Let’s put things in perspective here. This Hefner kid is 26 and the Senate Prez is much older. Too much older. That’s great gossip. But that’s all it is. The kid’s on the flamboyant side. How salacious. And he was a royal pain in the ass. Big fuckin’ deal!
How dare The Senate President not banish his partner to a giant hole he dug in his basement? How dare the Senate President take him to some vacation island with other senators and spouses? How dare Stan keep his relationship?
Oh sure this is a great something to have on the conversation list for Christmas Dinner; the Patriots, North Korea and The Interview, the Olympics, the dancing dog currently going viral, the Pats again, and Stan Rosenberg’s boyfriend. It will only take that one loud uncle at the table who usually argues with someone before passing out to know this story and for once have something interesting to say. For once everyone will be all ears.
George Regan is not a lobbyist. That’s not his thing. His thing is to get people and businesses mentioned in the media. He does this by being associated with big shots. That’s what his parties are all about.
He loves showing off his big name friends who for the most part are former and current politicians and local media types, to his clients and potential clients. But he’s not a lobbyist. He built his career as a spinmeister for Daisy Buchanans and the like for crissakes. More than he did off Kevin White.
And he is not a lobbyist and neither was Hefner.
Being a politician-sniff, for whatever reasons, is not the same a lobbyist.
We could dissect the forensics of Regan’s business and maybe I could be convinced that his hiring of Hefner crossed ethical lines. Right now I don’t see it.
Anyway, with Regan’s help the kid attempts to go to Florida and put this behind him and redeem his young career. But he Globe said “No. We need to kill you kid. Don’t ask why because nobody knows. All I can say son is we are not good people.”
The one article was more than enough to accomplish what the Globe and Stan’s enemies wanted. Hefner doesn’t deserve this. Neither does Rosenberg. I wish them both the best.
farnkoff says
I wasn’t sure what this story was all about either. Do you give up your constitutional right to free speech if wed to or involved with a politician? Weird hit pieces, with shades of homophobia imo.
TheBestDefense says
to free speech is one that prohibits Congress from limiting your rights and then immediately allows the media to write about pretty much any damn thing they want. See the real language of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
bob-gardner says
Are they half brothers? Did “Half-Man” get attached to his other half?
You’re so cute Ernie, when you try to rehabilitate your old targets.
johnk says
what exactly did he say? All I’ve read is that he was attacking pols with his twitter account while he was working at Regan. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he start a Regan Communications in October. I wouldn’t frame that as a career. But I do want to read what he posted.
johnk says
Via the Daily Mail he pulled a Fehrnstrom. @beacon24.
It’s not good.
TheBestDefense says
especially about our most prominent Democrats. It rarely gets this self-destructive.
judy-meredith says
With a person who behaves badly in ways that embarrasses and dishonors the office and the individual office holder, its a story.
My heart aches for Stan whose record of open transparent decision making around complicated complex issues is true and honest.
He doesn’t deserve this, but he has to endure it.
Mark L. Bail says
as department head a year after my school got a new principal. I’d been doing the job for 6 years. My daughter, whom I hadn’t even told, took to twitter with a hashtag that started with #fire and ended with my principal’s name. My daughter had friends in my school who joined the tweeting, and my principal’s daughter saw it. She told her mom who then contacted me. It caused me not a little embarrassment. And at a time when I wanted to be mad, I had to reassure my principal that I wouldn’t cause a problem for her daughter who was scheduled to be my student. In political situations, our loved ones are not always assetts.
As far as Stan goes, he is beloved in Hampshire County. He’s known for being effective rather than being a wild-eyed liberal. I’ve known him since he was State Senator John Olver’s aide. My parents actually held Stan’s first campaign event.
jconway says
Pope Francis excoriated the Curia for a culture of pettiness and gossip that undermined the ability of the church to move forward. Earlier in the year, he also welcomed a gradual shift in tone towards gay relatives and loved ones. If the Catholic Church can move ahead of oerty gossip and homophobia, surely that self appointed paragon of suburban liberal civic sensibility on Morrisey Blvd can do the same?
Stan hasn’t had a chance to govern, it seems he has handled this issue to the bar of his abilities and if people thought he wasn’t a trustworthy and fair leader he wouldn’t have been elected. It’s a non story.
TheBestDefense says
were elected by the members of the House to lead their chamber and I think there are few people who would call them “trustworthy and fair.” Stan is one hell of a lot better than those two miscreants but just being elected does not lift you beyond reproach.
kregan67 says
Voters elect person A who then stands in line for one of the state’s most powerful positions.
Person A is in a relationship with person B
Person B [whose work puts them right on the edge of the lobbying profession] goes online and brags about their ability to influence based on their connection to person A
Person A says no problem everyone because Person B is behind a firewall.
Newspaper reports Person B accompanied Person A on a work trip, calling into question the aforementioned firewall
I see why everyone is bothered by the titillating details, but the fact is that no one elected person B to have any influence at all.
Seems to me like the Globe is doing its job. Are they enjoying more than they should … well, that’s another issue and to me, given how burned the company got by being downright gleeful about a Harvard prof who complained about Chinese food prices, seems like the wise move would be to dial it down a notch.
Schadenfreude has always been one of the secret fuels that makes newsrooms go, but somewhere along the line, it seems to have become a primary motivation for story selection and journalistic resource allocation.
Peter Porcupine says
I think there are campaign finance/ethics rules about spouses and family members of legislators. None of these reporting requirements, etc., legally apply here. Although this couple COULD marry, they have chosen not to but the young man appears to be a de facto spouse.
But condemning boyfriend/girlfriend is so 20th century, and besides, there might be a LOT of legislators caught up in that.
Is THAT what the Globe is responding to? How to ‘expose’ a spouse who is not a spouse?
TheBestDefense says
where there is an appearance of a conflict of interest. From the State Ethics Commission plain language explanation of the Conflict of Interest law, Ch 238A:
“Appearance of conflict. Acting in a manner that would make a reasonable person think you can be improperly influenced is prohibited. (See Section 23(b)(3))
A state employee may not act in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to think that she would show favor toward someone, or that she can be improperly influenced. Section 23(b)(3) requires a state employee to consider whether her relationships and affiliations could prevent her from acting fairly and objectively when she performs her duties for the state. If she cannot be fair and objective because of a relationship or affiliation, she should not perform her duties. However, a state employee, whether elected or appointed, can avoid violating this provision by making a public disclosure of the facts. An appointed employee must make the disclosure in writing to his appointing official.”
On an orthogonal issue, I was happy to see that the folks at Ethics use mixed gender examples of what flies and what sinks, including at least one where there is a same sex marriage involved. People in the State House mostly hate the Ethics Comm but I always found them to be incredibly willing to help and advise. They deserve more credit than scorn.
TheBestDefense says
My sympathy for Stan is great as I have worked with him over the course of more than thirty years. OTOH “The Kid,” as EB3 called him, is obviously a snot-nosed little sh**. His Twitter account makes non-funny fun of almost two dozen prominent Democrats including our remaining Constitutional offices. He bragged about his ability to influence Rosenberg. And then, after Stan announced a firewall between The Kid and State House reality (that may be an oxymoron), Stan brought him to the Executive Committee meeting of the Council on State Government, a meeting whose sole purpose is to discuss politics. That was just plain ol’ stupid.
It seems likely that Regan Communications issued a press release about The Kid being transferred to Fl. That led to another news story. Then The Kid doubled down by sending a stupid and sophomoric letter to the Globe. It seems both Regan and The Kid have not learned that sending notes to the Globe is a good way to keep yourself in play in the media, which is utterly bizarre considering they purport to be media experts.
Stan usually does better than this. OTOH, if his January campaign finance report shows he used campaign money to pay to bring The Kid with him to St Thomas for the CSG meeting then he is begging people to question his judgement.
judy-meredith says
And that, my friends, is the Globe’s rationale for updating this tragic tale. Not even hubris on the part of Regan and the the kid. Deliberate actions that they think illustrates and illuminates their power and influence.
It’s a story …..
judy-meredith says
Merry Christmas.