When wading into a raging stream of controversy, it is best to have one’s life support system laid out in advance; as such, let me note the following:
1) In over two and one half years of blogging on “Room 8,” I’ve never had one kind word to say about Councilman and State Senator-Elect Hiram Montserrate, but have managed a few nasty ones (some examples of which follow here, here, here, here and here).
In fact, Hiram’s do-wopping as a member of “Carl_and_the_Passions” (AKA “The Gang of Four”), followed by his decision to go solo and sign with a major label, proves there is no honor among thieves; Hiram could not sustain loyalty to any cause, even that of treason. As DINO wannabes Carl Kruger, Pedro Espada and Ruben Diaz have discovered, Hiram Monserrate can’t be bought at any price, only rented, on a very short-term lease. While I will not comment about a pending criminal investigation, my distaste for Councilman Monserrate is long standing and has nothing to do with his legal troubles (or at least with these legal troubles). So, let no one call me a shill for Hiram Monserrate.
2) Though I have been unrelenting in supporting a Democratic Senate Majority (a few examples follow here, here, here, here [which links a few others], here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here–a list which is by no means comprehensive), and continue to be so, I have never been a fan of Malcolm Smith’s (a few examples follow here, here, here, here and here), and even my columns in support of Smith do not treat him in glowing manner. In fact, in light of recent events, I’ve been dawdling for at least a week on a column suggesting that his colleagues consider dumping Smith as leader. So, let no one call me a shill for Malcolm Smith.
3) During a controversy in my neighborhood several years ago, when a group of ignorant bigots opposed the opening of a shelter for battered women , I founded and led a group which supported for the facility, and received an award from the Asian-American Women’s Center for my efforts. During that time, I was the target of vicious attacks upon my character by opponents of the facility, climaxing with an animated web cartoon which suggested I was fat and stupid, when only the former is true. I have also been involved with the issue of Domestic Violence on a professional level. So, let no one call me insensitive to the concerns of battered women.
Now that that is out of the way, I’d like to express the opinion that the effort by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer to reap political hay from the recent arrest of Councilman Monserrate for assault upon his paramour is self-serving and self-interested political grandstanding.
By contrast, the efforts by Republican State Senator Martin Golden to do the same are far more selfless. In the case of Golden, he is not merely thinking of his own personal interests, but those of the entire Senate Republican Conference, as well as the interests of his politically transgendered buddies, Carl Kruger (who helped elect Golden, and whose staff is interconnected with Golden’s through two married members of the Garson Crime Synidcate: “Yussel Numbnuts” and “Doreen the Blockbuster” ) and Pedro Espada (to whose non-existent “campaign committee” Golden contributed).
Stringer called upon Monserrate to “immediately recuse himself from any role in his remaining days in the City Council, and for any matters in the State Senate, pending the resolution of these incredibly serious charges."
I can recall no such Stringer outrage a few weeks ago, when his former Assembly colleague Tony Seminerio was indicted on charges related to allegations of influence peddling for cold cash (Coincidentally, on election day I drove by the building housing Seminerio’s district office and it had a “For Sale” sign on it).
Meanwhile, Golden is circulating a resolution that calls for Monserrate not to file his oath of office until the charges stemming the alleged assault are resolved. Golden says this would be in Monserrate's "own best interests, and the best interests of the people of this state," noting that "the last thing the people of the city and state of New York want to see is someone sitting in the Senate who is accused of committing such a serious crime.”
Following Golden’s statement, a fellow blogger contacted me to ask: “ I can't find anything on Google, but I seem to recall that Senator [upstater with Italian name] was involved in some sort of sex scandal that he got away with. Do you have any memory of this?”
I responded that there was something hazy in the back of my mind (those with more precise info are invited to illuminate us), but that “I don't recall Marty Golden asking for measures similar to those he was demanding for Monserrate, back when Republican Senator Guy Velella was under indictment”(neither, incidentally, did Stringer).
My blogger friend relayed the substance of my response to Liz Benjamin, who subsequently published this item. As Benjamin notes, during Golden’s first term as Senator, his colleague, Senator Velella had not merely been arrested, but also indicted, in connection with “a cash for contracts bribery scheme.” Velella subsequently took a guilty plea.
As Benjamin notes, Golden also did not make such a call after the 2006 indictment of Senate Democrat Efrain Gonzalez for using money from taxpayer-funded member items, meant for public purposes, for his own personal benefit (nor did Stringer). Of course, back then, control of the State Senate did not lie in the balance, and Gonzalez himself was among the Senate Democrats most willing to do business with the Republicans.
I’ll add that Golden also made no such call concerning DINO Seminerio, a big supporter of recently defeated Republican Senator Serf Maltese (who Golden was assigned to in the Republican Conference’s buddy system–Golden was seen on election day leaving tins of cookies, labeled “Complements of Senator Serf Maltese,” on the tables where voters were required to sign in, thereby giving the electorate a last minute subliminal message otherwise prohibited by statute).
Benjamin asked Golden what the difference was between the cases of Monserrate, Velella and Gonzalez that merited Monserrate being treated differently than the other two. Golden responded incoherently:
"Corruption is not tolerable; bribery is not tolerable…If you're guilty and you commit acts of bribery and corruption, you should go to jail. Someone should have put a bill forward then…Those are different crimes. Are they equally bad or worse? Not worse, but bad. This is a physical, violent, B felony. It's totally different. I'm moving against this because this is an act I believe is intolerable, and sends a signal across the state"
But Golden and Stinger have it exactly backwards.
One recuses one’s self when one’s participation creates a conflict of interest or the appearance of an impropriety. Thus, it would at least be arguable that officials under indictment for corruption related to the duties of their offices should recuse themselves from participation in the affairs of their legislative bodies.
But, Councilman Monserrate has not (yet) been charged with any crime relating to the duties of his office. So, Stringer’s call for recusal, except perhaps as it relates to provisions of the Penal Law concerning Assault, makes no sense whatsoever, except perhaps as a way to generate himself some cheap publicity in an effort to advance himself as a candidate for Citywide office, at the expense of an elected official whose nomination he opposed (as, incidentally, did I), and who would therefore likely oppose him.
As to Golden, he is correct, “those are different crimes.” As Golden implies, while dissembling to create the appearance of saying the opposite, Second Degree Assault is probably a crime of greater magnitude than garden variety political sleaze (though I know many who would disagree–even some who did not support Kevin Powell for Congress).
But, in the absence of a conviction, it seems to me that the anathema against "someone sitting in the Senate who is accused of committing such a serious crime,” is more appropriately invoked against those whose presence casts doubt upon the integrity of the body and its dealings (say, by their taint leading to doubts about the appropriateness of every member’s budget items), rather than at those members whose disgraces (if indeed they qualify as such), however repugnant, are entirely unrelated to their duties of office.
And anyway, I don’t recall Golden asking that similar treatment be afforded to former GOP Councilman Dennis Gallagher, after Gallagher was charged with rape (after his indictment, Gallagher was removed from his committees and leadership positions, but was allowed to remain a member of the Council and was not forbidden to participate in its deliberations).
This isn’t rocket science. Surely Golden and Stringer understand that, if convicted of a felony, Monserrate will forfeit his seat by operation of law. More importantly, unless they’re idiots (and Stringer surely is not), they understand that the distinction between crimes of violence and crimes of corruption cuts (perhaps the wrong choice of words) in exactly the opposite direction from the one they’ve articulated.
But, even an idiot can understand what underlies Golden’s efforts.
By law, Monserrate has until the end of next month to file his oath of office with New York’s Secretary of State. If he does not do so, his seat would be declared vacant and a special election would be called to fill the vacancy. In the meantime, if Monserrate isn't seated, Senate Democrats will have 28 votes, the Republicans will have 29 (pending resolution of the Padavan-Gennaro race) and Carl and the Passions will have three, with 32 votes needed to organize the Senate.
Or does it then become 31? Let the litigation begin!
At any rate, if Golden get his way, the chances of the Democrats organizing the Senate become even more daunting, and some sort of deal which helps the Republicans maintain some or most of their present power becomes that much more likely (especially if, as seems probable, Padavan emerges victorious). And even if Golden's efforts come to nothing now, he's created a phony issue which might come in handy for later exploitation against the Democrats' more marginal members.
Meanwhile Golden’s ignorant and/or disingenuous bloviation continues unabated. Last month, he joined the other Senate Republicans in refusing to respond in any matter to the Governor’s proposed budget cuts. Now, having been so diligent in failing to address the spending side of the problem, Golden has turned to the question of revenues, responding to the governor’s proposals by saying , “you name it, Paterson taxes it. If anybody’s contemplating leaving the state of New York, this should put them over the top.”
Yes, the term “Over the Top” is exactly the term which comes to mind.
Is Golden instead proposing that we enact a millionaire’s tax?
Certainly. Right after he endorses Eliot Spitzer for US Senate.
The Governor tries to address our fiscal crisis from one end, and then the other, and the Republicans respond by trying to ensure the candles burns from both ends, shedding a light that’s truly Golden. And now, they lick their chops like hungry cannibals at a train wreck, drooling over the opportunity to exploit personal tragedy (and it is such for at least one of the parties involved) for tawdry political ends. This is stooping even lower than their usual disgraceful modis operanda (although the remarks of Democratic State Senator Eric Adams prove that members of both parties need to shut up and leave this matter to the criminal justice system and the Courts).
What might push more New Yorkers “over the top” is one more cut in NYC school spending (already disgracefully low, thanks to the Golden Shower the City’s received, in lieu of parity, from Senator Marty and his party) necessitated by the efforts of the Senate Republicans to implement their usual disgraceful modis operandi of using the generic tragedy of a fiscal crisis as a wedge to leverage some tawdry bit of influence which violates standards of morality and decency, but not the penal code.
Do us a favor, Senator Golden, if the Governor’s proposals are really so awful, and the situation so fraught, that your party is afraid to offer even one plausible alternative, why don’t YOU contemplate leaving the State of New York so the rest of us don’t have to?
UPDATE: Is it "Golden Opporunism" or just "Brass Balls"?: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/12/marty_goldens_g.php