Rockland sheriff piles up more endorsements
-
- June
- 8
Rockland Sheriff James Kralik has begun piling up re-election endorsements.
Kralik has been endorsed by 12 law enforcement agencies as he runs for a fifth, four-year-term as Rockland’s top cop.
Kralik, a Republican from Sloatsburg, is being challenged by Clarkstown Detective Sgt. Tim O’Neill, who also is a Stony Point councilman. O’Neill has picked up the Rockland Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association endorsement, a key backing in Rockland County
Kralik has been backed by the following:
• New York State Supreme Court Officers Association.
• New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.
• New York City Detectives’ Endowment Association, Inc.
• New York State Troopers PBA.
• New York State Police Investigators Association.
• New York State Federation of Police, Inc.
• New York State Deputies Association, Inc.
• Rockland County Sheriff’s Deputies Association, Inc.
• Rockland County Correction Officers Benevolent Association.
• Rockland County Sheriff’s Transport and Relief Deputies Association.
• Rockland County District Attorneys Criminal Investigators Association, Inc.
• Superior Officers Council of the Sheriff’s Correctional Association of Rockland County.
And, of course, Kralik is pleased for the support.
â€Å“I am honored to have the support of some of the most respected law enforcement organizations in the New York State,â€? Kralik said in a prepared statement from his campaign. â€Å“These endorsements are significant achievements in my re-election campaign. These organizations recognize that we’ve reduced overall crime in Rockland by 45 percent and have been highly effective in making Rockland a very safe place to live and raise a family.â€?
This entry was posted
on Friday, June 8th, 2007 at 3:09 pm by Steve Lieberman.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Email This
In reading your political blogs it appears to me that you strongly favor Kralik and Bongiorno. In fact, some of your entries seem to be advertisements for them. I don’t recall the Journal News listing endorsements before. On top of that, you seem dismissive of the local police union(s) and you insinuate that O’Neill received his endorsement by the Rockland County PBA due to him being a Clarkstown police officer and that union being “dominated” by Clarkstown officers.You failed (no doubt intentionally) to mention that the Sheriff’s Deputies are also in that union (I checked). You poke fun at Zugibe’s comments about receiving the Rockland PBA endorsement. I thought journalism was supposed to represent an unbiased point of view, especially in the political forum. Am I wrong? Something is not right here.
You are wrong. Thank you for reading.
Following up on my friendly post regarding campaign coverage, I must say that your response to Mr. Goehring not only reflects poorly on your character, but illustrates your poor understanding of journalism. Journalism can either do one of two things. Either, it remains unbaised and tries to judge stories objectively. Objectivism is usually an ideal, and unrealistic concept, but one should not pretend to be objective when one clearly has a side or motive. The second option is to flat out endorse candidates, so your readers at least know which side your on, and can choose to read your articles and accept your opinions or not. Masquerading as an objective journalist when one clearly favors a side leads to the worst kind of journalism – misleading. Please be friendlier to your bloggers, and show all the cards your holding in your deck if you’re going to be a journalist.
You are wrong, too. And I apologize if politely saying you are wrong upsets you.
Thanks for reading. I sent an e-mail to your address but it came back as undeliverable.
Mr Lieberman,
I now see that someone else, “Andrew”, commented on your work as well. He seemed to have the same feel from your writing that I had. I don’t think either of us received a fair response from you. What is it we are “wrong” about? Please elaborate your position and specifically mention what exactly it is we are so “wrong” in interpreting from your blog entries and from your brief responses – which, by the way, read as being dismissive and rude as opposed to being even somewhat genuine. Basically, your lack of explanation or engagement in discussion seems to validate what I (and “Andrew”) have speculated.