This morning on WBEN, Bauerle was spouting off about Jim Ostrowski representing George Holt in an election law case.  Granted the 1st Amendment gives Bauerle the right to his opinion and the right to express it, however it would be nice if he responsibly used that right.  Apparently he believes it is OK for Constitutional protections that benefit him, but not for people he doesn’t agree with.  I guess it doesn’t matter to Bauerle that a bad law keeps many people off the ballot as long as George Holt is one of them.

I tried to call in and offer a rebuttal viewpoint to his opinion, but I was told by his screener that it wasn’t the topic of the day.  I’ve listened to Bauerle enough to know that the subjects he talks about are fair game for calls.  At least is used to be that way.  When I pointed out to the screener that Tom was talking about the subject, even as we spoke, and that I didn’t think it was very respectable to prohibit differing opinions, I had a reply along the lines of, “ok buddy, if that’s the way you’re going to be.”  Then the screener hung up.

Bauerle spoke about disgusting politics.  The 608 page election law that rules the petition process is pretty disgusting.  He also said Jim Ostrowski could have refused the case and let another lawyer handle it.  The legal question being challenged was the disenfranchisement of a homeless person trying to participate in the election process.  That applies to many more people than just George Holt’s campaign.  Also, there are not that many attorneys who specialize in New York’s convoluted election law.  Many of the ones who do are already retained by the political machine to prevent them from handling petition challenges.  That leaves only a few attorneys who would even be willing to go up against the Political Machine.

Jim Ostrowski and Peter Reese (co-counsel on Holt’s case) are two of a few who could and would represent George Holt.  Holt is entitled to competent representation under the law and the Constitution.  Thanks to the Courts in the State of New York, another person is banned from becoming a choice for voters.

Perhaps in time, Bauerle, and people like him, will be able to understand the big picture instead of narrowly focusing on one facet of the case.  As a practicing attorney, Jim Ostrowski is completely within the ethical canons of the legal profession.  In fact, challenging New York State’s election law is completely consistent with the goals of Free New York, Inc./Free Buffalo.