Republican dominated Senate. Thus, while the senate race was a "contest" in the literal sense, the seat was essentially vacant because the switch was a fait accompli that would be in Gentile's best interest. That's how I read it, but then again, I try look for the best in people--I even gave Craig Eaton the benefit of the doubt until the end of last year. And our blog even gave the SENATOR the benefit of the doubt when we first started our blog.
We said:
"Ask anyone who the most prominent Republican politician is in our local government, and you will likely hear the name 'Marty' come up first. A former police officer and member of the City Council, The Prince beat Senator Vinny Gentile in 2002 to gain his current post, which he has held for four terms, three of which entirely unchallenged (2004, 2006, and 200
. "While still immensely popular, it seems, frankly the jury is still out on Marty. From the loss of the 13th Congressional district to the debacles of the mayoralty and the state senate, it is unclear where he stood and/or currently stands on these issues. One thing is certain about him: he has die-hard supporters, plenty of donations, and no challengers. It’s clear that in Brooklyn he is certainly thus far deserving of the title 'The Prince.'"
Since then, we have learned things about the Senator and his connections/dealings that have concerned us and a number of his constituents.
So, Hornak, I'd check your lip at the door, my dear. You can "Blah Blah Blah" some place else.
As for QuickJustice, your pseudonym aptly suits you. You punt rather than address the issue. You scold rather than discuss the point. Quick to deliver a blow and never slow to determine what you perceive to be "wrong."
Some perspective: Our goal is not to "primary" the Senator. If a fellow Republican seeks to do that, that's their decision. But we all have both a right and an obligation to criticize his actions when they are at the expense of our party and our values. You call that "whining." Well, I guess you guys should stop "whining" about other elected officials including Obama, Pelosi, Bloomberg, etc. Or Republicans you disagree with or dislike, like Sarah Palin. Stop "whining" about her, then.
I say to you, QJ, what Thomas Jefferson so aptly stated: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Since you're not currently demonstrating anything remotely resembling "good conscience," the only one who should be shutting his mouth is you baby.
Stop with the vitriol and add to the conversation rather than be dismissive guys.
All my love ;-)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Quickjustice , April 03, 2010
Do you think your ad hominem verbosity works any better against me than against Golden? I've shaken Marty's hand, but Brooklyn isn't my turf. He's not my senator. And I'm well aware that GOP Senators have cut deals to keep competition out of their districts.
Do I approve of that? Former Senator Maltese had a deal with Pheffer, and gave no support to Mirsky. I spent countless hours working on Mirsky's campaign. I know the frustration of betrayal by a member of your own party motivated by self-preservation. And Maltese's betrayal of Mirsky didn't preserve his seat for long anyway. It never does.
Francisco says, "Senator, we know the truth. Don't insult your constituents' intelligence by resorting to these desperate tactics.
The fact is you will have to answer for your actions and explain to us why we as Republicans should support you when you are doing nothing to grow our party as a whole in Brooklyn. In fact, by making your deals, you have compromised other Republican prospects.
We know the game. It's all out in the open now.
Now, it's your turn to be honest."
You don't know the difference between punting and addressing the issue. That's to your discredit, not mine. You threaten to hold Golden accountable, but fail to deliver a candidate to oppose him. In politics, that's B.S. And so far, that's all you and your allies have delivered.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , April 03, 2010
Thanks for the advice Dagny, but I will respectfully decline. I reserve the right to "blah, blah, blah" here or anywhere I like. And the only thing that needs to be checked is your facts and perhaps your ego.
Facts, you are familiar with those things, aren't you? Although one would never know it from reading any of the posts by the Atlas people. Your accusations and assumptions are completely factless. You don't even provide a sound or well thought out basis for your points.
Like the one about Gentile preferring to be in the Council as opposed to the Senate and therefore you assume didn't run a real campaign. PLEASE. This is your imagination working overtime.
Even in the minority, the Senate is a much more powerful and prestigious position to hold. Gentile is young, the demographics in NY have been shifting toward to democrats, and a few Senators were working very hard to capture the majority. There was every reason to believe they would eventually be successful. Especially if Gentile still held his seat.
All the accusations you make, you do without any facts, just allusions through pictures of people shaking hands. As if that proves anything. Nor do you detail what the so called deals were, so that people could judge if they were worthwhile or not.
It's not always wrong to make deals with the other side, if you get something worthwhile out of the deal. Do your research and present a complete picture. Or any picture that includes more than just your assumptions.
Another: you say how popular Marty is and then you claim the jury is still out. Based on what??? A jury made up of who? Clearly not the voters, who approve of Marty overwhelmingly.
And what makes me really laugh about you guys is you talk about how you constantly write about these things. But you never give new information, you just keep repeating the same accusations, as if you believe that if you say it enough people will come to believe it.
The real problem with you guys is you nitpick over every little thing, instead of making a real point. You say:
"But we all have both a right and an obligation to criticize his actions when they are at the expense of our party and our values."
You certainly do criticize his actions, but never explain how they are at the expense of our party or our values? Is fundraising at the expense of Republican values?
When we attack Obama or Pelosi, we do it based on issues and philosophy. They are socialists. We disagree with how they govern. And we detail those disagreements with facts and analysis. You do not.
And this is not vitriol, my dear. It is a dispassionate analysis of what you are writing tempered with 15 years of experience in politics. The blogs from Atlas are BORING, and they are boring because they offer no real information, just endless repetitive accusations and name calling.
You want to be taken seriously, stop the stupid name calling (it diminishes the efforts of every republican activist trying to reform the party), present all sides of the argument for people to judge, and use facts to make your case, not made up assumptions (like Gentile really wanted to be in the council and didn't put up a fight).
I'm glad you want to grow the Republican Party in Brooklyn. It is a noble and worthwhile goal. You have your work cut out for you. So take it seriously and do some serious work. This silliness doesn't help your cause and doesn't build the Brooklyn GOP.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by DagnyT , April 03, 2010
If this is what you call "a dispassionate analysis...tempered with 15 years of experience in politics," I'm deeply concerned:
"It's not always wrong to make deals with the other side, if you get something worthwhile out of the deal."
(And you have sounded like a lot of things, Hornak, but "dispassionate" is HARDLY an adjective I would use to describe you)
Yeah, I guess we all just like deals between Democrats and Republicans that cripple competition and do nothing to ensure competitive political races in our city and state.
So, in your opinion, no Republican in Brooklyn should win so long as Marty Golden remains State Senator? Is that right? Ugh. I can see why we aren't winning you over LOL
One thing I love, for example, is how you say everyone knows about these "secret" deals (citing, I would assume, your 15 years of political experience?), but then YOU criticize US for not backing everything we've said with facts. I will say it again, my dear: if we are basing anything on a source or on a rumor, we identify it as such. If we have direct evidence to back things up, we source it. And whether we draw conclusions based upon one or both of these things, we always offer our readers the opportunity to share their thoughts and criticisms. I can think of a few times when we've made changes to our content (even changing one of our polls) due to a reader's respectful criticism. I hardly think that demonstrates arrogance.
But I think you've said everything you need to say (i.e., bloviating), Robert, and I think my points were clear.
It's a shame we don't see eye to eye. But you're clearly a more bitter cup of tea than suits my tastes.
All my love ;-)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , April 03, 2010
Ah Dagny, you have a fervent imagination. When did I EVER say:
"deals between Democrats and Republicans that cripple competition and do nothing to ensure competitive political races in our city and state."
All I said was not ALL deals are bad by definition. It depends on the deal. Reagan made deals with the Dems all the time, but our side benefited from those deals. You can't just look at everything at face value.
Then you say, "So, in your opinion, no Republican in Brooklyn should win so long as Marty Golden remains State Senator? Is that right?" Uh, I never said that either. But you go ahead and keep jumping to conclusions head first.
More to the point: Do you think the Golden seat should be considered important to the Brooklyn GOP? How about the State Senate leadership?
If you answer yes to either of those questions then you have to believe there is a middle ground here and everything isn't as black and white as you try to paint it.
As for your "sourced" information, I have yet to see any. But please, go ahead and share it. Make your case in full in one post, since you are so fond of repeating yourself. Then perhaps we can debate on the merits of your claims instead of the lack of evidence to support your claims.
I won't hold my breath, however.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , April 03, 2010
Oh and incidentally, it was you guys who tried to make the case that it was essentially common knowledge that deals were being made, but called them secret deals. The contradiction here is yours, not mine.
Regardless, you haven't supported your case for any deals, secret or otherwise. I'd be curious to know what those deals were and how you know the details of these "secret" deals.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by DagnyT , April 03, 2010
Robert, my dear...just no.
You were trying to defend Golden's dealings with Democrats. You did not, I believe, mean "dealings" as in "working in an honest and open way in his LEGISLATIVE capacity to achieve COMPROMISE," which would not be controversial.
And I don't believe it was I who referred to these deals as "secret." I think you're confusing us with the video that was made by Sarah, one of our readers. I believe we always said we knew "of deals" and arrangements but we never just laid them all out. We checked expenditure disclosures, newspaper articles, information given to us from contributors, emails, documents, and literature sent to us. That's not contradictory at all.
We don't need to provide our "sourced information." Merely go to our blog and check the archives. I will say it again: everything on our blog is sourced and rumors or conjecture are identified as such always.
Oh, and by the way, when we criticize our Republican "leaders," we ALSO do it based on issues and philosophy. You say all we do is name-call, but you're obviously not a reader of our blog then. That's hardly what we do, and only one of our writers uses nicknames for the colorful characters that comprise the Bay Ridge Cabal/Brooklyn GOP.
As for these questions you asked:
"Do you think the Golden seat should be considered important to the Brooklyn GOP? How about the State Senate leadership?"
...Your questions would be better directed at the Brooklyn GOP leadership and Senator Golden than to us. They clearly think that the seat is worth sacrificing other seats and other candidates. As for the State Senate leadership, the GOP lost that all on their own, it would seem. We haven't advocated for Senator Golden to not be reelected, but many of our readers would not be sad to see him go and see him replaced by someone else. Most would prefer another Republican, but voters are frustrated. The status quo is not the way to go in the opinion of most voters. We shall see how he answers for the many problems that have arisen.
Incidentally, we have a poll on that issue right now.
Oh, and as for the "jury is still out" comment, you say the voters overwhelmingly supported him....THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE LOL He was running unopposed. He's been doing that for a long time. So, if anyone's getting tricky with the facts, it's you, Robert.
You need to relax and rethink your discourse.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , April 03, 2010
Oh Dagny, it's funny how defensive you get. And at the same time you can't even make your case against the establishment in Brooklyn. You cop out and tell me to read your blog.
Well, truth be told I don't read it. I've looked at it and find it rather dull. Again, it doesn't say much that isn't petty personality attacks. But I have all your posts here and I find them even more devoid of any real information. That is why I invited you to make your case in one succinct post.
And I don't care who your "sources" are. I care about what you have evidence for, what you can prove, or what you can make a really convincing case for.
"Oh, and by the way, when we criticize our Republican "leaders," we ALSO do it based on issues and philosophy."
I'd love to see some examples of this. I haven't seen anything substantive yet. But maybe I missed it. Please, enlighten me and the readers.
"we always said we knew "of deals" and arrangements but we never just laid them all out."
And therein lies the problem and what I've been talking about. You allude to things, but never lay them out. You make comments only insiders would understand, and you offer no insight for the casual reader, other than you don't like the people running the Brooklyn GOP.
As for Marty's races, he has polled very well, and the Dems know he would be very hard to beat. That is where his popularity comes from. If he polled poorly believe me there is no deal in the world that would save him from a strong democrat running against him. Nothing tricky about that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by DagnyT , April 03, 2010
Robert, as much as I would love to engage in an endless debate with you, I can't.
Quickly, though, let me say that you readers may come to our blog and read the many succinct and informative pieces we have (and some less so, but very decent lol).
I've been trying to express our goals to you in comment form on this blog for some time now, but you just don't seem to get it. We've come to an impasse.
C'est la vie.
Regarding the "deals," we have always said what we perceive to be "deals," but, what I was trying to say is that we never branded them as the absolute truth because, contrary to what you may think, we prefer to substantiate our claims before we state them. That's why we ALWAYS identify rumor and conjecture as such. Just a note, almost entirely so far, our sources have been accurate. And many of them have even more experience than you do in politics.
You clearly haven't done a good job reading our posts based on what you've said tonight. Maybe it's because you expect every good blog to be like UE, and, well, that's not the case. Hate to break it to you.
As for us being boring, I think you're just not a very fun personality, Robert. Your fifteen years in politics seem to have made you immune to satire, sarcasm and to the kind of discourse we engage in at Atlas. Hopefully, you still have some friends after all those years in politics. ;-)
As for your polls about Marty, email them to us and we'll use them in an upcoming piece.
Much love, Robert!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , April 04, 2010
Dagny, I have no doubt we have reached an impass, and this is getting rather dull. A few final comments though.
"I've been trying to express our goals to you in comment form..."
Goals are usually things you set for yourself. You are setting them for others, and many seem very arbitrary and some even silly. Set some goals you can achieve and report to us on those.
"Regarding the "deals," we have always said what we perceive to be "deals," but, what I was trying to say is that we never branded them as the absolute truth because, contrary to what you may think, we prefer to substantiate our claims before we state them."
That is perhaps the most disingenuous remark you've ever made here.It's one thing to mention these things, another to repeat them over and over and claim they are part of a larger problem. Oh, excuse me, MAY BE part of a larger problem. You are trying to play innocent here and it just doesn't fly.
"As for us being boring, I think you're just not a very fun personality, Robert. Your fifteen years in politics seem to have made you immune to satire, sarcasm and to the kind of discourse we engage in at Atlas."
Clearly, you haven't read my posts and comments, not the other way around. But I guess your inexperience in politics has led you to jump to yet another conclusion without knowing the history involved.
"Hopefully, you still have some friends after all those years in politics."
Yes, many. I wonder if I can say the same for you. However, I also have many enemies, and I am very proud of the enemies I've made. They are the thugs and self-serving hacks who have tried to use and abuse the Republican Party.
Dagny, I've asked you a number of times for one thing. To make your case in a clear, succinct post with all your supporting evidence and analysis. You refuse to do that. Repeatedly. If you could, you would, instead of spending far more time trying to avoid doing it while trying to lay the doubt on those who question you. It is sad, really. It's a good thing I didn't hold my breath waiting for you to make your case.
Best of luck to you and your comrades at Atlas, I'm sure you will make a big difference in Brooklyn politics.
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 > |
|---|
