In response to your Sept. 14-20 editorial, let me take this opportunity to clarify the record of what I said and did not say, but before I do so, let me first say that your use of “Tea Potty” as your headline belies the overt bias in your editorial piece.
Since you feel the need to attack the Tea Party through my run for Congress, I would point out that the principles of smaller government, lower taxes and respect for the U.S. Constitution must be contrary to this paper’s editorial board, since those are the only universally agreed upon planks in the Tea Party movement, which is neither a political party nor a social club.
It is merely the expression of millions of Americans’ frustration with the governmental status quo. They have no organized or central leadership, no particular ethnic or religious bent — they simply desire to return America to a better place.
As to the editorial itself, the facts as you presented them are not quite as clear. While in Israel, and through Hebrew translation, I said my opponent was of Chinese nationality who has almost exclusively raised money within the Chinese community.
A quick look at the campaign disclosures to the Federal Elections Commission proves that more than 94 percent of the donations are from within the Asian-American community. Considering this district’s voting base is only 17 percent Asian American — 40 percent of the raw population — that number is quite askew for a candidate purportedly reaching out to the entire congressional district.
In addition, you take me to task for a comment I made on background that was then reported in the body of the article regarding potential dual citizenship.
As the paper is, or should be aware of, Americans whose parents were born in Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan can possess dual citizenship automatically by birth, despite the ban under Communist Chinese law. My point in the discussion was that while many have talked about Israel and its role in this election, no one has talked about China and its ongoing role. Shouldn’t either candidate be concerned with the whole community, not simply one demographic within it?
To equate my opponent’s promotion of a single piece of legislation, on a women’s business initiative, as this paper did, to a 94 percent — reliance on one ethnic group for financial support is laughable at best but at worst a clear bias in reporting.
Moreover, this paper wantonly disregarded the history of politics in downtown Flushing, as it absolves my opponent from any responsibility in her father’s indictment. Need I remind this paper that my opponent was the campaign manager when her father left the state Assembly under a cloud of voter fraud — for which Mr. Ting, a staffer on the campaign, was convicted of the crime of registering people illegally to vote at Jimmy Meng’s own business address?
Need I remind this paper that not only did my opponent accept a campaign donation from this convicted criminal, but refused to return it when called on the carpet by the Daily News? May I further remind this paper that my opponent has refused to disclose how much money her father has bundled for her despite the scandal involving his arrest? In fact, at first my opponent denied bundlers existed at all, when they clearly do exist under federal guidelines and are required to be disclosed.
All this while my opponent has failed to file her required U.S. House of Representatives Ethics Disclosure in either her primary or the general election, despite making six-figure donations to her own campaign, which now, conveniently, have no way to be verified. As of this submission, despite being aware of the four-month lapse in her filing, she has still not filed. Talk about the 1 percent and non-transparency. Has your newspaper even covered this matter at all?
I take seriously your paper’s request that we talk about our respective records, so let’s do that. My opponent has missed 77 percent of the legislative session, and I have missed only 12.7 percent, despite having surgery for a brain tumor with medical time that only amounted to 9 percent. I have introduced a score of bills and co-sponsored dozens, having had several pass, while I do not believe my opponent has had any prime sponsored bills ever pass and has introduced only a handful — this despite my being in office less time then she has. And while I have fought for and secured millions of dollars in capital funds for our district and hundreds of thousands in discretionary allotments, I do not believe my opponent can say the same.
So please, let’s keep this race about our respective records. Perhaps then your paper will start to report the facts, too.
©2012 Community News Group
By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:
You agree that you, and not TimesLedger.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to TimesLedger.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.