RUDY VERITAS

J'ACCUSE - Part 1

I've thought a lot about how to do this.  I still haven't come up with a fine, linear way to present it.  My case is very convoluted and complex.  Not the legal aspect, that's rather simple, but the story leading up to it and the twists and turns that ensued.  I'll present it as best I can and hope you can follow along.  Some may seem dry at first.  But like learning a new language, you need to know basic vocabulary and grammar before it all starts to make sense.  I have to explain the players and the background for the latter part to seem as incredible as I promise it will.

We have to start somewhere and so we begin at the beginning.  With Fred - that is Fred Sawyers.  I had been chatting on AOL since about 1995-96.  At some point in 1997 I met a great guy who lived in New Hampshire.  He was about 24, good looking based on his pictures and lots of fun to talk to.  I no longer remember his name.  I would not know it until much later but this was Fred Sawyers (a lonely, sad sack, down and out wretch in Indianapolis).  He used a different name and didn't live in NH but it was Fred.  We chatted for a few weeks and became friends.  He introduced me to his older brother who was also on-line (also Fred).  His brother was a state trooper, he said.  From chatting with them they both seemed like very caring, loving guys.  They told me separately that the younger brother would bottom for his brother and some of his brother's police friends.  I had never encountered incest except in jokes about Appalachia.  This was the first time I had spoken to someone who engaged in it. 

We must have chatted for probably 2 months when the older brother told me that the younger one had been badly beaten.  The story was very convoluted and had something to do with someone he had arrested previously seeking revenge.  The younger brother was in a Worcester, MA hospital.   I told him I wanted to drive up.  I went to school in Worcester and knew that hospital well.  He convinced me not to come.  I called the hospital and asked for a room number, I wanted to send flowers.  They said they had no record of the name I was calling about.  The older brother told me they had to put his brother under an assumed name because the perp hadn't been caught and might come back for him.  The next day the older brother told me that his younger brother had died of his injuries.  At first, I felt awful.  I really liked this guy and although we hadn't met I had real feelings for him, if that is possible on-line.  Then slowly - I know I'm an idiot - this all didn't seem to piece together.  Little clues that the brothers were the same person started to materialize.  Then I felt really pissed off that someone would do something like this, although he continued to deny it.  I blocked their screenames and that was that.

Fred wasn't done with me though.  I was too good to be true, having been this gullible for so long.  He then created another persona and contacted me to chat. He was now a married man in Virginia (he would end up being about a dozen other people).  It was this man in Virginia who told me he had a lover on the side named Fred.  He said I should chat with him sometime and that he was moving shortly to the mid-west. 

{NOTE: Any use of the word 'met' in connection with these Internet discussions means encountered on-line not met in person.}

Up until the moment I met this man in Virginia, I had never thought about sex with children, never discussed it, or knew anyone who did.   I was never abused as a child and didn't know anyone who had been.  It was Fred, posing as this married man who told me that he was having sex with his son and that he included Fred, his lover.

Frankly, I was a deeply repressed homosexual and the topic of sex, any sex - especially taboo sex - was very titillating to me.  I wasn't hard up for sex.  I started late in life but I had by that point slept with many men.  But I was very, very deep in the closet and never discussed sex or my sexuality with anyone I actually knew. Over the next 3-4 years I started chatting regularly with Fred.  I would come to learn much later that he played a few different parts - different screenames - to help foster my voyeuristic curiosity into the lives of people who engage in child sex and incest.

Fred was the most pathetic person I had ever met.  He would tell me I was his only friend.  He said he had been badly abused, physically and sexually, as a child by his stepfather.  He had a meager existence.  A low-paying job as a clerk, a shithole apartment, and no social life.  I don't know why now or then, but I felt very sorry for him.  I can't explain it to myself so I can't explain it to you.  I sent him some money on a few occasions because he told me he was near eviction.  I also sent him some gifts - one of which was a VCR paid for with company funds.  But in all that time and even now, I have never met Fred.  Seems utterly crazy to take such an interest, show so much attention, to someone you've never met.  I know. Crazy.

In early 2000 I had decided I had had enough of Fred.  The lurid chats and his constant need for my attention on-line were getting to me .  I sent him an e-mail telling him I was canceling my AOL account.  I told him it was due to a lack of time to spend on-line and had nothing to do with him.  I wished him well.  A few days later a box arrived at my home with some meager possessions and a suicide note.  Fred explained that he was killing himself because without me as his friend he had nothing to live for.  Anyone of you would have tossed the box and put it out of your mind as the workings of a deeply disturbed person.  And rightly so. For whatever reason I freaked.  I believed everything Fred had told me up till this point and I firmly believed I was the cause of his death.  I thought my actions harsh and selfish.  I felt horrible.  {I retain to this day a certain gullibility.  I can't see a reason why on a personal level people would lie so elaborately so I tend to believe them.  In business, it's another story.  But in day to day interaction with people I've never understood the point of doing it, so I don't expect it.}

I immediately reactivated my AOL account and sent him an e-mail.  His account was still active.  A few days later I received a response telling me that he had tried to kill himself and was now in a hospital.  I felt truly awful.  He made me promise not to disappear from his life again and I reluctantly agreed.  Prior and subsequent to that episode Fred and I talked a lot about sex.  All kinds of sex including with children.  As time went on we talked about sex less and less to the point that it wasn't mentioned in the final days that we spoke.  I spoke of my life and he spoke of his.  As time went on we spoke infrequently.  At no time ever did we trade pictures.  Fred sent me dozens of pictures of himself but never anything illegal.  At no time did I ever send him a real picture of me.  With the exception of one guy in NYC, I had never sent a real picture of myself to anyone on-line during all those years.  I was consumed with the notion of being outed.  I had told Fred I worked as a VP for a company, and later when I went to HDC, I got a job running a real estate company.  At no time did I ever mention Rudy Giuliani or HDC.  In my mind it would have been personal and professional suicide to chat as freely as I was and reveal what I did and whom I knew. I will be borne out on this statement later.

Cut to spring 2001.  During the prior year and half Fred had tried to kill himself again, was confined to a mental institution, found a new, still pathetic job, developed leukemia and started a fledgling on-line business, or so he told me.  At this point I had pretty much had enough.  I had started to doubt some of his  claims (I know you would have disbelieved him from the start), but even so, I was just simply tired of being this guy's sole link to the world. The one thing that hadn't changed according to him was that he still had no friends (with one exception I'll get to later). He told me his cancer support group had chipped in and purchased a ticket for him to visit NYC, the place he wanted to see most in the world.  He wanted to stay with me.  I blew up and told him I had enough.  He was manipulating me and I was done.  That was the last time we chatted.  He sent me dozens of pleading e-mails over the next 8 months begging me to talk to him again.  I resolved not to answer a single one.  And I didn't.  Now, had I canceled my AOL account that spring or even just changed my screename I would never have been investigated, indicted or gone to prison.  The great error happened at that moment.  But I was lazy and had that screename invested in all my accounts, banking on-line, billpay and many other things.  It would have been a major hassle to change it.  My guess is Fred would have given up once he came across a removed e-mail address.  But time has a way of festering peoples hostilities.  And if one is deeply disturbed the consequences even more unpredictable.

I had decided that although I could have stayed on as President of HDC in the Bloomberg Administration, I would leave HDC.  The day before my interview with the transition committee on Dec. 18th I had an epiphany.  It suddenly dawned on me that I wasn't a civil servant and I had come into government to work for and serve Rudy Giuliani.  I didn't particularly admire Mike Bloomberg or the team he was assembling.  Sitting at my desk I said to Luke Cusack, "Why am I staying?"  My goal was to turn HDC around from the moribund state I had found it in and put it back on a path to financing significant amounts of housing.  I had done that.  So I called the head of the committee, Alan Weiner, and told him I was withdrawing.  Passage of time leads people to think I left HDC because of the investigation.  There was no investigation in mid-December of 2001.

I announced I would leave on Feb. 1st.  Most people aren't aware that Rudy and Tony Carbonetti had gotten an agreement from Bloomberg to keep certain Giuliani Administration appointees.  There was a mad scramble in those final days to get on, what we all called, the "Must Hire List."  My name was in the top five of that list so there's no question i would have been retained.  Bloomberg was not doing anything back then to piss off Rudy.  

A few weeks before I left HDC I received an e-mail from Fred.  It said, in very angry terms, that he was going to tell everyone I was gay (true), that we had discussed sex with children (true) and that we had traded child pornography (not true).  He blamed me for ruining his life and that he wasn't going to allow himself to be discarded like this.  He was going to make me pay.  At first I didn't get what this was about.  Why the angry e-mail out the the blue and why make up the trading of pictures?  Why now?

The full answer didn't come till much later.  He sent this at the behest of Tom Robbins, Village Voice reporter.  At first I ignored it.  But I was, as ever, completely terrified of anyone finding out I was gay.  I thought the best thing to do was threaten Fred with prosecution.  I wrote him back and said I had spoken to a lawyer (which I hadn't) and that this was harassment and blackmail for my attention.  Blackmail doesn't have to be for money.  Robbins had put him up to this and helped him write it in order to confirm that Fred knew me.  Unbeknownst to me at that moment Fred had sought out a reporter to tell his story to.  He found the one reporter who hated me and my family more than any other, Tom Robbins.

I'll conclude Part 1 here.  The next part will detail the chats that appeared in the Village Voice, how Fred and Tom Robbins worked as a team to create those chats to appear as though they were from me, how those fabricated chats were used by the Government as evidence (until it was revealed that they were concocted), how the prosecutor protects Fred to this very day and how the betrayal by my father begins in earnest with the hiring of my first attorney.

Stick around I promise this only gets more intriguing.

Trusting Randy Levine

I have received much e-mail over the last few weeks regarding the contretemps surrounding the NY Yankees request of the City's Industrial Development Agency for additional public bonding authority.  Many of you have asked me, knowing I worked at EDC, what I may have to contribute to this.  Further, many seem intrigued by the star player, Yankees President Randy Levine.  I have also been asked to recount any memories of him.  Well I certainly opposed the additional bonds.  No public purpose was ever enunciated.  EDC President Seth Pinsky seemed flummoxed and bewildered when asked to provide a rationale.  EDC used to have a great stats unit.  They're the ones who tell you the economic impact on the city of a World Series or the Thanksgiving Day Parade.  Boy, times there must have changed.  The best Seth Pinsky could do was say this would create 57 jobs.  Jesus!  Imagine if, in a retention deal, the IDA gave away $500 million dollars in benefits to Goldman Sachs and the net result was the combined creation AND retention of 57 jobs.  During my time there would have been an investigation and a resounding call from the press for someones head at this profligate waste. That comes out to nearly $9 million dollars a job.  Insanity.  But Randy Levine managed this beautifully.  I had planned a few weeks ago to post regarding him and a notorious deal with Bear Stearns done during my tenure at EDC.  Now seems the perfect time to publish that post.

 

Of the eight years working in and around the Giuliani Administration, I spent two of those at the city's Economic Development Corporation (EDC).  It was there that I confronted, and tried to prevent, one of the great scandals of the administration.  Emblematically, it represented the Mayor's weakness for his friends, hearing facts selectively, and remembering only those items of interest that suited him.  Such was and will be the scandal of Randy Levine and Bear Stearns.

Randy Levine, later and currently President of the New York Yankees, by the summer of 1997 was the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development.  And as such oversaw EDC.  Randy had done a highly commendable job as Labor Commissioner but by the time he assumed the deputy mayor post, his burgeoning thuggish tendencies was affecting his judgment. 

EDC has too many functions to list.  The big two are attracting businesses to NYC and trying to retain those businesses that are already here to stay and grow.  The latter function within EDC's structure is handled by the Business Retention division.  For many years, and most of my tenure, it was lead by Executive Vice President Ross Moskowitz.  Ross was an extraordinarily able and affable man.  He was very much the guy EDC and the city wanted on its side of the table negotiating these deals with Fortune 500 companies.  And for however much heat we continued to take from elected officials for "giving away the store," EDC during the Giuliani years had in fact put in place provisions in its deals providing for return of benefits should job gains not materialize or should the companies renege and move jobs out.  These were known as claw back provisions.

Under Ross, EDC and the City had become protected for its losses in the deals it was negotiated.  You could argue on principle that these deals were bad policy, but under Giuliani the City had tried to make itself less exposed than under the Koch and Dinkins Administrations.

By the summer of 1997 Ross had left to take a job with the law firm of Stroock, Stroock and Lavan.  His deputy, Eric Deutsch, had been promoted to his position.  Eric was as able and affable but lacked Ross's sharp elbows for pushing back, built over years of experience.  And more importantly for the coming purpose lacked the deference that would have been shown Ross due to those years.

During the last week of August my deputy, Bernadette O'Leary, informed me that we were going to be doing a deal with Bear Stearns. Normally Business Retention would work closely with my department, Corporate Communications, for many days after a deal was reached, or nearly completed, to create a large package prior to any major retention.  It would involve: the press release, the President's remarks, talking points for the press, sample Q&A, a proposed speech for the Mayor, and about five other standard items.  It was a major undertaking for us on a complicated deal with lots of tax breaks and complicated financing.  It was our responsibility to learn this information and explain it to the press.  We did many of those a year and we had a good system in place.  I had a great team in my department - Bernadette in particular was outstanding - but still this took time to put together.

[Bernadette's predecessor - NY Post columnist Adam Brodsky - had been a disaster.  He would stay shut in his office until noon each day reading the papers before he would begin doing work.  I had to get rid of him but knew Millard would never let me fire him.  At the first evaluation I did of him I marked 'Needs Improvement' in some category.  Familiar as I was with his ego, I knew it was only a matter of time before he quit.  Sure enough he did, I was able to promote Bernadette to his job and never regretted it.  (She did such a good job that she would eventually get my job after I left EDC).]

She was now telling me she had word from Eric that there was a deal coming soon.  "Soon?" I thought. We had all heard about Bear Stearns and a deal, but I didn't know they were actually working on anything that was going to result in an announcement.  I go to the meetings and talk to all the other department heads just so that we don't get blindsided by things like this.

I called Eric and asked him what was up with this rumor.  He sounded really distressed.  "You're doing Bear Stearns?"  I asked. "Yea," he said.  " We haven't done any serious work on this.  Randy wants this wrapped up in two days."  "What?" I yelled.  "Two days?  This large a deal has taken you two months, at least.  How in the world can you possibly do this in two days?  What is going on?  What is Levine thinking?  How can you do any due diligence?"

"That's not the worst part," he said.  "He's mixed baseball in on this.  Wilpon sits on the board of Bear Stearns and he wants him in on the negotiations.  Somebody heard this from Lenny Cherson (Levine's Chief of Staff)," he said.  "I don't get it," I responded, "isn't Levine barred from this?"  "Apparently not. I asked Charlie to get us more time but you know he's scarred shitless of Randy," Eric said.  I laughed.  Charles Millard, the President of EDC, was terrified of his boss Deputy Mayor Randy Levine.  For his part, Randy had nothing but loathing contempt for Millard.  We all knew it and Randy didn't hide it.  Millard could do nothing to please Levine.  And he tried.  Lenny Cherson would snicker and bad mouth Millard to Cherson's best friend, Maury Satin, who was coincidentally and conveniently Millard's Chief of Staff.  Millard was pretty helpless and besieged on all sides at this point in his tenure. 

Randy was in fact barred from doing business such as he was in the process of conducting.  He had received dispensation from the Mayor and the City's Conflict of Interests Board (COB) to conduct limited dealings with Major League Baseball (MLB) while holding his position as Deputy Mayor. This was necessary because of his past private dealings with the Yankees and Steinbrenner personally.  Where he was treading now was far beyond any line set down by COB.  His actions in the next 18 hours would cost the city millions, constitute highly unethical and almost surely illegal behavior,while endearing him to MLB and one of its owners for many years to come.  Randy's future surely lay with the Yankees, not the Mets (Wilpon), but it could not hurt to have a major league owner this indebted to you.  Especially if you were able to let him dictate the terms of his own deal with the City.

The only person who had more contempt for Charlie Millard than Randy Levine was myself.  And that was because I worked for him. I was able to witness how he mistreated subordinates.  He had been a city councilman prior to EDC and never responsible for a staff greater than five.  Here he was now overseeing a multi-billion dollar enterprise with a staff approaching two hundred.  He was certainly bright enough, that was not the issue.  He was just an abysmal manager.  He would call people at 2 AM to correct punctuation in a memo.  He was insecure, small minded and petty.  EDC was a wonderful place to work: great staff, projects and history, he just made it increasingly unbearable.  He worked for three deputy mayors and each found him to be a toadying joke.  Trust me I knew all three.

I loved my job, my staff, my colleagues, and the projects; so I stayed.  Charlie and I ended up in a cold war by August 1997 and we barely spoke.  He couldn't fire me given my relationship to the Mayor, Tony Carbonetti and Ray Harding.  I never flaunted that fact and was always tried to be professional.  But we wound up communicating mostly through my number two, Bernadette.

Bernadette was frantic to start learning about this Bear Stearns deal and get Corp. Comm. up to speed.  We would have to get the package together and the sooner the better.  She was constantly harassing Business Retention for details but there were none.  They had nothing for her.  At this point I called Ross Moskowitz to try and understand if this whole thing was in fact routine and looked different to him than it did to me.  He told me that he had already spoken to Eric and that what Randy was doing was outrageous.  Ross was usually a very conciliatory guy but he was clearly steamed.  Ross told me that he was pissed that Randy was taking advantage of Charlie's need to please and Eric's brief tenure to pull this off on behalf of Wilpon.  Ross like me had a real affection for EDC.   This naked attempt by Levine to set up his own future at the expense of EDC and City coffers, was disheartening for the staff and caused terrible morale for those who would learn of it. 

After talking to Ross, Bernadette told me that Eric and his staff had been sent by Levine to meet with Wilpon at Shea Stadium and further she had learned from someone in Business retention that Levine was actually dictating the terms of the deal ostensibly on behalf of Bear Steans and Wilpon. I then learned from someone else - and I don't think this has ever been reported - that Wilpon was part of the real estate team on the Madison Avenue site itself (the location of Bear Stearns new HQ which was driving this deal to begin with). This was really too much for me. There was so much conflict of interest going on around this deal that it stunk to high heaven.  If Charlie wasn't going to protect the integrity of his agency then I sure as hell would give it a shot.   I called Tony Carbonetti and explained that he had to talk to Rudy and put a stop to this.

"Give EDC the time it needs and stop Levine from dictating the terms of this deal," I told him.  Tony understood how bad this looked and agreed to talk to Rudy.  He called me back a few hours later and said, "Rudy said "the COB waiver covers this," he spoke to Levine and Levine said it's fine."   "Did you explain to him that this is going to cost millions needlessly because the terms of the deal are not standard and not in the City's - his - best interest?"  I asked.  "Not in those words, but I explained that Levine was meddling and the appearance wasn't good.  He doesn't care. He kept mentioning the COB waiver."

This really got me mad. "The COB waiver never for a moment covered him helping MLB owners with city agencies involving non-baseball interests.  It's ridiculous to suggest that," I said.  "I know, I know," Tony said, "he just doesn't want to intervene."  "But Tony, he is the one who is going to have to stand up in the Blue Room and defend whatever Levine gives away, not Randy." 

Tony had a fine relationship with Randy.  But like me he knew him for what he was.  Anyone - and I mean anyone - who has ever been in a room with Rudy and Randy and heard Randy's outsized, sycophantic laugh whenever Rudy spoke, would know how manipulative and insincere he was.  Rudy could say the least funny thing and Randy would boom this ridiculous laugh.  Rudy ate it up.  But to those in the room, it made all of us cringe.  It was so naked and phony.  It was a classic Giuliani character flaw that he couldn't see that Levine had transformed into someone who was using him only to advance his own personal interests.

"You're preaching to the choir here," Tony said, "I see firsthand all the shit Randy gets by him.  I've even had to enlist Cristyne a few times to try and reverse some bad shit he's gotten by Rudy.  So you don't need to tell me about Randy pulling shit and not giving a fuck about the consequences for Rudy."  I thanked Tony for his efforts and hung up.  There was now nothing to be done.

Randy Levine did in fact dictate the terms of the deal to Charlie and Eric and told them to give Wilpon what he wanted.  No deal before - and I would imagine since - has been done this way.  I am convinced, though no fault of Eric's, that had Ross still been there he would not have permitted this to happen.  Levine would not have attempted to steamroller him the way he did Charlie and Eric.  Also Ross would not have done it I believe. So the City through the IDA gave Bear Stearns more tax breaks, more bonds and more favorable conditions then it would have received otherwise.  Does it matter?  Well, EDC unlike the corporation I ran, HDC, has a contract with the City - known as the Master Contract.  It ties EDC to the City.  It provides for EDC to act as the City's agent on economic development matters and requires EDC to turn over any excess cash at the end of the year to OMB.  This Levine scheme matters because millions of dollars were lost due to his dictating terms and preventing EDC staff from doing their jobs.  The money that he cost EDC would have gone to the City.  And now here we are a decade later and Bear Stearns has ceased to exist.  Has anyone gone back and looked at the terms of that deal in light of their purchase by JP Morgan?  All deals done by EDC and the IDA are predicated on the idea that they will retain and produce jobs.  What were the job guarantees made by Bear Stearns in that deal?  They are surely shedding thousands.  Has the City or Seth Pinsky  - who looked so pathetic sitting next to Levine at the Brodsky hearing - sought to recoup the IDA investment, if the deal has in fact not expired.  I assumed the deal would have had those provisions, others did at the time.  This deal represented in a nutshell Randy's total contempt for the rules and his belief that he was above them.  It served his personal interests and that was all that mattered.

The question at this late date is not how did this happen or why.  I've just told you how and why.  The question is why would anyone trust a single thing Randy Levine says?  And why would the City through the IDA - but also through the shrinking Parks Dept. - grant more benefits to the Yankees after the costs skyrocketed?  Were the Yankees not going to finish the stadium or open it on time had the IDA not ponied up more bonding authority?   Of course the Yankees would have swallowed the cost.  They're the richest franchise in the history of professional sports.  Why then would Bloomberg do this for Randy Levine?   That to me is the interesting question.

BACKGROUND:

I have known Randy Levine and his wife, Mindy Franklin, since 1989.  I met them during Rudy's 1989 campaign.  I was there the night they got engaged.  For some bizarre reason - and completely without romance - Randy proposed in one of the dusty back offices at Radio City, the campaign HQ.  For a few years I was Mindy's closest friend.  She had a lot of acquaintances in her life but very few friends.  For nearly two years we would meet nearly every weekday to work out at the gym and have lunch afterward.  Mindy is a deeply troubled soul.  Coming from a broken home following her adoption left her an emotional basket case.  She has a good heart and can demonstrate it but she is the most insecure person I have known.  Her judgment - especially on matters political - was the worst.  She had great sway over Randy.  Rudy, out of Randy earshot, would often refer to it as the "Mindy Problem."  Randy suggesting something that everyone knew had come from his wife.  It was usually some harebrained idea but Randy couldn't see that.

Most people who know them aren't aware that Mindy is actually Randy's second wife.  He was married at a young age to a girl from his hometown on Long Island.  Mindy hated this woman; she considered her white trash.  That contributed to the strange schism in her mind about her fiance/husband.  She loved Randy but she was also embarrassed by him.  He was this very outgoing, middle class, Jewish guy from L.I.  Mindy was this very outwardly appearing well brought up girl from society Milwaukee.  Hers was the kind of upbringing where you would deny your racism by citing the names of your black acquaintances, usually the maid.  Mindy saw Randy as a guy who wore see-through mesh shirts and drove a Pontiac Fiero, both of which he had owned.  For some reason that Fiero was the kiss of death for her.  It seemed to sum up all the work she had ahead of her in making him into something presentable. His parents and sister hated her for the airs she put on although she made considerable efforts to try and win them over.  However, she hated them right back for being, in her view, so low-class.  In her mind they were what contributed to Randy's lagging upbringing and would continue to do so as long as they remained in his life.  She was constantly telling him in subtle ways what a bad mother his sister was or how bad his parents were compared to hers.

But Randy hit the jackpot with Mindy.  He wanted to be molded and shaped, like a Gumby.  He was open to it and extremely protective of her.  Many don't realize it was Mindy's family connections that got Randy inside Major League Baseball.  Her family had contacts with Brewers owner Bud Selig.  It was through their efforts that Randy first landed MLB business for his law firm, Proskauer, Rose.  

At some point towards the middle of Rudy's second term Randy had come to view himself not only as a savvy political guy, but as a latter day Robert Taft - Mr. Republican.  Tony and I would often ponder what it was exactly that made Levine think he had political smarts.  He came into frequent conflict - always behind-the-scenes, never face to face - with Ray Harding over Rudy's future.  Randy believed that Rudy's future lay with the national republican party and therefore, Rudy had to position himself much further to the right in order to meet their expectations and win the base.  Randy was always working to try and bring Rudy closer to Pataki, D'Amato and later, Bush.  Randy worked very hard to maintain good relations with the Pataki people.  I mean for himself, naturally, not for Rudy. Tony and I would marvel at the schemes Levine would hatch to forge Giuliani-Pataki alliances, only to be thwarted by Ray.  What made Randy so mad, and Tony and I saw through him every time, was that these schemes, while ostensibly about Rudy, were merely ways for Randy to suck-up to the Pataki people.  What infuriated him was that he was incapable of delivering.  When the Pataki people wanted something serious, Kieran Mahoney would reach out to Ray and then Ray to Rudy.  Nobody went through Levine, though he kept trying. 

Ray believed the opposite about Rudy's prospects. He saw Rudy as a once in a generation type political leader.  It was his independence from the party that Ray believed made Rudy so potentially appealing across a wide national spectrum.  Ray and Randy went at it often, using surrogates or private Rudy meetings to make their case.  Ray won almost all those pre-9/11 battles. Ray's arguments and Rudy's natural tendency not to be a tag-along helped win the day.

There are two ironies to this.  First, is that we have now seen fully realized the Levine plan for Rudy played out nationally.  It was of course an abysmal failure.  It sucked everything out of Giuliani that made him unique and memorable.  It destroyed years and years of hard work to make him out to be America's Mayor and the man who tamed NYC.  He's now perceived as an anti-abortion, right wing zealot, who belittles the president.  The only Republican presidential candidate this year who thought the Cheney model for the Vice Presidency was worth repeating.  Randy Levine's political instincts were, as we knew then, always tone deaf.  This model helped destroy 8 years of proven success, one heroic response to the greatest terrorist attack and all the hard work that went into getting people to like Rudy even at his most cantankerous.  All shot to hell.

The greater irony was that all this jingoistic right wing rallying would be coming from a man who committed the greatest sin any Republican alive today could commit.  The great revered figure in our party is not Lincoln, of course, but Ronald Reagan.  No greater treason could be had than to publicly embarrass Reagan while in office.  But of course that's just what Levine did.  Many now forget, and he'd prefer they forget, that he made a very public display of quitting his job at the Justice Department to protest Reagan not firing Ed Meese, the then Attorney General.  It was a huge slap at Reagan.  Not the sort of behavior Republicans easily forget . 

If you've read the Levine/Bear Stearns post then you know of Randy's casual disdain for rules.  While at City Hall and because of his COB waiver, he was routinely FOILd (NYC's Freedom of Information Law) by the press for his appointment calendars  (I had this done to me regularly as well when I was at City Hall and EDC).  Reporters wanted to see if he was having baseball meetings and with whom.  Now there are a lot of ways to defeat a FOIL request within the rules.  Obviously many more outside the rules.  I have done both but I became pretty adept at finding the weakness in the language that could legitimately defeat almost any FOIL request.  But Randy Levine couldn't be bothered wasting the time.  When his appointment books were FOILd he simply had Denny Young's office - who coordinated those requests - tell the reporter that he didn't keep an appointment book.  

In all my years in government I only knew one public official who genuinely did not keep an appointment book.  That was Bill Diamond, Rudy's Commissioner of the Dept. General Services (now DCAS).  And he did that specifically to avoid FOILs.  He had his secretary use Post-Its, I believe.  Now, I know as a fact - I'd seen it - that Randy's secretary kept an appointment book.  It would be unimaginable that a deputy mayor kept no written record of his appointments.  You couldn't do that job without keeping track of your meetings, lunches, dinners and functions.  But Randy just figured that there was nothing the reporter could do.  Which was correct.  They can't barge into your office and snatch your records.  It merely reflects again his belief that the everyday rules don't apply to him.  It was a brazen claim to make; that you had no record, past or present, of your business. 

I do, in fact, believe that the FOIL process is abused.  The majority of requests I received over eight years were simply to harass me.  There was no good government purpose.  But in the Levine case there certainly was concern by the press that he was using his public office to enrich himself personally.  Not with graft, per se, but by using the power of his office to influence government decisions in ways to benefit his past and future clients.  That was certainly a concern which was, as I have demonstrated, well founded.

But if you want to see the true character of the man, you only have to look at the testimony he gave before Ass. Richard Brodsky's committee.  The personal attacks and hoodlum like behavior were classic Levine.  He demonstrated again that he truly believes he does not have to account, ever, for his actions.  He was affronted that Brodsky, or anyone apparently, should question him or the Yankees about this money and these bonds.

It's funny.  Mindy used to revel when Randy put on this sort of tough guy act.  It's supposedly every woman's fantasy - the bad boy.  What she could never comprehend was that he didn't look tough, he looked low-class.  It seems after all her work over two decades he's still the same crude, ill mannered, middle class, foul mouthed,  jewish boy from L.I. she worked so hard to remake into a goyim society gentleman. 

Some things clearly aren't worth the effort.

SORA Feelings

Many of you have asked me to write about my case, the prison system and Sex Offender Registration.  I am beginning that process with this post.  I hope it and the ones to follow are informative.

A major study recently published in the Univ. of Arizona College of Law and Univ. of Miami School of Law joint law review publication, Psychology, Public Policy and Law concludes that sex offender registration and notification laws have no effect.  This study was the first to look at the NYS law called SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act).  It traced the antecedents for the 50 state and federal laws.  While you might think the reasons for the passage of these laws was a wave of sex crimes and proliferation of repeat offenders, the exact opposite is true.

I'm no genius but none of this was news to me.  Contrary to public perception fueled by cable news and talk radio, the incidence of sexual crimes and especially those against children are on the wane and have been so for some time.  The study points out correctly that the sensationalism attached and the length of time given to reporting sex crimes is far out of proportion to their occurrence.  In fact, the study says, "the media reports sexual crimes such as rape by a factor of almost 14 times compared with the actual rate of incidence and to present sexual crimes in a manner that inspires fear significantly more than it does when reporting robbery, homicide or assault".  The study goes on to say that this distortion leads the public to perceive that sex offenders are not capable of rehabilitation although no research whatever supports that theory.  That is of course not to mention the ridiculous misapplication of these laws.  In Illinois public urination can cause you to be registered.  USA Today reported a case, I think it was also in Illinois, of a pizza store owner who witnessing one customer threatening a woman patron, grabbed the man by the throat and said, "if you ever do that again, I'll cut your balls off".  He was registered as a sex offender at a high risk level because of the risk he posed to society that he might cut people's nuts off.  Think how many times we hear that phrase in a day. Didn't Jesse Jackson say something similar about Obama?  He's from Illinois.  Should he be registered as a sex offender?  Of course these are ridiculous examples, that's the point.  Once we cross the Rubicon and diminish basic civil liberties then it becomes easier and easier to do.  I cannot imagine an instance where I would support registering anyone for anything.  But if I did it would have to be for the most heinous possible crime or greatest known threat. Think I am exaggerating about the effect?  States now register meth producers.  What possible evidence is there to suggest that someone arrested, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated would leaving prison and resume the production of meth?  The answer, none.  Yet some states now register them.  See how easy that was once we started registering sex offenders?  Where does it stop?  Especially when in both instances -sex offenses and meth production - it is based purely on fear without any supporting data.  As it stands now you can know that I went to prison for possessing 11 images of child pornography but you cannot know that the guy next door to you murdered the previous tenant or is a convicted terrorist.   Make sense?  Again to most of you it makes perfect sense.  Nothing I say will overcome the hysteria and fear.  Anything is logical if you will it to be so.  But there is a more compelling case for my argument.  The state and the federal government now have draconian (especially the feds) sex offender civil commitment laws on the books to keep one in prison after their sentence, should they believe they haven't reformed.  In the federal case they apply the applications so broadly and to so many cases -  without providing any guidelines as to how one can obtain release from commitment - that a federal court in conservative North Carolina ruled it unconstitutional.  What did the Bureau of Prisons do?  They moved all the inmates that they were seeking to civilly commit outside that court's jurisdiction so that they could continue with the commitments and that any appealed case would have to start fresh and take years.  Civil commitment laws now exist to prevent repeat, non-reformable offenders from going free, so the arguments goes.  Why continue the extraordinary practice of registering people?  Does no one understand what a huge diminution this is to our fundamental civil liberties? 

Why am I troubling you with this information?  Because at present I am involved in the process of being registered as a sex offender in NYS.  For the crime of possession of 11 images of child pornography I must be registered with the state - and soon the federal government - for the rest of my life.  That means, depending on the level of risk I represent, that I will have to provide my photo, fingerprints, DNA, home address, work address and have it posted on a website, forever.

Now I realize fully that many, if not most of you, think these laws are great.  They make you feel better and provide some comfort in the belief that "something is being done to this ever growing problem".  The reason registration and notification laws are constitutional is based on Supreme Court and NYS Court of Appeals decisions that these requirements are not punishment. Were they, they would clearly fall under the double jeopardy clause and would be blatantly unconstitutional.   I firmly believe that these court decisions were not premised on legal reasoning.  Rather, they were grounded in the public misconceptions regarding these crimes and fear of public backlash at striking them down.  No sane person can maintain that lifetime registration does not constitute a form of punishment after having served a prison term for the underlying crime.  Even post prison probation - clearly considered and acknowledged to be part of the punishment for the crime - is less intrusive and far, far shorter in duration than registration.

I am the child of Holocaust survivors; both my parents and grandparents.  My mother and grandmother had 'Juif' stamped into their passports by the French and the Nazis. The very notion of registering people, for any reason, makes me shudder.  Are the advocates of these laws seriously going to suggest that my family and the Jews of occupied Europe, who were legally bound to report to the local prefect of police on a daily or weekly basis to register their whereabouts, were not being punished?  That the act of registration is simply ministerial and not punitive?  Again, you cannot make that argument with a straight face.  Instead you make it from pure emotion; never a good indicator of successful legislation. 

All available data indicates that sex crimes, especially those against children, have the lowest recidivism rate of any major crime: robbery, drugs, homicide.  Again, contrary to the belief that unknown predators are lurking everywhere waiting to pounce on unsuspecting children, 93% of all victims of child sex crimes are known to their victims; either relatives or family friends.  You have a greater chance, by a factor of a thousand, that your child will be sold heroin at his/her jr. high school than that they will ever be approached by some sexual predator.

As for the internet and all this hysteria created by NBC and Chris Hanson, there is the simplest solution to the problem of online predators.  Something that could be enacted in a week and would, in all likelihood, resolve 95% of all crimes relating to internet offense directed at children.  Each state - I don't believe in most federal legislation, the 10th Amendment remember - should immediately enact legislation to require any entity that offers e-mail addresses or IM accounts, especially those companies geared towards children, mandate that a clearly visible label be attached to each sent e-mail or message for an account owned or used by anyone under the age of...pick a number.  It could say something like, "the individual you are messaging is a minor and every caution should be taken in your communications under penalty of State Law XXX".  Should it be 18, 17, 16?  It's immaterial. 

There should be penalties attached to the internet provider, the child and his/her parents for non-compliance.  If the advocates of child safety are so rabid that everything must be done to protect the children than surely this is a simple measure that would not cause much clamor.  There is more warning given in watching a videotape or DVD for the criminal penalties of duplication than Instant Messaging, texting or e-mailing with children.  In this way no adult could ever claim that they didn't know the age of the person they were communicating with.  Children could not pose as older teens or adults for the purposes of salacious chat or picture trading. Society in the main accepts that children lack maturity in most things.  Yet they are given free reign over powerful tools like the internet.  For research or learning, who could object with that?  But we've seen the proliferation of so-called 'Slam Books' and gossiping websites.  I am not for prohibiting them per se, but children should not be allowed to wander the internet freely when it comes to person to person communications.  For their own protection, as the child advocates would say.  The present solution, of course, is to go the other way and register sex offender's e-mail addresses.  Why?  Because it's punitive and makes us feel better.  Useful to the task?  Never.  As the study showed almost all registered offenders were first-timers not recidivists.  

Now let's get back to me.  With the exception of accompanying my brother to fight a speeding ticket, I don't know that I have ever been to a county court before.  That is before I was required to appear in one for a SORA hearing.  If you have been convicted of any type of sex crime you become a registered person with the state.  The point of the hearing is not to see if you should be registered, but at what level.  A Sex Offender Board in Albany fills out a form based on information from the courts, probation and your prosecutor.  Naturally, as in almost all aspects of this system the defendant (felon) is given no opportunity to weigh in.  The Board calculates your level based on a points system.  If you fall below a certain score you're a Level 1; between two more scores and you're a Level 2; higher than a certain number and you're a Level 3.  You are given points for various aspects of your crime. (I was assessed a Level 1 by the SORA Board.  You cannot be anything less.)  This score and its tabulations are forwarded to the local court in your home jurisdiction and to the local D.A.  A hearing is then held and a final Level is established.  All pretty cut and dry.  Or at least it should be.

I wound up in the Westchester County Court of the Hon. Jeffrey Cohen.  Judge Cohen does nothing else but hear sex cases, that's his specialty.  Better I assume to assign all these matter from arraignment through trial to one judge.  I'm not sure why it's better, but the county seems to think so.  I have now been summoned to Judge Cohen's court (eight) 8 times; all without having received a hearing.  You see defendant's don't have much rights in Judge Cohen's courtroom; only the prosecution, 'The People', have rights.  It is a surreal atmosphere, like no court I have ever been in.  I grew up in and around courtrooms.  The first job I remember my father having was as law secretary to a Supreme Court Justice in the Bronx (later to become an Appellate Division Justice - 1st Dept.).  I have known Judges from all courts: Family, Civil, Supreme, Appellate, Appeals, as well as Federal Judges from all levels excepting the Supreme Court.  I have served on state and federal juries.  And of course I have been a defendant in a federal criminal case.  But nothing could have prepared me for the goings-on in Judge Cohen's court.

I was brought up with an extreme reverence for the courts at all levels.  I have never been inside a court where I haven't worn a suit (except in my own case where that was not possible).  The first thing you notice when you enter Judge Cohen's court is his constant need to crack jokes.  Everything is a joke.  The sycophantic Assistant District Attorneys, legal aid lawyers and pro-bono counsels all guffaw endlessly at the Judge's jokes.  The next thing you notice is how lax everything is.  No need to stand when the Judge enters.  Cops testify in acid washed, torn jeans and sweatshirts.  The bailiffs - they like to be called court officers these days in the same way stewardesses like to be called flight attendants - conduct themselves like they were at a pub or gym.  They not only chew gum in court, they do so open mouthed and crack the gum regularly.  They perform calisthenics while defendants are being sentenced.  One "female" bailiff was doing lunges and swinging her arms wildly from behind to front culminating in the fist into the palm gesture.  All that was missing was the final snapping of the fingers.  But the worst part of this behavior is what they used to call "cutting up"; joking and laughing.  This is done by the bailiffs, again, standing behind defendants while they are being sentenced or arraigned.  It's not just that it is so wildly disrespectful to the Court, the defendant and to the process; it also, as I have seen first-hand, creates a serious appellate civil rights issue. 

As I was waiting on my fourth or fifth attempt to have Judge Cohen convene a hearing I witnessed a non-English speaking defendant being sentenced for a sex crime.  He had a court appointed interpreter.  Standing inches behind both of them were two bailiffs.  They were laughing and talking and guffawing loudly.  The interpreter was clearly upset and repeatedly shot them dirty looks in an attempt to shut them up.  It was apparent to anyone that she was not able to do her job effectively, thereby depriving the defendant of his right to understand that which was happening to him.  I kept waiting for the Judge to tell them to pipe down or have them remove themselves.  It is simply impossible that Judge Cohen wasn't aware of their behavior.  Remember he sits above all this literally.  This behavior is routine in his courtroom although I had not seen it this bad.  But no, not a word from Judge Cohen even when it was plain to anyone that the interpreter wasn't able to adequately do her job.  But Judge Cohen sentenced the man, he was escorted out and the Judge cracked another joke.

Two court observers have told me that they are unaware of Judge Cohen ever ruling for a defendant in a contested issue with the prosecution.  Yes, he'll split a bail request between the two sides occasionally.  But rule for the defendant in a black and white issue between defense and prosecutor?  I'm told it has never been seen.  Further, there appears to be no amount of delay or delaying tactics by the prosecution that Judge Cohen finds intolerable.  In my own case which began in July, I stated on that day I was ready for my hearing.  The prosecution said they need more time and Judge Cohen gave them 6 more weeks.  We returned to court.  Again, they needed more time; five more weeks.  Each time we objected. This went on and on.  On the third or fourth request for an adjournment the ADA announced that their need for additional time was based on their difficulty in obtaining evidence in my federal case due to a motion I had pending in federal court to prevent them from receiving said evidence.  I was furious.  It was a total fabrication.  I had no such motion in court, wasn't preparing one and had never prevented them from obtaining information.  I said through my attorney that this was 100% false, not a shred of truth.  For a moment Judge Cohen appeared to, perhaps, have had enough of the prosecutions delays.  He asked what proof they had.  The ADA said she wasn't handling the case and the ADA who was, had told her this.  The Judge called for a conference later that day with the appropriate ADA to explain the grounds for this charge.  I didn't stay around.  My lawyer told me that the ADA didn't bother to show up.  No explanation was forthcoming as to what basis they had to make this allegation against me.  And Judge Cohen gave them another 6 week adjournment.  No apology was ever proffered by the ADA for making this charge.  And to my knowledge the Judge lost interest in pursuing it.

Now you may say, I am just peeved at having a pro-prosecution judge.  Fair enough.  But here is why you should care.   As I said,  I personally cannot imagine a situation in which I would support the registration of our citizens but if I did it would have to be under the most extraordinary circumstances and with numerous safeguards built in.  This process I am currently involved in is frightening.  If you are a supporter of the process you should be equally concerned.  Because if it is meant to protect and inform you, it is failing miserably.  Take my own case.  I was accused and plead to possession of 11 images of child pornography.  That is all I was charged with and that is what I plead to.  The charge was 11 images found on a disk in my home.  There is no evidence and no suggestion - and believe me my federal prosecutor, Debbie Landis, turned the world upside down to find anyone, anywhere, who would come forward and make an accusation - of hands-on illegal behavior between me and a minor.  Further she attempted to find some suggestion that I had sought to induce, entrap, ensnare a minor.  Doesn't exist so she couldn't find it. 

Now in these Levels, a Level 3 offender is someone who has not only hands-on contact with a minor (because you can be a Level 2 offender with hands-on contact) but serious vicious and repeated behavior.  Moreover there needs to be evidentary proof to suspect you will behave this way again.  Last month at our latest attempt to have my SORA hearing before Judge Cohen, the District Attorney's office announced at the last second before the hearing was to start that they were seeking a Level 3 for me.  The ADA in the case who had been AWOL all morning came in as the hearing was starting, and hands my attorney a hastily prepared form showing that they calculate I should be a Level 3.  One piece of background.  There is a case recently decided at the Court of Appeals in Albany (Johnson v. NYS) that basically allowed the SORA Board in Albany to double and triple count in order to arrive at your points for a designation.  With the possible exception of a thought crime, you can pretty much never be a Level 1 anymore.  It was a unanimous decision.  I have read a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions but never one from the NYS Court of Appeals.  I was shocked at how totally lacking in serious legal erudition it was.  I could have written this thing.  And I would certainly never, ever, make that claim about any Supreme Court decision.  If you read it you come away with the clear impression that it was written in total fear of appearing to side with "child molesters" although Johnson was a pornography case as well.  They conceded most all of Johnson's points and basically told judges to feel free to exercise their own discretion an ignore the Board.  But it was still a major loss to Johnson and anyone going through the process. 

The thing about the Board and the form is that it doesn't even recognize possession of child pornography as eligible for calculation.  The examiner has to check "Other" when describing the crime.  Now imagine this:  you get extra points if you possessed pictures of someone you didn't know, "a stranger", which of course is almost 99% of all child porn cases.  If you possessed pictures of someone you do know, no extra points. Although again, the form is written and designed for hands-on crimes.  So it it saying that sex with your niece or next door neighbor's toddler will earn you a lower score than a kid a few miles away you don't know.  I'm not exactly sure how that is supposed to make the nephew, niece or next door neighbor's kid feel any better.  In fact, since over 95% of hands-on crimes happen between relations and known parties you would think the greater deterrent - more points - would be assigned to knowing the victim.  But once you start measuring people's heads and quantifying their features in order to define racial purity, you can design a form and a system that will do anything. And rationalize it's methods.

Now it was obvious in my case that the ADA wanting another adjournment, filled out this form two minutes before walking into the court and essentially forced my lawyer to agree; since what they were asking for was so serious and required much discovery.  Additionally, they said that new evidence from my federal case that my federal prosecutor had promised them would be forthcoming.  They had said this in three prior appearances.  Judge Cohen should have said," Enough. This is clearly a naked attempt by the People to get an adjournment by coming in here at the last minute and announcing you've recalculated his points.  Further after three assertions of new information and seven months, there is no reason to believe this evidence is coming.  Let's start the hearing".  What did Judge Cohen say to the DA?  "How much more time do you need?"  Another adjournment.  Now bear something important in mind.  The "evidence" that my federal prosecutor has apparently promised them cannot be released without the signature of the federal judge in the case.  Yet she has promised it to them without Judge Kaplan's consent.  She even admitted in a motion last year that she could not release these documents without the Judge's consent.  Yet, given how she has behaved over the last 6 years I have no doubt she will ignore her own admission, defy Judge Kaplan, and turn over all material she chooses. 

But I said earlier you, the supporters of this system should care how bad it is.  If I am a Level 3 Offender than can there be no meaning to this registration system.  Is it informing you successfully?  I would have more respect for the system if it just labeled everyone convicted of an eligible crime "bad" and took uniform action.  It is this need to show that this is based on some legal and pseudo-psychological grounding that Levels exist and makes it so disreputable; the ability to predict future behavior based on fear.  If I am living on one side on your apartment with my crime and your other neighbor, also a Level 3, murdered, raped and decapitated 5 sisters all under the age of 12, are you served in having us both classified the same?  According to the DA, the answer is yes.  We present the same risk.  Make sense?  Like I said, to most of you it makes perfect sense. 

Free Bernie Madoff

Let me first say I assume Bernie Madoff is guilty because he doesn't really deny it.  Did he run a giant Ponzi scheme?  Seems so.  Should he go to prison for a long stretch after a plea or conviction?  Sure, why not?  The question consuming the tabloid media at the moment, however, is should he remain free pending the resolution of this case.  The answer, thus far, is clearly yes.  The point of bail is many fold: To make sure you appear in court for your hearings and trial - basically that you do not flee;  to ensure you no longer continue the alleged criminal behavior that lead you to this moment; that you pose no danger to society; and lastly - not true in every case but certainly in this one - that your freedom does not facilitate disposition of your assets before the government can account for them.  Let's check these off.  Bernie going anywhere?  Ankle bracelet, 24 hour guards, a ravenous pack of reporters trailing his every move.  Doesn't seem likely.  Can he continue his alleged Ponzi scheme?  Is someone going to invest money with Bernie Madoff?  You really don't need me to answer this.  Does he pose a danger to society by his presence amongst us?  He has no previous criminal record and I really cannot see an argument that he poses any danger to society.  Lastly, is he systematically disposing of his assets?  What we know factually is that his wife sent some jewelery and family heirlooms to relatives.  At his direction?  Perhaps.  Was she prohibited by the Magistrate's order from doing so?  In fact, she wasn't.  It was a badly worded order that should have included her.  But it didn't.  So toughen the existing order so it is loophole free.  It pisses off the US Attorney's office that they screwed this up.  That is why they are now coming at him the way they are.  Whether or not he had $170 Million in checks prior to his arrest is immaterial to me.  I am sure he intended lots of things prior to the admission to his sons of his swindle.  The question in these matters is whether he will, would or did dispose of assets.  Did he defy the order of the court? I can see no rational reason for denying this man bail based on what we know of the jewelery episode.  One million dollars in jewelery is no big deal at this level of wealth.  It is just a few pieces. 

Andrea Peyser maintains that this man belongs in jail.  Not for the jewelery but just because lots of people were swindled and it affronts her that he is free and living in a penthouse.  It is a sentiment widely shared.  He may very well belong in jail for the crimes he's been arrested for.  But we have a process in this country and although it works increasingly less well, it should be followed.  There is no reason for anyone to be in jail if they meet the above requirements pending trial.  We don't believe in mob rule and that is what is taking hold in the Madoff case.  I readily admit my sympathies for his victims are limited.  Very wealthy, sophisticated people who invest money in a fund that guarantees high returns in down markets, charges no fees and prints its statements on dot matrix printers, don't get tons of tears from me.  They were as greedy as he was for being so blindly stupid.  That is no defense for him and he will almost surely plead or be convicted and get a lengthy term of imprisonment.  But why does it have to happen today?  If he's not rotting at the Metropolitan Correction Center until next fall are we somehow harmed as a society? Except to the braying pack, I cannot see how.

HOME PAGE

FOR FIRST TIME VISITORS, PLEASE START BY READING THE

'WHY & WHY NOW?' POST

Free Bernie Madoff

Let me first say I assume Bernie Madoff is guilty because he doesn't really deny it.  Did he run a giant Ponzi scheme?  Seems so.  Should he go to prison for a long stretch after a plea or conviction?  Sure, why not?  The question consuming the tabloid media at the moment, however, is should he remain free pending the resolution of this case.  The answer, thus far, is clearly yes.  The point of bail is many fold: To make sure you appear in court for your hearings and trial - basically that you do not flee;  to ensure you no longer continue the alleged criminal behavior that lead you to this moment; that you pose no danger to society; and lastly - not true in every case but certainly in this one - that your freedom does not facilitate disposition of your assets before the government can account for them.  Let's check these off.  Bernie going anywhere?  Ankle bracelet, 24 hour guards, a ravenous pack of reporters trailing his every move.  Doesn't seem likely.  Can he continue his alleged Ponzi scheme?  Is someone going to invest money with Bernie Madoff?  You really don't need me to answer this.  Does he pose a danger to society by his presence amongst us?  He has no previous criminal record and I really cannot see an argument that he poses any danger to society.  Lastly, is he systematically disposing of his assets?  What we know factually is that his wife sent some jewelery and family heirlooms to relatives.  At his direction?  Perhaps.  Was she prohibited by the Magistrate's order from doing so?  In fact, she wasn't.  It was a badly worded order that should have included her.  But it didn't.  So toughen the existing order so it is loophole free.  It pisses off the US Attorney's office that they screwed this up.  That is why they are now coming at him the way they are.  Whether or not he had $170 Million in checks prior to his arrest is immaterial to me.  I am sure he intended lots of things prior to the admission to his sons of his swindle.  The question in these matters is whether he will, would or did dispose of assets.  Did he defy the order of the court? I can see no rational reason for denying this man bail based on what we know of the jewelery episode.  One million dollars in jewelery is no big deal at this level of wealth.  It is just a few pieces. 

Andrea Peyser maintains that this man belongs in jail.  Not for the jewelery but just because lots of people were swindled and it affronts her that he is free and living in a penthouse.  It is a sentiment widely shared.  He may very well belong in jail for the crimes he's been arrested for.  But we have a process in this country and although it works increasingly less well, it should be followed.  There is no reason for anyone to be in jail if they meet the above requirements pending trial.  We don't believe in mob rule and that is what is taking hold in the Madoff case.  I readily admit my sympathies for his victims are limited.  Very wealthy, sophisticated people who invest money in a fund that guarantees high returns in down markets, charges no fees and prints its statements on dot matrix printers, don't get tons of tears from me.  They were as greedy as he was for being so blindly stupid.  That is no defense for him and he will almost surely plead or be convicted and get a lengthy term of imprisonment.  But why does it have to happen today?  If he's not rotting at the Metropolitan Correction Center until next fall are we somehow harmed as a society? Except to the braying pack, I cannot see how.

11/26 - New Post under Current Affairs entitled, 'Public Life'.

HARD WINTERS

While heading home last night on the 4 train who should be standing a few feet away from me in the car but Rep. Vito Fossella.  Clearly his troubles have not taken a toll on him, at least physically.  He looked trim, tanned, healthy, and dapperly dressed.  He, like the friend he was traveling with, had very slicked back hair.  You don't see many members of congress on the subway.  He still is, for now, a member of congress.  I thought he made a mistake in not running.  I can speak from personal experience that the worst time to make serious judgment calls is when you are smack in the eye of the hurricane.  Very few of us have the cold, steely nerve to ignore the maelstrom and focus.  He may not have won but I believe only because the Obama tsunami turned everything blue.  There was no way of knowing about that back in June.  I always liked Vito, although we didn't have a great relationship.  I am a very loyal friend.  Any enemy of a friend becomes mine.  Vinnie LaPadula hated Vito - mostly jealously.  So I always viewed Vito askance.  Stupid, I know.  Vinny was constantly spreading rumors that Vito was secretly gay.  I think we all know now that's probably far from the truth.  I'll be writing at a later point my view as to Vinny's motivation for casting aspersions on other's sexuality.  A view shared, I might add, by his then roommate, Tony Carbonetti. But why am I writing about Vito Fossella?  I'm not. 

While on the subway last night with Vito, I saw an ad from the NYC Dept. of Health.  It told me the calorie count of some muffin.  I recalled then that in the morning one of the free papers, AM Metro, was sponsored by the NYC Dept. of Health.  It was an anti-smoking ad.  Now those ads are not free.  Even the subway ads aren't free.  It got me thinking and steaming.  Here we are in perilous budget times.  Mayor-for-life Mike is bringing us to a constitutional crisis regarding his unwillingness to expend approved funds and the NYC Dept of Health has the funds and license to wag its finger at me about trans-fat and nicotine.  This is an example of how a government should not be run.  You cannot claim that we are in the midst of a crisis and then not have your agencies reviewing all their outlays.

I recall vividly being at a budget meeting at the height of the budget crisis in '94' when the mayor specifically asked the question about public service ads.  It made no sense to him having the agencies spending money on PSAs when he was wrestling with serious cuts.  They, for the most part, were removed.  It was a sign that Rudy wanted everything - minus cops and fire - on the table.  Nothing was too frivolous.  Why?  Because messages get sent when the public sees these ads and is being told their subway fare has to go up.  Or as in the case of the Dept. of Health, we read today that DOH will be closing free dental clinics for lack of funds.  Now I am not suggesting that removing Dr. Frieden's war against fat and smokes is going to close that gap.  I am not.  I am saying that it matters as to its perception.  I am tempted at this point to quote Evertt Dirksen, but everyone these days does that.  But you get my meaning.  It all adds up. If the point is made that those DOH funds are already in this year's budget, there is a very simple process by which the Mayor, through his legislative office, requests a change for existing funds to be used for another purpose.  It's done routinely.

But this administration is not the one for hard winters.  Mayor-for-life-Mike and Co. aren't up to the task.  They haven't had to and frankly he's assembled a team that isn't capable of weathering difficult times.  Gov. Patterson was smart enough to see his own holes and rightly hired Marc Shaw recently (someone the Mayor should have re-hired).  He knew he had to beef up his team to have any hope of getting  through this.  But no such awareness exists in the silly bullpen located in the Public Hearing Chamber at City Hall.  Who is this administration's Abe Lackman, Marc Shaw, Peter Powers or even Carol O'Cleireacain?  Who is riding herd on the agencies and challenging them when they present ridiculous budget cuts.  Ed Skyler?  Patti Harris? Mark Page?

The longevity of the NYC Budget Director is counter-intuitive to how we think in usual management terms.  A top rate budget director cannot be so and hold his job for too long.  He either gets worn out by the constant never-ending struggle to make the agencies toe-the-line or he is so successful that the withering abuse heaped on him cannot be sustained for long.   Mark Page has held that job, and will continue to do so, for at least eight years, a modern record.  Mark is an OMB lifer, a tron.  He's a smart guy, no question.  But he's not the guy you want cracking the whip.  He's not an innovator.  He's a functionary.  When the time comes - and it's here - for hard choices; for figuring out how to do more with less, you don't want Mark Page leading that effort.

I was shocked - like Claude Rains was shocked - to discover that Mayor-for-life-Mike has no regard for the role of the legislative body.  Were they shocked?  Sure he throws them bucks from the City or his checkbook.  He makes nice when he wants to succeed himself in office.  But when he doesn't want to issue checks approved of in the budget, screw em.  He knows best. That's why they up-ended the public will to keep him, right?  He's our savior.  Richard Nixon tried this and congress had to enact impoundment legislation to prevent any president from diverting or withholding approved spending.  And here we are thirty-plus years later fighting the same battle.  Surely, the City Council can pass similar legislation; overriding an expected veto in the process.  But no guts.  Mayor-for-life-Mike has them bought lock, stock and member item.  These are the 'leaders' you all want to keep around for another term.  This is the best we can do.  It's pitiful.

REVELATIONS

One of the newspapers I was reading this morning noted that crime in the city was on the rise and listed a series of charts and stats to demonstrate the point.  I had promised you this piece last week and today seemed to be the perfect day to publish it given that news.

On two separate occasions in April of 2001, (read Postscripts for how I recall the date) Tony Carbonetti revealed an extraordinary secret to me.  We were at his home for both conversations.   What precipitated this discussion I no longer recall.  But we were in his living room and in regard to something I had just said, Tony was trying to counter by making the point that any absolute can be fixed or fudged.  "It's like the murder stats," he said.  "What can you possibly mean?"  I responded.  He gave me a half cocked smile as if to say, "Come on, be real."  "Those numbers aren't real," he told me.  I was totally stunned.  It wasn't that I didn't think we were capable of playing with numbers.  I had just always assumed that the bedrock of Rudy's legacy, the extreme drop in crime, was real.  We had made a fundamental difference based on our policies and practices.  "Wait a minute, hold on," I said, "what are you saying?  You can't fudge dead bodies.  They either are or they aren't.  You count em up and come up with a total.  How in the world do you massage that?"

He gave me a look.  The kind of look you give an idiot child, but one you care about; exasperated and patient all at the same time.  "Happy Land," he said.  "What, the fire?" I asked. 

Happy Land was a low-rent social club in the Bronx that had a devastating fire that killed a lot of people during the Dinkins Administration. It was arson so the deaths all counted in the murder statistics that year.  It wasn't really fair, statistically.  It took what was already a bad annual number and made it much worse. For Dinkins, I mean. 

"What if instead of counting all 40, or whatever the number was, you only counted it as one.  Counted the incident instead of the bodies." 

"Jesus," I said, "they did that?  "No, Dinkins didn't miscount the numbers.  Besides they couldn't do that with Happy Land, the number was too public,"  Tony explained.  "But you're saying we do that," I asked,  "count incidents instead of bodies when there are multiple murders?"  "Yea, sometimes," Tony admitted.   But I got the impression that because of my stunned reaction he was softening his answer.  I got the sense from him that we were doing this more than just 'sometimes."

I was really floored.  I was as stunned by that as by anything I had learned up till that point during those seven years.  If you told me we played with the welfare stats and that the number hadn't come down from 1.5 million to half a million, I could have easily accepted that we played with those numbers.  But the murder stat?  That was the indicator that we and everyone else used to herald the amazing change that had taken place in NYC. People all over the world knew about that number.  Trust me, I met with lots of foreign delegations and they all knew that year's murder stat and our cumulative crime reduction percentage.

When I left his office I felt a little sick and a little sad.  I also wondered who at PD was responsible, actually responsible, for fixing these numbers.  And who else at at City Hall besides Tony knew about this.

A few weeks later I was hanging out at Tony's apartment.  I don't know where Vinny was but he wasn't around.  We were watching TV and something came on the news about the police.  The reference was negative.  Tony got kind of sullen and lowered the sound on the TV.  "I was in Rudy's office the other day and you're never going to believe what he said to me."  Rudy had been extremely moody and I could imagine Tony telling me just about anything.  "God, what now?"  I asked.

"We were in his office, just him and me.  We had just finished a meeting with Kerik and some guys from PD.  The meeting hadn't gone well.  After they left he says, sort of to nobody, although I was the only one there, "They're out of control."  Who is? I asked him.  "The cops.  I've lost control.  It's too far gone for me to do anything about it.  There's nothing I can do at this point."

"Holy shit," I said to Tony, "have you ever heard him say anything like that before?"  "Never," Tony said, "he's never even hinted before that he feels that way."  "Where did it come from then?"  I asked.  "I don't know," Tony said, "it must be how he really feels."

That admission by Rudy was startling to me for a few reasons.  First, I wasn't aware that he had acknowledged to himself what we all knew; that the cops had become uncontrollable in the city.  Rudy was always the first to defend any PD action as history documents so well.  Everyone else around him knew there was a serious problem but no one had ever heard him acknowledge it before.  Second, it sent a chill through me to think that if he, Rudy, the mayor and chief police booster felt that the problem was so bad that even he couldn't control it, then we were in some serious trouble.  I also knew that Rudy and Tony knew things regarding police actions that I was certainly not aware of and that statement by him made me think that there must be a lot more bad shit going on then I ever could have imagined.

POSTSCRIPTS:

Just for the record and since I do remember the date I thought I would recall why.  I had just returned from a conference in Tampa immediately before my first conversation with Tony and I know the second conversation happened a few weeks after the first.  Since I know that the conference was in April of 2001 I can place these events in that period.

NO MY YOB

For those of you too young to remember, before cute Freddie Prinze, Jr. of 'Scream' fame, there was his father, Freddie Prinze, Sr.  He, his character, had a catchphrase back then that he used whenever he was asked to do some work.  It was, "No my job."  Except he said it in a thick Hispanic accent and the J was pronounced like a Y.  I think Mayor for Life Mike is channeling the late Prinze, Sr. these days.  In today's papers it is reported that when asked about the horrible condition that the MTA is in financially, and the possibility of a major fare hike on the public, Mayor for Life Mike said, "It's a state agency."  I guess it is lost on him that there is a reason that the Mayor has a substantial minority of appointments to the MTA Board.  It is to affect the process and the decisions that come out of that board.  They are his voice and represent his views.  Moreover, with an activist mayor, like Giuliani, a vocal and aggressive minority can be used to create a majority.  The mayor can shape policy and direct the agenda of the MTA.  The suburban counties are each represented on the board and have, unlike the city and the state, 1/4 of a vote each.  Seth Kaye always used to refer to them as the 'Quarter Pounders."  With their voice and collective vote the mayor can challenge the Governor should he choose to. 

The problem for us in New York City is that we don't know what we want.  I don't mean the mayor, he knows that he will shrink from any tough choice or difficult task.  Make no mistake that is the hallmark of his mayoralty.  I mean we as citizens of the great city don't know what we want from this man.  We seem to like his aloofness and passivity on most matters.  We claim relief that he's so non-confrontational unlike Rudy.   The problem arises at moments like this one.  History and human nature tells us that you can't turn on and off forceful leadership.  You either are that person or you're not.  Mayor for Life Mike is not a forceful leader.  He is not a leader at all.  But the scary part is that he says so very plainly.  It's one thing to try and lead and be terrible at it - David Dinkins - it is almost unprecedented to say matter of factly and routinely that you have no desire to lead.  What is even more astounding to me is that the populace seems to find this a praiseworthy trait and wishes, if the polls are to be believed, to reward this man with four more years of non-leadership.

I work near a great hole in the ground.  That hole has been there for seven years.  It is a monument to Mayor for Life Mike's non-leadership that it is still empty.  Again, he says - up until very recently and only because the newspapers were finally on his case - that he has no interest in the future of Ground Zero.  It's a state problem because they control the Port Authority.  Just like he says transit is a state problem because they control the MTA.  We accept his passivity and are all the worse for it.

It is often said that the public has disdain for elected officials.  I have news for you; having worked for a few they disdain you right back.  The public gets what it deserves and almost always does.  Mayor for Life Mike is openly contemptuous of the little people who work for a living.  He can't relate to the average New Yorker, and to his credit, makes very little artifice to try and pretend otherwise.  It's so apparent that he couldn't.  And yet people eat his contempt for them up. They seem to say, "He thinks I'm scum and gosh, I admire his candor."  He has poll numbers in the 60+% range.

It can't be his stewardship of the city.  No one can reasonably say he is leaving NY in a better place than when he found it with the exception of a huge amount of new luxury housing.  If that is to be considered bettering the city.  On the budget, this Independent, behaves like a classic liberal democrat.  In good times balloon the budget, give the unions everything (including costly legislative initiatives in Albany), and swell the headcount.  In bad times, slash the budget and raise taxes.  He has nearly doubled the budget since taking office. He has demonstrated no ability or interest to create lasting structural change in the way the City does business.   And what have we to show for it?  Has a single major initiative come to fruition?  Hunter's Point, Willet's Point, the West Side expansion, the Olympics, Atlantic Yards, Coney Island, Moynihan Station, New MSG, Ground Zero, and on and on and on.  Now incredibly the man behind each of these failed or failing initiatives is Dan Doctoroff.  This time channeling Ike, Mayor for Life Mike said, as Ike did of Sherman Adams, "I can't live without him," and had the Conflicts of Interest Board waive serious protections so that we could all continue to benefit from Doctoroff's failure of leadership.  Some pair these two make.  But again, it is clearly what the public wants. 

Moynihan Station (Farley) should have been completed by now.  But Mayor for Life Mike says he wants no part of the responsibility because it's messy; there's state, federal and city overlaps.  So because the state can't get its act together, the city does nothing.  And yet he has decided to serve in office in perpetuity and to succeed himself all without any referendum.  Even dictators in banana republics at least go through the farce of a public referendum on their continued tenure.  Saddam Hussein realized he need the cover of a public vote.  That periodic 99% yea vote he received counted for something at least from a PR perspective.  But Mayor for Life Mike cannot be bothered with even the simplest trappings of democratic government.  He makes Baby and Papa Doc Duvalier look like John and Samuel Adams.

But this is what we want and so this is what we shall have.  Four more years of non-leadership and stagnation. The great city moves not forward but sideways.  There will always be a reason for a non-leader to decline action.  The question I cannot get my head around is why we so desperately want this.  But just remember - when you're paying $3.00 to ride the subway don't blame Mayor for Life Mike.  That's how he wants it.  And apparently so do we.

THE SAVIOR?

Today's New York Post says that key state Republican party leaders are seeking to replace Joe Mondello with Rudy Giuliani.  They say he is the savior of the Party.  Hmmmm.  Anyone happen to see Newsweek naming Rudy one of the ten losers coming out of the 2008 campaign?  Or on their chutzpah scale rating him highly for cravenly pandering to New Hampshire voters by saying that this life-long, die-hard Yankee fan would root for the Red Sox in a World Series?  I think the state party is conveniently missing the message from all this.  John Faso could not have stated the problem more clearly than in his piece in last week's Post.  The state senate Republicans are what's wrong with the state party, not Joe Mondello.  Yes, Joe Mondello was/is a poor chairman.  He was a pick from a former era.  But the reason the public turned so blue on Tuesday was because for years now the senate leadership has offered no alternative to the Democrats.  Faso hit the nail on the head when he said that it would have been unthinkable under Ralph Marino to even consider congestion pricing let alone endorsing it.  But the state party has sold their soul to Mike Bloomberg.  Without his annual $500K they would have no functioning outreach apparatus.  He's not a Republican, never was.  Yet they take his money and endorse his left-wing agenda.  I suppose it is more honorable than taking his money and opposing his agenda, but all the same they've sold out.

As for Rudy "coming home" and saving the day.  Which Rudy is it exactly who will be riding that white stead?  The pro-immigration Rudy who saved but one outreach liaison office when he took over in 1994, that being the Mayor's Office of Immigration Affairs, or the Rudy who now believes we need to beef up the borders and re-examine amnesty?  The unflaggingly pro-choice Rudy or the one who believes we need more pro-life Supreme Court appointments?  The virulently anti-gun Rudy or the one who thinks we need a second look?  I could go on and on.  He sums up the problem in Albany and across the state party.  We don't have any firm convictions so why would anyone vote for us?  His or Tony Carbonetti's appointment as State Chair would only underscore the problem.  Their is no quick fix to this problem - people don't trust us.  Trust has to be won back over time.  Trust me, I know.

Set out a clear moderate-libertarian program -pro-choice, lower taxes, smaller more efficient government, new investment in infrastructure and high-speed rail, opposition to any Bloomberg efforts to tax bridges or entry-points, a true bi-partisan plan (not ESDC corporate boondoggles) to solve the systemic economic troubles of the upstate economy, decriminalize marijuana possession and drastically reduce the prison population and wasted law enforcement resources.  These are just a few ideas, I'm open to many more and a discussion of what our state party is and where it is going.  More of the same will get you more of the same.  Namely, a lot more counties turning blue.  This 1980's experiment of turning the state Republican party into the state Conservative party failed.  We've now tried turning it into the state Democratic party which the results of last Tuesday show us worked no better.  Is Rudy the savior?  I've written here repeatedly that old Rudy could have been.  I've seen no evidence that new Rudy gets it.

THE TRAP

Barack and Michelle Obama are to visit the White House today for a sit-down with George & Laura Bush.  This is a trap.  Forget the fact that Obama should have refused because, to my knowledge, no president-elect has visited the White House before inauguration day - that is usually left up to the first ladies.  The real reason to have refused is not precedent, but because Bush is laying a trap.  Bush knows, somewhere in his rational consciousness, that he is now the worst president since James Buchanan, notwithstanding all these allusions to Truman and Washington.  Therefore, the charm offensive is on. Bush is convinced that his winning, one-on-one personality is going to charm Obama today and make it harder for the new president to say the kinds of things about Bush and his Administration that need saying during the next 6-12 months.  Of course it won't effect the parachute teams landing at federal agencies over the next few weeks.  They will do their work and make their recommendations.  But what Bush is after is the rhetoric.  Tone down the anti-Bush language and the public perception that will now be firmly set will be tamped down.  Obama will come away thinking Bush is really an OK guy.  Yes, a disastrous president, but a charming an affable man who probably meant well.  "It was all Cheney's doing", he'll think.

It is important, for the record, the nation, and the hard Obama supporters to hear the truth about the man and his record over the last eight years.  I fault Obama for not saying this in much starker language than he did since the convention.  Ronald Reagan made Jimmy Carter a pariah for the next 20 years by the tone he set regarding his predecessor during his first years in the White House.  It wasn't permissible to have Carter for dinner in polite society.  What exactly do the Obama people think is motivating Bush in this invitation and the outstretched hand to offer "all possible assistance"?  Because after shredding the Constitution for eight years he now is feeling presidential?  Nonsense.  This is all an effort to blunt what he knows should be coming.  This cozy little group of ex-presidents and their fraternity is supposed to be admirable.  They call each other for advice and attend each other's functions.  This can't happen with Bush.  If Obama treats him as just some well-meaning but failed ex-president, history will not forgive him and I suspect neither will his base.

UPDATE 11/7

Sorry I have been remiss in keeping the content fresh.  I will do a better job starting next week.  Things to be on the lookout for in the coming days:

1. There seems to be a lot of talk about the deal that EDC/IDA cut for the Yankee Stadium project.  I can't shed any light on that, although I'll have some thoughts, but I can tell you in detail about how Randy Levine cost the city millions of dollars and abused his office as Deputy Mayor for another sweetheart deal that the IDA did during my tenure at EDC and how I tried, unsuccessfully, to stop it.

2. I'll be posting a piece called 'FAVORS' that will give you some small idea of the power that Tony Carbonetti wielded over city agencies and again, how the taxpayers were shut out of millions of dollars.

3. In another piece called 'REVELATIONS' I will tell you of two extraordinary pieces of information  I learned of from Tony in April of 2001.

4. And lastly, I will begin the process of chronicling my legal case.  I can promise you it won't be as dry as it sounds.

Please bear in mind that the biggest piece I have written I am saving for the end.  That may be weeks or months from now.  It details how, unbeknownst to an entire city, the government of New York City came to a halt and ceased to function for two weeks.  You'll never guess why.  Look out for that piece in the weeks ahead.

The Day After

I am reminded this morning of September, 1939.  On the 3rd of September, France and England had finally called Adolf Hitler's bluff and were declaring war after years of appeasement.  Hitler, not having expected to be met with real resistance, turned to Von Ribbentrop and said, "What now?"

My guess is that both the Obama transition and the country as a whole, are waking up this morning asking a similar question.  A columnist for the NY Times this morning defended Obama's lack of specificity during the campaign by saying that the New Deal wasn't the New Deal until after FDR took office, the nation had no idea what he would do and that the first referendum on it in wasn't until the 1936 election.  That of course isn't true.  The Roosevelt campaign of 1932 outlined a number of proposals and concepts that would eventually make up many of the alphabet agencies.  Most came from his years as Governor of New York.  People could look at his record, to paraphrase another NY governor.  Obama never did that.  I haven't the faintest idea of what an Obama legislative agenda looks like for the first 100 days.  I can not remember that happening in my lifetime, that on the day after a presidential election I would not know what the major proposals were going to be for the new administration.  That is where all this hope talk comes in.  Hope in better days but also hope in what is going to happen.  No one really knows.  I jumped in.  I voted Democratic for the first time in a national election.

On election night 1994, Peter Jennings, a liberal Canadian, famously, condescendingly, and derisively said that, "the nation was having a temper tantrum", as he saw the sea of red wash over the map behind him.  He misunderstood the mood of the country and the real yearning for a different path that night.  Last night, I believe the nation needed and took a shower.   The results show two intents at play here amongst the electorate.  First, the shower.  The country needed to vigorously cleanse itself of George W. Bush and the last eight years.  It needed to scrub away the sick feeling most of us feel deep in our gut about where our nation is and what we've become.  Many of us believe we are no longer a real force for good in the world.  At least it is not our intent to be.  Whatever role we played in electing and re-electing George Bush or supporting him when his numbers were high, we now need to rid ourselves of the guilt and the shame.  People are looking for self-redemption and the only way was through the pulling of a lever in that booth.  Closing that curtain and pulling the lever for Obama was something akin to a civic confessional. 

A President who spent his days in the Oval Office approving and analyzing different methods to torture people is someone we all should be disavowing and that is what last night was about.  It is hard to comprehend the 180 degree turn that occurred yesterday.  We have gone from the most conservative - and I don't like using that word in describing George Bush - to perhaps the most liberal president ever.  Not over a generation but in a single night.

The other intent in electing Obama yesterday was this over-used word hope.  I have seen that word used in every presidential election:  Clinton used it to death, Carter after Watergate, Reagan after Carter.  But I have never really seen the country vote while crossing its fingers and hoping for better times.  You would really have to go back to '32' to see that kind of blind faith in the outcome.  It is almost religious. 

The big question for me this morning is where does my party go from here.  A lot of talk last night was expended about the dismal prospects for the GOP and who will lead us back.  The real problem is that I am convinced that no national leader gets how bad things are.  They'll be hand wringing for sure, but what we need are a Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who can find a new way to win elections with a revamped party.  The creation of New Labor was an acknowledgment that the old Labor Party had lost its way, got out of touch with the majority of Britons and could not win a national election as it was then constituted.   Many, especially the Tories, viewed it cynically and with some justification.  But it was a desperate time losing four national elections in a row.  They had to find a way back.  I don't believe the Republican party has a Tony Blair.  I don't think the party wants to fling off the Family Resource Council or Rush Limbaugh.  I, naturally, wish the party would go back to a very hard libertarian agenda.  Newt Gingrich is derided by many but he was on the proper path back in 1994.  Yes, we are going to have to concede the issue of some type of national health care.  The nation cannot go on having so many of its citizen with little or no health coverage.  It cannot go on like that.  But once that battle is over we should go back to many of the ideas discussed in 94.  Reducing the size and scope of the federal government is key, if presented right.  The Republican Leadership should start by being out foursquare against renewing 'No Child Left Behind.'  It won't because it is Bush's domestic legislative legacy.  But it is against everything we stand and stood for.  Who will lead us back?  It is hard to imagine.  My guess is he may not be a major player yet.  He might be someone who emerges, perhaps from the back benches in the House.  The first real test will come when House Republicans elect their leader.  John Boehner has announced he'll seek re-election as Minority Leader.  He is part of the same old crowd that went along with the Bush Administration.  He should have rejected the bail-out totally instead of massaging it. This will be the first test as to how seriously Republicans acknowledge the depths they're in.  If they re-elect him, expect no substantive change in party direction.

I may not know much about Barack Obama but I do know about Rudy Giuliani.  And these last few months have been even more disastrous for him then was his own campaign.  He used to be able to absorb lessons from mistakes.  Now he seems only able to compound them.  That is partly hubris and partly the result of surrounding yourself with sycophants.  When no one will tell you the truth your left to your own bad judgment.  In this case, his has been breathtaking.  Can he possibly be proud that he is now the man who blasted Pres. Obama harder than anyone else on behalf of John McCain.  As I said on this blog back in August he would rue the day that he made that speech mocking "community organizers."  I winced when he did it that night and now that the community organizer in question is President it only diminishes the attacker.  It's hard to see where Rudy goes from here politically.  He is clearly part of the problem with the party.  I do not believe he can win a statewide election in New York unless he does what he did in 1989.  He lost that election.  He then had what Churchill called his "Wilderness Years."  Rudy used his to great effect.  He met with and listened to all sorts of people candidate Giuliani never would have back in '89'.  He thought about the great issues facing New York City and looked for answers.  Some created consensus, some did not.  But he was genuine.  No one believes he is a sincere, genuine person anymore.  Jesus Christ, his kids didn't even vote for him.  Money has corrupted him philosophically so that I doubt he is capable of that same self-reflection he showed back then.  Also he is not the young man he was.  Time is not on his side.  But if he truly seeks to serve - to make a difference in people's lives in a way that he sincerely believes will matter for the good - then he needs to wander; wander and reach out.  He has to do something however.  His behavior has been so bad that it has begun to damage people's recollections of his legacy and that is all he has left.  That is of course what translates into the millions of dollars that Giuliani Partners brings in every year.  Without the myth, the legacy, the legend, he's just another losing pol.