I found it most interesting that my “friend” Jonathan Judge would throw my name into an online dispute between himself and the duly-elected Leader of the 47th Assembly District, Russell Gallo, in his response to Russell’s supposed “unremarkable and silly critique” of the Brooklyn YRs.
I say “supposed” because apparently, it was remarkable enough and serious enough for Mr. Judge to write about 8 pages of text, complete with pictures and captions. A veritable internet masterpiece dedicated to the unremarkable and silly!
That’s what you call hypocrisy, folks.And you’re about to see a lot more of it from Mr. Judge.
Now, I could nitpick and whine about being called an apologist, or a handpicked crony and all this other junk. I'm not, of course. That’s all political theatrics by Mr. Judge – a dog and pony show to distract the uninformed.Frankly, I don’t lose any sleep worrying about what Mr. Judge thinks about me, or anything else for that matter.
However, I do care about the constant victim of Mr. Judge’s literary assassinations. That victim isn’t me, or Russell, or even the County or anyone in it for that matter. Mr. Judge's regular victim, intended or not, is the truth.
It’s with that in mind that I propose we clear the record - and have a little fun at the same time.Let’s play a game of my own creation called (insert grand musical flourish) *** You Be the “Judge!” ***
It’s quite simple really.We’re going to look at just a few of Mr. Judge’s factual assertions and see what’s true and what’s empty rhetorical nonsense that distorts what the facts show
First up, this little nugget.Mr. Judge wrote:
At the Brooklyn Young Republican Club's January 2010 Meeting, Mike Grimm, the successfully elected Republican nominee for the 13th Congressional District, addressed the club, which allowed him to build volunteers and support in Brooklyn early in his campaign. Many Brooklyn YRs later went on to collect signatures on petitions for his campaign.
Mr. Grimm did address the small gathering of Brooklyn YRs in January – of that I can attest.To verify the rest, I took this statement to as close to the source as I could find.I asked a well-placed source at the Grimm campaign what impact, if any, did Mr. Judge’s meeting – or any YR support thereafter, for that matter - had on his campaign.The response was surprisingly harsh:
“Jonathan is persona non grata with the campaign.They didn’t do a damn thing for us. He's worthless and useless.”
Uh oh, it would seem that Jonathan's statement may just be, at best, an over-estimation of the significance of the YRs influence on the NY-13 race! But hey, “You Be the “Judge!”
Let’s move on to this next one, concerning Mr. Judge’s endorsement of Joe Lazar for City Council.Mr. Judge wrote:
While they are critical that my campaign in the March 2010 Special Election, after learning we would not be on the ballot, chose to endorse the candidate most in alignment with core Republican principles, they never once questioned or called out corrupt Democratic Boss Vito Lopez-approved Republican State Senator Marty Golden’s enthusiastic and unwavering support of Dem Boss Lopez’s handpicked candidate, David Greenfield, over that of a fellow party member.
First, let the record reflect that Senator Golden’s endorsement came long before any Republican declared their candidacy – a teeny tiny tidbit Mr. Judge omitted. The first rule of good propaganda is "never let the facts get in the way of a good story." and this omission is a prime example of just that.But we’ll get back to that later.
Second, Mr. Judge leads you to believe that his link in the quote is proof of his assertion. And if you were led down that path, then you'd be sorely disappointed at the end of it. What Mr. Judge uses as "source material" for his assertion that Mr. Lazar was the candidate most in alignment with core Republican principles is…. himself?W’oh!Flag on the play!
This is basically saying “I am right because I say I am.”Not exactly logical discourse. This link is is proof of nothing.This kind of rhetoric is misleading and show a great deal of arrogance on the part of its author, not only for thinking so highly of himself, but for seriously discounting the intelligence of you, the reader.
But let’s go deeper into this.It seems that before Mr. Judge got bit by the candidate bug and subsequent threw his lot in with the Democratic-machine candidate, he was humming a different tune with regards to both Senator Golden’s endorsement as to which then-established candidate is closest to Republican principles:
If I have to guess, David Greenfield will inherit the seat as Felder's camp has planned all along. Add in the fact that Senator Marty Golden co-sponsored one of Greenfield's fundraisers in 2007, and the Republicans will most likely implicitly, if not explicitly, throw their support behind him.
But there is still hope! Given the overwhelming Republican tendencies of that district (McCain won Borough Park), and appearances by Mr. Greenfield himself on Fox & Friends (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_VRyG97NfU), the good part is that Greenfield's own political perspective would probably be amenable to a Republican philosophy of government.
So even if Mr. Greenfield becomes Council Member Greenfield in a few weeks, Republicans shouldn't worry too much about that as much as the party should begin to worry about the consequences down the line if we do not engage the Jewish community more so we can effectively compete at the local level within these parts of Brooklyn.
Talk about a 180 degree turn in thinking!So which “Judge” do you believe? Back then, he didn't exactly kick up such a tantrum about Senator Golden's choice, did he? Post-candidacy, he was screaming at the top of his lungs that Senator Golden was conspiring against him! Back then, he was lauding David Greenfield as the next best thing to a Republican. Post-candidacy - he's the devil in the flesh!
So will the real Mr. Judge please stand up? No? OK, then“You Be the “Judge!”
Speaking of Mr. Judge’s failed candidacy, let’s examine further, shall we?Mr. Judge wrote:
Had arcane election law procedure not prevented us from performing a full line-by-line recount of the signatures that we collected, my name would have, in fact, been on the ballot, which the Kings County Supreme Court clearly stated.
That’s his story.Let’s examine the facts.
For facts, there is no better source than the Court record..You’ll find it at http://www.nycourts.gov . Click on “E-Courts” and then click on “WebSupreme” .After entering the pertinent codes, search by Index No. for 700003/2010 in Kings County. I'll wait until you do so....
You will see that, according to the record, the Hon. Judge Martin entered an oral decision after a line-by-line examination of signatures at the Board of Elections granting the motion which successfully challenged Mr. Judge’s signatures.For those who don’t know, the line-by-line examination is done at the BOE by appointed referees with representatives of all parties present. If there are objections, they are made, preserved, brought before the Court and adjudicated. Thus, the Court heard Mr. Judge's objections, and ruled against him.
Now let’s look at the Appellate Court’s ruling on Mr. Judge’s appeal:
As you can see, the Second Department affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court.You don’t need to be a lawyer to appreciate the common sense approach of the Court, which held that an early filing of an objection to a candidacy is considered timely when processed in the ordinary course of business.This isn’t exactly earth-shattering adjudication!
Those are the facts – You Be the “Judge!”
For my two cents here, the “arcane” law that Mr. Judge refers to is the same for every candidate.There is no selective persecution, as Mr. Judge would have you believe.It’s the same law other candidates like Russell Gallo, Ken Rice, Peter Cipriano and I had to follow - and did so with little or no trouble.
If such “underwhelming” candidates can jump this hurdle, why couldn’t the “great” Mr. Judge?
But once again, don't let the facts get in the way of the story - and Mr. Judge is quite the storyteller. If ever the phrase "based on a true story" applied, this would be it!
Of course, it’s fun to argue that “the man held you down”, especially when the truth reveals a somewhat less entertaining tale. But at the end of the day, the facts are all that matter, and the story falls by the wayside.
And true to form, our protagonist chose to point the finger at others and blame them for his own shortcomings instead of taking responsibility for his own failures.
Now I could continue, like going into the Cipriano campaign’s dismantling of an entrenched bastion of political antiquity, thus bringing “reform” to the 49th AD, or going into how he highlights working for out-of-county campaigns when intra-county campaigns were left wanting, and more. But I think you all get the point.
Unfortunately for you, dear readers, this won't be the end. I’m sure you’ll all see the seemingly-never ending rebuttal to this “unremarkable and silly critique” from Mr. Judge that will drone on and on and on – complete with ad hominem attacks, more pictures and captions, and the slings and arrows you come to expect of an internet flame war. He'll tell you that what I didn't respond to must be true because I didn't talk about it here (between you and me, if I did respond to everything, I'd wear out my computer, and you'd wear out your eyes! Isn't this long enough as it is????)
And that’s fine by me because as I said, it’s about the truth, not me.. and truth be told, I kind of look forward to it for the sheer entertainment value alone! This whole piece has been a parody of a real-life parody - why not let the show go on?
But more importantly, it’s fine by me because the more Mr. Judge talks, the more people will see his hypocrisy, his hubris and his hatred.They’ll see him for what he really is.