Vindication

I sometime wonder why I go on.

Virtually anytime I utter a thought, every last word I write is condemned as either machine-generated lies or the ravings of a lunatic, and usually both.

And yet, there are times when the news brings reports of vindication. Take Steve Harrison’s on-line Town Hall held on August 11th.

Pedro: You donated money to the conservative party. they fly in counter the idelas you push today. care to explain?

Steve Harrison: Between May and October 2002, I attended one fundraiser for each of Vito Fossella, John Faso for Comptroller and the Conservative Party because I was attempting to build multi-party support for my anticipated, non-partisan City Council Special Election race in Feburary 2003.

Conversely, I have given thousands of dollar to Democrats, before, during and after that time."

Later though, based upon new evidence, I more or less reevaluated that stance and concluded that opportunism was to blame:

“In 2002, at the time Congress took its vote on the war, Harrison was openly supporting pro-war Congressman Vito Fossella's re-election. On the very day Congress voted for the war resolution, Harrison was so outraged at the Republicans that he wrote a $250 check to the Republican-Conservative candidate for State Comptroller, John Faso. Shortly thereafter, Harrison wrote another in a series of checks to Joe Bruno’s hand-picked, pro-war, anti-abortion, pro-school prayer State Senate candidate, Councilman Marty Golden, who was running against a Democratic incumbent….

I recently heard a speaker at a local political club describe how it worked. The amounts seem to vary, depending upon the office and the finances of the mark being conned, but the pattern of donations apparently remained the same, as I suspect did the pitch (never a straight quid pro quo; it is merely suggested that such financial support would be "helpful") and the result (most of the suckers seem to get the rug pulled out from under them–which is what eventually happened to Harrison).”

My pieces on this subject prompted responses such as this one:

“Regarding Harrison's contributions to Marty Golden and others, it's worth pointing out the issues at hand during the time, 2001 and 2002, these were made. Marty Golden happened to be right on issues of land use in much the same way as a clock is right twice a day. There is a long tradition in New York, dating back to the turn of the century if not earlier, that policies commonly understood as advancing good government don't necessarily adhere to partisan divides. For example, the rules proposed by the republican minority in the State Assembly are more in line with Progressive goals than those of the Democratic majority, and would it were otherwise. If Harrison supported Golden because zoning was of overriding importance to his community, there is little that is dishonorable about that. Certainly not when, quite frankly, Brooklyn's bosses themselves seem more than content to abide republicans they can do business with, including Marty Golden.

Second, your entire charge is based on a total of seven checks [actually nine], if I count correctly. Five of these went to Golden, and are indicative of his support on the land use and zoning issue. Coincidentally, that measure passed, and was instrumental in revitalizing that part of the community, so it was money well spent. The intent of those checks was clear, and had nothing to do with wishing to aid Joe Bruno; If it were otherwise, he would not prior to and after that have only given money to Democrats, a fact you'd do well to be candid enough to mention [actually I did mention it, to the extent it was true–Harrison had given to Golden before] .

The check to the Conservative Party was made out to attend a dinner honoring a candidate who ran on a fusion ticket that included the conservative line – kind of like Steve Levy out in Suffolk.

The check to John Faso arose from similar circumstances. That's what fusion tickets are all about, a fact presumably not unknown to you [The only difference is that Levy’s fusion included Democrats, while the being so hailed in this quote as being in service of “good government” is one between the Republican, Conservative and Right to Life parties]..”

But as I said before:

“Harrison’s explanation for all this is that he did so to advance an important local zoning proposal; however, that miserable excuse fails to explain (1) that the Democrat Golden ran against favored the same zoning change, (2) that Golden was surely more effective working for that change on the Council where he was sitting, rather than in the State Senate, and (3) that zoning can in no way explain Harrison's contributions to the Conservative Party, a Statewide Republican, and Vito Fossella…..

…On election day 2002, in the aftermath of the war vote, Harrison, an important Bay Ridge civic leader, stood outside a polling handing out palm cards with Vito Fossella's name on them, even though Fossella had just voted to authorize a war in Iraq. It is inconceivable that a person morally outraged by the war vote in 2002 could have handed out palm cards on election day with Vito Fossella's name, just because of some attenuated connection to a local re-zoning.”

And now in explaining his actions, zoning is nowhere to be found. Essentially, Harrison cops to the charge of opportunism–buying a ticket for a John Faso for Comptroller fundraiser was surely not an attempt to seduce Bay Ridge voters enrolled as Republicans and Conservatives, since most of those voters had never heard of Faso; rather, it was an attempt to buy favor with the leadership of those parties.

Nonetheless, while Harrison’s positions on most issues where he differs with his primary opponent Michael McMahon are more liberal (with the exception of congestion pricing and local taxation) it seems a bit unseemly for him to get so huffy in the on line town hall about McMahon’s support for the death penalty in certain cases or his having gaps in his otherwise pro-choice position, when two years ago, Harrison took remarkably similar positions.

Still those who want to vote solely on that basis are probably taking a somewhat better gamble with Harrison (although Mr. McMahon seems more likely to respond positively to party discipline), while those more concerned about winning and holding the seat for the Democrats should probably go with McMahon (although I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that the likely Republican nominee is the most baggage-laden loser they could ever conceive of nominating, with the possible exception of his primary opponent).

But despite my elation that my assertions about Mr. Harrison‘s motives, which were almost universally condemned, have been vindicated, I still have a few quibbles with Mr. Harrison’s statement.

First and most obvious, it omits the major offense–Harrison admits to the small checks to Fossella, Faso and the Conservatives, but leaves out the five checks totaling $1875 to Mr. Golden in 2002 when Golden was the Republican-Conservative-Right to Life “fusion” candidate against an incumbent State Senate Democrat in the Republican Party's successful effort to help bolster Joe Bruno’s frail minority.

Further, when Mr. Harrison cites the thousand of dollars in contributions he’s made to Democrats, he omits noting that until 2008, he’d never given as much money in one year to any candidate, including himself, as he’d given to Mr. Golden. This year, he finally found one Democrat deemed worthy of receiving more cash than he’d given Golden:

Steve Harrison: $2355 (possibly less than Golden, when adjusted for inflation, but the year is not yet over).

Moreover, at the time the first 2007 article was written, Harrison had given more to Republicans and Conservatives in 2002 than he’d given to Democrats in any year, before or since. Finally, in 2007, the contributions he and his campaign committee made, after publication of my first piece, pushed him over the top by $500 (he also technically broke this record in 2008, but only if one counts the money he gave to himself).

Finally, and most importantly, Harrison’s statement that “I was attempting to build multi-party support for my anticipated, non-partisan City Council Special Election race in Feburary 2003” has some serious reality gaps.

First of all, the statement omits the fact that the much anticipated “multi-party coalition” apparently did not include the Democrats, since during the entire 2002 election cycle, Harrison did not give one red cent to any Democratic candidate, for any office, anywhere. Apparently, this was not the kind of support he was attempting to build.

By contrast, the unseemly amounts of money Councilman McMahon’s paid to the Conservative Party extortion machine over the years to buy their endorsement have always, in every year, been dwarfed by his contributions to Democrats, and have never been accompanied by either money or endorsements to Republican candidates. Further, the Staten Island Conservatives tend to be far more interested in access to the feeding troughs than in right-wing ideology, while their Brooklyn brethren find these to be concerns of equal merit.

Moreover, in 2002, there was no “anticipated, non-partisan City Council Special Election race in Feburary 2003.” That seat had just been filled by the 2001 re-election of Marty Golden to the City Council (also supported by Harrison, against Democrat Joanne Seminara) and would only be vacant if Golden were elected to another office.

Not coincidentally, Golden was elected to that other office, a previously Democratic seat, with the help of Steve Harrison’s money, endorsement and shoe leather. The consequence is that it is now, thanks in part to Harrison’s efforts to create a City Council vacancy for himself to run for with support he hoped to buy from the Republican and Conservative leadership, achievement of a Democratic majority in the State Senate is one seat more difficult.

Thanks Steve for owning up.

As a gift for your “honesty”, my last pre-primary article in this series (should I have the time to write it) will outline a similar shift in your handling of legalized abortion. However, I shall not restrict myself to discussing your somewhat contradictory record of handling this issue, but will also tackle the strange contradictions in the record of your opponent Mr. McMahon as well.