'Michael Barbis, a Sixth District commissioner in Rowayton and a Democratic candidate for the Board of Education, was charged last November with breach of peace, then entered a domestic violence program; one of his properties faces foreclosure.'-quoted from the Norwalk Patch
Of which "some voters" are you speaking? The ones that don't care for anonymous drive-by reputation hit jobs that take the form of a question?
ReplyDeleteTell me what you know? I am curious about this response. I guess I need to be enlightened.
ReplyDeleteAll I know is what I read in the (online) papers, and I never even heard of this guy until I learned from this blog that he's apparently second in command to Beelzebub himself (though his name is a lot easier to spell).
ReplyDeleteThe point is that recycling this rather thin story by asking why "some voters" are "ignoring this" is a transparent invitation to his detractors here to indulge in a little more Barbis-bashing. While I am sure it will be good fun for all the bashers, it hardly brings any enlightenment to the electorate.
How do you know that some voters are ignoring this? Have you actually witnessed it? If so, why not ask them their reasons rather than posing the question to the assembled multitude? Or is it that the fact that the citizens of Rowayton have not risen up with pitchforks and torches to block his election that has caused you to conclude that "this" is being ignored?
Mine is clearly the minority opinion, however. So I guess the rumor mill is now officially open for business....
Thank you for the reply. I do believe I have a fairly open mind and appreciate your point of view. As a result, I will change my topic question.
ReplyDeleteRemoving the headline is a start. But really -- isn't the sole purpose of the body of the topic to try to make a particular candidate look as bad as possible? And is that what you really want to be doing with your blog?
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps your intention is to question the fitness for office a candidate who has had financial problems during the Great Recession, or who has had a run-in with the law because of an episode of bad behavior. Then wouldn't it be appropriate to review which other candidates have had intermittent trouble paying their bills, or who have received domestic disturbance summonses?
It would be a lot easier to believe that you were being impartial if the subject of your post were not someone who has been repeatedly vilified in this same forum.
Please add information on any other candidates who have had similar problems, if you wish. I was simply quoting the Norwalk Patch.
ReplyDeleteOh the frustration in dealing with the amateur truth squads!
ReplyDeleteBarbis has some great friends who don't want to believe he's had some legal problems. Because Barbis is such a great guy, anyone who talks about relevant parts of his past must be guilty of character assassination.
The truth is that Barbis refused to answer the Patch reporter-- he refused to explain what really happened and why there was an order of protection allegedly against him.
He showed that his arrogant and that he feels entitled to hold two positions.
To 11:09 - At the risk of repeating myself -- I don't know Barbis, either directly or indirectly. I don't know whether he is a good guy, a bad guy or (most likely I expect) a normal person with some good and some bad.
ReplyDeleteI can think of reasons other than arrogance why someone might not answer a reporter calling up out of the blue to ask questions about some of the less stellar moments of one's life. Embarrassment, perhaps?
Of course, for those who already think that he is an arrogant apple, there's no need to look at this as being anything other than further evidence of how right you are.
To EducatedYesterday:
"I was simply quoting the Norwalk Patch." More accurately, out of all of the Norwalk Patch, The Hour and TheDailyNorwalk articles about all of the candidates for all of the offices in this election, you simply chose to quote the most unflattering snippet of an article concerning someone whom you oppose and appear to dislike.
As for your invitation to air the dirty laundry of other candidates (if there is any - who knows, every other candidate may be a fiscally prudent saint), I am hoping that you might realize that selecting episodes of a candidate's personal life that have shown up in the public record and broadcasting them in the context of an election is complicated stuff.
It's fun and easy to make someone look bad, to raise doubts or to confirm the judgments people have already made. But the true meaning of incidents of personal failure is generally impossible to be gleaned without a full understanding of context and circumstance. Often, the more one knows about the incident, the less condemnation it deserves. One should not embark on such a project lightly, or with ill-feeling, as it will inevitably degenerate into mudslinging and pointless finger-pointing.
And to those who might respond by saying -- "Well then why doesn't he explain it all to the reporter, so that we will really understand these incidents?", I would answer with another question -- Do you really want a campaign to be about the candidates' personal finances, the state of their marriages, with whom they eat lunch, or at which bar they like to unwind? Because if you go down that road, it will crowd out the discussion of legitimate issues.
Yes, some embarrassing personal incidents can be relevant to a campaign. But an awful lot of them are not. Separating the wheat from the chaff requires care, dedication and good faith. I don't think this simple quoting from Norwalk Patch showed enough of any of those qualities.
I guess it's a sign of the times when the reporter (or blogger or poster) becomes the story.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens for this voter is that I really don't care about someone's personal life-- I don't think it's any of my business unless they use it to convince me that I should vote for them.
Barbis makes a big deal about he well he'll treat the superintendent (and starts a very public facebook page to advertise that "fact"). The fact that he couldn't (allegedly) act civilly in a public restaurant with his own kid is really relevant to that claim.
Chiaramonte has been criticized for making lots of inappropriate comments while he was Chairman of the BoE-- from yelling at a teacher who had spoken at a meeting, arguing with John Mosby during another meeting and insulting people in the press. The fact that he would post an insulting joke about women only supports he belief that he really is just an loudmouth.
Anonymous, ask yourself "WHO" is criticzing Chiaramonte. Tha answer is obvious, The Union head himself, Mellion. Which leads me to believe you are a teacher(I may be wrong) Not that it makes a difference, but it would explain where you get your information from, such as the VANGARD (Mellion's Union newletter). Chiaramonte did yell at that teacher from Tony Ditrio's school. He yelled at her because she stood before the BET and lied about what he said. She accused him of being anti-teacher. Chiaramonte has no problems with the teachers themselves. In fact, he has total admiration for them. His problem is strictly with the Union President, Mellion. As for John Mosby, he and Chiaramonte do get along. In the incident you are talking about, Mr. Mosby pointed fingers and threatened the board chairman himself. He was asked to refain from derogatory remarks and he did not. After Mr. Mosby had his 3 minutes to speak, he sat in the back of the room, yelling outloud while others had their 3 minutes. Chiaramonte hit the gavel and informed Mr. Mosby he was given his 3 minute to talk and was now inturupting others and if he had something to yell about, he'd best bring it outside the room. You can see it on the meeting video for yourself. However, this is not how Mr. Mellion reported it in his union rag newletter. He insulted Chiaramonte for retorting to Mr Mosby (who was clearly out of order) Mellion never stated Mr. Mosby was yelling while others had their turn to speak and only refered to Mr. Mosby as "a long time Union man". PahLeeeze! As for insulting people in the press, the only one I can recall other than Mellion is Al Sharpton, who came to Norwalk to make an apperance for Tanya McDowell. And to tell you the truth, I agree 100% with Chiaramonte's quotes about that Bigot Al.
ReplyDeleteSo now it's about a joke Jack told. Let's see, Marc Bradley (the head of the Democratic Town Committee) goes onto Chiaramont's private facebook and finds a joke he told his friends, which women responded to and laughed at, and held it for months until a few days before election day to spring it on the public! Bravo Marc!! LOOK! LOOK Everyone!! Chiaramonte told a joke!! How sick!! For real people?!?! I saw the joke, it was nothing worse than you'd see on a sitcom for christ's sake. Women enjoyed the joke and responded they want to share it on their facebook page. Marc Bradley needs to stop eating his Captian Crunch, wearing his Deputy Dog Footsie pajamas on Saturday mornings while he watches Ropper Room and realize that other people do watch adult shows with adult humor and tell adult jokes to other adults. Explains why he drives a limo for a living. Marc Bradley should also know it's just wrong to evesdrop and go onto other people's private conversations where they just weren't invited to begin with. Marc Bradley needs to grow up, as do the people who buy into this "joke controversy", for they are the joke.
Thank GOD for the people of District D. They saw though all this BS and they know Chiaramonte tells it like it is. He uses his mouth for our children and has held people like Mellion accountable. BTW, Chiaramonte had the second highest votes in the district, just behind Jerry Petrini, and has proven mudslinging just doesn't work in District D. Their adults and too smart for that.
Welcome Back Mr. Chiaramonte.