After the the mini storm I raised about the D&C endoring Pirro I really wondered who the D&C would endorse in NY 26. No surprise it’s Reynolds.

Apparently, all ethics violations are equal. Some are less equal than others.

Sunday morning the D&C wrote the endorsement piece. Basically, per the D&C’s opinion, Reynolds brings home the bacon and Davis is a one issue candidate who can’t see the bigger picture.

But it is how they handle the Foley issue that caused me to question the process.

I think the D&C should have taken the same approach with both Reynolds and Hevesi. Wait until the last possible moment to gather enough information and endorse both with conditions or endorse the opponent.

Here’s why

Let’s look again at Hevesi. Now hang on all you “We have to be more ethical than the Republicans” people. Just hang on for a minute.

Last week, the D&C endorsed Callaghan, by their admission the clearly weaker candidate. Per the D&C endorsement it was Hevesi’s ethical probe which the D&C felt disqualified him from their endorsement.

So, what does the D&C say about Reynolds?

…He says he reported what he knew to his “supervisor,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert. But around that time, he also was urging Foley to run for another term. Rather than push for answers about Foley’s behavior, Reynolds accepted money from Foley, who was rolling in campaign dough, for the NRCC.

That was atrocious judgment. If re-elected, Reynolds should not serve in any caucus leadership post. He should focus solely on serving his district. There’s plenty to do there, particularly in bringing the jobs key to upstate revival.

Moreover, if the facts show, when they emerge, ideally from an independent investigation, that Reynolds has lied in his defense, he should resign from the House.

Reynolds is the better candidate in this race. But he should stand accountable for his failures in the Foley matter.

Ok, so please explain to me the difference between Hevesi and Reynolds?
Reynolds brings home the bacon, a probe or investigation shows he demonstrated really really lousy judgement and gets endorsed.

Hevesi, brings home the audit bacon, is under investigation or being probed which preliminary findings say he did something wrong. Yet he doesn’t get an endorsement.

Why can’t the D&C simply say about both of them - upon completion of an independent investigation and if proven guilty they should resign or be fired.

But Hevesi broke the law goes the argument. Well, then try him in the State Senate. He is accused until he is convicted. The U.S. constitution applies to everyone like it or not.

But some investigator said in Sunday’s paper that there are grounds to proceed in removing Hevesi. Yes, but that report was released on Saturday so could not have have factored into the Hevesi endorsement. BUT, read the article, there was little gem about Hevesi’s violations

Kelley, a former federal prosecutor, noted the alleged violations were not criminal.

I think the D&C should have taken the same approach with both Reynolds and Hevesi. Wait until the last possible moment to gather enough information and endorse both with conditions or endorse the opponent.

Again - all ethics violations are equal, some are less equal than others.