Tag Archives: Michael Madigan

Jack Davis’ Outburst Contextualized

5 May

The other day, I posted a video of an irate, irascible Jack Davis doing his best Archie Bunker impression, yelling at a questioner at a candidates’ forum to “shut up, you!” At least one commenter said he’d love more context as to why Davis was being such a meanie.

The questioner was Michael Madigan, an active member of the Rus Thompson/Palinist/Glenn Beck wing of the local tea party establishment – at odds with the Ostrowskiite/anarcho-capitalist/Paulist/Jack Davis payoff/glibertarian wing of said tea party. Some tipsters sent along information that Madigan, who is dogging Davis throughout the district asking him questions specifically about his stance on abortion, himself works for a local biotechnology firm whose corporate parent is a leader in embryonic stem cell research. I sent Mr. Madigan the following email:

Yesterday, I posted a video that Rus had posted to his FB page because it was emailed to me, and I detest Davis. Someone emailed me to tell me that it was you who Davis barked “shut up” at, and that you’ve been following him at various forums to press him on his stance on abortion. It was relayed to me that you are vehemently anti-abortion, and that you have focused on that issue to attack Davis.

Someone else then pointed out to me that you work for Invitrogen in its product development team, and that Invitrogen is owned by Life Technologies, which is among the largest embryonic stem cell research companies in the US. I’m wondering how you rationalize your pro-life views, as well as your vocal political pro-life activity with what your company does.

Your response may be published at WNYMedia.net.

Thank you,

Alan

Mr. Madigan sent me the following:

Thanks for asking prior to posting second hand items Alan:

My position on abortion is consistent with Corwin’s – anti partial birth, not for outlawing. I consider abortion a wedge issue that is used as a political football and it should not be. I do not believe either side should be cashing in on it fund raising wise.

Regarding stalking:
Check meet-up record for We Surround Rochester on-line – I have been a member of Rochester We Surround group since November 2009 and attended all of their candidate vetting sessions – all of them. I attended vetting of Reed, Burkle, Rowland, Paladino, Redlich (he was on Skype), Roberto, DioGuardi and Bernsten…… Jack Davis flatters himself thinking I am stalking him.

For this past Saturday’s meeting -I worked with Paul S (We Surround Roch Co-organizer) to extend invite to Kathy Hochul (see below e-mail). – We truly wanted all 3 candidates present so we could hear their positions and voters could make an informed choice – that is our goal. I extended invite to Kathy Hochul for the prior vetting sessions as well – as she will verify – Niagara Patriots meeting and TEA New York sessions.

You should read the reviews Davis received from that meeting Saturday -ouch!! (Meet-ups have post meeting on-line reviews)…Davis even scared a young child, as per the reviews, due to his angry displays. He even admitted he was angry. Corwin received very positive reviews. It has not been reported widely but when Corwin entered the room and extended her hand to shake Davis’s hand he shouted liar in her face and the crowd gasped (reviews capture that at “We surround site).

It is regrettable that Hochul failed to attend 3 out of 4 of these meetings to make her case to her potential voters – she would have done better than Davis – she apparently did not feel she could field the questions well. Hochul did attend 1 vetting session with TEA New York where she struggled with the Federal questions/she did well with state and local.

While not a voter in the 26th district I assist with organizing such events for voter education – frequently the sessions are outside of my district but most who attend are in the district. I attend and participate in >90% of the meetings held by each of the groups where Davis appeared. Our goal is to have fully informed voters entering the voting booth that have heard the positions of all legitimate candidates unfiltered.

Best regards;
Mike M

I’ll let my question and Mike’s answer speak for themselves, but will comment on one thing – Hochul. Kathy Hochul has nothing really to gain from appearing before tea party groups, because (a) they’re populated by people who aren’t quite likely to support her; and (b) they’re great at holding forums, but lousy at getting out the vote and doing the other legwork that’s required to make a fundamental impact on a campaign. Jack Davis (supposed Ostrowskiite candidate) got himself on the ballot because he paid people to do it, and in such a volume that it was not cost-effective for his opponents to challenge signatures’ validity. By contrast, Bellavia got almost zero help from the tea party to get his failed petition effort going, and had to rely on his own network of veteran activists. (Incidentally, I don’t think we’ve heard the last of Bellavia as far as the NY-26 race is concerned).

To put it another way, the tea party is just a vocal wing of the Republican Party that likes to pretend it’s not. All talk, no walk. I’ll note two additional factoids: firstly, TEA New York (Palinists) are quite vocally anti-abortion. Furthermore, Madigan is an equally vocal and active supporter, as a member of TEA New York, of Jane “Corwination” Corwin. He voted to endorse her at TEA New York’s forum a few weeks ago, and is actively assisting her campaign, both directly and indirectly. He’s not a resident of the district, so it’s odd why he’d take such a passionate interest in this particular race.

So, there you have it. The reason Jack Davis – payer of Ostrowski tax debts – barked at Mike Madigan is now explained.