IS MOORE ISSUE A DEMOCRAT SMEAR JOB?
It turns out Jack Moore’s main accuser isn’t a town highway employee.
It’s the town Democratic Committee.
The story is old and tiresome by now. Last month the Henrietta town supervisor, a Republican, was busting chops with the men at the highway barn one morning around 7. In the course of discussing Obamacare, he referred to black people as “your city cousins.”
The exchange was videotaped by the town’s security cameras. Further, it was secretly audio recorded by one of the town employees.
Shortly thereafter, a letter appeared, written to the town Ethics Committee, over the signature of a 30-plus year town employee, calling for Jack Moore’s removal.
Then the dog pile began.
One particularly disgruntled employee family – the wife has filed more than 50 Freedom of Information requests over the last several months, trawling for controversy – assailed Moore as a bully and said he must go. The county Republican Party chairman – miffed by Moore’s failure to obey party dictates – likewise said he must go.
And, naturally, the town Democratic committee weighed in.
That’s the local political entity charged to elect Democrat candidates. The biggest obstacle to that, at least in terms of the supervisor’s race, is the generally popular Republican Jack Moore.
Simeon Banister leads the Henrietta Democrats. He is a veteran political operative and staffer with deep roots in New York City Democratic politics.
He said that the remarks by Jack Moore – for which Moore has apologized and sought diversity training – were beyond the pale and that the supervisor must resign or be removed from office.
It turns out that Banister and the Democratic committee are a little more than interested bystanders in this matter. It seems they were involved from the beginning in planning a reaction to and exploitation of the supervisor’s secretly recorded conversation.
How do we know?
Simeon Banister said so.
On Wednesday, after the town Ethics Panel said it was prevented by state election law from removing an elected official from office, Banister decried the decision and a system he said failed to offer redress.
Then he talked about how the complaint came to be referred to the Ethics Committee.
“We went to the … best option that was available to us,” Simeon Banister told clustered reporters Wednesday, “which was certainly to go to the, uh, the board of Ethics.”
The complaint was filed by a town employee, who in his oft-retold story never mentioned conferring with anyone, or having any outside influence in his action.
The employee said that his lone motivation was to protect the workplace from impropriety, and to set an example for his coworkers.
So how do the actions of one guy with no public connection to the Democratic Committee end up being described by the chairman of the Democratic Committee as a decision taken by the committee?
When the boss of the Democrats talks about “we” making a decision, because it was the best available to “us,” it pretty convincingly becomes a Democrat decision.
Which is fine.
But it’s also a horse of a different color.
All of a sudden, this isn’t about thoughtless language by a town supervisor, it’s about the partisan machinations to take down that supervisor.
Which is where another quote from town Democratic leader Simeon Banister comes in.
Though he has told every TV camera he can find that Jack Moore must go, that his comments impeach him from future service, that there can be no forgiveness, he has not always been so harsh.
In fact, in another political controversy, Simeon Banister took just the opposite position he’s taking now.
In 2010, Democrat New York City Congressman Charlie Rangel was found guilty of 11 different violations of House ethics.
Remember his beach house in the Dominican Republic, the one he forgot to pay taxes on? Remember when he hid hundreds of thousands of dollars? Remember when he got million-dollar contributions from businesses appearing before him in the Ways and Means Committee?
Charlie Rangel was in deep trouble.
And a bi-partisan House ethics panel convicted him on 11 instances of misconduct.
People called for him to be removed.
But Simeon Banister said no.
Then working as a political consultant and sometime spokesman for a New York City councilwoman with her own legal troubles, Simeon Banister said Charlie Rangel should stay.
“Congressman Rangel has committed no crime,” Simeon Banister said, there were “no charges of corruption.
“The worst he should get is a reprimand.”
Guilty on 11 counts of violating House ethics, the center of great controversy, and Simeon Banister said the most Charlie Rangel should get is a reprimand – he certainly should not be removed from office.
And he stated a standard.
Rangel had “committed no crime,” and was not accused of “corruption.” Consequently, Simeon Banister argued, “The worst he should get is a reprimand.”
Well, Jack Moore has committed no crime, and he is not accused of corruption. So why is Simeon Banister calling for anything more than a reprimand?
Why did Simeon Banister say Charlie Rangel should stay, but Jack Moore should go?
Because this is about politics.
This is about Democrat versus Republican.
This is about pretending to be offended, and trying to hype a big stink over it, in order to game an election.
If you doubt me, just look at the words of the Democrat chairman.
- by Bob Lonsberry © 2015