October 17, 2002
Election notes
Masiello endorses and Channel 7 takes a pass
Buffalo Mayor Tony Masiello finally delivered his long-expected endorsement of Governor George Pataki Wednesday afternoon. He'd have done it earlier, but he apparently waited until the most recent Quinnipiac Institute poll showed Pataki holding and perhaps increasing his double-digit lead over Democratic challenger Carl McCall. With McCall that far behind, Golisano outspending everybody on tv ads and the Buffalo News pretty much pretending that McCall doesn't exist, Masiello decided now was the time to get out in front and take an authoritative position on these matters.
Pataki was with Masiello for the event. I don't know if that was the reason he was in town or if he just heard about it and stopped by to lend encouragement. After all, it's got to be at least a little difficult for the mayor to turn his back on the Democratic Party friends and colleagues he was cozening up to only a few weeks ago during the party chairmanship brawl.
I wasn't there but a reporter friend told me that, in the great tradition of a man who knows how to command center stage, Pataki never moved off the lectern, so Masiello had to announce his support by swinging the microphone off to the side.
Channel 7's 11:00 o'clock news program didn't cover the event at all, I assume because they considered their location story of Baby Joe Mesi doing a shirtless mock weigh-in at a local sporting goods emporium and a remote story about a 8-year-old boy's successful Spam recipe that utilized a stick and, I think, some kind of pastry wrap, more important, or at least more interesting.
The dirty money comes out for Buffalo's Proposition 1
There's been a lot of behind-the-scenes money underwriting the Common Council reduction hype for months, and now it's started to be spent in ways the public can see. On Wednesday many Buffalo voters received in the mail 11"x6" cards announcing nonsense benefits that will come from getting rid of the at-large members of the Common Council.
The card is from the "Committee for Council Reduction," which has only a post office box for an address and no listed telephone number. The side with the address shows three people: a white male firefighter and a black male cop posed against the stripes of an American flag and a grinning middle aged woman posed in front of what seems to be a blackboard with high school math stuff on it. She's got a pointer in her hand. Do they use pointers in high school math these days?
The back of the card is a bunch of lousy logic and deceptive prose, really smarmy stuff. It says that the vote on Proposition 1 is a vote between "bigger government or better services for families, children and seniors." That's what this is about? We can really make that choice? Getting rid of three black reps and all the at-large members on the Common Council is about that? Giving the developers Jim Pitts' head will get us that?
It goes on to say that a yes vote means "we will be able to utilize tax dollars we are currently paying politicians to bring back police, firefighters and public school teachers," which is nonsense. This isn't dominoes, where all the tiles stay on the board, ready to be moved around.
Then it says, "It's a simple equation: fewer politicians means restoring important services for Buffalo residents. It means better police protection. Better fire protection. More teachers to help our kids." What kind of moron really believes you could squeeze all that out of four cut jobs in the Council? If the authors of this card really do believe this drivel they should be turned over to that grinning woman with the pointer, and she should maybe think of alternative uses for it.
At the bottom, the card says, "Tuesday, November 5th, Vote to Help Our Families, Children and Seniors."
That's not what the anonymous senders of this card want. They want to get rid of the only possible place in city government for elected city-wide officials who aren't directly controllable by the mayor's office. This is nasty stuff, a lot of lies and innuendo and cruel manipulation of people who are hurting. And we've got three weeks to go until the election. There will no doubt be more of these anonymous mailings.
How do you think these guys who are spending a lot of money but won't tell their names will handle things once they get rid of people who can afford to say no to them?
—B.J.