Such as, for example, the time of SEIU members, surely very important to Clarke's win? Or the time of Owens's volunteers?

If you look at the official filings at fec.gov, Carl Andrews had total disbursements of $550,831, whereas Yvette had total disbursements of $540,815. They were much closer in spending than Chris Owens who disbursed $405,756

Whats telling are the monies still owed. Chris lists debts of $43,296 (was he asking for donations last night?), whereas Yvette has debts of $148,598. If you add Yvette's unpaid bills to the money disbursed, she spent substantially more money than either Andrews or Chris. Compare that to Carl Andrews who has zero debts and a *surplus* of $105,093 and Yassky who has zero debts and a *surplus* of $57,150.

Candidates who are in debt are candidates who need favors, so we shouldn't ever look positively on campaigns that end up deeply in debt.

"Carl Andrews, third place candidate,...backed by Brooklyn's corrupt Democratic Clarence Norman/Vito Lopez machine"

Hate to break it to you Mole, but Carl was not Vito's choice. Linking Andrews to Norman is fair; linking Lopez to to Andrews, or vice versa is just not accurate.

Well, I admit a bit of oversimplification when I refer to the machine, but only a bit. Vito and Andrews were Norman's close associates. They both were intimately involved with Clarence Norman while he was committing crimes that landed him in jail. The machine is the baby of all three of them. So I am comfortable lumping them together in that sense. Andrews was the machine candidate. Vito helped create that machine. He is as responsible for the corruption as anyone is.

Having said that, I realize, perhaps more than I say in this forum (though we have discussed it before), that the machine is not monolithic and it does at times include good people. But I can tell you that Vito was right in there with Clarence and Andrews when Clarence was in power and I have seen little change in how the machine conducts itself since Vito got his shot at leading it. They are substantially, despite a handful of good people involved, corrupt, ineffective and nasty. Were they to stop being corrupt (there's a reason people are in jail!), became more effective at governing and defeating Republicans, and refrained from thuggish tactics, I might be more open to them. But so far, I find the machine as a whole disgusting. And, yes, Norman, Andrews and Lopez have a long history together.

What you just said is oversimplified, but I won't bother arguing. But, saying Lopez backed Andrews for Congress is not oversimplified, it is simply inaccurate. The fact that they had a past relationship is not indicative that they always worked together.

In fact, there were times as recently as 1997 when Vito was allied with Clarence's greatest enemies (although whether those enmeies were in any way preferable is a different matter; the "reformers" were split down the middle in that particular war; Chris and Major, as per usual,were with Clarence).

If you use the brush of painting as corrupt anyone who ever worked hand in glove with Clarence, then Major and Chris have earned more than two coats apiece. It was not Vito Lopez, after all, who called the indictment of Clarence Norman a lynching. That obsenity was uttered by one Major Owens, who became downright obstinate when questioned about it in public, invoking the history of the civil rights movement, and thereby pissing on the grave of Schwerener, Goodman and Chaney; a more despicable crime than has ever been committed by Vito Lopez.

I am also curious why union support gets a free pass. Aren't unions as much an interest groups as any other? Isn't 1199 part of the Central Labor Council? Isn't Brian McLaughlin one of the most corrupt people on the face of the earth? Don't his crimes make Clarence Norman look like a petty grifter? Wasn't Dennis Rivera "intimately involved" with Brian McLaughlin while he was committing crimes that lead to his indictment? And doesn't Dennis Rivera, in connivance with Brian McLaughlin, work hand in glove to keep Joe Bruno in control of the State Senate?

Guilt by association; it's a wonderful thing!

"but Andrews was still the candidate of the machine that Vito has been associated with for years."

Bullshit Mole! Even casual observers understand that while most of the old Normanoids backed Andrews (and may well have constituted the majority of regulars within the 11th CD), those regulars most identified with Vito (meaning those who supported Vito for County Leader and who helped Chris Quinn become Council Speaker)overwhelmingly supported David Yassky (who himself backed Quinn).

Yeah, Al Vann supported Andrews; he also supported Annette Robinson for County Leader, and Bill DeBlasio for Council Speaker. If the support of Al Vann's crowd can somehow be attrinuted to Vito, then we are living in the bizzarro world.

I suggest you ask Carl Andrews (or, for that matter, Chris Owens) who they think Vito wanted to win.

And, just for the record, the slimebag Surrogate who caused County so much shame was named Michael Feinberg. He was backed by Major and Chris Owens, and, as probably promised, gave Carl Andrews a fine living. Vito Lopez, along with Jim Brennan, backed Lila Gold (who, by the way, was also no day at the beach).

Sorry for busting your delusional cherry.

How can Andrews substantially be the machine candidate, when, by all evidence, the only logical inference to be drawn is that the County Leader had seemingly personally blocked Andrews' endorsement?

As to Yassky's deal with County, it seems to entirely be a product of Quinn, which makes the joke on Vito, since Yassky would not have voted for DeBlasio EVEN if Vito supported Bill, and had applied an electric cattle prod to Yassky's genitalia.

And, excuse Molester, but where here have I defended Vito Lopez? I came neither to praise Vito (who could probably care less) or bury him (which I leave to you).

What did I say concerning Lopez?

1)In my first post on this thread, only this: "Carl was not Vito's choice. Linking Andrews to Norman is fair; linking Lopez to Andrews, or vice versa is just not accurate." [Faint praise indeed, especially given the "vice versa"]

2) In my second post: "saying Lopez backed Andrews for Congress is not oversimplified, it is simply inaccurate. The fact that they had a past relationship is not indicative that they always worked together. In fact, there were times as recently as 1997 when Vito was allied with Clarence's greatest enemies (although whether those enmeies were in any way preferable is a different matter; the "reformers" were split down the middle in that particular war; Chris and Major, as per usual,were with Clarence)." [This merely states matters of fact, and does not even attempt to clarify the issue of which side in which war was the preferable one, mostly because there was no preferable side, a point which I think I made pretty explicit]

Also: "It was not Vito Lopez, after all, who called the indictment of Clarence Norman a lynching. That obsenity was uttered by one Major Owens, who became downright obstinate when questioned about it in public, invoking the history of the civil rights movement, and thereby pissing on the grave of Schwerener, Goodman and Chaney; a more despicable crime than has ever been committed by Vito Lopez." [Wow, I "praise" Vito by saying he never said anything as over-the-top as comparing Clarence Norman with Medgar Evers; a statement that your guy Chris never saw fit to repudiate until he was running for Congress. I will admit that my value judgment may be faulty here; perhaps we should forgive idiots like Major Owens and Michael Richards for vile speech; perhaps, we should instead judge people by their actions. Under that standard, Vito Lopez has undoubtedly done something worse than either Major or Chris, both of whose public careers have been totally devoid of anything resembling action, given their seemingly relectance to do anything which would constitute more than the production of verbiage].

3: In my third post, I said: "those regulars most identified with Vito (meaning those who supported Vito for County Leader and who helped Chris Quinn become Council Speaker)overwhelmingly supported David Yassky" [since I backed Yassky, I suppose this might qualify as praise].

Also: "If the support of Al Vann's crowd can somehow be attrinuted to Vito, then we are living in the bizzarro world. I suggest you ask Carl Andrews (or, for that matter, Chris Owens) who they think Vito wanted to win." [Boy, I can't stop kissing Vito's ass, can I?].

And: "And, just for the record, the slimebag Surrogate who caused County so much shame was named Michael Feinberg. He was backed by Major and Chris Owens, and, as probably promised, gave Carl Andrews a fine living. Vito Lopez, along with Jim Brennan, backed Lila Gold (who, by the way, was also no day at the beach)." [I think anyone who's ever met Lila Gold will vouch that reminding people you supported her is not a compliment].

For the record Mole, although Major Owens was consistently an insurgent when Meade Esposito and Howie Golden were County Leaders, he supported Clarence Norman for leader, and never seriously broke with Norman over anything Norman really cared about during Norman's entire tenure, even after the Norman's indictment, until he decided it was time for Chris to go to Congress. In his last run for re-election, when Norman helped to save his sorry old ass, Owens gave Norman control over his Committee on Vacancies as part of the price for his support. During all that time, there was never any daylight betweeen Chris and Major about any of this. Even support for Lopez-Torres does not change these facts. How does such support, after years of carrying Clarence's water, make Major and Chris any better than Ed Towns, who actually broke with Norman at earlier date than the Owenses?

And, incidentally, Vito did not support Clarence's election as County Leader, although since the guy he did support (Mike Garson) is now under indictment, I hope you will spare me the accusation that I am once again praising Lopez. I'll also note that Vito's worst past sin, endorsing Republicans, is something also indulged in by Major Owens, (who endorsed Bloomberg against Mark Green). I will note that since Vito became leader he's stopped doing this, while Major threatened to do so as recently as this summer.

If by praise for Lopez, you are saying that my implication that Lopez is no worse on the issue of Clarence, or in general, than either Major or Chris Owens qualifies as praise, then I suppose you are correct. However, I think Vito would consider that faint praise indeed.

As to Yassky, his pathetic and meaningless support for Sampson is matched point for point by the Owens family's support for Mark Peters (a former colleague of Carl Andrews) as a yuppie bloodsucker-candidate to bleed white brownstone support from Joe Hynes (I should also mention Lopez's barely preferable functional apathy, which allowed Hynes, with almost no semblance of an operation in Bushwick, to still carry Lopez's AD).

Have a nice Thanksgiving!

You have a habit of doin' the slippery slope on just about everything. I never even mentioned the Owens family when I posted something which was a matter of established fact. You kept upping the ante, while redefining what you first asserted, in a way which eventually rendered it bereft of meaning in any meaningful manner.

Likewise your use of the term "defense". I had a lawyer "defending" me who advocated as zealously on my behalf as I have for Mr. Lopez on this thread, I'd fire him on the spot, and file a complaint with the Committee on Character and Fitness.

But, I was not hired to defend Mr. Lopez, and choose not to argue about points it was never my intention to discuss in the first place. This Thanksgiving, my mom won't be discussing allegations concerning Mr. Lopez's alleged corruption, even if someone brings up the topic over dessert. Query: does that mean she is defending Mr. Lopez?

The most I will say about your allegations of "corruption" is that you consistenly throw around the word to describe all sorts of ills, including rule changes at political clubs, to the point where I find discussion about such matters to be pretty pointless when engaging you concerning Brooklyn politics. In fact, I ofetn find it pretty pointless to engage you about Brooklyn politics, and pretty much consider it the intellectual equivalent of sport-fucking. Your mouth keeps protesting your innocence, but you keep coming back for one more roll in the hay. And no, I will not respect you in the morning. Hell, I don't respect you now (LOL!).

"And yes, you have frequently referred to Vito as being somehow different than and miraculously above the machine,"

I think you may be mistaking me for someone else. I've been harsh with Vito, and I've given credit where I thought it was due. That is hardly all that different than Allen Fleishman. Once or twice I think I even deliniated ways in which Clarence may have been preferable. I think Vito's very different than Clarence, and I think he had his differences with Clarence, neither of which is either a compliment or a criticism, just a fact. I even was quite clear that Vito's support for Mike Garson and Lila Gold (or for that matter, Jim Brennan's support of Gold) was not a badge of moral superiority, but it did show that Vito had more difference with Clarence at various points in time that IND did (Joan Millman was Clarence's personally selected County Committee Chair, and the first endorsment he made as County Leader was Millman for City Council). All I'm saying is things ain't all that black and white. Given there is no reform movement in Brooklyn worth talking about outside the brownstone areas, just insurgents who include psychopaths and criminals, as well as idealists, one can only accomplish things by making alliances with Regulars of one form or another. Therefore lumping them all together as a criminal class is counterproductive. Vito is at least open to persuasion. We could do worse. We certainly already have.

Given my insistence on party loyalty, Mr. Lopez was not my choice to be party leader. My infamous post comparing him to Sonny Corleone, and Clarence to Fredo, exemplifies all of my concerns (and some of yours, I'll bet), while acknowledging some qualities in which Vito was preferable, and some where (gulp) Clarence was. But the post also made clear, with some warriness, that they were very different men.

A subsequent piece on Room 8 detailed my opinion that the role Vito played in trying to deny Margarita Lopez-Torres re-election to the Civil Court(which I laid, somewhat controvesially, entirely at Lopez's feet, and not at Clarence's) was not only a threat to an independent judiciary, but strategically stupid (the proof of that pudding being MLT's eventual election as Surrogate and the Norman/Feldman indictments, both of which are directly traceable to that bad bad decision).

I therefore think you are mischaracterizing my track record.

That being said, I think you are correct that I have been soft on Lopez's conduct AS COUNTY LEADER (the pieces just cited dealt primarilly with conduct before this ascension). This is where I think my position most closely mirrors that of Fleishman's. I think, that as County Leader, Lopez has been an improvement. Judging him only by his acts since that time, I think the Brooklyn party has become better institution since Lopez became leader. Moreover, even people who've been demonstrably screwed by that organization seem to agree with that conclusion. I have also heard from sources within of Lopez's concerns about avoiding the appearance of impropriety and the creating the appearance of transparancy. Hopefully, he will conclude, if he hasn't already, that the best way of appearing to be clean and open is to be clean and open. This was certainly not the Norman program.

Given that the nature of the Brooklyn party will not change in any grand way until the leaders which compose it change, Lopez may possibly be as good a County Leader likely to emerge from that context. Given that people with overarching visions for change appear to be clueless about what they really want and how to achieve it, I can only concieve of how we can do worse, because we already have.

As to the Owen/Lopez comparisons. My point is that the Owens family was an integral part of the Norman operation. In fact, Major went far further than most in defending Clarence. The record demonstrates this. Because Lopez created a successful anti-poverty empire, while the Owens family has never created anything, there have never been any allegations agains the Owenses concerning corruption (whether legal or illegal); that is to their credit. But, they have clearly helped to support and facilitate the reign of a corrupt leader, even after the corruption became apparent to all. Moreover, for many years, Owens and family were inextricably tied with Al Vann, who runs an empire similar to that of Lopez (although somewhat less effective). Wayne Barrett once admirably referred to Owens and Vann as "the Twin Towers" of black Brooklyn political leadership. The same sort of accusations you made against Lopez, on nearly every level, can be applied to Vann, and it is crystal clear that Owens and family (Vann backed Chris in his races for City Council and school board) were the political beneficiaries of the the Vann machine, without which there would have been no Congressman Owens. PERIOD.

That being said, no charges of any kind have ever been levelled against either Lopez or Vann, and I do not suggest their were ever any illegalities committed by either (it is you who made such a suggestion). And yes, the Owenes finally broke with Vann, at the end of Major's career. But to suggest that Major and Chris Owens were somehow above the company they kept for many years is only some much kool-aid.

Well, if you judge people on their legislative record, then it's hard to have complaints about Vito. His votes and legislative record are decidely left-liberal (although I disagree with his support of tution tax credits; which I think stems from his being a result oriented representative of an area where the best educational services for his low income constituents are provided by Catholic schools); despite some complaints, he's been a hero to most tenant and other housing advocates; and he's probably been personally responsible for the judicial careers of more Guild lawyers than any other politican in New York State (Abbie Hoffman's lawyer, Gus Reichbach, Wayne Saitta, the late Richie Rivera, Jack Battaglia and even Margarita Lopez-Torres). Like John Shaft, he's a complicated man, and it's hard to recocile his record with some of his past endorsements; perhaps a little too result oriented at times.

He's also been a zealous fighter for the interests of his constituents, and has not been afraid to take on some powerful enemies (including the Satmar)on their behalf. And, whatever things folks have to say about the social programs in his sphere of influence, no one has ever, to my knowledge, alleged that they don't provide the services the public is paying for, and that allegation has been made about many others, some of whom have finished their careers behind bars as a result. Since that means he's done alot to make the lives of many poor and elderly persons quite a bit more pleasant, I think it behooves one to be more measured in one's judgment.

It's perfectly fine to not like Vito Lopez, but to dismiss him with some pejorative term does no real service to the cause of reform. Even if one concludes that the body politic would be best served by opposing him, it seems to me it would be better to do so from a position of understanding rather than from a position of ignorance. At the very least, it might help you pick and choose your battles a little more effectively (and I give you credit for this Mole; your comments on this year's judicial primary show that you are capable of such understanding).

Struck as i was by your comments about my past defenses of Lopez, I googled both "submitted by Gatemouth", and "posted by gatemouth", + "vito Lopez". Frankly, I was not impressed. Defenses, such as they are, are measured and likewarm, and nearly counterbalanced by measured but lukewarm criticism. I suppose in the context of "Daily Gotham" this might qualify as support, but in the real world Vito's done better.

Frankly, I always thought those "Brooklyn Fats" columns calling me out as a Lopez shill were a parody of someone trying to channel a somewhat saner and more literate version of FUSTB. And, I know what you think of him.