Skip to main content

The question for the CEO: 'Where's the second tape?'

By Howard B. Owens
May 18, 2011, 12:19am

All four candidates for the NY-26 special election race on May 24 were scheduled to appear at the YWCA on North Street this morning at the invitation of the Western New York Independent Living Project.

Only Jane Corwin and Kathy Hochul actually made it. Curtis Ellis, spokesman for Jack Davis, claimed that Davis couldn't make it because of an emergency at his plant. Ian Murphy, well, by the time I left, nobody knew what happened to him.

Each of the candidates were scheduled to speak in 15 minute increments with each of hopeful arriving and leaving separately. Corwin was up first and exited before Hochul entered the room.

When Corwin reached the parking lot, another reporter asked Corwin a question and when Corwin kept walking without saying a word, he said, "Can you stop?" Corwin said, "I'm on my way to another meeting, Dave, thank you."

I had one question I wanted to ask Jane Corwin, "where is the second tape?"

The second tape is one shot by a GOP operative in Greece last Wednesday when Corwin's Assembly chief of staff, Michael Mallia, confronted Jack Davis and produced a 15-second YouTube video in which Davis is caught on tape saying, "hey, you want punched out," then takes a swipe at the video camera and Mallia reacts by wailing like a banshee.

We know there was a second camera operator because she was caught on tape by WGRZ-TV.

Nobody from the Erie County GOP or Jane Corwin's camp has denied that there was a second camera operator and that she was there on behalf of the GOP.

When other reporters pressed Nick Langworthy, ECGOP chairman, on the second tape -- under the assumption that it would tell the full story of what really happened during the incident -- Langworthy said there was no tape because the battery was dead.

However, the WGRZ footage shows the GOP operative is operating a camera, something no reasonable person would do if the battery was dead (as Judge Judy says, "If it doesn't make sense, it's not true").

Since there must obviously be a second tape, the logical question is, where is it and why hasn't it been released? The most logical person to ask about it is the CEO of the Corwin Campaign, which is Jane Corwin.

Certainly, Corwin, with all of her busienss experience, understands that the buck stops with the CEO. She's the one who needs to explain the conduct of the people she's chosen to surround herself with, which is something she hasn't done yet.

The result of my attempt to ask the question of Corwin can be seen in the video posted above.

Meanwhile, after Kathy Hochul (picture below) finished speaking, rather than rushing to get into her car, she stayed for another good 20 minutes and answered every question every reporter could think to ask.

As soon as I can, I'll post a story on what Corwin and Hochul said during the forum.


Greg Bruggman

This was a great forum to have here in Genesee County...Independent Living of The Genesee Region should be commended for putting together this very informative forum.

May 18, 2011, 5:18am Permalink
Dave Meyer

Nice work Howard.
It was great to see the poor little rich girl squirm.
I already knew who I was voting for, and that behavior confirms my feelings. If that's the way she behaves under pressure she's not fit to be anyone's congressperson.

May 18, 2011, 6:27am Permalink
Alan Bedenko

I heart this story.

It graphically contrasts the two campaigns and the two candidates. One runs away and deflects questions from reporters, while the other stops and takes on all comers.

Then again, Chris Lee never stopped to answer reporters' questions when he was running, either. It's the GOP M.O. when campaigning in NY-26. The less said, the more they can just rely on their registration advantage.

The problem now is that Davis has blown a hole in that advantage.

May 18, 2011, 7:25am Permalink
Mike Weaver

Dave, the lemmings are on both sides of the aisle. Voting the Republican or Democrat candidates is going to get you more of the same. The only difference between these two candidates is their campaign managers.

May 18, 2011, 9:07am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Mike, you don't seriously believe that do you? Their positions on issues diverge at almost every point.

You're right about the campaign managers though.

May 18, 2011, 9:23am Permalink
Ed Gentner

In the past couple of days I have been taken to task for comparing Republican Jane Corwin to Jane Fonda invoking the images of Fonda standing on top of a tank in Hanoi while calling American soldiers cowards at the height of the Viet Nam war.

It has been suggested that perhaps I owe Jane Fonda an apology for making an unfair and unflattering comparison to her activities so long ago and the painful memories the whole provocative episode resurected.

So I apologize if by sharing my thoughts and feelings about the incident offended those friends of Jane Fonda's who thought it unfair to compare her to Jane Corwin.

May 18, 2011, 9:25am Permalink
Mike Weaver

Yes Chris I seriously believe that. Let me ask you, do you seriously see any change when this country switches from Red to Blue every 4 to 8 years? I don't. Reagan's actions in office is every bit as much to the left as Obama is now. And Clinton's were every bit as much to the right. The Repubs are fretting about health care ideas that they were espousing in the 90's. Pols at the stae and federal level may talk about issues at campaign time but it isn't really about issues. It is about making sure "their team" wins.

These two candidates may mouth differences about their platforms but neither one of them will represent us. And they won't represent what they believe either. They will represent the folks that sent alot of campaign money their way. They will do what the party tells them to do. They are bought and paid for.

And both parties are responsible for where this country is at right now. A vote for the parties that got us here (and both are equally responsible) is a vote for more of the same corporate interests over individual interests. Both parties are big company parties.

May 18, 2011, 9:49am Permalink
Chris Charvella

"And both parties are responsible for where this country is at right now. A vote for the parties that got us here (and both are equally responsible) is a vote for more of the same corporate interests over individual interests. Both parties are big company parties."

That's something I can agree with.

May 18, 2011, 9:54am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Well said, Mike. Also, consider this; with all the vitriol and outright lies we see and hear in national, state and even local politics it's understandable why some really decent people who may just want to serve and help their community, don't want any part of it. I for one, and probably most people, don't want to live in a fishbowl even though I have nothing to hide. Point being there has to be something in it for them. I believe very few go through this distasteful process because they have a passion for good government, to be fair there are some, however few, IMHO. The rest have agendas, crave power and notoriety, are making big money or just like being the center of attention. All deficiencies; again In my humble opinion.

May 18, 2011, 10:06am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Mike, I'd just tell you to have a look at the type of legislation each party passes when they have the majority. The proof is in the pudding.

May 18, 2011, 10:23am Permalink
Mike Weaver

The legislation may look different but they both pass legislation that is more benefitial to corporate interests than private interests. They both enact policies that send the debt level through the roof with no credible plan for dealing with it. They both participate in empire building. They are both sending the scope of our government beyond it's intended scope via the interstate commerce clause (among others). And they both set up the "game" so that it is darned near impossible for us to elect leaders that have the will to change it. And in the meantime nothing of any real substance has changed in many decades.

One reason why there was so much money pumped into the NY 26 election is because when there is no difference in the product you are marketing you have to spend a ton of money to convince people that there is a difference in choices.

I'll grant you that there are differences in the party platforms between the blue and red team. What I am trying to convey is that those differences amount to little for the average Joe in this country when all is said and done each year in Congress. And the same is true for our leader of the executive branch as well.

May 18, 2011, 11:13am Permalink
Billie Owens

Dave, I doubt those with political ambitions crave notoriety, fame, perhaps, but not notoriety. That's a special limelight for people like Arnold S. of California, Shirtless Chris Lee, Eliot Spitzer, Madoff, etc.

May 18, 2011, 1:06pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

OK, looked it up, Billie. You're right, bad choice of word on my part, I was going for fame or celebrity. Old Arnold had it all, fame, fortune, but his ego wanted to add Gravitas. Oops, the little head was doing the thinkin' and feeding the ego, now anything said or written regarding his political career will have a punchline attached. He'll go back to acting and make another fortune, and have a 30 year old new wife.

May 18, 2011, 1:49pm Permalink
Janice Stenman

To Edmund Gentner, to this day I refuse to pay for a ticket to see Jane Fonda in anything. Fine, her opinions have changed. Edmund, I'm on your side.

May 18, 2011, 5:55pm Permalink

Authentically Local