Not too long ago I took City Council candidate Doug Biviano to task for lying about the record of one of his rivals, suggesting that his inaccurate depiction of her record perhaps stems from the fact that he wasn't even around during the fights he was talking about. Biviano is a brand, spanking newcomer to the fights for reform in Brooklyn and against Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards proposal. Yet he comes out accusing Jo Anne Simon, who has been part of these fights for years and who is endorsed by the strongest reformers and anti-Ratner organizations around, of not standing up on these issues. Biviano basically lied, plain and simple. But, rather than say he was a liar, I suggested his not even being a part of these fights until he suddenly got it in his head to run (I met him when that idea was incubating) was the reason for his inaccuracies.

Since making that comment, I have been repeatedly attaced by members of Biviano's campaign who clearly spend way too much time obsessing about my criticism. Of course rather than consider that they may have overstepped the bounds of accuracy in their zeal to push a candidate who has been to date a nobody in local politics, they decide that I have no business criticizing and accusing me and the rest of the reform movement of being too close to the machine. Funny thing is, that is the exact accusation I got from Working Families Party as well when I criticized them. I am seeing considerable similarity between the WFP reaction to criticism and Biviano's campaign's reaction to criticism. Now when I saw nearly identical responses when Brad Lander's campaign threw similar tantrums as the WFP folks, it was no surprise since they apparantly have been working so closely together it may violate the law. So seeing similar tactics and bizarre accusations from them was no surprise. But I AM surprised that Biviano's campaign people are making use of the same tactics and attacks as WFP since it is my impression that the Biviano folks are none too fond of Brad Lander, WFP and WFP's alliance with Vito Lopez.

So, looking over the accusations leveled at me by Biviano's campaign, the complete disassociation from reality that it represents (similar to the WFP attacks) seems positively delusional. And it fits the same pattern as their lies accusing Jo Anne Simon, one of the main opponents of Vito Lopez's machine, of not standing up to Vito Lopez.

A brief review: WFP accused me of being a machine hack because I was a member of IND when they disenfranchised a large group of new, eager members (some of whom I recruited). This of course totally ignored the fact that I was the person who publicized and criticized that disenfranchisement the most. Most people (indcluding, I suspect, WFP) know about this incident in any detail because I WROTE ABOUT IT. The accusation made by WFP was in essence delusional it was so divorced from the facts.

Now to the Biviano accusations. Let's start with a simple one. I was accused of being "hateful" because I was criticizing Biviano for making such inaccurate statements. This ignores the fact that it was Biviano's campaign that initiated the negative campaigning and attacks and, in fact, was resorting to lies. Yet my criticizing their attacks and lies was the hateful thing? Doesn't make sense to me.

Then I was accused of having been just as new to the local scene when (in 2006) I first criticized IND for the above mentioned disenfranchisement so my criticism of Biviano is hypocritical. First off, one main difference was that when I criticized IND I did so based on facts and what I personally witnessed. Biviano is lying (if I can't say he's mistaken based on inexperience, I have to say he is lying), and lying about things he wasn't even a witness to, so he must be simply repeating lies fed to him. As to whether I was as new to local politics when I first started criticizing IND, well, certainly compared to Jo Anne Simon I am new to the reform movement. But my wife and I had been involved on the local political scene since 2004, petitioning (including when my wife was 6 months pregnant), running for County Committee, helping Democracy for NYC and New Democratic Majority organize in Brooklyn, organizing protests against the Republican National Convention (when my wife was 8 months pregnant), causing a ruckus (or, really, supporting the ruckus made by Ken Diamondstone) at Clarence Norman's last County Committee meeting before his conviction (when my wife was OVER 9 months pregnant), publicizing the recount efforts to defend Margarita Lopez Torres' win as Surrogate judge, helping organize for Howard Dean then John Kerry, helping candidates like Norman Siegel, Chris Owens, Paul Wooten, Bill Batsen, etc. All of this and more BEFORE I initiated my criticism of IND's disenfranchisement of new members. Essentially, I had already actually been a PART of the fight before I opened my mouth. Biviano has not.

Next I was accused of not playing any part in things I actually played a part in. I have been accused of not doing anything to fight Vito Lopez's judges. Well, the person making this accusaton knows better because I fought hard for a candidate HE HIMSELF supported. And I was one of the people urging IND and CBID to support that same candidate that Biviano's campaign person supported...and both endorsed her. That candidate was Diane Johnson, who was the opposition candidate to Vito Lopez's handpicked candidate. I blogged extensively about this race, fought for IND and CBID to endorse Johnson, I petitioned for Johnson, and I was out on election day campaigning for her. Biviano's campaign person KNOWS this and yet accuses me of not fighting Vito Lopez's judges. He is lying just as Biviano has been lying.

Now I came late to the fight against Noach Dear, the homophobic and unqualified choice of Marty Markowitz and Vito Lopez for a Civil Court seat, but I did fight against Noach Dear, though that was a fight we lost. I did continue publicizing the breakdown of the Brooklyn political system where the likes of Vito Lopez, Steve Levin and Marty Markowitz use our judicial system as a political dumping ground. Now if Biviano's campaign person wanted to accuse me of doing too little too late, I would have to sadly admit he was right. But to deny I was part of the fight is a lie.

The Roger Adler/Devin Cohen race was less obviously a fight against the machine, because Adler only received behind the scenes support from Vito Lopez and perhaps only lukewarm support. But I certainly fought hard in that fight very publicly, and we won big. And IND and CBID fought hard in that race as well.

Now there were other instances when judicial candidates came to IND or CBID and made a good case. Then Jo Anne Simon and Alan Fleishman (the reform-minded district leaders most closely associated with these clubs) informed us that those candidates were Vito Lopez allies and we endorsed their opponent. Now there are cases where there is only one good candidate in the race and Vito Lopez has endorsed that candidate. If there is one good candidate, and there is no good rival to that candidate, then I do not consider Vito Lopez's support a deal breaker. When there is a good rival to a Vito Lopez candidate, I believe I (and CBID, though perhaps not always IND) have endorsed the good rival to Lopez's candidate. Biviano's campaign person should know this but he still accuses us of not doing anything to fight Lopez's judicial candidates.

Finally there is the sad case of Eugene Myrick. This gentleman had a brief run against Marty Markowitz. I and CBID have been accused of not supporting Myrick. This shows what little Biviano's campaign knows about what is going on. Eugene Myrick threw his hat in the ring long after CBID's endorsement meetings. There was no way CBID could endorse him at that late date. They DID invite him to come and speak. Furthermore, I hear that a large chunk of Myricks petitions that actually passed muster (seems few of his petitions even had signatures from Brooklyn residents) were done by individual members of CBID who, through my urgings and those of other CBID individuals, helped Myrick petition. I also publicized his campaign on Daily Gotham, which is possibly the only way some people ever heard of him. Finally, had Biviano's people actually asked Myrick, Myrick would certainly have told them that I had tried several times to coordinate with them to help their campaign in Central Brooklyn. I am accused of doing nothing when, in fact, I put in a fair amount of effort.

This whole thing puts Biviano's whole campaign into perspective. A young, eager, well-meaning kid comes on the scene and wants to do good. So he decides to run for office. All well and good and EVERYTHING I wrote about him was positive at that point. In fact I have been accused of esteeming him too high in my references to him. Then, in desperation, that well-meaning kid starts negative campaigning, and does so to the point of lying. Now anyone who isn't actively supporting him must somehow be an evil machine hack and they are willing to ignore facts to make that accusation.

Truth is, Biviano DOES have some great ideas and his views on the actual machine (which only one of his rivals, Steve Levin, is actually part of) and of Bruce Ratner are accurate. But good ideas and being basically on the right side of things do get you far if you are going to attack each and every potential future ally you could ever have. Biviano, who wants to be part of the anti-Ratner, pro-reform movement, has attacked me, CBID, State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, Councilmember Tish James, Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez, and many other members of the reform and/or anti-Ratner movements who have endorsed Jo Anne Simon. Sorry, but that is just plain stupid. Alienating everyone who is on your side because they happen to be supporting one of your rivals right now is not a good long-term strategy. Particularly when you attack those potential allies using lies that are so totally dissociated from reality.