Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Bill Thompson And Christine Quinn Hammer Each Other With Respective Scandals

The gloves are off:

Mayoral rivals Christine Quinn and Bill Thompson are officially going at it, trading blows at an increasingly furious pace as Primary Day–just over a month away–quickly approaches.

Yesterday, Ms. Quinn hit Mr. Thompson for an Ireland investment that went awry while he served as comptroller. The Thompson campaign quickly responded by blaming the City Council speaker for the 2008 slush fund scandal, in which public funds were stored in fictitious organizations–or in the words of the Thompson campaign, “using a corrupt slush fund to park taxpayer dollars in phony charities to buy political support.”

But the back-and-forth was not over there.

In a blistering email sent out this morning, the Thompson campaign stayed on the topic of the council cash and called for additional City Council records to be released from the era.

“She used a corrupt slush fund to park taxpayer dollars in phony charities to buy political support and ran the City Council budget in a way that rewarded her friends and punished those who disagreed with her,” Thompson strategist Jonathan Prince wrote. “Then, under federal investigation, Chris forced taxpayers to pay for her criminal defense lawyers … And now she is refusing to release the documents her city-funded lawyers used to keep her from being indicted.”

The Quinn team was not amused. Reached for a response, they hit back by pointing to a critical New York Post report today that scrutinized Mr. Thompson’s record of distributing funds while serving as chair of the Battery Park City Authority.

“This is a transparent attempt by Bill Thompson to avoid addressing a damning report today that uncovered he was warned by the Inspector General to stop using funds from the Battery Park City Authority to dole out favors to campaign contributors, but continued to do so anyway,” said Quinn spokesman Mike Morey.

“Instead of attacking his opponent in this race,” Mr. Morey added, “he should disclose why he gave out this money against the advice of the inspector general and the IG’s finding that the practice was unlawful.”

If you are a de Blasio supporter, this is just the kind of track you want the campaign to take.

It's interesting how we've gotten to this juncture.

In the early parts of the campaign, Quinn was the candidate most susceptible to charges of corruption and sleaziness.

But we are seeing more and more dirt on Thompson.

Each of these scandal reports may not be fatal to Thompson, but they are starting to draw a picture of Thompson as an unethical politician who has continuously used his office and his connections to enrich himself and his cronies.

That picture could be fatal.

We'll have to see how all of this plays out, but it surely doesn't hurt de Blasio's chances to have Quinn and Thompson using each their respective scandals as bludgeons against each other.

6 comments:

  1. May they both pulverize each other into dust.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Might wanna go easy on the Weiner stories. The news and poll buzz at this point is that a Weiner vote is more likely to shift to Thompson. Let them fight over their turf in the electorate. Thompson needs more trashing at this point.
    Scary how Weiner's #2, Thompson #3 in latest polls in this tracker at Huffington Post: "2013 New York City Mayor Democratic Primary"

    We should hammer these points which I pasted into Ravitch's piece on who's destroying NYS education:
    [Note that Tisch is Chairwoman of Thompson for Mayor; she is Chancellor of the New York State Regents, the body which appointed John King who imposed the draconian teacher evaluation system on New York City, probably the toughest in the state; she has been an endorser of the inBloom online database of student information; she has family connections to the online education system, K12, for homeschoolers and a charter school.]
    You can go to http://nyceye.blogspot.com/2013/08/who-is-destroying-public-education-in.html for the hyperlinks documenting this stuff.
    I drew from your journalism among other sources.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Quinn and Thompson, threats to public safety

    Kudos to King of NY blog. She's posted an important link from deBlasio's office (Advocate) on the impact of hospital closures in Brk Hts, Cob. Hill, Carroll Gdns, Red Hook (LICH)
    and Bed-Stuy (Interfaith)

    Map at this site shows increased time for travel to nearest hospital:
    http://advocate.nyc.gov/news/2013-08-06/de-blasio-closing-lich-would-push-red-hooks-access-health-care-bad-worse

    It shows impact in the LICH area, but the original at King of NY's site shows also map indicating similar impact in Bed-Stuy from Interfaith closure.

    Quinn's taint? --she's been enthusiastic with hospital closures, e.g., St. Vincent.

    See King of NY's blog and videos. Lots of work on Quinn and St. Vincent's.

    Thompson's taint? --he's yet to disclose his records for recent years, which would indicate when he ever ended his relationship with health industry mogul Corbett Price.
    See this Daily News story: "Backing Bill de Blasio, Local 1199 Union Demands Tax Records from Bill Thompson".

    --New York City Eye

    ReplyDelete
  5. More scandalous news re Kurron Capital, Interfaith Hospital, see the article below.
    Remember, Thompson's chum Corbett Price has been CEO in the controversial last decade.
    Those ties are why Local 1999, the hospital workers' union, are demanding that Thompson make clear his tax records.

    http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/27517641/interfaith-hospital-profits-poor-may-be-paying-price

    Crain's Business, Nov. 5, 2007, "Interfaith hospital profits; poor may be paying price"

    CTThe article reports on issues concerning medical care facilities at the Interfaith Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York City. Kurron Shares of America, the firm that manages the Center, was criticized for reducing medical care facilities of the center and later earning a surplus of $8.6 million in 2006. The hospital administration defend their position by stating that cutting costs ensured the hospital's survival that they did at the expense of pregnant patients who can find care elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete