Search
David Yassky's Ad: Complete Bullshit
Watching Kieth Olbermann tonight I notice there are many ads by local politicians running for office. John Liu had a pretty good ad, but honestly it seemed a cookie cutter ad much like any other politician's ad complete with a voice-over voice I could swear I have heard in many other political ads. I think John Liu is his own best advocate and I suggest his campaign cut an ad that has John making his own case rather than a cookie cutter ad. But the ad that got my wife yelling at the TV was David Yassky's weasely ad. Utter bullshit.
Yassky is claiming he will close loopholes and watch every dollar the government spends, yet those of us who are actually in his district knows he has NEVER watched where dollars went unless they bought him endorsements. I think, in honor of Yassky's latest ad, I should remind people of a couple of sleazy moves Yassky has done that shows he either can't keep track of dollars at all or knows very well where dollars go and uses them to buy political favors. Let me repost what I wrote about Yassky's ties to scandals back in March:
The Beatles song goes "Money can't buy me love," but that is a concept unfamiliar to Brooklyn politics. Around here it's all about money, endorsements and favors.
Former Councilman Steve DiBrienza is crashing and burning because when he left office he managed to get his City Council colleagues to use city money, filtered through a fake non-profit that no one but DiBrienza seems to know about, to pay for DiBrienza to not only keep his old district office but also pay DiBrienza and his cronies salaries for doing nothing as far as anyone can tell. I have taken Gifford Miller and Christine Quinn to task for this misuse of taxpayer money because it happened on their watches. But I also have made reference to rumors that David Yassky also participated in this scam to the tune of $40,000.
The Brooklyn Paper has picked up on this Yassky-DiBrienza connection, though they discuss Yassky giving $15,000, probably a more accurate figure. But they also pinpoint the reason for Yassky's pandering to DiBrienza with taxpayer money: payback for an endorsement. From the Brooklyn Paper:
Councilman David Yassky (D–Brooklyn Heights), for example, requested $15,000 for DiBrienza’s group right after DiBrienza endorsed him for Congress in 2006.
Yassky told The Brooklyn Paper that this out-of-district donation to DiBrienza’s group was not a kickback or a quid-pro-quo, but voters will certainly raise their eyebrows.
Now Yassky funneled city money to DiBrienza right after DiBrienza endorsed him for his failed bid for Congress in 2006. Yet it isn't payback, according to Yassky. Problem is, this isn't the only time something like this happened. I wrote back in 2006 about another case of Yassky proposing city money right after getting an endorsement. Quoting the Brooklyn Paper again:
Yassky bill would push $3M to Ratner crony
By Ariella Cohen
The Brooklyn PapersCity Councilman David Yassky is under fire for asking city taxpayers to underwrite a promise that Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner made to a handful of community organizations.
Under the provisions of a "community benefits agreement" negotiated by Ratner and the groups, the developer and his supporters pledged to create a job-training program.
Thus far, Ratner has given $285,000 towards that worker-training program, which is being administered by Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development (BUILD).
Yassky (D-Brooklyn Heights) now proposes a city contribution of $3 million--more than 10 times what Ratner's given...
Experts on CBAs thought the Yassky bill was misguided.
"[Public funding] usually doesn't happen after the CBA is signed," said Roxanna Tynan, a spokeswoman for the LA Alliance for a New Economy, which was involved in a landmark CBA in that city...
Critics were quick to point out that Yassky submitted the budget request after BUILD President James Caldwell and other CBA signatories endorsed his bid to succeed retiring Rep. Major Owens (D-Crown Heights)...
So, BUILD President James Caldwell endorses Yassky and immediately afterwards Yassky proposes an unorthodox public funding (to the tune of $3 million of our taxpayer money) of BUILD. At about the same time, Steve DiBrienza endorses Yassky and right afterwards Yassky arranges $15,000 for DiBrienza's fake non-profit (which did nothing but paid salaries to DiBrienza and his cronies) even though it was out of Yassky's district. And Yassky wants to be the guy to keep an eye on the City's money???
And I always wondered why Yassky endorsed John Sampson's run for Brooklyn DA when Sampson's main campaign promise was to get indicted Party Boss Clarence Norman off the hook. I can only imagine that money or other favors exchanged hands for so-called "reformer" Yassky to endorse someone so central to the Clarence Norman machine. Let me remind people that Sampson lost and Clarence Norman is now in jail. Yet Yassky favored Sampson, which suggests he approved of trying to get Norman off the hook.
To me this suggests three corrupt bargains Yassky has clearly been a part of. How many more such corrupt bargains are out there that Yassky was part of that we don't yet know about. Keep these scandals in mind as you watch Yassky's latest commercial. Also keep in mind Yassky is running a distant third in the race for Comptroller, so it seems like no one really is buying his bullshit.
Re: David Yassky's Ad: Complete Bullshit
Good call, but the ad that's really caused serious beverage-spitting in our house is "Bloomberg takes on the MTA", a masterpiece made up entirely of the Emperor's fantasies about what he would do if he controlled the MTA. And had an unlimited budget.
The question
The question is, will anyone bother to question him on exactly how he expects to get the MTA to go along with his schemes?
I mean, is there anyone out there in the press corps who wants to be the next one to be called a disgrace?
Re: David Yassky's Ad: Complete Bullshit
Indeed. As if Bloomberg hasn't had 8 years to do something and what he did was OPPOSE reform of the MTA.
Re: David Yassky's Ad: Complete Bullshit
It's of a piece with the rest of his ad campaign. I can't help noticing how often it sounds like he's the insurgent, not the incumbent.
How do they get away with it?
David Yassky's campaign is far from having the worst political ads around, even in this campaign. It makes one wonder why campaigns stoop so low, and how they get away with it. It's pretty clear that they stoop so low because they do get away with it; if they thought they'd be caught, they'd do something else.
Campaigns get away with lies because the people who are supposed to catch them and report to the public have completely abdicated their responsibility. I am referring, of course, to the Fourth Estate.
Spiro Agnew popularized the term "nattering nabobs of negativism" to describe the press, and politicians -- especially conservatives -- have blasted the press for every imaginable flaw, whether real or ... well, imagined. Those tactics, combined with the consolidation of the mass media under a very few corporate logos, has resulted in self-described "journalists" failing to report the truth. Instead, they are so concerned with "fair reporting," which they define as parroting both sides' press releases, that they don't bother to do any fact checking.
I remember, years ago, getting a call from a "Fact checker" on a story. I was impressed, because while that position used to be de riguer at every newspaper, newsmagazine and television and radio news show, it has gone the way of so many other jobs that were lost to the mad, desperate pursuit of ever-increasing profits.
When Woodward and Bernstein were reporting on what became known as the Watergate scandal, they agreed never to print any accusation unless they had two independent sources -- and they still got things wrong. Today, the press tends to use what I call the "National Enquirer" method; get someone to say it's true, so they can claim they are relying on a source. That "someone" is often a person with a stake in the game, but it doesn't matter any more. As long as you can get someone to say, for instance, that "Geoff Smith tried to take my lunch money," you can go on the air with the report: "Geoff Smith accused of armed robbery."
Pathetic!
There are actual laws on the books regarding truth in advertising, where an advertiser is required to back up any claims with proof. Unfortunately, these laws are almost never enforced, or almost none of the ads for diet, hair growth, and "male enhancement" products would see the light of day (which in one case would be a shame -- the ads for Enzyte are very funny).
What's worse, these laws are significantly weakened when it comes to political ads. This is a result of the longstanding U.S. Supreme Court view that the First Amendment guarantee of free speech applies especially to political speech. While that general concept is accurate, applying a lower standard of truth to political ads is not the way to follow it.
Meanwhile, the media will fail to tell us the truth, and politicians large and small will lie to us throughout campaigns.
Good night, and good luck.
Re: David Yassky's Ad: Complete Bullshit
And just perfect, as if to validate everything previous in this thread, The NY Times endorses Yassky. Bleah. Sorry if that sounds juvenile, but that's how I feel about it.
Not that I would have expected anything else - the Times hearts Yassky! Never mind that of the four people running, he's the least qualified based on prior experience.