Some start to ask “is it time for Minarik to step down?”
Gates blogger Lee Strong is one of the first to pose this question:
So, Gates Republicans, is it time for Minarik to step down?
Brooks sure didn’t sound firmly supportive when she was asked about it, and his antics sour the perception of the GOP - with public opinion linking him with most of the negative ads this year.
(I was glad to see the Gates Republicans avoided going negative.)
The Democrats made inroads across the county - sometimes in spite of themselves - and I think Minarik bears some of the blame (or credit, depending on your point of view).
We’ll be hearing more of this. And I hope that — as with the calls for reform in Albany — the criticism of Minarik is bipartisan. No one benefits from one man rule at the county level — not Repubicans, not Democrats, and certainly not the citizens of the county.
Exile:
This was my response to Lee’s post:
It must be getting quite crowded on the anti-Minarik bandwagon.
Let me start by saying that Steve Minarik is my friend and he has been a good friend to the Republican Party in the Town of Gates.
It is easy to criticise someone in public life. Certainly, all of you are free to express disdain for Steve, but it makes me laugh when some of you opine cluelessly about his competence.
Steve does not need me to defend him. His record of success is clear. Some of you apparently need a history lesson, however. Steve Minarik took over after Tom Frey became the first (and still only) Democratic County Executive. Steve engineered Bob King’s victory and started a 20 year run of GOP success in Monroe County. His effort to have the voters reject the county redistricting plan in the early 90’s is the reason the GOP has held the Legislature since then.
You don’t like him because he’s harsh? He’s rude? He’s a bully? Truth be told, most of you don’t like him because he’s a winner.
Successful party leaders are usually tough and often disliked. Lets ask for an opinion of Tom Cook. It’s too bad the blogs didn’t exist when Fran Weisberg was the “take no prisioners” leader of the Democrats. I wonder what you all would have said about her.
Unfortunately for you Dems, your recent experience with party leaders has been with guys like Bob Cook and Ted O’Brien. Nice guys, who got their hats handed to them. Joe Morelle is a lot better, but his failure to get an opponent for Maggie seems hard to accept.
You want ascribe Tuesday’s difficulties to Steve? I doubt that Steve Minarik was solely resposibile for the lowest turnout since 1964. I’d say the national political scene, the weather, and no competitive race at the top of the ticket (hey, maybe Morelle’s move wasn’t so bad) had something to do with it.
Finally, about the FAIR plan. You are all certain this was a Minarik error. Did you read today’s paper? The headline is a Comptroller report about profligate school spending. On the op-ed page Sandra Parker acknowledged that the plan was a good idea governmentally. Maybe, just maybe, Maggie’s plan wasn’t so off base.
You don’t like Steve’s style, so be it. Just try to admit to yourselves that a little bit of your opprobrium comes from resentment at his success against you.
I’m not sure you should count him out just yet.
Hey DiCaro … if Minarik and his gang had run a positive election campaign, debated fairly on the issues, allowed appropriate amounts of public input prior to the vote on the FAIR plan, run an open government, not sent COMIDA grants to political donors, etc. … and then won, we would not have this animosity towards Minarik. But obviously, Minarik and the Republicans cannot win this way … which is why they campaign and run the government the way they do. And I doubt seriously if the same high level of animosity that Dems feel towards Minarik would exist if Repubs ran positive campaigns and acted less thuggishly in government.
Minarik’s style is anti-democratic and offensive. And yes, we truly do resent his style and it has nothing to do with his success … we would dislike his style just as much if he lost. You see, style exists independently of success.
Please don’t tell me (and don’t tell us Dems) what it is that we like and don’t like. You have no right, nor do you have an insight into our brains that allows you to make such statements.
And let me add that I supported dumping him as state GOP chair, even though his continued tenure there would have guaranteed massive victories for Democrats at the state level. He has to be the worst state chair in New York State history if not the worst state chair of any state in American history. He lost four races by an average of thirty points last year!
I don’t like his brand of poltiics. Period. And I don’t think he helps the Monroe County GOP at this point. We’re about equal on reg numbers, the Republicans have huge fundraising advantages (not all of which is his doing) and about equal in the lej. That makes him a genius?
John, it really is because I think he’s a thug and a bully. And because I think he controls Monroe County government more than any one person should.
He’s not that conservative or anything (he supports Bloomberg for prez). I really don’t like his style. And I don’t think you can call him a “winner” after the 2006 New York State debacle. “Winners” don’t lose races by 20 points to Alan Hevesi.
Exile:
I wouldn’t ask you to change your opinion of Steve’s style, but you’re way off base about his tenure and departure from the State Chair position.
That had to do with internal State GOP politics, not Steve’s record in 2006. The center of power in the GOP shifted from George Pataki to Joe Bruno and it was Gov. Pataki who asked Steve to take the job. Further, you know that the 2006 election was all about Bush, Iraq and the dysfunctional GOP Congress. No Republican leader could have beaten Spitzer, Clinton, or even Hevesi in 2006.
WOW - so you admit that Bruno is the root of the problem of all things republican. You read it here first folks!
“No Republican leader could have beaten Spitzer, Clinton, or even Hevesi in 2006.”
…or in 2008, 2009, or 2010. Word to your mother.
I’m sure we’re debating with a ghost at this point, since our friend has most likely moved on to other blogs to defend his buddy. Having said that. . .
One bit from the above quote that bears addressing: irrespective of whether or not Minarik’s work was responsible for lowered turn out, the fact remains that Republicans always fair better in elections with depressed turnout. This is true across the country, across the board. So the fact is that Minarik should have done better in such an election, which makes his 2-1 loss just that much worse.
I’m also pretty sure that Minarik’s sleazy mailers were meant specifically to depress turn out for that reason. It’s classic Rovian Politics 101: if only the old curmudgeons come out and vote, Republicans win. Surely, that mailer wasn’t meant to endear anyone to Republicans?
DFE:
Low turnout may favor Republicans in places where the electorate is less well-educated and less politically aware. The electorate in Monroe County is relatively well educated and politically motivated, so the GOP does not have much of an inherent turn-out advantage.
I would further suggest that Republican turn-out has been supressed due to the negative political environment for Republicans nationally. 2006 was a real low point in GOP fortunes nationally, but there is still a “wet blanket” weighing down Republican voters, which may continue to impede our turn-out unless the GOP can keep the White House in 2008.
And, as I noted above, Steve doesn’t need me to defend him. I just figured that you all needed a counter-point to your Minarik slam-fest.
“You don’t like him because he’s harsh? He’s rude? He’s a bully? Truth be told, most of you don’t like him because he’s a winner.”
HAHAHA! Seek professional medical attention John! That one goes down in the history books!
…but since you asked - I don’t like him because he’s a liar, a fear mongerer, a dictator, UNLOYAL to your own POTUS, a traitor, home-wrecker, and to top all that off, he’s offensive to look at, and I mean that seriously. Truth be told, I don’t like him at all because he’s a loser.
I think its time for me to tune out the anecdotes, and bloggers, who say that things are looking bad for Minarik. Until such time as some Rethuglican actually stands up to Minarik and threatens his county legislature majority, I don’t believe the anecdotes and I don’t believe the bloggers whose opinion it is that Minarik is in trouble.
“You don’t like him because he’s harsh? He’s rude? He’s a bully? Truth be told, most of you don’t like him because he’s a winner.”
NO, most people don’t like him because he’s a douche bag who happens to also win elections, at least as head of your party. It’s perfectly normal, even expected, for his opponents to envy his success. Who can blame them? But that’s hardly the reason he’s so reviled. The issue is, has been and continues to be, how he gets that success.
His often sleazy, racist fear-mongering and generally despicable tactics that make him a “winner”. It’s also what makes him so reviled. (He goes way beyond being “rude” or a “bully”)
Is Minarik a sleazy, racist, despicable INDIVIDUAL? It really doesn’t matter to most of us, because we don’t know him individually. (He’s your friend. That’s great and all…but hardly the point). I suspect he probably is, but it’s really irrelevant. Even if he’s not, even if he’s a saint at home, it doesn’t matter because that’s not the public persona.
We know him as the face of the Republican party and how he has both PERFORMED (with great success) and ACTED (with great vulgarity), and that is how we respond to him. If it is success that defines this man’s legacy, then it can’t be separated from how he achieved that success. (The “how” of course well document on this site and many other places; sleazy and racist is the tip of the iceberg)
The problem is, and one of the big differences between Minarik (And Tom COok too) and the Democratic opposites, is he is not in any way actually interested in GOVERNING. He’s interested in winning. It’s just a horse race to him, nothing more, and the ENDS (winning) absolutely justify his means (being a scumbag). People like Morelle and Ted O’Brien on the other hand actually have concerns OTHER THAN GETTING PEOPLE ELECTED. Actually representing the people is not something that Minarik needs to worry about.
At the end of the day it comes down to HOW LONG this type of play calling will be successful. It has worked, as you say, for 20 years…until this year. Now it seemingly is a bit less effective. What happens in 2008? The trend says it will be even less effective next season.
PS: My opinion of Tom Cook? Also a D.B.
PPS: As for all this “nice guy’s finish last nonsense” …ask Dave Malta how that worked out for him.
John, whether or not the 2006 debacle was actually his fault, it makes him less than a winner to me. He may have been a winner at one time, but I just don’t think that the recent results are very impressive.
I have nothing against him personally. I don’t like his brand of politics. I wouldn’t claim that he is racist, etc. I just think he’s bad for the county.
As far as I’m concerned, the critical issue is whether government (and the political leaders who participate in it), represents the best of a community. We elect leaders to represent our interests. And the purpose of the election process ought to be a full and fair discussion of the issues so that we can make informed decisions about who we want to represent us. Of course, people like Minarik and Rove can manipulate the process with untrue and inflammatory literature and ads that serve their patrons and may persuade those who don’t have the time, energy or ability to sort through the noise. And Minarik and Rove use psychological tactics to prey on people’s fears. The process permits it. But is this what we truly want in the process, or in the result? Is this what you want, John? Folks deciding town races based on issues the leaders will never have to address? Folks deciding races based on a tragedy six years ago that has nothing to do with what the leaders will be dealing with?
I think a great majority of this community don’t want the process to degenerate this way. Unfortunately, this is what politics have become, and given the players, maybe the Dems have been too un-Machiavellian. Does that mean they should begin using the tactics of fear and hate? No. The question is, if we’re stuck with one side that wants to play gutter politics, how do the rest of us win elections. I think the answer is partly here - analyzing and discussing subjects in a rational manner (emotion okay, nastiness not). I think blogs have done tremendous work to display the man behind the curtain on a local and national level. I think people are starting to question the words of those like Minarik, because they’re finally getting another side of the story. And I think that traditional news sources are picking up on this information from blogs, and so the public is becoming more informed from news that in the past failed to cover accuracy of literature or claims. The more they know about how Minarik, and not their representatives, is making decisions, and decisions they may not agree with, the less power Minarik will have.
Excellent reply, louis.
Louis:
I realize that you are sincere, but I guess you only look at these issues from a partisan perspective. I do not use the word partisan in a perjorative sense; I mean it as representing a strong point of view that is deeply felt and largely immutable. I’d say that I and most of the commenters on this site are partisans, in this sense.
You consider Democrats and Liberals to be pure of heart and altruistc. You characterize Minarik and Rove as Machiavellian manipulators, while you think that Democratic politicians are, what? Pure as the driven snow? Un-Machavellian was your description. You find an evil conspiracy in any plan or program developed by the GOP, while all acts of Democrats have nothing but the best interests of the public at heart.
I can assure you that there are legions of people and hundreds of conservative websites that take just the opposite view that you, and RT and hundreds of progressive websites hold. To them it is Joe Morelle, James Carville, Paul Begala, etc., who are the modern Machiavellis. Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer play politics for keeps just like Rove and Cheney do.
When I read some of the things you and others say about Steve Minarik and Republican politicians, I think to myself, this guy ought to take a day off the usual blogs and read a few articles in the Weekly Standard or on PowerLine or Hugh Hewitt, just to get an idea that there are two views and, more importantly, that neither side is evil incarnate nor heaven’s messengers.
You contend that that Republicans practice “gutter politics” and imply that Democrats don’t. At best, that’s a gross overstatement (for example, I’d say a neutral observer of the Town of Gates campaign would conclude that the Republican campaign was far more positive than the Democratic one, and, shockingly, Steve Minarik endorsed it).
I’m not advocating or excusing unfair or negative campaigning. I’m just a little weary of holier-than-thou liberals telling me how bad Minarik and the GOP are, while turning a blind eye towards similar conduct by Democrats. Are you folks all too young to remember Fran Weisberg?
Minarik’s been doing a great job, both at the state level and locally. I can think of no-one who better represents the true face and spirit of the modern Republican Party. He should remain just where he is.
John -
With respect to your characterization of “partisan”, I suppose I can live with that. I do deeply believe that it is my obligation, and all of ours, to help others who are less fortunate live better lives. I believe it on a moral, spiritual and intellectual level.
You didn’t respond to my questions above about what the election process has become around here. I asked you whether the misleading ads which don’t address topics really at issue in races are what you want. I asked you, “Is this what we truly want in the process, or in the result? Is this what you want, John? Folks deciding town races based on issues the leaders will never have to address? Folks deciding races based on a tragedy six years ago that has nothing to do with what the leaders will be dealing with?” I’d be interested in your responses.
I often respect those with more conservative views because I think, for many of us thinking about these subjects, we are all trying to find solutions to community and individual problems. We just have different perspectives on how to do this. I think most people want to make sure that people have health care, food, housing and education.
I think the current Republican party, (and lets not mix that up with conservatives in the more traditional sense) has become the party of “me first, me only”, and seeks to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Unfortunately, since so many of the wealthy seek to preserve their wealth at others’ expense, they’ve financed the party, and supported the “by any means necessary” approach to obtaining and maintaining power. I think that the media campaigns run by Republican candidates in this community are often deceitful and misleading. Remember how Massa became the candidate who sought to eliminate social security in Kuhl’s ads?
I believe that Rove and Minarik are master manipulators. I’m not labeling your whole party. Having said that, I missed the part where I said that all Democrats are pure of heart and altruistic. I don’t know if you deliberately misstated my position, and then made me seem completely illogical, or if it was inadvertent. Certainly, I didn’t stand up for James Carville, who I can’t stand (and let’s not even discuss his wife), and I deeply disagree with things Emmanuel and Schumer have done - especially Schumer this week. But enough about me, let’s talk about Steve.
Why do you find it so hard to address whether what he does is honest, fair, good for political discourse and good for the community? You started out this branch of the discussion in your earlier comment by talking about Minarik. And what did you say?
I
“His effort to have the voters reject the county redistricting plan in the early 90’s is the reason the GOP has held the Legislature since then.”
I frankly am not familiar with that effort, but if it was gerrymandering, is that a good thing?
“You don’t like him because he’s harsh? He’s rude? He’s a bully?”
Are you admitting he’s harsh, rude and a bully? What does it mean to be a bully in politics - that you squelch political discussion? Is that a good thing?
“Truth be told, most of you don’t like him because he’s a winner.”
I guess if you ascribe to the belief that winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing, then Steve’s one awesome dude. But if you believe that how you win matters, then Minarik’s tactics should be scrutinized and, for many of us, found to be contemptible. I suppose that if screwing with phone banks in Parma and at Coopervision helped to prevent Democratic campaigning, then if it was done as a winning Minarik tactic, that’s okay with you. (By the way, as his friend, would you tell us - did he do it? Who did? What was said? What threats were made to the companies if it happened? Were goverment funds part of the threat held over the companies’ heads?)
“Successful party leaders are usually tough and often disliked.”
What about leading by example? What about what we teach our children? What about what we say when we practice our religions? Does that all go out the window once we’re talking politics? Should it?
You refer to recent Democratic party leaders, saying “Nice guys, who got their hats handed to them.” Are you saying that if you’re a nice guy you’ll get your hat handed to you? Is that the system you want - one that favors folks who aren’t “nice guys”?
Is this who we should be? Is this what you want this community to be?
Louis:
I’m not going to answer your loaded questions anymore than I expect you to answer mine.
But a couple of points you made, reflected the essence of what I was trying to point out above.
You wrote:
“I do deeply believe that it is my obligation, and all of ours, to help others who are less fortunate live better lives. I believe it on a moral, spiritual and intellectual level”.
and:
“I often respect those with more conservative views because I think, for many of us thinking about these subjects, we are all trying to find solutions to community and individual problems. We just have different perspectives on how to do this. I think most people want to make sure that people have health care, food, housing and education”.
Then you wrote:
“I think the current Republican party, (and lets not mix that up with conservatives in the more traditional sense) has become the party of “me first, me onlyâ€ÂÂ, and seeks to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Unfortunately, since so many of the wealthy seek to preserve their wealth at others’ expense, they’ve financed the party, and supported the “by any means necessary†approach to obtaining and maintaining power. I think that the media campaigns run by Republican candidates in this community are often deceitful and misleading. Remember how Massa became the candidate who sought to eliminate social security in Kuhl’s ads”?
I agree with you on the first two points, but I vehemently reject your conclusion about the Republican party. I also must tell you that I know many Republicans that will point to ads run on Massa’s behalf as misleading about Randy Kuhl’s record and who believe that many Democrats locally and nationally have resorted to unfair campaigning.
One example of our differing perspectives relates to the S-CHIP debate. Conservatives wanted to debate the level of income above which citizens should be expected to provide their own health care; liberals claimed anyone opposed to their expansion of the plan were child-haters. Now there’s some fair and reasonable rhetoric.
I am not trying to justify any particular campaign tactic. I am trying to point out that each of our views about what is fair vs. unfair will differ based upon our partisan perspectives.
My point about the anti-Minarik fervor being based on his success, was not to imply support for a “win at all costs” mentality. My point is that Steve has been beating the Dems, (fair and square, from my perspective, unfaily from yours) since 1992. They hate the guy and its not solely about any tactics he used, its because he’s beaten them many times and his party’s views have therefore been able to prevail. The “anti-terrorist” ad may have been over the top, but the blogs were full of anti-Minarik views before that.
The criticism of “Maggie Minarik” over her FAIR plan continues to be a clear example of my point. These pages continue to repeat any and all statements from school district sources without any skepticism. Isn’t it possible that they might have an agenda? But, since their position jibes with your disdain for Minarik, Brooks and the GOP, their word is gospel. Meanwhile comments by Sandy Parker and the Center for Governmental Research, moderately in support of the plan are denigrated.
Look, I love these debates. But, some of you can’t accept that differing points of view may have equal validity. Most of the campaigns run by Steve Minarik have been run-of-the-mill politics. Obviously, in the heat of battle, there may have been times that lines were crossed. But the level of criticism of Minarik and the GOP seen here is not supported by facts; its fueled by partisanship and emotion.
You make these statements about why people dislike Minarik so strongly - you claim it’s not because of his tactics, but because he wins. Where is the evidence for that? Have you conducted a poll, or is this just a rationalization for supporting someone whose tactics you may also find abhorrent? All sorts of people loathe his tactics. Even Republicans are fed up - check out recent articles in the D&C in which Republicans are quoted about their feelings about the Monroe County GOP campaign lit, and the FAIR plan. (I think there are even some quotes today.) Check out the Gates blog, which I read last night, where it appears that you (or someone who’s plagiarizing you) post. That’s why we can distinguish between Republicans and the party - the party no longer represents the beliefs of many of its constituents.
You say the anti-terrorist ad may have been over the top (and I appreciate your allowing room for that possibility), and you are a party leader who has a strong support for and friendship with Minarik. For those party members who don’t start out with the positive feelings about him you may have based on your personal and political relationships and your partisan views (as you defined them above), do you think they feel that your party is still their party?
And as for tax plan (I can’t bring myself to call it by that ridiculous acronym designed to dupe the ignorant - too 1984ish), the public didn’t have a chance to consider options. Maybe this would have been selected as a good one if the schools had time to accommodate the changes, instead of being cut mid-stream, and if there had been a full and open discussion of alternatives. But do you really believe that it’s best to do things in closed door settings, without input from those you represent? Do you believe that’s how government should function in a democracy?
The level of criticism here may be supported by partisanship if we consider partisanship to be less of an allegiance to a party as to a belief system - and in this case, it would be a belief system that supports fairness in government, representation by leadership, and honesty. And there’s nothing wrong with emotion. The emotions here are anger and indignation about how our government has been hijacked by those who don’t believe it should be open, and who try to mislead us with silly labels without letting us see what’s going on behind the scenes.
By the way, this country was founded by emotional partisans who shared the beliefs we have. You may choose to call us emotional and partisans. I think of us as patriots.
Fran Weisberg kept the GOP on their toes. She was one of the BEST Chairs the Dems ever had.
She could run circles around Steve-O even today. That poor excuse for a leader is a sham. You should be embarassed and ashamed. Most republicans I know are. And to a degree, I agree with Thomas. Keep him there. The GOP is losing support faster than rats jumping off a sinking ship. Keep him on long enough to go down alone with it.