Touch a nerve and the email really piles up.
In yesterday’s episode, Gatemouth was about to post one more piece among many which took to task State Senate Democratic Leader John “Nucky” Sampson, and his crew of followers, collectively known as ”Racetrack Empire”. The piece was especially going to target those among the Sampson crew who pretended to be “reformers,” while doing Sampson’s dirtiest work, in particular Daniel “Danny Boy” Squadron. As with most Gatey pieces there was to be no heroes, but Gatey’s sympathies were clearly to be with the imperfect and mixed-motivated crew who finally said “enough is enough” and bravely put themselves into exile from both the Senate’s corrupt Democrats and even more corrupt Republicans. The group which since 2009, I’ve called the “Palefaces,” led by Jeff Klein and Diane Savino.
To be clear, when I use the term “corrupt” in reference to Albany, I do not necessarily or even primarily mean illegality.
As I noted back in 2006, “To complain about scandals in Albany is like griping about someone farting while you're walking through an open sewer. Acts of actual illegality are the exception rather than the rule, and are usually the function of laziness and inattentiveness to paperwork. Far more significant are the acts which are moral outrages, but perfectly legal.”
Anyway, I had spent weeks defending the “Palefaces” against charges that they were no better than the 2008-2009 “Amigos;” that they were merely freebooters who decided to open their own shop in the hopes of improving their situation, putting personal enrichment over loyalty and/or principle.
It wasn’t that I was sure they deserved my defense. I was more sure of two things:
1) The leadership against which they were revolting was revolting in and of itself; and .
2) despite the ugly past precedents of similar endeavors, the Palefaces seemed to have earned the benefit of the doubt, at least until they had forfeited it.
And then, each of them took titles and money from the Republicans, forfeiting the presumption of innocence and creating a rebutable presumption of being this years version of the “Amigos.”
Feeling a bit miffed about sticking my neck out and being made to look a bit foolish, I gave the Palefaces the alternate name of ”Snow White and the Three Stooges” and posted yesterday’s piece, entitling it “How Diane Savino Broke My Heart.”
Truly, it was meant to be sarcastic. My heart is far too hard to get broken, though it may have become a bit frayed.
This morning, I was greeted by this communiqué from one of New York foremost chroniclers of the lifestyles of NYS’ political mobsters, who I will call Hesh Rabkin.
HESH: A couple of thoughts about Senate Dems. 1 – I don't think Squadron, Krueger, Duane, etc. realize the revulsion that white reformers have for Sampson & his crew. [Two prominent veteran “reformers”] asked me what I thought a day or 2 after the Paleface caucus was announced and they were saying things like [Paul] Newell [had] – they agreed with me that the Dems were getting what they deserved and that anything Klein could do to get rid of Sampson (short of them actually voting for Skelos) was worth the effort.
Neither of them were complaining about reformers who stuck with Sampson, but if Squadron & the others actually did things like back opponents to Klein & Savino, I could see a backlash happening, with Klein running Primaries against them with some reform support.
2 – Have the sensible Dems who have stuck with Sampson figured out that he will never become Majority Leader unless they think that they are going to pick up 5 or more seats in either Special Elections or in 2012? Do they think the Palefaces are just going to vote for Sampson after his attempts to blame Klein for the [Antoine] Thompson loss, threats to run Primaries & attempts to dry up fundraising by the Palefaces. Why should Savino vote for Sampson if the result is she gets a lesser Chairmanship?
3 – Not saying they vote for Skelos, but won't the Palefaces demand a Leader other than Sampson?
4 – I lay most of the blame for this on Paterson. Without his support, Malcolm would never have been elected Minority Leader. And any competent Governor would have nipped the 4 Amigos blackmail in the bud.
All very good points; though the same liberals who sympathized with Klein, Savino and Company last week, might be feeling a bit differently since they've allied with the party of Sarah Palin.
Anyway, Hesh had a few other points
HESH: And does Sampson think that leaking this helps him? Will it make it more likely that Carlucci will quite Klein or will it make it more likely that Reps will win back the seat?
GATE: How do you know it was a leak?
HESH: Based on my experience, 99% of stories about "bad" contributors are leaked.
In fact, the Sampson-based consultant who probably leaked this is the same guy who probably got Carlucci the contribution.
I was next greeted by a peeved Facebook message from La Senatrice.
The Senator and I had a friendly relationship ever since 2007, when I jumped into a thread on Daily Gotham to defend her honor when she was attacked by a supporter of Steve Harrison's:
ANON: After reading this article, I have lost a lot of respect for Ms. Savino [EDITOR'S NOTE: Part of comment deleted since it consisted of attacks not backed up with facts and made anonymously. We allow a fair amount of dirt to be thrown…but we like that dirt to be thrown either with facts to back it up, or by someone who is brave enough to say who they are, or preferably both]…She's upsetting many voters who back Harrison and may want to put up someone to take her on. No one is infatible.
GATE: …the post directly above is an example of the rampant idiocy afoot among some of Harrsion's most fanatical supporters. Savino's is not a safe seat, and the Republicans would savor a divisive primary, especially if it resulted in her defeat (and no, this is not analogous to the challenge of Harrison, Harrison is not the incumbent).
To challenge Savino is to do Joe Bruno's dirty work. And for what? Her voting record is almost entirely unobjectionable to "progressives", and what little is not unobjectionable is still less so than Harrison's quibbling about the manner in which he would regulate legalized abortion (where does he stand on parental notice, medicaid funding, and late term abortions anyway?). A challenge to Savino because she chooses to support else someone in a primary is childish self indulgence worthy of the left's worst fantasies of hackish regulars.
And, I'm being charitable, as the post above makes no mention that the challenge will be in the primary. Given Harrison's prior history, who would put it past his supporters to back a Republican? Bouldin's rants have made it seem he'd probably prefer Fossella's re-election to a Recchia victory; given his rationale, and his could it be that Harrison supporters also prefer a Republican to Savino.
I guess their motto is "fewer and better Democrats", although the better part seems subject to debate….
diane savino in the flesh: recchia/harrison: thank you gatemouth,
your assessment of this discussion is 100% on target. and sadly, it reinforces some of my concerns about the vitriol being leveled in these forums. let me be perfectly clear, steve harrison is a decent, hardworking democrat and so is domenic recchia. on any issue that matters to the people of this district they are far and away better than vito fossella. sadly, we are faced with a formidable task of
trying to convince staten islanders to vote for someone who doesn't live on the island. and…do not kid yourself, the fact that steve lives inside the lines is not any more persuasive to staten islanders than the fact that domenic is italian.
the truth is that a challenge to fossella will take real money. and the only way to get real money is to do what i did, raise it, the hard way. that means every damn day, on the phone, call time, hitting up democratic donors, doing the hard ask. i have offered to help with fundraising, offered my donor's list,offered to do call time. and if you ask harrison he will tell you i have never tried to discourage him or anyone else. if steve is successful i will support him 100%. i am a democrat, period, i would never challenge another out of spite or stupidity. but i am a little tired of this circular firing squad,all it does is give aid to our enemies.
GATE: How Magnanamous! On October 19, I said in reference to Senator Savino's endorsement of Noach Dear:
"I eagerly await the opportunity to take Ms. Savino over my knee and give her a good long slow potch in tuchis, giving her ample time between each blow to reflect upon her sins"
Talk about "Diane Savino in the flesh" (Or, in my case, just fantasize about it).
This may be the first women who I've ever indicated a desire to spank, who's thanked me.
Actually, that's a blatant baldfaced lie.
Keep up the good work in Albany…
SAVINO: ok,gatemouth, now this debate is getting interesting. just kidding, i must refrain from engaging, not very senatorial.
GATE: Your keyboard says "just kidding",…. …but your tone says you'll be there to accept your punishment because you know you've been a very BADD girl, and must now show appropriate contrition.
Email me at Gatemouthnyc@hotmail.com to arrange a time and place.
And wear one of those Catholic school girl uniforms.
Btw, Bouldin will be there, and he's bringing his fraternity paddle. I'll show mercy and use my bare hand.
She did email almost immediately; a gentlman does not tell more (although I might, if there was much more to tell).
Today, she was far less friendly. Besides the email she also posted her own response in my piece’s thread.
SAVINO: your broken heart
i am a little perplexed, gatey. you never seem to have a problem communicating with me directly, so why the shot without talking to me?
also, enough with the paleface crap. you are not insinating that a white outer borough ethnic chick doesn't have the right to determine who they are willing to follow are you? you are smarter than that and it is insulting,so stop.
my decision to break with the incompetent leadership of the dems was predicated on alot of reasons, all culminating in the fact that after 40 years of trying to reach the holy grail of a democratic majority we failed miserably at governing, failed miserably at reform, failed our supporters and our districts. when the day comes that the dems are capable of self-reflection and can develop a rationale for leading we can talk.
in the meantime, i was elected to try and make a difference for the people i represent. fading into a partisan obscurity is not in thier best interests. i will work with who ever wants to help me push an agenda i believe in. this may upset some, but my motives are still the same as they always were. i did not create this half-assed system, but i can not continue to be part of a team that i don't have faith in, i wouldn't do it in the labor movement or the democratic party.
I asked Hesh what he thought
GATE: btw, dya see Savino's comment on my post?
HESH: I hadn't until now. Other than the lack of a sense of humor by bitching about the Palefaces, I thought it made some good points.
Let me respond paragraph by paragraph
1) I am not a reporter, but a commentator. I generally do not call people unless I am fact checking; while from time to time, I might make a call, I do most of my fact-checking on the web, or from other written sources. In this case, there was no need. If there were any facts the Palefaces had to put their actions in a better light, I’m sure they would have been made public by now. Surely, there was no printable nugget which would have resulted from a call.
Anyway, to use a term you might have learned in parochial school, "Res Ipsa Loquitur," so I needed no further explanation.
2) As I explained yesterday, I’ve been using the “Paleface” name since the Senate’s “Time of Troubles” in 2009. It described a group of marginal and semi-marginal white Senators from rural, suburban and quasi-suburban areas. It was not meant as an insult, but it is not inaccurate. The Palefaces rightly feel that their areas are the key to any Democratic Majority; the fact that their numbers were decimated in this year’s election is in large part responsible for the Party’s new minority status, and the Palefaces feel, with some justification, that this is John Sampson’s fault.
Moreover, as I explained to Hesh, “the Paleface thing stings because they have not found a way to surmount the insurmountable issue of race.” The fact that you have to surmount the matter of race is sad; it may even be an outrage, but it is also an inescapable fact. I use the term “Paleface” because it begs the first question always raised, sometimes implicitly, and sometimes not, by your opposition.
But please, do not go claiming your right to be free from such crap, and then go whining about your own victimhood. Your line, “you are not insinuating that a white outer borough ethnic chick doesn't have the right to determine who they are willing to follow are you?” is no different than Eric Adams trying to deny your group the right to sit together by calling out Dean Skelos as a racist and sexist. As you say, “ you are smarter than that and it is insulting, so stop.”
3) You claim that your decision to break with the incompetent leadership of the Dems was predicated on the fact that, after 40 years of trying to reach the holy grail of a Democratic majority the Conference failed miserably at governing, failed miserably at reform, failed your supporters and your districts. This analysis is right on the money, and I spent the entire month defending it.
All your points concerning Sampson are valid (albeit perhaps too mild) and I've said as much. In fact, I’ve been making this case about John Sampson for months before you opened your mouth publicly.
But everything said about Sampson does not serve as a defense to the charge of making an alliance with Dean Skelos.
As I noted before the election:
“…it is important to remember that in almost every instance of failure not related to racetracks, there is a party just as guilty as virtually any Democrat, and usually even more so, and that is the leader of the Senate Republicans, Dean Skelos.
The State Senate Democrats' efforts at institutional reform were and are pathetic, but they were and are still an improvement over the way the senate was run under the leadership of Skelos. There is no reason to think he's do any better given another chance.
Further, Skelos was willing to give into extortionists to gain power, he was willing to paralyze the State to keep power, and he ultimately rejected bi-partisan power sharing as a solution to the mess he‘d gotten us into. Unwilling to share power, he ended up with none of it, which was surely an appropriate sentence he deserves to keep serving.
In the matter of the MTA, the State Senate Democrats were riven by faction, and could not muster the votes for any plan; but they needed every vote they had because of Dean Skelos. Because of the Democrats’ continued factionalism, Skelos controls more votes in the Senate than anyone else. Yet he would not support any plan, or propose one of his own, even though he needed to attract only two Democratic votes to pass one.
On the issue of same sex marriage, it is well known that Conservative party leader Mike Long had told Dean Skelos that any Republican who supported same-sex marriage would be denied the Conservative line, and that if the bill managed to pass because of Republican votes, all the Senate Republicans would be denied the line. So, in the same manner he gave into Pedro Espada’s extortion, Dean Skelos gave into Mike Long’s blackmail. Every Senate Republican, including the two who are in the closet, voted against same sex marriage under Skelos’ orders.
If the Democrats deserve to lose control of the State Senate, then the Republicans do not deserve to get that control back. Even on the issue of not robbing the State blind, the recent record of the State Senate Republicans does not inspire confidence.
One can't even justify supporting the Senate Republican on the basis of fiscal sanity, since their normal modis operandi is to outbid the opposition. Say 1199 to dean Skelos and he'll say 1200."
I guess I also should note that saying Republicans are too generous with unions is probably not a minus in your book.
But, more importantly, I let the Republican off far too easily on Racetracks, since the whole plan which gave the Senate Leader so much sway in Racino was Joe Bruno’s idea, so he could do the thing which John Sampson ended up doing instead.
Joe Bruno was corrupt. And the system he implemented, which took the time-honored corruption of Albany and brought it to a new apotheosis, not only fostered outright criminality (see the examples of Vincent Leibell, Bruno himself, and the recently deceased Guy Velella), but was even more insidious when operating within the law’s elastic ethical bounds.
As I’ve noted in more detail, Joe Bruno was the architect of a completely corrupt, but thoroughly legal system, which robbed the voters of the state not only of their tax revenues and the benefits for which they were supposed to pay, but of democracy itself in any meaningful form. The fact that he may or may not have attempted to enrich himself (whether in a legal manner, or not) is almost incidental.
Dean Skelos did not one thing to modify that system. The Senate Democrats attempted a half-assed modification of the system, but found it far too tempting.
And now Skelos augurs its full restoration.
You expect us to be relieved you put John Sampson in his place by making a deal with Dean Skelos?
4) Your argument that you were elected to try and make a difference for the people you represent, and that fading into a partisan obscurity does not serve their interests, and that you will work with whoever wants to help you push your agenda, sound exactly like what Carl Kruger said the day he took a Chairmanship from the Republicans and telegraphed the punch that he was Joe Bruno’s secret life preserver.
That day was the foreplay for the fucking the State took from the Amigos.
Look Senator, given the well justified cynicism which exists among observers of NYS politics, the story of your noble sacrifice and journey into exile was always a tough sell.
I know because I tried to sell it.
Ruben Diaz may have been race baiting, when he said that you and your friends have escaped the derision he and his friends endured, but he is not without a point.
If you don’t believe how difficult it is to draw the distinction between the Palefaces and the Amigos, look what a hash of it Jay Jacobs made.
You guys would be a lot more credible if you took the slots, but told Dean he could keep the lulu.
That would be a start, though actually getting something tangible in the manner of some change in public policy, or some structural reform in hand at the inception of such a bargain would certainly calm your critics a bit.
We might still say you sold out, but we might also say the sell out was worth it.
You still have time to prove this is not what it looks like. Please prove me wrong.