A mysterious last-minute smear campaign against Attorney Brian Monahan appears to have back-fired. With 338 votes, he easily captured the Republican nomination in Easton's magisterial district of Williams Township, Glendon Borough and Easton's south side. But Easton councilman Dan Corpora just as easily got the Democratic nod, garnering 546 votes.
Monahan and Corpora will face off in November. Combining both parties, we have the following vote totals: Corpora - 737; Monahan - 659; and Greene - 202.
Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
18 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
What happened to finding out who did the last minute smear campaign? Maybe it was Monahan himself. He was able to get the sympathy vote and accuse his opponents.
ReplyDeleteI thought you, Bernie, said you were going to dig to find out who did the mailings.
Anon 5:03,
ReplyDelete1) I know who did the smear campaign.
2) Monahan never accused anyone.
3) I made myself a promise that I won't rest until I both publicly expose the slimeball, and ensure that the appropriate action is taken against him. You can take that to the bank.
Anonymous, I think that's one of the most ridiculous accusations I've ever heard. Do you really think Monahan would engineer such a convoluted plan?
ReplyDeleteSeriously?
Thats funny a letter I received from Monahan during primary week stated:
ReplyDeleteWhy have we not been told on whose behalf the mailer was sent? Was the instigator of that mailer too embarrassed to disclose his or her name? What is most appalling is that a person who wants to sit on the bench as judge and uphold the law is willing to benefit from this disregard of our election laws. (end of paragraph)
It sounds to me like he was insinuating it was either of his opponents. I also heard from Mr. Monahan and his son he knew who sent the mailer when the first went out. Whether he learned at the first or the second mailer, why didn't he disclose this information? He used it to hurt his opponents as Mr. Monahan seemed to imply in his letter. He could also gather as many sympathy votes as he could. That is wrong.
Anon 7:39,
ReplyDeleteHaven't seen Monahan's mailer. I was under the impression he pointed no fingers. I'll check out the letter.
Based upon the paragraph you quote, your point is valid.
I will scan and email the entire letter to you which is clearly on Brian Monahan letter head with his address and signature.
ReplyDeleteI do not think politics in such a small town should have been like this. They never were prior to Monahan entering a race.
Your email is?
My email addy is BOHare5948@aol.com
ReplyDeleteAnon, you stated that Monahan learned of the identity of the anonymous sender, and asked why he didn't disclose this information. If he had publicly accused Mr. X of the smear campaign based only on suspicions and no solid proof, he'd be subject to libel.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that the public wasn't made privvy to Mr. X's identity prior to the primary, but It wouldn't have made a difference. Bottom line is that Greene didn't have much of a chance to win this election because she had no experience. Monahan's a lawyer, and Corpora has many years of public service. It's easy to argue why Monahan or Corpora would make good judges. Many people will vote for Monahan because they appreciate his legal background. Others don't like the idea of a defense lawyer being a judge which left them with two choices. Corpora's many years of solid public service made that choice easy.
You mentioned sympathy votes. The people I spoke to voted for Monahan because of his legal experience, and not because they felt bad for him.
I don't blame Greene for being angry and upset. When I and other people received the negative mailer, we immediately thought it was her that sent it. Why? Because she had been saying many negative things about Monahan. Does that mean she deserved to get the blame? Absolutely not. However, when you decide to play in mud, you should expect to get dirty.
I believe Bernie when he says that he will out Mr. X. On that day, Greene will be vindicated.
Last, you said that politics in such a small town shouldn't be like this and that they never were prior to Monahan enter the race. That sounds like you're blaming Monahan for things getting dirty. I disagree with that. First, Greene started the dirty campaign by attacking Monahan's character instead of focusing on why she herself would make a good candidate. Second, Monahan didn't pull the first punch. He was attacked viciously and defended his character. Let's also remember that Monahan ran for another position not too many years ago and he didn't engage in negative campaigning then, either. To try and blame this mess on him isn't fair at all.
I am just chiming in since I am a friend of C. Greene. Cindy told me about this blog last week when Bernie called her. What exactly did Cindy say to bad mouth Mr. Monahan in public? She worked, and walked 5-6 miles a day toward the campaign. Losing is probably not going to stay with her long since she is positive and will move. I know her and she will clear the fact that she is not a person to do mudslinging or harm to any person.
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe she would say anything but the truth as it happens about Monahan. She has put her self out there to try to make a difference. I respect that. LV housewife, could you? I am in the PTA an feel I know who the LV housewife is. Maybe you should just be a housewife since your facts are not correct.
Anon 12:25,
ReplyDeleteYou asked how Greene bad mouthed Monahan. The answer is that she was pretty much saying the same thing that the anonymous mailer said. That was why I and others jumped to the wrong conclusion.
You say you think you know who I am. I doubt it, but if by chance you're right, then so what? The only thing I did wrong was to jump to the wrong conclusion about her being the one who sent out the mailing. Bernie cleared that up almost immediately by making it clear that neither Corpora nor Greene were behind the mailing.
I have no doubt that she is upset about how the election played out, but as I mentioned above, I don't think she ever really stood a chance.
You also said 'maybe you should be just a housewife since your facts are not correct.' Just a housewife? That makes me think you don't hold this profession in high esteem. I do, and that's why I chose it as my name. Other than having to scrub toilets, it's a wonderful job.
I'll clode by saying this. From what I know about each candidate, I don't think any of them is responsible for that mailer.
ReplyDeleteAhhhh - the sanctity of Cyber Justice.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you people doing?
Here's a thought: get off the internet and go read a factual newspaper - or three. Then go to the library and do some more research. Then go talk to your questionable characters directly. Then go to the Law Library and do even more research. Then go sit in a few meetings where each of these people are doing their "jobs", then - when you have questions about why and how they do their job - ask them directly.
...before getting on "CyberCourt with Judge Bernie" and slinging more mud than all pork farms in the County combined.
Lord knows, even a few of the best news sources may be flawed, but - at least it's held to some standard.
Why are you looking to blog site, written by a wannabe Cyber-Chet Huntley, hanging on every nuance of the BIG MYSTERY TOUR. Or to out the "slimeball" for a certified public cyber-hanging.
My god, you people sound like McCarthy revisited.
Then you put it in writing, with few amusing pictures and cyberquips ..and it's suddenly THE BIBLE OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE.
Bernie, I think it's time to get out of the house a little. And, maybe - while you're at it - think about a little professional degree from NYU's School of Journalism before taking yourself so seriously.
Frankly, I could care LESS who sent the flyer(s).
The insinuation, the suggestive inuendos, your self-proclaimed justice-seeking shenanigans...
...are FAR more disturbing to me than the flyer itself.
As far as I'm concerned, this much maligned perpetrator's worst offense is having REPRINTED (and distributed for your perusing pleasure) a quote from A PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN THE MORNING CALL...that clearly had already established and reported on "the dirty deed": witholding crucial information that held up the process of properly charging a guilty party, which basically left him out on the streets for an additional - 5 months, was it?
The issue is NOT who outted the outing... IT WAS ALREADY OUT THERE!
How about looking at the core of the issue, and doing your own research about what really happened during the original case, and who the candidate really is.
I know Brian Monahan, personally. We were once friends. But, frankly, I wouldn't trust him with my last nickel. Sure, he's a 'nice guy' on the surface - he's got the schmooze down to a science (well, come to think of it - not even - so much!). But, to answer LV Housewife's question? I must tell you - the thought crossed my mind as well. You ask if he was capable of doing this himself? I say ...could be. I didn't say he did, you asked if he were capable - and I say, it's possible.
I don't know Cindy Greene, but if I may put out a word: Relax, Cindy!
You know, when you've rested the ups and downs of your political career on the Blog Bramblings of a frustrated Carl Bernstein, ...it's time to pack up and go home.
This is not the Gold Standard of Political Analysis.
The issue, as I see it, is a now a crowd of frustrated pundits stirring more mud up for the masses who now feel it is their personal and moral (majority) obligation to HUNT DOWN and CRUCIFY the SLIMEBALL who perpetrated the heinous act of distributing an already-published piece.
In honor of the great POO PAA, Jerry Falwell - may he rest in peace - would be proud!
Grow Up!
Get off it.
It sounds like a high school locker room in here.
The very behavior you're all so incensed about - is the very same behavior you're exhibiting here.
Why not just have a public STONING, once Judge Bernie hunts the scoundrel down...
...then, just for laughs, we'll tar 'n feather 'im and string 'im up for more public scrutiny.
Lord help us.
We're no longer in the Dark Ages where uncertainty, insinuation, and self-appointed judge, jury and executioners run rampant.
It's the Year of our Lord, 2007.
Except now, apparently, we have the luxury of using advanced technology to recreate it!
Anon 5:07 & 6:05,
ReplyDeleteI feel your pain. I know how upset you must be. You dropped a few Gs for one of your little last-minute mud campaigns, figuring you'd screw Monahan before anyone knew what was up. You knew the MSM, which avoids campaigns like the plague, would not pick up on it. You had a chance of taking Monahan out, so you let the dirt fly.
Now, despite your righteous protests to the contrary, you defamed Monahan. You did much more than take some quotes from the MC, out of context, of course. In a large bold-faced sentence, you accused him of preventing the prosecution of a "heinous double murder." In other words, you accused Monahan of obstruction of justice. Your accusation is a lie.
Ordinarily, you'd get away with this, and it might have actually toppled Monahan. But all your thousands of dollars blew up in your face. And that is solely because of a simple little blog that doesn't cost me a dime. Hurts, huh.
Things aren't so easy for you as they have been in past years now, are they? I don't blame you for lashing out at the blogosphere.
Thanks to the blogoshere, your treachery was exposed for what it was. Monahan's opponents had an opportunity to condemn publicly your vicious mailer, and they both did so.
And your mailer either backfired or had no effect at all. So basically, you wasted several thousand dollars.
And please don't even bother denying you're the person who sent the mailer. The only person who would defend that smear would be the person who actually sent it.
In mailing your pack of lies about Monahan, you made an "independent expenditure." You spent more than $500, and are therefore subject to the 24 hr. reporting requirement. And having spent more than $100 means you must also file another finance report, which you won't do. Your anonymous mailing is a violation of the disclosure requirement of the Election Code. And please don't cite that Ohio case and start screaming about your first amendment rights. It's a different statute, and you're no ACLU member.
I know who you are. I've spoken to the DA. He knows who you are. Because of your friendship, he can't prosecute you. But the AG can. I've reviewed other incidents in which there were "technical" and unintentional violations, where the AG let things go with a small fine. This was no technical violation. You knew what you were doing. You intended to remain in the shadows. You did not want the voters to know you were spending thousands to violate the Elections Code.
That Elections Code is intended to (1) give individuals a right to run for office, and (2) protect the right of voters to elect candidates of their choice.
Your actions were knowing. They were intended to interfere with the rights protected by the Elections Code. It is no de minimis violation. You've done it before. Unless you're stopped, you'll do it again. I intend to stop you.
Must drive you nuts. You sit there with all your money and sneaking around in the dark, and I sit her with a blog that costs nothing and that even you can see.
One of your points was that we have no right to offer any opinions about anything until we read three newspapers, go to the library and then personally speak to all the candidates involved. I've done all those things. But by your own admission, you haven't even spoken for Cindy Greene.
Have a nice weekend.
Wrong again, Ineptitude-breath.
ReplyDeleteBut, I'm guessing you sincerely believe that the ONLY opponent worthy of rubbing a couple brain cells together and commenting on your McCarthy-esque obsession in general - would have to be a non-regular reader/supporter of your CLOG-blog - and therefore, the perpetrator of the mailings.
I find it extremely disturbing.
And the thought that you assume most of your readers are passive followers in this behavior - frankly, makes me CONSTIPATED at the thought.
Has it occurred to you that someone BESIDES the "slimeball", as you so eloquently and objectively referred to the party in question, might object to your pattern of "High Priest of Moral Fortitude"?
I think it's a sad, yet clear insight into the opinion you hold of your regular readers.
They MUST be too stupid to have an objection to this absurdity, unless they happen to be the "guilty party," right?
Give the guy a break, he's got enough flame-throwers on his butt. Don't give him credit for my opinions. With you on the loose, lord knows - he's shivering in his boots already.
Your commentary is beginning to sound a little testy, Bernie. Little unsettling to be called on the carpet for being a hypocrit?
Or is the adderall just not kicking in this week?
Much as I love a good tete a tete, I'll leave the cyber mouse-wheel for you, Bernie. You can dip it in mud, keep running in circles, and - in the process - fling as much caa caa as necessary to keep your psychosis at bay. Have a ball.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to disagree with you. I think Bernie's been fair. When I contacted him about the mailing, he immediately cautioned me not to jump to any conclusions. Without his 'research' I and many others, would still think it was Greene who was behind it.
In addition, one anonymous person repeated some unsubstantiated gossip about Greene. Bernie told them that was highly inappropriate since they didn't have facts - only gossip.
To me, that gives Bernie a lot of credibility.
You also said, ''As far as I'm concerned, this much maligned perpetrator's worst offense is having REPRINTED (and distributed for your perusing pleasure) a quote from A PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN THE MORNING CALL...that clearly had already established and reported on "the dirty deed": witholding crucial information that held up the process of properly charging a guilty party, which basically left him out on the streets for an additional - 5 months, was it?''
I saw the full Morning Call article. The first sentence was:
Experts in legal procedures and ethics generally agree that Northampton County's chief public defender did the right thing in advising a key witness in a double homicide case to keep quiet.
The person(s) who sent the mailer were purposely trying to deceive the voters, and I really don't understand how you can defend such behavior.
In addition, I'd say that Greene herself might disagree that reprinting the article was his ''worst offense''. Because of that phantom mailing, she was unfairly blamed for this mess.(I'll be the first to admit I thought it was her). Bernie's cleared her name here, but I'm sure that there are many other people who don't have the rest of the story.
LVH,
ReplyDeleteI feel his pain. He must be upset. He spent thousands and had no effect on the election. Ooopsie. He's used to running his sleaze campaigns without being castigated and then the blogosphere arises. Oopsie. He tries vainly to deny he's the perpetrator yet I know no soul who would otherwise attempt to justify this mnalicious libel, which also violated our elections laws. Ooopsie. The MC's Bill White has already picked up on this mudslinging. Oopsie. And now, he is lashing out at my readers, too, calling them stupid for reading me instead of reading his slime. Oopsie.
The fun's just beginning, bippy.
LV housewife
ReplyDeletei'm chinming in here, first time poster. I think you're missing the point. "Northampton County's Chief Public Defender" isn't the person in question. I spoke to the legal consultant quoted directly, and he admits this was a questionable choice. He had a moral problem with it. Monahan's client was not charged with the crime, and so had no reason Not to come forward with the information.
I'm not a regular blog poster, but I have to say, I'm also concerned about the incendiary comments and the too-quick-to-judge comments on here. And your only continuing the mudslinging by continuing to bring the other opponents names into it -good or bad.
It does appear you think that - only the ones who agree with you are standup citizens. You're mistaken. I don't condone mudslinging during elections. But I also don't condone it afterwards; and am smart enough to recognize when it's being called something else entirely.
Peace.
Anon 9:54,
ReplyDeleteThe NorCo chief public defender referred to in the MC article is Brian Monahan. That might not have been clear since I didn't paste the entire article. I completely understand why someone would have a moral problem with the supposed advice he gave, but it's just that - supposed advice. We don't know what took place in that conversation and Monahan isn't able to tell his side of the story because of attorney/client privilege.
I admit that I jumped to the wrong conclusion as to who sent the mailer, and for that I apologize. However, I won't back down on my statement that the person(s) who sent out the mailers were trying to deceive the voters by providing only half the story. They did so under the cloak of anonymity, and I hope that they are identified quickly so that innocent names can be cleared.
If you'll allow, I would like to differ with your opinion that I think "only the ones who agree with [me] are standup citizens." It's not clear to me what gave you that impression, but I can assure it's not true. I'm actually fairly open-minded, despite the way I might have presented myself here. To that point, I've re-read my comments and see one entry which might be perceived as incendiary. If I intimated that anyone (besides the actual phantom mailer) deserved any blame, then I was wrong and again, I apologize.
Thanks for keeping your comments civil.
Peace.