Ghost of Politics Past

A most curious article appeared in one of our daily tabloids here in New York last week. It said former New York City Mayor and failed presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani was contemplating yet another run for office. This time the prize is New York's Governor's Mansion. But wait, didn't we just get a new governor less than a month ago?

Yes, we did, but the article says Rudy is thinking about a run in a special election. That election would take place this November, in the event Gov. David Paterson is somehow forced to resign. Resign for what, you might ask? The only answer is for the high crime of first degree candor. Unlike Giuliani, Paterson was honest enough to admit to past marital infidelity, and even to acknowledge that he might have paid for a tryst out of campaign funds by mistake. He corrected that transgression, it must be noted.

Contrast this with the behavior of America's Mayor. When it was revealed he fobbed off security costs for his mistress on three little known city agencies while in office, his then-presidential campaign went into furious spin mode. When all was said and done, however, the facts were laid bare. No amount of spinning could undo the damage arrogance inflicted on his presidential hopes.

Now, Rudy and his enablers see an opportunity in someone else's troubles. Never mind the same article said little outrage has been generated about David Paterson's past foibles. That would be among both his colleagues and the public. If this governor pulls off getting the state budget done on time, Rudy's hopes for a November coup will take a serious hit. No matter. Like an aging boxer who can't stop seeking the limelight, Rudy Giuliani will fight on.

And lose.  

Suckered!

How does a prestigious newspaper like the LA Times get hoodwinked by a jailed felon and con man who forged FBI reports on an ancient typewriter? The reference, of course, is to the now totally debunked story the Times carried linking Sean "Diddy" Combs with the 1994 ambush shooting of rapper Tupac Shakur in the lobby of a recording studio here in New York. The sham was quickly and meticulously exposed by The Smoking Gun Website, which deserves as much credit as the Times does blame.

The original story, written by a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, has enough holes in it to make a piece of Swiss cheese envious. It apparently came from the fertile mind of one James Sabatino. This guy, who has been fabricating music industry chops for well over a decade, has a rap sheet longer than Yao Ming's arm. He has, at one time or another, posed as an executive of Coca Cola, Blockbuster,Paramount Pictures, Sony Music, Warner Bros., Viacom, and the Miami Dolphins.

He apparently typed the FBI reports used to dupe the Times on a 30 year old typewriter he accessed in prison (he's not eligible for parole until 2012). The 31 year old has done time in an astonishing number of facilities, both here and abroad. Yet this is the person the LA Times relied on to build its mythical story. 

What's obvious here is that a story that was reportedly six months in the making should have been subject to a rudimentary vetting that would have, as one example, noted numbers of spelling errors in the alleged FBI documents. Those errors were remarkably similar to those in a court filing by....guess who....James Sabatino!

The LA Times has apologized for this bit of shoddy journalism, as well they might. That alone may not be enough to keep Diddy's army of lawyers at bay when lawsuit time rolls around, as it certainly will. But the central question remains.

What was the paper thinking?     

Going Psycho

It must be desperation time in Hillaryland. How else to explain the decision by 21 Democratic Party fundraisers, all supporters of the New York senator, to send a threatening letter to, of all people, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? The donors, you see, are upset about something Pelosi said. It was a little something about the candidate who is ahead in pledged delegates being the party's nominee.

Gee, how radical! The winner should win. What Speaker Pelosi said was that the superdelegates shouldn't overturn the the will of the voters. In both tone and tenor, the donors' letter to her speaks volumes about whether they think their candidate can overtake Barack Obama in either pledged delegates or the popular vote.

The broad hint in the letter was this. We, the donors, support Democratic candidates not just for president but for Congress was well. Keep talking like this and that money will stop. This is like the owner of a sports arena threatening to close it during a game because his or her team is losing.

Barack Obama has called the letter "inappropriate". It's worse than that. It shows these donors as a group are no better than the Republicans they are trying to defeat.

Besides, it doesn't pay to go psycho on Nancy Pelosi.

Court Shoots an Airball

A federal court says New York State can't enact a law protecting airline passengers who get stuck for hours in planes on the ground. If you've ever been in this situation, you know the nightmare. Your plane pulls away from the gate, taxis a short distance, then sits. And sits. And sits. In recent memory, hundreds of JetBlue Airways passengers experienced just such a scenario. They were without water, food, fresh air, and working toilets for up to 10 hours.

The New York law sought to remedy this by mandating these basics for passengers stuck on grounded planes for more than three hours. Silly state! The feds say that's their job. The appellate court ruled that if New York could get away with this law, other states could prohibit selling soda or require certain types of food be served.

Okay, that may be logical. But then, where have the feds been on this all too frequent occurrence? The answer is, nowhere. Fact is, New York acted because Washington hasn't. You know what they do. Spot a problem, form a task force, or stick a passenger bill of rights in a budget authorization bill that gets bottled up for the better part of a year.

A court can't force the Congress to pass a law mandating basic amenities for air passengers stuck on the ground through no fault of their own. The responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of our elected officials.

After all, doesn't federal law make us fasten our seat belts during takeoff and landing?