Skip to content

Atlas Poll: Brooklyn GOP Undermining 44th City Council Election

March 16, 2010

Without announcing the poll with a post (my error, I should have done so), our readers have nonetheless made their voices heard on the Brooklyn GOP’s dealings in the 44th City Council election.

With over 460 votes tallied so far after less than 15 days of polling, you voted on whether the Brooklyn GOP is trying to undermine Republicans in the 44th City Council District race.

So far, 66% of you say “yes,” while 31% say “no.”

Just 3% say “I’m not sure.”

This comes after fresh allegations of Democratic/Republican collusion and sabotage from the Judge campaign splashed across the headlines of the local newspapers and blogs.

This also comes just days after we discussed further connections between Vito Lopez and the Brooklyn GOP via The Cathedral Club.

Please continue to vote. The poll will be up from now until the election.

  1. Bob permalink
    March 16, 2010 5:58 pm

    Will Craig A. Eaton Esq. be marcing this year with Mayor Bloomberg in the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan?

    Or, since the 2009 mayoral election is over, will Chairman Eaton still be needed by the Mayor?

    Flashback to one year ago, March 18, 2009

    “Brooklyn’s Craig Eaton, who broke ranks with his fellow GOP county chairs and endorsed Mayor Bloomberg’s re-election bid earlier this month, landed a primo location during yesterday’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade – right next to Hizzoner.”

    Next Poll Question:
    is the Brooklyn better off or worse off now since Craig A.Eaton became KCRC Chairman in 2007?

  2. Harold permalink
    March 16, 2010 9:36 pm

    The Republican Party in Brooklyn, under the leadership of Craig Eaton has sunk to its lowest point in history. Graft, corruption, and secret deals are all taking place under his arrogance and ineptitude.
    Several district leaders are in it fot the patronage hack jobs they get out of the BOE, others are intimidated by Eaton’s bullying tactics, and several more are shareholders in Forrest City Ratner. There is no real politcal discourse and growth taking place. All hail the Golden goose who is really a shriveled up old drunken Deomocrat, who is easily manipulated by Eaton’s subversive tactics, and who is in for quite a reality check in the very near future.

    The 44th CD has brought to light the collusion between the pseudo-Republican leadership and the Democratic party. This is just the tip of the iceberg. No one is above the law, and Eaton will come to terms with that soon enough.

  3. Board of Election Hacks permalink
    March 17, 2010 12:36 am

    Board of Elections clerk Diane Rudiano should be investigated for her role in this election. Her actions were HIGHLY suspicious.

    I think an investigation should be opened.

  4. Lady Justice permalink
    March 19, 2010 12:21 pm

    Has there been a decision on Mr. Judge’s appeal?

  5. Blah Blah Blah Brooklyn GOP permalink
    March 19, 2010 11:46 pm

    Sarah here with a message to the Brooklyn GOP leadership: Your collusion and in fighting have hurt us deeply. You’ve helped David Greenfield in the 44th city council race in brooklyn. You guys have teamed up with Democrats and are putting up weak candidates to let them win.

    Everything that comes out of your mouthes is BLAH BLAH BLAH.

    So this is dedicated to you guys!

  6. Blah Blah Blah Brooklyn GOP permalink
    March 20, 2010 12:21 am

    Oops! YouTube had a problem, here’s the vid so you can give it a look-see!

    • Young GOP Kid permalink
      March 20, 2010 2:00 am

      I laughed so hard! HOLY CRAP! THIS IS HILARIOUS!!!!

    • March 20, 2010 10:29 am

      This was amazing.

    • Some "Leadership" permalink
      March 21, 2010 4:12 pm

      Wow. That was hilarious, especially the end part.

  7. Colonel De Verite d'Eton permalink
    March 21, 2010 11:37 am

    Sadly, the very witty “Blah, Blah, Blah…” video didn’t include a shout-out about the aiders and abettors at The Jig is Up Atlas; maybe next time.

    The Jig is Up Atlas is an interesting phenomenon.

    It is the manifest intent of somebody over there, together with a regular crew of posting pin-heads, to support the present regime of KCRP Chairman Craig Eaton and the lone elected Republican official in Brooklyn, State Senator Marty Golden.

    Nonetheless, one wonders whether chaos theory or the law of entropy, on the one hand, or perhaps some demonic possession or just a nefarious little jin whose been bad, on the other, is playing a contrary game at that blog-site to confuse and confound the Eaton-Golden crowd and give aid and comfort to their opponents.

    The most recent attempts by Jig is Up bloggers to do a “Victory Lap” on Jonathan Judge’s recent loss in court and his subsequent endorsement of Council Candidate Joe Lazar are pointless and probably counterproductive for the Eaton-Golden team and what they are up to.

    For example, when they say that the 33-3 vote against Jonathan Judge and for Kenneth Rice at the Republican Executive Committee was not “addressed” by Atlas-Brooklyn or the Judge supporters, they just haven’t looked at everything that’s been posted on Atlas-Brooklyn and statements to the local press.

    Let’s go over the KCRP selection process that resulted in the 33-3 vote, briefly, one more time. The selection process and vote was not done the way candidates are supposed to be selected under the KCRP by-laws, which is by the state committee members from the district where the election is to be held. Supposedly because the prospective “Republican” candidates in this special election would not be runnig on the Republican Party line, the KCRP Executive Board literally made up an “endorsement” process that included all Executive Board members, most of whom were from outside the district in question and included many appointed members who were not elected by any Republican voters in Brooklyn. Earlier in the “process” an ersatz selection committee chaired by Bob Howe, who collected signatures for Rice prior to the completion of the process, interviewed Kenneth Rice, a complete cipher, not previously known in the politics or civic life of the 44th Council District. At his interview by the selection committee, Mr. Rice showed he had no clue as to anything going on in the 44th Council District or in the Republican Party in Brooklyn. When Rice’s name was put before the Executive Committee by the selection committee, all contrary discussion was cut off and the vote was rammed through by Craig Eaton. Interestingly it’s been reported that the County Law Chairman abstained from the vote after giving his opinion that such a vote was not improper because “it is not prohibited” in the KCRP by-laws. ( During all of this Craig Eaton also went on a rant at the 49th A.D. because of their having embarrassed him with a letter to the Bishop of Brooklyn— the State Committeewoman from the 49th denied the accusation and said Eaton was probably making it all up to distract the Executive Committee from the business at hand).

    The bottom line is that Craig Eaton and the KCRP bent over backwards to avoid having to support Jonathan Judge. That they might have succeeded in their 33-3 vote will have nothing to do with the outcome in the Special Election in the 44th Council District.

    Jonathan Judge single handedly stopped the Republican stampede to Marty Golden’s candidate Greenfield, that’s what counts in the end.

    • March 21, 2010 3:05 pm

      Wow, talk about misinformation…

      Your reading of the Rules (not bylaws – they’re call “Rules”) of the Party is entirely incorrect.

      The Rules govern party “nominations”, and is silent on endorsements in non-party elections. Clearly, the party has no “nomination” in a non-party special election!

      However, the rules adopted for the endorsement at the March meeting mirror the Rules for a “nomination” in a special election – the Chair called for an Executive Board meeting for purposes of such a “nomination”, with sufficient notice given. There was even discussion regarding whether to allow only affected ADs to vote, and it was the opinion of the Executive Committee that the party’s endorsement should be open to the vote of the party, and that individual ADs could endorse who they so choose in a manner of their own choosing.

      By the way, the vote on the adoption of rules was unanimous.

      In addition, here are some facts that have been left out: a leader of the 49th AD made a motion for an endorsement vote at the February meeting by the entire Executive Committee (the previous month), which was ultimately tabled to allow for both candidates to appear before the Executive Committee and allow for such a vote. Thus, the March vote itself was an accommodation to the 49th AD’s motion!

      For the record, the 49th AD endorsed and supported Jonathan Judge’s candidacy.

      So if the rules were unanimously adopted, and the March vote was a result of accommodating the 49th AD’s motion, how exactly was foul play afoot? If anything, concessions were made to minority view points!

      But this shading of facts is par for the course.

      You talk about how there were people who were not voted into a position that were allowed to vote, yet you forget to call them VICE-CHAIRS. The Chairman may appoint vice-chairs to fill positions established in the Rules. I am one of them, yet my presence wasn’t objected, only newer vice chairs. Would it have been better to selectively excluded duly appointed vice chairs from the meeting?

      You talk about ramming votes down people’s throats, yet you neglect to mention that each candidate was given equal time before the Executive Committee

      You talk about chicanery in a screening committee of candidates – that also screened non-Republicans – and use that as proof of favoritism, yet fail to mention that such a meeting had happened before the FEBRUARY meeting, LONG before the election was set and petitioning was opened.

      Enough crying over spilled milk. If you want to whine over how the vote turned out, I guess that’s your prerogative. If you want to cry that a neophyte like Ken Rice impressed the vast majority of the Executive Board, I guess you can do that, too. But to say that the rules were set into opposition at so many stages is just out-and-out lying to people.

      • Some "Leadership" permalink
        March 21, 2010 4:10 pm

        Somebody’s got his panties in a bunch. The fact is the KCRP adopted new rules same day of the endorsement (in other words, making up the rules as they go along).

        Gene B’s prerogative is to not be embarrassed because he fancies himself to be the legal wizard of the KCRP. The fact of the matter is the entire process by which the GOP endorsed the no-name neophyte Rice was tainted due to their stunning hatred for Jonathan Judge. JJ was deferential and respectful to the entire leadership of the party from the outset of his candidacy. From what I heard, he answered questions at the March meeting that were prepared in advance by district leaders to try and bash him for every rumor and every wrong they have ever perceived, often without any facts to back them up.

        It’s simple: they hate Jonathan. It’s bizarre, irrational, and inappropriate, and everyone knows it.

        And now they have alienated another potential star in the party.

        Some “leadership” you guys demonstrated.

      • March 21, 2010 4:46 pm

        A legal “wizard”? LOL. I don’t “fancy” myself to be anything other than an young attorney working hard and gaining as much experience and expertise as I am able.

        Embarrassment is/was never a concern. I know that I don’t know all, but one thing I’ve learned is that while people are entitled to their own opinion, they’re not entitled to their own facts. And I was responding to the spin-laced rhetoric being passed off as such.

        The facts are undeniable – the 49th called for the Party to endorse a candidate in February. The motion was then tabled until March when the Executive Committee gave both candidates equal time, unanimously adopted a structure for dealing with a non-party “endorsement”, and each member voted based on their preference.

        The rest is spin and conjecture – which is fine by me, but shows ignorance at best and manipulative intentions at worst. We’re all better served to deal in fact rather than spin.

  8. HG-WT, Wire Paladin permalink
    March 21, 2010 5:01 pm

    To Gene B:

    Let’s get this straight. When we’re discussing the “endorsement” meeting, how could the “the Chair [have] called for an Executive Board meeting for purposes of such a ‘nomination’ [actually “endorsement”], with sufficient notice given” under what you said were “rules adopted for the endorsement at the March meeting [which] mirror the Rules for a ‘nomination’ in a special election”? When were the rules changed to accomadate “endorsement”? Wasn’t that at the very meeting already called for such endorsement? Isn’t that just the same way that Alfalfa and Spanky made up “by-laws” to keep Darla out of the “He-man Woman Haters Club”?

    How con you say that the 49th AD State Committee Members are responsible for or consented to the “rules changes” that allowed the 33-3 vote in favor of Kenneth Rice by asking for a vote on an endorsement at the prior meeting, with or without rules changes, and having that motion tabled for whatever reason? Maybe if you can explain that, then try explaining “Mandelbrot Sets” of chaotic, boundless, interrelated fractals that apparently arrange, or is it “re-arrange”, in orderly spiral patterns.

    BTW had anybody given any advance warning, heads up or, dare I ask, ” advance copy of the proposed ‘rule changes'” to which you have alluded, prior to this March “endorsement” meeting that used mirrors to endorse Kenneth Rice, saviour to our sad party and our sorely threatened Republic.

    Thanks in advance for your prompt attention and for your always insightful answers.

    • March 21, 2010 6:43 pm

      To get things straight:

      The February Meeting flyer went out with an agenda point to discuss the 44th Council race. At that meeting, a motion was made by the 49th AD to endorse a candidate. That motion was tabled with the intention of taking it up at the March meeting, where both candidates would be invited to attend and make their case for endorsement.

      The March meeting flyer went out to all giving notice of the same. At the meeting, the candidates were heard and questioned. Equal time was granted.

      The Law Committee then issued its report, which in short, recommended that the “endorsement” of the Party for a non-party election is not governed by the Rules of the Party, and recommended adopting a procedure similar to the Rules of the Party for uses for Party “nominations” – the same rules that have been in effect since 2007.

      Now let’s be clear – there was NO Rule “change”. “Change” implies that there were rules in place that were modified. That’s not the case.

      This non-party endorsement is a situation that was not contemplated by the Rules of the Party. Thus, there was no mechanism in place to facilitate the 49th AD’s motion. Using the Rules as guidance, the Law Committee recommended using similar provisions that govern party “nominations” for a given partisan race to be used for this situation, which all agreed – included the 49th AD – was reasonable. There was no written report, but the rules were sufficiently explained, there was discussion and debate, and unanimous adoption. The Rules of the Party were available in writing to be reviewed by any member. None chose to do so.

      With the process by which the endorsement would be made unanimously agreed upon, Committee members made motions to endorse both Mr. Rice and Mr. Judge. After some discussion, members voted either “Judge”, “Rice” or “Abstention”, and the results were 33-3-3.

      So to summarize, the motion to endorse was made by the 49th AD. It was tabled in order to address it at the subsequent meeting. At said subsequent meeting, candidates seeking endorsement were given equal time to make their case. The Law Committee accommodated the 49th AD’s motion by recommending a framework to handle a situation not considered with the Party’s rules, which were agreed upon unanimously. And a candidate was endorsed.

  9. Colonel DeVerite d’Eton permalink
    March 21, 2010 7:40 pm

    A “Kernel of Truth” from the: Vice Chairman Gene B.:

    “The Law Committee then issued its report, which in short, [found that a motion for] (Gene the use of “recommended” here is just plain wrong, so we corrected it– hope you don’t mind)the “endorsement” of the Party for a non-party election is not governed by the Rules of the Party….Now let’s be clear – there was NO Rule “change”. “Change” implies that there were rules in place that were modified. That’s not the case.[] This non-party endorsement is a situation that was not contemplated by the Rules of the Party. Thus, there was no mechanism in place to facilitate the 49th AD’s motion. (Which then simply should have been ruled “Out of Order”, except that Craig Eaton had a clever plan for the 49th to be hoist on its own petard.)

    “With the process by which the endorsement would be made unanimously agreed upon, Committee members made motions to endorse both Mr. Rice and Mr. Judge. After some discussion, members voted either “Judge”, “Rice” or “Abstention”, and the results were 33-3-3….The Law Committee accommodated the 49th AD’s motion by recommending a framework to handle a situation not considered with the Party’s rules, which were agreed upon unanimously. And a candidate was endorsed.”

    Q.E.D. It was the fault of the 49th A.D. State Committee Members that the KCRP Executive Committee unanimously engaged in an ultra-vires act of making an “Endorsement” in a non-partisan special election. Then by a vote of 33-3-3 made an endorsement of a Republican Candidate Kenneth Rice, who cannot win and who is running against a candidate endorsed by Brooklyn’s only elected Republican office-holder and the Republican-endorsed Mayor of the City of New York.

    Gene, maybe that’s how it went down, but, you’ll have to admit it still makes no sense politically.

    It looks like Jonathan Judge, just like the radio and movie serial hero “The Shadow”, vanquishes his foes by causing them to be confused when they attempt to confront him.

    • March 21, 2010 8:21 pm

      And if you want my opinion on the political prudence of endorsing Mr. Rice, I’ve said it all on my blog, but I’ll repeat it here:

      “I thought [Ken Rice] handled matters coolly, professionally, and his genuine personality shone through. Polish will come with time and experience, but I thought that he has what it takes.”

      “A second reason – how often has the Republican Party been accused of backing the “same old” crew of people? Ken Rice is brand new – a fresh face who reached out to the party (and to his Republican opponent) and expressed desire to get involved and to run. That says a lot about Ken Rice, and our support sends a message that the day of the “same old” crew is over, and that we are embracing a “big tent” mentality in the spirit of growing the party.”

      • Pathetic permalink
        March 21, 2010 9:10 pm

        Rice raised just as much as the paltry, pathetic sum raised by Gene B. WITH party “support.”

        I think Gene B. is scared to call a spade a spade because he knows that he is only slightly better a candidate than Rice, which isn’t saying much.

      • March 21, 2010 9:32 pm

        Your screen name matches the quality of your comment – this isn’t about me.

        Your opinion about my past candidacy aside, I sincerely hope that Ken Rice exceeds what I did – and given the time constraints on his race, I think he has and will.

      • Pathetic permalink
        March 21, 2010 9:36 pm

        Given the time constraints of your race, you did ridiculously bad. And if you don’t see the fact that Rice is a (perhaps unknowing) pawn for Golden, Lopez, and Greenfield, you’re also a moron.

      • March 21, 2010 10:02 pm

        Yes yes, when all else fails, hurl the insults and intimate baseless conspiracy theories… that is, after all, the Atlas way. Continue living up to that well thought-out alias.

      • Pathetic permalink
        March 21, 2010 10:45 pm

        Uh, is it not a fact that in a general election you raised a couple of thousand dollars? One thousand of that was party money. Is that a conspiracy theory?

        Is it a conspiracy theory that Marty Golden is supporting David Greenfield?

        Is it a conspiracy theory that Ken Rice is an unknown?

        Is it a conspiracy theory that Rice doesn’t have experience?

        Is it a conspiracy theory that the party chose a less qualified candidate to go against Vito Lopez’s candidate?

        Is it a conspiracy theory that Craig Eaton is the legal counsel for an organization that made robocalls for Vito Lopez?

        Give me a break. Stop covering up for a party leadership that is making every bad move they could possibly make.

        Oh, and “Pathetic” was dedicated to you, moron.

      • March 21, 2010 11:39 pm

        The conspiracy I was referring to, Pathetic, is what you said earlier – that Ken Rice’s campaign is a product of a conspiracy between Marty Golden, David Greenfield and Vito Lopez. LOL, Don’t you read what you yourself write? Or is it all stream of consciousness when fingers aren’t connected to brain?

        You continue to try to make this about me personally – I didn’t realize that you cared so much! Since, you care so much, perhaps we should meet up sometime so you can tell me everything to my face. I’ll even buy the first cup of coffee.

        But to your questions – all of them are prejudiced in their construction. Which, by the way, is …. oh hell, the continual jokes about your name bore me. But here are some answers:

        * Since you insist on making this about me: I ran the second-best Republican challenge in Brooklyn (endorsed by both Marty Golden, Curtis Sliwa and Mayor Bloomberg) of 2009 against the two-time incumbent who is assistant speaker of the City Council – and did so on a shoe-string budget – in a candidacy that the City Hall News said “(made) a splash” and was “considered to have a legitimate chance to win.”

        * Marty Golden endorsed a candidate before any Republican declared a candidacy whose “own political perspective would probably be amenable to a Republican philosophy of government.” Those aren’t my words – they’re Jonathan Judge’s.

        * Ken Rice is a bright, energetic young professional who reached out to the Republican Party to run for Council. You see inexperience and being unknown as negatives. I see them as positives for our party. The fact that we are attracting such people to step up and run is great for our party. And we will continue to do so in the future.

        *Mr. Eaton did legal work for a robocall company that worked for someone else – gasp! Shocking. Now connect him to Kevin Bacon.


        Oh, so YOU named YOURSELF “Pathetic” in order to insult ME. Ah. Makes TOTAL sense now.

      • Pathetic permalink
        March 22, 2010 12:11 am

        Gene, you’re a moron and a cherry-picker. You cherry-pick your comments and your quotes, from what I can see. I googled that quote from Jonathan Judge. It was said before the election and Golden endorsed Vito Lopez Democrat Greenfield, so nice try with that. I think all of our opinions of Golden changed in the last few months with Atlas’ tell-alls.

        You raised little to no money on your own. FACT

        Marty Golden had an obligation to endorse the better REPUBLICAN candidate and un-endorse the Vito Lopez candidate. FACT

        You said, “You see inexperience and being unknown as negatives. I see them as positives for our party.” That line alone proves you’re both useless and oblivious. I can’t believe you wrote that line, but failure is as failures does. FACT

        You said, “Mr. Eaton did legal work for a robocall company that worked for someone else.” Uh, it was Bishop DiMarzio’s robocalls for Vito Lopez. FACT

        Oh, and no, “Pathetic” was directed toward you from the beginning in reference to your pathetic comments, you Eaton douche. Next time, answer the questions.

        Either you’re acting stupid or it’s not an act.

      • BLAH BLAH GENE B permalink
        March 22, 2010 12:15 am

      • March 22, 2010 12:27 am

        So Jonathan Judge’s warm remarks toward David Greenfield don’t apply because they were made pre-candidacy, (putting aside his subsequent flip-flop towards lifelong Democratic politician Joe Lazar post-candidacy!) yet Marty Golden’s endorsement is tantamount to conspiracy even though it was made before a single Republican entered the race. I suppose Marty should follow Jonathan’s lead and flip-flop as well!

        How can I argue in the face of such airtight discourse!

      • Pathetic permalink
        March 22, 2010 2:09 am

        The level of stupidity you’ve demonstrated: stunning.

        I think I’ll stand by my last remarks, since you didn’t really respond to them.

        Marty Golden had a chance to retract his endorsement and do the right thing. He didn’t. And frankly, at least supporting Lazar would not be a boon to Vito Lopez, who is the real villain in all this. Lazar is at least a DINO and a fiscal conservative.

        I think Judge would much rather represent the district himself than anyone else. But Vito Lopez and the Brooklyn GOP with Diane Rudiano did everything in their power to rig the system, so there you go.

        That’s not conspiracy. It’s fact.

        And fyi, you’re not “arguing.” You’re not capable of that. You don’t seem to be capable of anything more than whining. Get a clue, moron.

  10. March 21, 2010 8:07 pm

    OK, let’s use words along with their proper meaning…

    There was no “ultra vires” act. You’re essentially arguing that a political party cannot make an informal endorsement of a candidate in an election where said party has no candidate whatsoever! Ridiculous.

  11. Bruno permalink
    March 21, 2010 10:43 pm

    Marty Golden endorses David Greenfield.
    Lew Fidler endorses David Greenfield.
    Therefore: Marty Golden endorses Lew Fidler.

    {Pythagorean Triples–sets of numbers that satisfy the equation}

    Gene B. is LEFT OUT!

  12. Colonel DeVerite d’Eton permalink
    March 21, 2010 11:37 pm

    Just give us one more kernal of truth Vice Chairman Gene B.

    Why did you not vote to endorse Jonathan Judge? Can we infer from one of the stated reasons that you voted for Kenneth Rice that thought Jonathan Judge was not a fresh enough face and was part of the “same old” crew of people that Republican Party has been accused of backing? Or was it that Jonathan Judge was uncool, non-professional and unable to let his genuine personality shine through? Or was it a “geschtalt” sort of thing that you did not think that Jonathan “had what it takes”?

  13. Colonel DeVerite d’Eton permalink
    March 21, 2010 11:48 pm

    Uh Oh, I appologize Gene B, you already had provided one more kernal of truth.

    I missed the reason that you gave for why you didn’t vote for Jonathan Judge. It’s because it was in answer or rebuttal to a different remark that I’d made about the “ultra vires” vote of the Executive Committee.

    You didn’t vote for Jonathan Judge because “a political party cannot make an informal endorsement of a candidate in an election where said party has no candidate whatsoever.”

    You have spoken the truth— and you have articulated the conspiracy of the KCRP Executive Committee with respect to the Special Election in the 44th Council District.

    • March 21, 2010 11:54 pm

      LOL… glad to see that context means nothing to you.

      It’s amazing how those opening words “You’re essentially arguing that” mean nothing to you.

      If nothing else, this site a wonderful for a laugh.

  14. Colonel DeVerite d’Eton permalink
    March 22, 2010 12:04 am

    Sometimes we chose to amuse.

    But this time….

  15. Sal permalink
    March 22, 2010 12:05 am

    Yo Gene B
    How much business did that douche Eaton throw your way?
    Still notta nough to fill your plate

    • March 22, 2010 12:28 am

      Not one penny, sir. Thank you for asking.

      • Sal permalink
        March 22, 2010 12:49 am

        Den you are a real moron


  1. As Election Closes, Republican-Led Catholic Citizens Committee Distributing Lopez Candidate Greenfield’s Literature « Atlas Shrugs in Brooklyn

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: