James Sanders. (Photo: Facebook)

Several days ago, State Senator James Sanders reacted to the news that his predecessor wore a wire in an attempt to reduce her corruption sentence, by criticizing her for "snitching." Well, the New York Post didn't take kindly to that, and this morning, the publication editorialized harshly against Mr. Sanders, claiming he "seems to be endorsing the crime-abetting law of street thugs."

Mr. Sanders released a follow-up statement this afternoon taking exception to the Post's characterization. "Snitching," Mr. Sanders wrote, was only in the context of entrapment, which he insisted the editorial missed.

"In response to the New York Post editorial on May 7, 2013, what was not said speaks volumes," Mr. Sanders said. "While the Post highlighted a portion of my statement made to the New York Times that mentions 'ensnaring' others, which in the context used, described entrapment, which is prohibit under the law, the article neglected to mention my encouragement to perform a public service by exposing actual corruption that one knows of. Deliberately leading people into a crime that they would not have committed, be they legislators or private individuals, is wrong and shows no honor. I have always and will always encourage full cooperation with law enforcement to root out real corruption."

The state senator's comments, of course, come as New York State has been rocked by multiple corruption scandals, not the least of which involves State Senator Shirley Huntley, his wire-wearing predecessor, who is due to be sentenced on Thursday. Additional information Ms. Huntley collected is due to be released at 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. Sanders' full "snitching" quote to The New York Times was appended to his statement today:

“There are few among us who can stand up to 20, 30, 40 years without, as the streets call, snitching,” [Senator Sanders] said. “I think that it is tragic that one finds themselves in a world of pain and even more tragic if you’re trying to buy down your sentence by ensnaring others,” Mr.Sanders added. “Now, if you are merely speaking of what they have done, then you’re probably doing a public service. But if you are ensnaring people, then it just proves you have no honor."

John Catsimatidis holds court outside City Hall.

John Catsimatidis was not too pleased when he opened up today's New York Times to read about his reportedly embattled supermarket chain, Gristedes, which it dubbed the “unloved uncle of the New York City grocery scene."

"I'd say 'ugh.' I'd say 'ugh,'" the billionaire Republican candidate for mayor replied when Politicker asked him about his reaction to the piece, which detailed how the grocery chain has been struggling financially and targeted by several class action lawsuits.

He elaborated by comparing his relationship with Gristedes, which launched his successful business career, to a wife who doesn't like her name.

"Gristedes represents 3 percent of my sales," he said. "And I won't mention the name, I remember this lady that was married to somebody. One day she says to me, 'I can't lose that name no matter what I do.' Well she managed to lose it from him," he said. It was unclear exactly what he meant.

Mr. Catsimatidis made the comments at a press conference today announcing the Liberal Party's endorsement. He added that he'd chosen to keep the relatively gritty grocery chain open because it employs thousands of people, even if it is supposedly weighing down his net worth.

"The reason I keep that company, we have a few thousand employees that have been there 25, 30 years," he said. "I have not run the company in 10 years and I don't want those people to lose their jobs. The joke around town was that if I didn't have Gristedes I'd be higher on the Forbes list."

Mayor Bloomberg. (Photo: Getty)

Earlier today, Mayor Michael Bloomberg harshly criticized the media, specifically The New York Times, for giving insufficient coverage to murder victims of color while editorializing against NYPD policies like stop-and-frisk.

"Four days after Alphonza Bryant’s murder went unreported by The Times, the paper published another editorial attacking stop-question-and-frisk,” Mr. Bloomberg said, referencing a recent slaying in the Bronx and claiming a white victim would have received more attention. “They called it a ‘widely loathed’ practice. … Let me tell you what I loathe. I loathe that 17-year-old minority children can be senselessly murdered in the Bronx and some of the media doesn’t even consider it news.”

Well, it seems The Times can push back. And in a sharply-worded statement, New York Times Company communication director Danielle Rhoades Ha told Politicker that Mr. Bloomberg was simply trying to "deflect criticism" from his own administration's controversial policies.

“Mayor Bloomberg is trying to deflect criticism of the City’s stop-and-frisk practice by accusing The New York Times of bias," Ms. Rhoades Ha said in a statement. "Among those critical of the practice is The New York Times editorial board, which is separate from the news side of the newspaper. The Times aggressively covers violence in the city's neighborhoods, and to select one murder as evidence to the contrary is disingenuous."

She added, "His claim of racial bias is absurd.”

Anthony Weiner at a Brooklyn Nets game a few months ago. (Photo: Getty)

Early this morning, The New York Times Magazine published an extensive, 8,400-word profile of former Congressman Anthony Weiner, his wife Huma Abedin and their life since an infamous social media-induced scandal destroyed his political career. The piece directly addressed the topic most political observers are interested in: "Weiner quickly put all the speculation to rest: he is eyeing the mayor’s race."

“I don’t have this burning, overriding desire to go out and run for office,” Mr. Weiner told the publication. “It’s not the single animating force in my life as it was for quite some time. But I do recognize, to some degree, it’s now or maybe never for me, in terms of running for something."

Mr. Weiner seemed genuinely unsure whether or not he should pull the trigger on another political campaign. Part of it, he explained, was based on whether the public was willing to give him "a second chance" after he admitted several digital affairs and resigned in disgrace in 2011. He conducted polling earlier this year and found the voters were willing to forgive him but not necessarily willing to vote for him, especially with a number of qualified competitors. Mr. Weiner did take a jab at the front-runner Council Speaker Christine Quinn, however, for extending term limits in 2009 and enabling Michael Bloomberg to run for a third term atop City Hall.

“I know them all. I like them all,” he said of his hypothetical opponents. “The term-limits thing, as an issue, was a deal breaker for me. But, I think the polls are right: Chris Quinn is leading, and then someone will get into a runoff with her. I don’t like runoffs.”

Mr. Weiner was also open to running for another office instead, but there aren't a lot of options with only three citywide offices. He had "privately dismissed at least public advocate," leaving only the comptroller's race apparently on the table.

“Maybe," he said as to whether he'd consider another position as a stepping stone towards Gracie Mansion. "I’m definitely not making eight-year bank-shot plans.”

Fundamentally, Mr. Weiner is sure to be gauging the reaction to The Times' profile--which goes into print next Sunday--as he makes the decision, which, thanks to his pre-scandal campaign cash stockpiling and the media's interest in his post-scandal political brand, would all-but-guarantee shaking up the race. The former congressman, once an outspoken firebrand in Washington but now a relative recluse in Manhattan, said there were other factors worth considering as well.

"I’m trying to gauge not only what’s right and what feels comfortable right this second, but I’m also thinking, How will I feel in a year or two years or five years?" he asked himself. "Is this the time that I should be doing it? And then there’s the other side of the coin, which is . . . am I still the same person who I thought would make a good mayor?”

Christine Quinn

Yesterday, The New York Times made a splash in the city's political scene by dropping a front-page  look into Council Speaker Christine Quinn's forceful management style. The article--full of catchy anecdotes like threats against colleagues' "balls"--generated a small storm of media coverage, and this morning, Ms. Quinn went on CNN to embrace her "pushy" personality and the accomplishments she says it helped her achieve.

"At times I get really emotional about the work I'm doing," she said. "It's really important work and at times you need to be really forceful to get things that are stuck unstuck. Now, obviously we all want to modulate our tempers and keep them in check, but I have big emotions and I care deeply about delivering for New Yorkers and sometimes that means you got to push things forward. And I think New Yorkers know that. This  a tough town and we're a tough people."

Ms. Quinn, a leading candidate for mayor this year, did take exception "some of the stuff" in the article, however, which she labeled "a complete exaggeration." Specifically, she denied soundproofing her office to contain her angry tirades. Rather, she said it was because there was a "weird echo chamber" in the area.

Additionally, in The Times piece, Ms. Quinn didn't deny pulling Councilwoman Elizabeth Crowley's member item funding as retribution for insufficient credit in a press release, but on CNN today, Ms. Quinn said it was "absolutely" untrue that she wields her power in that sort of vindictive manner. Nevertheless, she extolled her efforts to "bring discipline" into the legislative body.

"I've tried very hard to bring discipline to the City Council which was known for many, many years as kind of a undisciplined body without focus," Ms. Quinn contended. "Now that means bringing order--having twice monthly Democratic caucus meetings, reviewing legislation, asking people to comment when they're supposed to comment, not comment when they're not supposed to comment, follow a deadline of timelines and an orderly process--I'm not going to apologize for that."

Ms. Quinn was also asked about claims that the article was sexist in its framing of her personality, which she simply brushed aside.

"I'm not a man. I'm a woman," she succinctly stated. "And I'm an aggressive woman who gets things done and that's the way it is. And I've never been embarrassed about the fact that I'm pushy and aggressive. "

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio.

Politicos across the city are abuzz with excitement over The New York Times' front-page profile of Council Speaker Christine Quinn's "surprisingly volatile" temperament, but one of her top rivals in the mayoral race, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, isn't piling on. Indeed, when asked about the article today, Mr. de Blasio simply urged Ms. Quinn to put her forceful personality behind paid sick day legislation in the City Council.

"I dont worry so much about the fact that she raises her voice and gets angry at people," Mr. de Blasio said at a City Hall press conference on the paid sick day bill. "I worry that she doesn't speak up for average New Yorkers. I think it's one thing to say in a private conversation, she gets angry and upset with people, but I'd like to see her speak up when it matters on issues like this and we haven't seen that. Repeatedly, we've seen her look the other way on issues like paid sick days and living wage. That's what the public will ultimately judge, the substance, whether someone is on their side or not."

In The Times piece, Ms. Quinn is described as routinely issuing threats to other lawmakers with parlance like, “I’m going to cut his balls off.” Mr. de Blasio, an occasional Quinn antagonist, declined to mention if he's ever been the recipient of similarly colorful remarks, but did say he was always respectful of his staff and colleagues.

"I think I can be demanding of my staff. I think I'm respectful of my staff," Mr. de Blasio said. "I'm also respectful of other elected officials, other leaders, ... that's something you have to do, even if you disagree with them."

(Photo: Getty)

Late last night, the New York Times reported Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his advisers have reached out to at least a small slew of big-name candidates to run for Mayor of New York City, ranging from Senator Chuck Schumer to New York Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman. The news was reported as a slight to Council Speaker Christine Quinn, widely thought to be Mr. Bloomberg's preferred candidate in the race. However, Mr. Bloomberg denied the report on MSNBC's Morning Joe earlier today.

"The article was so erroneous," Mr. Bloomberg said. "It goes after one of the people who's really made a difference in this city, Chris Quinn, our speaker in the City Council, who really has done a great job. Without her, it would have been a lot tougher, let me tell you."

Mr. Bloomberg didn't specify his objections to the article, which included two on-the-record quotes from the prospective candidates, Mr. Zuckerman and former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, discussing his outreach.

“The mayor believes he is special,” Mr. Rendell said in the piece. “He wanted somebody at a very high level to come in to do a job he has often said to me—and he’s not the only person who says it—is the second most difficult job in the country.”

Mr. Rendell said he decided not to run as he didn't live in New York City and had no understanding of it. The mayoral campaign idea “didn’t sit well with me,” he told the publication.

For his part, Mr. Zuckerman reportedly mused that he would accept the mayoralty if he could be appointed, but Mr. Bloomberg's overtures amounted to merely a "teasing" feel.

The article followed last month's Times report of Mr. Bloomberg reaching out to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--who, like Mr. Rendell, also doesn't live in the city--to run for mayor. After the news went public, Mr. Bloomberg reacted similarly.

"Why do you think I encouraged Hillary Clinton to run for mayor," Mr. Bloomberg asked reporters incredulously. "I mean, did you hear me say that?"

"This administration, I think, has been phenomenally successful," he continued. "I take great pride in that. It would not have happened without Chris Quinn being the speaker of the City Council for the last eight years. And let's leave the subject at that."

Herman Cain (Photo: Getty)

Former Republican presidential candidate blasted the New York Times on the website of his online TV network today in a column that claimed the paper put on "a white sheet and hood" by publishing an editorial that was critical of black Republicans on Wednesday. The Times article, which was written by University of Pennsylvania political science professor Adolph Reed Jr., was entitled "The Puzzle of Black Republicans" and argued "modern black Republicans have been more tokens than signs of progress."

"It’s a shame the New York Times is such a racist newspaper," Mr. Cain wrote in his response.

Mr. Reed's editorial labeled conservative praise for Tim Scott's appointment as the first African-American Senator for the South since the Reconstruction era as "cheerleading over racial symbolism" that "plays to the Republicans’ desperate need to woo (or at least appear to woo) minority voters." Despite this desire to court the black vote, Mr. Reed said "modern-day Republicans have deployed blacks to undermine black interests" by weakening the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Commission on Civil Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with African-American officials.

In his response, which was entitled "The New York Times is a Racist Newspaper," Mr. Cain criticized Mr. Reed's characterization of "black interests."

"To hear Professor Reed tell it, blacks are a monolithic group of people whose best interests are served when they can be recipients of redistributionist policies at the hands of big government," Mr. Cain wrote. "Let me simplify that for you: He thinks black people need welfare, and can’t make it under the kinds of free-market policies advocated by the likes of Samuel Pierce, Clarence Pendleton, Clarence Thomas and Tim Scott. And Herman Cain."

Mr. Cain, who is African-American, accused Mr. Reed, who is also African-American, of suffering from self-hatred.

"Since Professor Reed is also a black man, I wish him well in dealing with his obvious self-loathing," wrote Mr. Cain. "But he might learn a lot if he spent a little time moving in the circles I move in. He would meet lots of highly accomplished black men and women who have pursued their dreams in the capitalist system and have done exceedingly well. They vote Republican because they understand that free-market policies open up this same kind of opportunity for others."

Mr. Cain closed out his column by blasting the Times for publishing the article, which he described as "denigrating blacks."

"Any newspaper that would publish a piece denigrating blacks as needing the benevolence of big government in order to serve their interests is obviously racist and deserves widespread censure for making such an insensitive and racially biased editorial decision," Mr. Cain wrote. "It’s a shame the New York Times is such a racist newspaper."

(Photo: Getty)

Former Mayor Ed Koch is very upset with The New York Times at the moment.

The cause? An editorial on immigration, where the the publication of record saw a new opportunity to push for reform in the wake of Republican election losses this year. But Mr. Koch, in one of his regular missives typically containing movie reviews, instead used the space to accuse The Times of overreaching in its rhetoric.

"I have never read a more biased editorial than The New York Times editorial of November 18th," Mr. Koch began. "The Times in its editorials rarely refers to 'illegal' immigrants. It generally refers to them simply as immigrants, making no distinction between the legal and the illegal; sometimes, it refers to them as 'undocumented,' and its newest description is 'unauthorized.'"

Mr. Koch went on to castigate The Times for its "full-throated call for amnesty," and for using a straw man depiction, "hardliners against reform -- including the white-culture alarmists and the closet racists," to make their argument.

"I repeat, I have never seen a more intolerant editorial in language and tone appear in The New York Times," the former mayor said. "The Times editorial board should apologize for its outrageous description of opponents of amnesty and allow a debate to ensue presenting the arguments fairly on both sides."

View Mr. Koch's full commentary below:

The New York Times Editorial of November 18th On Immigration Reform Is A Disgrace

I have never read a more biased editorial than The New York Times editorial of November 18th, entitled, "New Hope on Immigration." It advocates, as it has for years, providing amnesty for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now residing within the borders of the United States.

The Times in its editorials rarely refers to "illegal" immigrants. It generally refers to them simply as immigrants, making no distinction between the legal and the illegal; sometimes, it refers to them as "undocumented," and its newest description is "unauthorized."

In its editorial ,The Times libels those Americans who believe that the U.S. should not have open borders. No country in the world has an open-door policy. The Times editorial refers to the opponents of open borders and amnesty as, "The hardliners against reform -- including the white-culture alarmists and the closet racists." It contrasts them with those "behind reform - student activists, business groups, farmers, labor unions, Catholic bishops, evangelical churches, African-Americans, civil-liberties organizations and regular American citizens who support legalization." I believe a majority of Americans oppose the amnesty legislation. Because of their opposition, the proposal has been defeated several times in Congress.

Many of those opposed to an amnesty providing a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants, support a compassionate response such as the "Dream Act." That act, which President Obama implemented by executive order, allows youngsters brought here by their parents illegally to remain here, receive a green card permitting them to work, and exempts them from deportation pending passage by the Congress of the Dream Act. Many would support keeping families together and include the parents in the amnesty ultimately provided the youngsters covered by the proposed Dream Act. Supporting such a broad amnesty is a good example of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's comment "defining deviancy down," meaning if you can't control illegality, accept it and make it legal.

The Times in its full-throated call for amnesty and a change in immigration policy denounces opponents by stating they "despise illegals." Untrue. The opponents believe the U.S. should enforce its immigration policy and not allow the law to be ignored and violated with impunity. Many of us believe that our current policy of permitting 750,000 aliens and 250,000 refugees to enter each year, all of whom are eligible for U.S. citizenship, should be amended to expand the number and allow more of those waiting in line for their turn to come in. The Times apparently believes no one should have to wait, and the walls should come tumbling down.

The Times even believes that those it refers to as "minor offenders" should be welcomed to stay, the "minor offenders" language generally referring to those who have committed misdemeanors where the crime is subject to up to a maximum one-year prison sentence. The Times states that "[t]here is enforcement work to be done like finding more effective ways to stifle illegal employment, but any strategy that fixates on deportation and the border is foolish and ineffective." Ridiculous.

The Times objects to President Obama's successful efforts to find and deport those who have committed crimes, other than the crime of illegal entry, resulting in 400,000 deportations annually. It opposes the federal government through Homeland Security using "state and local police officers" to help the feds in enforcing the law. President Obama's policy has been to secure the borders before providing amnesty legislation. Amnesty legislation did not solve the problem in the 1980s when it was employed and won't solve it now. Millions of people from around the world want to live in the U.S. and do not want to wait in line, as they must and do for every other country, including Mexico. Providing a blanket amnesty now simply encourages others to enter illegally and wait for the next amnesty.

I repeat, I have never seen a more intolerant editorial in language and tone appear in The New York Times. The Times editorial board should apologize for its outrageous description of opponents of amnesty and allow a debate to ensue presenting the arguments fairly on both sides. The Times editorial can be seen at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/new-hope-on-immigration.html?smid=pl-share

Michael Grimm (Photo: Facebook)

Over the weekend, cement bricks were thrown through the windows of Congressman Michael Grimm's campaign headquarters on Staten Island in an attack Mr. Grimm initially said he believed the attack was "politically motivated" and that it also left computers in the office with mysteriously erased hard drives. Today, an eighth grader confessed to smashing the windows with a friend, leading Mr. Grimm to admit "it is possible that a volunteer could have inadvertently compromised the computer and failed to report it."

However, in spite of a New York Times report published Monday that cited an unnamed "law enforcement official" as saying, "police experts had examined the campaign’s computer systems and concluded that nothing had been erased or tampered with," a spokesman for the NYPD said the investigation into the situation with Mr. Grimm's computers is just beginning.

"Contrary to the 'law enforcement official's' purported claims in the NY Times, NYPD computer crimes detectives had only just begun this morning looking at images taken from Grimm computers," NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Public Information Paul Browne wrote in an email to Politicker this evening.

Mr. Browne added that "no determination had been made as whether there was tampering" and "none was likely to be made until much later today or tomorrow because the process is time consuming."

In his statement following the eighth grader's confession, Mr. Grimm, who has faced a steady stream of negative headlines in the past few months due to an FBI probe into his 2010 fundraising operation, criticized the media for its handling of the case.

“What is most troubling about this series of events is the shameless media spin and speculation fueled by unscrupulous sources,” Mr. Grimm said. “This is no more than another blatant attempt by the liberal media to generate more bogus allegations against me and continue their ongoing smear campaign.”