More on Marsh’s hypocrisy

Dear Editor:

I want to take a moment to reflect on the hypocrisy of the Marsh campaign for Mayor. Let’s examine the cold, hard facts. Marsh came on to the political scene in 2001 as the third at-large candidate in Roberts’ initial run for Mayor. The other two at large candidates, Ramos and Soares, were already sitting Ward Councilmen and had established their own names and voter base. Marsh a virtual unknown, was invited on to that ticket as an attempt to reach out to the newcomer vote. That ticket ran on the platform of cleaning up City Hall and eliminating the “corruption” and “pay to play” of the Russo administration. In a short period of time, tensions developed, egos flared, and Marsh broke from the Roberts’ majority. And who did she hook up with as her new political allies? Why none other than Michael Russo and Terry Castellano, the only other two council people who are blood relatives of Marsh’s former sworn enemy, Mayor Anthony Russo. What a monumental conversions of faith for a “purist” like Carol Marsh. Could she have really been wrong all along about Anthony Russo? Or is Michael Russ so much different than his father ad independent to boot? Or…could it be that Marsh is the worst type of sanctimonious hypocrite, who pretends to take the high road, but who, in practice, operates according to the Machiavellian principle that the ends justify the means?

In this context, is it really hard to believe that Marsh would be secretly cold calling major developers looking for money? Did she really think Hartz Mountain was such a babe in the woods that they might welcome the opportunity to “choose to contribute $400 to help elect someone who would give every bidder a fair chance?” Or was she following that familiar pattern of taking whatever steps necessary to further her own political ambitions?

Edward Zahos


© 2000, Newspaper Media Group