Still spoiling for a fight

I never thought I’d say this but not only have the newspapers (chiefly, the TU) dropped the ball on the Spitzer/Bruno story, but a lot of the newspapers’ political blogs have as well. It’s impossible to find any news about the opinions of real people in these places — just a lot of “inside baseball” and Albany name-dropping. Nevertheless, from a look at humble chat-pits like’s regional politics forum, my initial impression is that ordinary citizens feel (1) dismay at the entire distraction of the scandal, (2) a combination of disappointment/anger/bitterness/outrage at Spitzer particularly, but… (3) still a wish/hope that Spitzer could still kick some Albany ass.

In other words, Spitzer may (or may not) be cowed, but I’m not too sure that the citizenry is. They voted the man in for a very clear reason last year. And whether or not it is has misfired, the fact is, the citizens of New York still sent Albany a loaded gun.

Meanwhile, Joe Bruno has broken his media silence:

Mr. Bruno said that New York State voters were looking for the governor to cooperate with lawmakers. “They’re not looking for a chief executive to spy on others in office, to try and degrade and denigrate the work that they do, instead of partnering — that’s not what the public wants,” Mr. Bruno said.

Okay, I think we can nod along with Joe here.

Mr. Bruno continued: “You tell the truth, got to have integrity, Governor, got to have character. Governor, you’ve got to be surrounded by people who don’t appear to be a gang that can’t even shoot straight, because if they could shoot straight, they wouldn’t be finding themselves in the predicament they’re in.”

Translation: “If they could shoot straight, no one would ever have found out about it or cared, just like no one has cared about the shady crap I do, or the shady crap Shelly’s folks do.”

Mr. Bruno, 78, said he has spent 31 years in public life and added: “This governor comes along and he basically says, ‘I declare war.’ By his own words, in print today, six to seven months ago: ‘I declare war.’ And in a war, there are going to be scars. People are going to be hurt. People are going to be injured. But declare war on what? And who? Why? Why did he declare war?”

Gee, I don’t know, Joe. Because you suck? Because the people of New York, irrationally or not, wanted a warrior? Maybe that’s why they sent the arrogant take-no-prisoners Eliot Spitzer and his merry band of groupthinkers to darken your doorstep? Because at least half the state is going down the drain and has been for 20 years and you and your counterpart in the Assembly have done nothing to help? Because both parties are bankrupt of ideas, message, vision? Because you’re not taking governance seriously? Because we send off our legislators and they seem to disappear into some sort of black hole? Because they feel helpless to make anyone in Albany listen? Big news for you, Joe:


So enough with the big, fat, Iron Eyes Cody teardrop for your injured self, Joe. It’s going to wear thin real fast… not that you ever had a sense for that, which is why all you have to show for yourself after 31 years is an FBI investigation and a bobblehead doll.

(This just in: Mr. Bruno is so hurt, so wounded, that he cannot even possibly consider campaign finance reform at this time.)

One thought on “Still spoiling for a fight

  1. Strikeslip

    I thought Mr. Cuomo’s report, and the way it was released (at least the way it was reported in the Utica paper), was very carefully orchestrated and staged.

    Cuomo seemed to be saying that Mr. Bruno’s abuse of taxpayer dollars was the fault of a defective state policy — rather than the fault of a person who puts his own personal interests above the people he serves. Why did he make an excuse for Mr. Bruno?

    There was also the implication that the information about Mr. Bruno’s travels should not have been released because it was exempt from disclosure under FOIL (the exception where release of information would jeopardize someone’s health and safety). Of course, this is nonsense because how could release of info about Mr. Brunos PAST travels (as opposed to future travel plans) threaten his safety? Why the effort to make it appear that Mr. Bruno was personally placed in jeopardy?

    And while the FOIL does not require production of a new compilation of information (as opposed to mere release of records), FOIL does not forbid it. So there was nothing illegal about the State Police compiling the information about Mr. Bruno’s travels. While the public does not like government apparatus to be used to “smear” a person’s reputation, the public DOES expect one party to police the activities of the other. (How else can these guys be kept honest?) That is what was done here. Why the implication that compilation of the information was wrong?

    I think what happened here is an attempt to break the Albany log jam. Spitzer miscalculated with his threatening speech early on and he is now paying for it by Bruno holding up everything. Here it is well into Year One and Spitzer can’t even get his own people in as agency heads. Spitzer is desperate. This report created a great opportunity for a “mea culpa” in the hope that Bruno might forgive and forget.

Comments are closed.