Anyone who has been following the Eichmann-Winkler controversy can see that Committeeman Rob Eichmann is a classless twit who can barely put together a sentence when left to his own devices – for example when he takes a shot at live blogging. Eichmann needs a ghost writer more than President Obama needs a teleprompter.
While we know what Committeeman Eichmann is made of, what are we to think of his partners at Conservative New Jersey?
To his credit, Frank Fiamingo has not fanned the fire – although he certainly did nothing to extinguish it. Richard Zuendt not only fans the fire, he may have kindled it way back in the winter time with his March 8 post (yes this controversy has been going on for the better part of a year) attacking the Bayshore Tea Party.
That March 8 Zuendt post is instructive, because it shows the original reason for attacking Bayshore wasn’t inviting non-GOP Freeholder candidates to a meeting and wasn’t Bayshore’s accepting contributions from Republican office holders such as Mike Doherty.
Rather, the key issue for Mr. Zuendt was that Bayshore seemed to be supporting parts of Governor Christie’s agenda (as opposed, presumably, to Steve Lonegan’s agenda) and for the time being preferred to pressure a “RINO” congressman through tactics that work (letters and phone calls) rather than Steve Lonegan’s flashy, time-consuming and dollar wasting bus tours. At least Mr. Zuendt (in contrast to another CNJ “partner”) was straightforward in not trying to cloak his attacks in phony defenses of first amendment freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
CNJ partner Ed Mazlish was the very first to pile on with an unctuous response to Mr. Zuendt’s March 8 post.
After all the hue and cry over your previous posts on the subject of Governor Christie using certain self-proclaimed Tea Party leaders to co-opt Tea Party support for Wisconsin Governer Walker for Christie’s own budget, the silence to this post is deafening. And the e-mail from Ms. Gonzalez that you posted corroborates the opinions you expressed previously. Well done…and shame on any Tea Party leader or supporter who takes Ms. Gonzalez’s advice to forsake principles in order to support a RINO who has gone out of his way to attack and disassociate himself from the Tea Party Movement.
In that attack (and yes, claiming one is advising other to forsake principles is an attack) on Barbara Gonzalez, Unctuous Ed actually used the words “co-opt Tea Party support” without mentioning Steve Lonegan. Then later in that string of comments the following appeared:
Ed and I have decided to remove Russ Cote’s comments. They offer nothing to the discussion and only attack Ed and myself. It is our blog and we see no reason to allow anyone to do that to us.
So, way back on March 10 Unctuous Ed was already stifling free debate on the CNJ website – as is his right to do so. But it comes with a cost: eventually, anyone who is not in full agreement with Unctuous Ed, Feckless Frank, Dithering Dick and Classless Rob will stop commenting on CNJ and eventually will stop reading CNJ altogether. As the Bulldog has pointed out repeatedly, the proof is in the Alexa rankings.
More than six-months later, Unctuous Ed is still at it. In a response to Frank Fiamingo’s appeal to “drop the in-fighting for two weeks”, Unctuous Ed tried to squeeze through the following claims:
But when it comes down to the core issues, we have not attacked anyone. We have expressed opinions, and we have set forth the facts on which those opinions are based. Those facts have never been contradicted. In response, we have been falsely accused as a group of defamation, libel and slander. Such charges would be laughable if not for the “deadly serious” threats that have accompanied them.
“We have not attacked anyone,” he states. Really? No CNJ partner ever called Barb Gonzalez a “cult leader”? No CNJ partner ever attacked Barbara Gonzalez’ decision to “let her Socialist friend promote his Marxist views”? No CNJ partner ever wrote about “the ‘Let’s Be Kind To Socialists’ Bayshore Tea Party Cult”? How about the following:
No one at CNJ has defended a lifelong, perennially losing Democrat candidate for office, and their association with him, in addition to associating with a Socialist.
No one at CNJ has ever tried to extort money from a Statewide conservative organization or leader.
That is not an attack on Tea Party leader Mark Falzon? Doesn’t a veiled accusation of extortion qualify as an “attack”?
Then Unctuous Ed claims he and his partners “have set forth the facts,” one of which is the assertion that “The Bayshore Tea Party Group” is a “fictitious name.” This “fact” is a lie by omission.
You see, “fictitious name” is a legal term of art. It is a DBA name – “doing business as” name. There is nothing shady or wrong with using a DBA. Many businesses file “fictitious names” to legally do business under a different name without having to create an entirely new business entity.
On August 8th CNJ posted an article titled “A Fictitious for Profit Tea Party.” That is a phony “fact set forth”. The Bayshore Tea Pary is not “fictitious” – it is very real. The name “Bayshore Tea Party” is a DBA.
Unctuous Ed is a lawyer who likely understands legal terms of art, but he doesn’t seem to be the kind of lawyer who cares a fig about whether his CNJ partners use viciously misleading propaganda to imply that a Tea Party is using a name in an unethical way. I think it is fair to say that Unctuous Ed is one of the proverbial 98% of lawyers who give the other 2% a bad name.