Once again I find myself attacked for what I write here on Daily Gotham. Once again I am being told I don't know what I am talking about and that I am too harsh. And once again, I wonder about people's ability to read what I write and absorb facts.

I have heard first and second hand of several complaints about my coverage of judicial candidate Roger Adler, running against Devin Cohen (disclosure: Devin is a friend of mine) for the 1st Civil Court seat in Brooklyn. Few people dispute my portrayal of Devin Cohen as having solid integrity, intelligence and a devotion to the community that goes beyond what most of us can do. There is some legitimate dispute as to which candidate has more appropriate experience: some conisder Adler more experienced because he has been a lawyer longer, but others consider Devin Cohen more appropriately experienced because he has more actual trial experience and more experience is Civil Court, the seat they are competing for. Almost everyone agrees that both candidates are qualified for the job, but may differ on their relative experience. All of this is legitimate dispute over two candidates.

But what people have been complaining about is my portrayal of Roger Adler himself. I am being attacked for being too harsh and not knowing what I am talking about.

Last year I was criticized for being too harsh on Robert Miller, who briefly ran for Brooklyn Surrogate Judge before being enticed to drop out by...well, I already hinted at what to predict regarding judicial appointments after the dust settled from the Surrogate race and for people to judge for themselves what kinds of deals were made. When I made the prediction I actually had other ideas who would get rewarded. But my basic portrayal of Robert Miller was sympathetic. Many who attended the same endorsement meetings I did were far harsher on Miller than I was. I liked Bob Miller but found his circumstances vis a vis corrupt politicians in Brooklyn difficult to accept. Bob Miller himself publicly complained about what I said about him, referring to it as "tearing him apart." It made me wonder if he was so thin skinned in the courtroom. Given that all I have heard about him suggests he is a good lawyer and would make a good judge, I suspect he is not so thin skinned in the courtroom and whatever the reason for any appointments he has gotten, I am sure he will do well.

In the last couple of weeks several complaints have filtered through about my coverage of Adler. So, let me clarify some points. Everything I have said about Adler is either a matter of public record and demonstrably factual (i.e. his consistent support of the Conservative Party and Marty Golden, as well as his support for Rudy Giulliani for President and Al D'Amato for Senator but no comparable support for any Democrat for those positions), were based Adler's own words (that he exchanges favors with those he needs help from), or were based on NUMEROUS comments made by lawyers who have commented to me about Adler's temper and arrogance. So as to the accusation that I don't know what I am talking about, one aspect of my criticisms of Adler were based on the entirety of contributions that are a matter of public record and which anyone can search the Federal, state and local campaign disclosure databases to find. For the record, I was first alerted to this issue by others who are more neutral than I am in this race and I didn't write about it until I a.) confirmed the contributions myself and b.) gave Adler a chance to defend his donations in person. Adler's defense was, in his own words, that he was exchanging favors with those who might be able to help him. This was publicly stated and interpreted the same way by everyone in the audience. As to that defense, for those who consider me harsh, most others who heard that same defense at the same time were much harsher. "Whore defense" and "well that just shows he isn't very good at being corrupt" were two comments made by other observers that I personally consider too harsh and I was far kinder to Adler than they and many others. So, no one can consider me either ill informed nor overly harsh regarding my coverage of Adler's right wing donations or his defense of them.

There is also the matter of the amicus brief he wrote for the Conservative Party against gay marriage. I was specifically told by actual lawyers that I was too easy on Adler for this one. Lawyers who have disagreed with me on other judicial candidates have told me I should be harsher on Adler for his amicus brief. I have called attention to it, but I have made clear that since I am not a lawyer, I cannot judge his behavior with regards to gay marriage other than to emphasize that his donations and this amicus brief have both worked to oppose gay marriage. I cannot comment on how common or accepted it is to accept money to write an arguement that is counter to one's own stated beliefs. I left that up to lawyers.

Next there is Adler's less than "judicial" temperment. My only personal observation was that I found his demeanor at the endorsement meeting impatient and arrogant. That was a personal observation that I preceded with the caveat that I was a friend of Devin's. All other statements about his temper, his arrogance and his lack of empathy were stated by lawyers who know him and who contrasted his temperment with Devin's well-known ability to hear people out politely and thoroughly even in a disagreement. That contrast was based on what lawyers who know both candidates have told me or stated publicly.

So, for those who disagree with my portrayal, you need to consider the facts in the public record and the statements made by lawyers who heard Adler the same time I did or who know him personally. Because those are my main sources. If you want to take exception to my considering him impatient and arrogant at the IND endorsement meeting, and you actually ATTENDED that meeting, please let me know. I would love to hear another view of that meeting. But so far most people have considered my treatment of Adler too gentle, at least on the amicus brief.

And, for the record since this is another complaint on this, none of what I have written about Adler comes from Devin's campaign. In fact some comes from people who generally have been at odds with Devin in the past. I never take one person's word for anything and take any info from a candidate or campaign with a large grain of salt even when I support that candidate/campaign. I think my record shows that.

I hope this addresses some of the complaints regarding my coverage of judicial races.