QB VII (EPISODE II OF THE JOE BRUNO DEMOCRATS)

I am realizing many of the most read local bloggers have their obsessions. And when we all battle over our obsessions it gets some of the most reads. Perhaps there are reasons why we obsess on what we obsess on.

We each have criticized eachother for our respective obsessions, and yet other times share obsessions. Makes for good blogging perhaps?

As to the author's claims of obsessing on Recchia, let me point out one thing. Until the Recchia people started attacking Harrison and Recchia endorsed an unqualified man who never practiced law for a judicial seat, I spent more time plugging the NY-13 general fund to support WHICHEVER Democrat won. I had my preference, but I had to be talked into including candidates rather than general funds on the NY State Act Blue site Daily Gotham features. It is the actions of Recchia himself and some of his nastier followers (who I suspect I have butted heads with before...or am I merely calling them butt heads...) that convinced me to push so hard against Recchia. Before I was for Harrison but willing to accept Recchia if that's the way the winds were blowing. Now, to quote a reader and friend, Recchia makes me retch. If we obsess on him, he brung it upon himself.

"I may not always respect what you guys stand for, but I respect your right to be a forum for such views. I may respond to your posts in a manner you might not like, but I'll only post the sort of items that belong in your store window. My grandfather once told me, you don't buy shoes in a habidashery; well, you don't sell Gatey at Daily Gotham (except in the rare instance that I've got the right piece goods)."
Gatemouth 12/10/2006

The First Amendment does not guarantee me a write (pun intetional) to post whatever I want in someone else's forum. It is your first amendment write to be as open or closed to other views as you want. Therefore, I was going to to take the higher road and let this pass without comment.

Despite the pleas, at various times, from you, Bouldin and Liza, it is clear that I am not a comfortable fit for TDG. I may still post here from time to time, but i am no longer going to be an everyday regular at your bar.

Before I posted this piece, I showed it to several folks, including Bouldin. I was concerned I went too far in my comments about Kruger. Actually, I did, and instead broke the piece in half, and retooled the more offensive part, which may or may not be my next piece. I then posted what was left.

To my surprise, the objections raised here were not about libel (to which truth is an abolute defense) to Kruger, but some snarky comments about Chris Owens (far from my worst, and mixed in with some compliments) which were surely matters of opinion. They were rather cleverly edited by Mr. Bouldin, so as not to hurt his friend's feelings. Given Mr. Bouldin's skills, his efforts were arguably an improvement (I'd argue otherwise) and I actually could have lived with them.

Since I am not getting paid, what I couldn't live with were the Boldface interjections in the middle of my remarks. These were more appropriately saved for the comments section. It is one thing to edit my work, quite another to deface it. I felt I had no choice but to take a stance.

As to your Recchia obsession, you and Bouldin are certainly entitled to hold Dear against him. I hold Dear against him. As you are aware (and have admitted in print) I was onto that race before you were. Where we disagree is on the severity of the punishment. I certainly appreciate where Bouldin is coming from, but I have a right to offer my disagrements without the sort of treatment I've gotten since I've offered them. It's not collaboartion with the Nazis to point out that Recchia's record on gay issues has verged upon the courageous, it's the truth. Recchia was sticking his neck out for the transgendered back when Steve Harrison was still sending checks to neo-fascist Mike Long's Conservative Party. Sorry for pointing out that life is a little more complicated.

And, as I noted before, I do not deserve to be characterized as a Rechhia supporter. I sincerely hope that a Mike Cusick, Diane Savino, Mike McMahon, Jay O'Donovan, or some other stong Staten Islander will run. Otherwise, I do not think the seat is winnable. A careful examination of Harrison's results will show his 43% is mostly the result of a Democratic landlside from which he was incapable of yielding much benefit. He is weak. And this year will not be a Democraitc landlside on the Island; presidential years rarely are. If Rudy is the nominee, it willl be a blowout. Recchia may or may not be stronger (he'll have more money), but would also not likely win.

Can't then speak for Rechhia supporters, because I don't really qualify. Haven't noticed they've been as vitriolic as you guys, but hell, maybe I'm reading the wrong blogs. The fact I got a hard-on for Steve is the same reason I have one for Kruger, Hikind, Mike Nelson, Herb Berman, Bruce Bender, the Garson Family (OK, for them, other reasons as well), Sal Albanese, etc, etc...

They've earned it.

So Sorry it interferes with the "progressive agenda" to tell the truth.

Co-posting is like being in the bizzaro world.

When I did my recent Markowitz piece (at least I think it was that piece), I was attacked here by Bouldin for being too soft on Markowitz, while over on Room 8, I ended up in a heated debate with Hackshaw because I was too hard on Noach Dear. (BTW, Rock seemed to have conceded that I won the argument).

It would have been nice if one of you guys jumped in to defend my position at a place where not everyone was guaranteed to agree with you.

"We wanted you over here so we could have the debate with people we respect but don't agree with in a forum that was a bit less like a school yard and a bit more like Talmudic pilpul. Or that was the ideal, anyway."

You're right Mole, I've got little cause to gripe about you. The guy I have the beef with is the person here closest to me in ideology, and (perhaps excepting Rock) in irrascible personality. It saddens me, but if you want to continue to debate with me at this forum, you're going to have to speak to my friend about his anger management issues. Otherwise you're free to visit me at Room 8.

And, as I said, I'm not really complaining. I'm a guest, and it's you and your roomies' apartment. When in Gotham, etc.

But, I only chose to visit places where I feel at home, and right now, in the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, I feel like a mouse at a burlessque show.

"I have suspected that hanging around with us helps inoculate you against attacks from certain quarters. Maybe"

Is that because of Bouldin's editing?

Seriously, let me say one word about Margarita Lopez-Torres, and Gary and his more literate friend (and I do know who you are, though I dare not speak your name) will be on me like stink on shit, which seems a most apt metaphor.

As much as I am dissappointed with Mole's remarks, (that he "never found Room8 useful"), I come from a place that says: I prefer to know your true and honest feelings-and respect you for them- than to find out later what was "really" on your mind. So with that, let me say just that in my humble opinion: both Gotham and R8 are quite useful. Especially in terms of bringing information to folks who would otherwise not know varied positions, issues, events, facts, history, personalities, policy ideas and such; since much of what we do here on the blogs, would not appear anywhere in mainstream and/or conventional mediums. Beleieve me fellas when I say that all of us, including Gatemouth, Bouldin, Mole, Liza, Wonk, Larry Littlefield, Gur, Ben, Azi, Liz, Errol, Chris Owens, and the many many others who peregrinate these blogs in a contributory way- people I admire and respect deeply, despite my ocassional fight with them- have been doing more to edify the public on political and social issues, than even the New York Times-to some extent. All this (blogging) is so very different in so many positive ways. If only more people would tune in (and also contribute), then we would get better representaion I am sure, since there would be more info disseminated; since there would be more varied perspectives to muse over.
As it relates to editing, my position is that the Gatekeepers here have the right to edit as they see fit. At the same time, the writers (like Gatemouth) also have the right to take their stuff to other places if dissatisfied. I have seen Gatemouth hit Chris Owens real hard during the past couple years; in fact, for a while he seemed to be taking target practice on Chris's back, whereby I even had to jump in a few times to defend Chris; and still and I have been proud to see Chris handle it in a rather dignified manner (I would have probably gone ballisitc). This has earned Chris more respect from me and from people in many other quarters. I have had many a fight with Gatey, and I will be dissappointed if we didn't have many more over the coming years. Gatemouth is unique, and he is also provocative, but all in all to me, his writings, insights, commentary and historical knowledge of New York's politics is worth the ocassional ideosyncratic outburst from him. So he pulls his lil temper tantrums sometimes: don't we all do/lol? I almost stopped contributing once or twice/lol. Remember?
If there are potentially libelous items stuck into any article, then the gatekeepers here have the right to bring it to the writer's attention before editing/publishing. That common courtesy once paid would go a long way in terms of easing tensions. I hope we all stay together here, writing away and doing our individual things; and I really appreciate the fact that you guys have always given me a place to submit my stuff. At the end of the night we both come into this with eyes wide open, and as such we can sever the relationship whenever we see fit. Although my "gay-piece" was one of the least read of all my articles submitted/lol, I have chosen to stay here knowing full well that there are people who disagree with some of my position-takes. This is democracy at work fellas; can't we all get along? PEACE AND LOVE.

MOLE: I made me a cheese sandwich for lunch today. Tomorrow I am having "jerk-chicken" with my rice and peas/lol.

Yes, it's us who are the story after all.

Just to clarify a few points.

1) Nothing in the piece posted was libelous in the legal sense. In fact, no deletions were made in the section where this was a concern. Deletions were made in a section containing only constitionally protected expression of opinion. Since the constituion does not protect my right to post on Gotham, that's OK, but no one should hid behind a lame excuse like libel. Chris Owens was not libelled, only mildly dissed. Apparently, this is now off limits conduct at Daily Gotham.

2) This blog is now almost metaphorical in its dealings with Carl Kruger. I wanted him to be banished from the Senate, where he is a member; instead he was banished from this piece, where he was the subject.

3) On Room 8, I've been cursed at, threatenened, libelled, had my privacy invaded, my motives questioned, my sexuality speculated upon, but it was always in the comments section. This was done by the readership.

By contrast, at TDG, I've had negative remarks inserted into my piece in boldface by the editorial staff.

Room 8 may be a big dead shark, but like a blogger Jonah, I call it home. Here I've been shown the servant's entrance.