We’ve rehashed this debate many times (I think this is the best thread: http://www.dailygotham.com/blog/mole333/what_are_voters_worth_in_brookly...), so I won’t repeat my usual complaints, especially since you’ve actually deigned to address a few of them.

The questions, as usual, is “Compared to What?” My biggest complaint is you use the word “corruption”, which implies illegality. Surely, there are other adjectives that adequately sum up your complaints without verging upon libel. I don’t use the word “corrupt” to describe an elected official trying to use his political influence to elect his utterly inexperienced son to Congress, so I suggest you find a different word to describe when Vito tries to use his influence to elevate a brilliant legal scholar (a description your hero, Paul Wooten, would surely agree with) to a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

Vito Lopez would surely not be my first choice to be County Leader, and I surely will not defend actions like his pro forma, but nonetheless unfathomable, support for Noach Dear, but in my quarter century plus in Brooklyn politics, he’s been the best County Leader we’ve had from the perspective of transparency (though an argument could be made that the total ineptitude of Clarence Norman was ultimately preferable from a “reform” perspective).

When I glance over at the "Only in New York" section of Daily Gotham, I'm regularly greeted by complaints about Vito Lopez's past support of Republicans. Since ship-jumping by party officials is an obsession of mine, I've long wished for a County Leader who'd share my concern. Although, thankfully, this behavior has not continued since Vito became County Leader, I think it's not an invalid subject for critical commentary, and I've done it myself (see, for example, http://www.observer.com/node/27888), so I would have hoped that you could come up with a name that would be an improvement on that front.

Instead you’ve come up with the name of a man who not only supported Republicans, but actually became one, openly preferring Newt Gingrich to Bill Clinton, and then jumping back to the Democratic Party without ever explaining the two 180 degree spins he made, as a fully formed adult, in less than a decade. As I wrote back in 2006:

“I’ve long believed that one of the best ways to predict a politician’s future behavior is to get a handle on what their fundamental values are. In some cases, this is difficult, as the candidates have no values other than “what’s in it for me?” or “any weapon to hand”. Thanks to the fertile memory of Errol Lewis, voters in Brooklyn’s 20th Senatorial District will have a chance to ponder deeply into the meaning of what State Senate candidate Eric Adams meant by comments which appeared in the March 26, 1995 edition of the New York Daily News, and once digested they may want to ask what those statements indicate about the values Mr. Adams embraces.

Adams made the statements at a fundraiser for Brooklyn Republican State Senator Robert DiCarlo, perhaps the most unreconstructed redneck thug ever elected to public office in Brooklyn (Mike Long served on the City Council for a short spell, but he was appointed to fill a vacancy). "Believe it or not, it's a continuation of 'no justice, no peace'", Adams told The News, explaining why he had recently changed his party enrollment to Republican. "I believe that there are a large number of closet black Republicans in the city, and if you take a close look at some of the concepts of the Republican Party, you'll see that many of them are our values." Which values, pray tell, is Mr. Adams talking about?

This was in 1995, while Bill Clinton was still President, and Newt Gingrich’s reactionary minions had just taken over Congress for a 12 year period which hopefully is about to end. Is Mr. Adams unhappy about that? Was he happy when his party (as it was then) regained the White House in 2000? Perhaps Mr. Adams can explain what problems he had with the Clinton program and why he found the Gingrich program superior. Did Gingrich's "Contract With America" have a "Minority Sub-Contractor" provision that I missed? Perhaps he can explain why he remained a Republican until three years ago. Did anything besides political ambition play into that decision? What then?

When he changed parties, in 1995, Adams was no child; he was a grown adult, a cop, a citywide figure, and a former Congressional candidate. Moreover, he made statements that had an unmistakable, and quite possibly reactionary, philosophical message. If those statements were sincere, then Mr. Adams, whose views on everything else appear to have been unchanged since that time, is an opportunist for changing parties now. If those statements were not sincere, then he must have been an opportunist in 1995, when the Gingrich revolution was looking to spread pork among philosophically compatible African-Americans. Or was he drugged and kidnapped?”

I should note that “Lost Weekend” in Adams life e change was accompanied by campaign contributions to the likes of J.C. Watts. What is your constant romance with guys who write check to Republicans?

Vito Lopez started out as a social worker; he built an effective anti-poverty empire almost by hand. He’s helped thousands of people. He became an elected official to further his work. In that endeavor, he adopted an “any weapon at hand” attitude to fund his programs, and otherwise accomplish usually worthy goals. It was that MOI that led to the egregious elements in the recent 421-A bill (when Vito caved to Marty Golden and gave benefits to Ratner as the price for Senate passage of a bill accomplishing much good for poor communities ---ask your own Dan Millstone. I don’t approve of the Ratner give-away, and I don’t approve of Democratic party officials endorsing Republicans. If he did done so as County Leader, I’d favor his removal. But, at least I can fathom Lopez’s motivations and where they come from. By contrast, there seems to be no coherent explanation for Adams’ actions except opportunism, without even a vestige of some better underlying motive.

Since Adams has turned out to be a good Senator, I’d normally not bring such things up. But, it occurs to me that, at the very least, you should find someone as a candidate for County Leader who has not committed the same sins you whine so loudly about nearly every day.

Also, under the current rules, Adams, who is not a district leader, would be ineligible for election. But mere technicalities like the rules seem the least of your delusions.

....and since I don't want to get into an extensive argument, I won't argue extensively.

I'll agree that corrption does not necessarily mean illegalitiy. Wasn't it Lord Acton who said that power tends to corrupt? Vito is different that Clarance in that Clarence was always willing to sacrifice power for personal enrichment. You could feed a family of four for a year on the jewelry he wore on a trip to the gym. His first and only priority as Leader was retnetion of his party issued credit card.

By contrast, Vito's made County into a no-frills operation. Clarence looked like he'd been made over by a combination of queer guy and Superfly, while Vito looks like an unmade bed. Personal perks are a distraction; he's all about power.

Under Clarence, County allowed to flourish a society of parasitical "consultants" who ran protectition operations against sitting judges. It was pay up or get a primary. Karen Yellen, Maxine Archer and Katherine Smith were among the casulties. One suspects county turned a blind eye because primaries were regarded as good business; the Norman trial concerning Karen Yellen amply demonstrated how that worked.

By contrast, Vito's gone to the opposite extreem, attempting to crush the extortionists who target sitting judges, who in the past were traditionally given a free pass, allowing them to minimize their political contacts) even it they'd intially been elected as insurgents or "reformers". Of course, he's also attempted to crush primaries for open seats as well. Perhaps the Norman method was better, which might explain why "reformers" untied with "consultants" like Diane Gordon's unindicted co-conspirator Mitch Alter in opposing Vito. I will concede it's not an open and shut case, will you?

As to facilitating contracts for the agency he founded, which, as I've pointed out seems to be his raison d'etre, I won't defend it, as it's lead to things I've found distasteful, like endorsements of Republicans. My question to you is, is the public not being served by those contacts. Many politically connected agencies do not deliver what they promise. Is the public being ripped off by Williamsburg-Bushwick, et al? The evidence indicates the public is getting its money's worth. Can anyone say that about anything Clarence has funded, or the plethora of such agencies around the state?

As to patronage, I defy you to pick a liberal hero in a position of power who's not practiced it. Outside of Noach Dear, who was was not Vito's orginal candidate, and received little from County beyond an endorsement, can you name one unqualified judicial candiate who came out of his regime? On the matter of his personal selctions of judges, Vito put more members of the National Lawyers Guild on the bench than all the "reform" clubs combined: Richie Rivera, Gus Reichback, Wayne Saitta, Jack Battaglia, even Margarita Lopez-Torres. Ask in the left legal world whose been responsible for putting more left progressive judges on the bench than anyone else. Vito put Wayne Saitta on the bench when "progressive" Nydia Velazquez was conspiring with the Satmar to try to seat "Joe Bruno Democrat" Gerry Dunbar on the Conservative and Independence lines.

I certainly won't defend the Ratner deal, but it seems clear that the "deal" was Senate passage of a bill that helped poor neighborhoods, with any campaign contribution at best an incidental beneift. Read the Times article on Chris Owens' "Stop Vito" website. The deal was a nasty piece of work, and a demostration of the pitfalls of Vito's "ends justify the means" philosophy, but I still don't understand why the focus has soleyl been on the Democrat who cut the deal, rather than the Republicans who forced it. Why is Daily Gotham so soft on Marty Golden and anyone who's ever deone busniness with him, but Vito Lopez?

I certainly don't qualify as a Vito lover, except perhaps in the context of the Daily Gotham; all I'm saying is life is more complicated than your portrait.

http://cityhallnews.com/news/127/ARTICLE/1211/2007-07-16.html