7pm debate - Suozzi vs. Spitzer
I know most New Yorkers (and the vast majority of the press) believe that Eliot Spitzer will win the primary and general election hands down.
They question why Tom Suozzi is campaigning, in what appears to be a futile Sisyphusian ordeal.
I do not know why he is running, but I know that asking “why” is the wrong question. The right question, the moral responsible and pertinent question is who SHOULD win the primary and who would make a better governor. The far more compelling answer is Tom Suozzi.
I met Tom once, at a back-yard fundraiser for a local Long Island judge. The crowd was thin and Suozzi’s time was wasted at the event. He was then in need of a bigger audience as he was running for chief executive of Nassau County, a deeply troubled area that had for decades been run by an entrenched Republican leadership.
But Suozzi made an effort for smaller reformers and they repaid him. He took over Nassau and you can read about the results, which are astoundingly positive. If this doesn’t seem like much of a resume, consider that Nassau’s $2.4 billion budget is greater than that of 16 states. That is a key Suozzi statistic, and justifiably so, as he has turned the County around.
Suozzi could do much to fix NY State, which is (as I need not remind anyone) in bad need of political reform.
Spitzer, on the other hand, despite all his sound and fury, has achieve only headlines. Anyone on Wall Street or in the insurance world familiar with his research settlement or his other corporate “reforms†could tell you how counterproductive they have been both to commerce and, ironically, to individual investors. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, with which most people have a conflicted relationship, has been correct on Spitzer for some time now. Go back and read their opinions: they are well articulated. (Here’s a good one, in which the Journal notes that Spitzer tends to accuse with proof that falls down upon scrutiny: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006805.)
(Here’s another: The Passion of Eliot Spitzer: Is he telling the truth as he tries to “take people out”?)
I have seen Spitzer up close, as well, and I am continually amazed that news reports fail to report the smell of sulfur that lingers in his wake.
One man has a tangible record of reforms. The other has a tangible record of publicly attacking large corporations and pushing them to newsworthy (but dubiously effective) settlements.
I urge registered Democrats to look closely at the records of both men, and make a decision based on that, and not on Spitzer’s image as a reformer. Alas, unlike the more populist-minded states, registered Republicans or Independents in New York State may not at this point (that is, within eyeshot of a primary) change party affiliations to vote, so please push your Democratic friends and relations to consider this issue!
Suozzi and Spitzer will debate tonight on NY1 at 7pm.
You can watch on TV or via the web site below:
http://ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=61268
July 25th, 2006 at
Looking out for the little guy is just about the last thing Spitzer is interested in. The ruthless pursuit of fame and power seems to be his â€primary†ambition. His craven attacks of the famous and wealthy, simply for being famous and wealthy, are a disgrace to the legal system.
Clearly, his objective has always been to make himself powerful by very publicly tearing down those in power. He feeds off off of his victim’s fame and quite literally engorges himself on it. Here’s one registered Democrat that will be voting against Spitzer’s sensationalist strongman tactics.
I like this qoute from â€The Sihpol Verdict,†linked to in this post. It’s a nice example of how the little guy won, because he had truth and the law on his side. For an Attorney General, Spitzer seems to forget about the law all too often.
â€One lesson here is that juries, forced to make a decision about a defendant’s fate, want to make sure that the alleged behavior is in fact criminal. Prosecution by press release won’t do in court.
The Justice Department has understood this, and has built a record in business fraud cases that has held up in court on Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia. Mr. Spitzer, by contrast, has used New York’s over broad Martin Act to prosecute financial cases of dubious legal merit. Business fraud deserves to be prosecuted, but the criminalization of widely accepted business practices ex post facto is both unjust and offensive to the rule of law. Congratulations to Mr. Sihpol and his jury for reminding Eliot Spitzer that to be convicted of a crime in America you should first have to break the law.â€
March 10th, 2008 at
[...] I would like, at this point, to say: I told you so! [...]