Hi Libbie. Just a quick follow-up to my voice message. You may know about the website BlueMassGroup.com. We interviewed Mr. Patrick several months ago and had a good talk with him. Many, many of the 1,250-odd unique daily readers of our site are vocal Patrick supporters.
In any event, I just wanted to follow-up with you about the two questions I asked in the voice message:
1. Do you have any information about the current rumor that Ameriquest as a corporation, directly or indirectly, and-or Roland and Dawn Arnall, individually or together, provided money to the 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the last election, or any other 527s that ran attack ads against John Kerry in 2004. Here is a piece that my colleague David wrote today about those rumors:
http://bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2114
Ameriquest chairs appear never to have donated to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
by: David
A number of commenters, here and elsewhere, have been claiming that Roland and Dawn Arnall, the heads of Ameriquest, were major financial supporters (to the tune of $5 million) of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), the notorious anti-Kerry 527 organization. Some have also suggested that Deval Patrick’s affiliation with Ameriquest and his personal friendship with Arnall call into question Patrick’s Democratic bona fides in light of the alleged SBVT connection.
As far as I can tell, however, the rumor that the Arnalls supported SBVT is false. There is, of course, no doubt that the Arnalls strongly backed George W. Bush’s presidential campaign in 2004. But every news article I could find on the Arnalls’ donations (here’s one example, and there are many others) says that they – Dawn Arnall in particular – donated $5 million to the Progress for America Voter Fund (PAVF), a separate 527 that ran a series of pro-Bush ads during the 2004 campaign. One can quibble with the content of some of PAVF’s ads (1 , 2 , 3 ), but they don’t hold a candle to the scurrilous rubbish that was put out by SBVT.
So. If anyone has any evidence that the Arnalls in fact supported SBVT, let’s see it – with links. (If you post a comment saying there’s an SBVT-Arnall connection without a link or other supporting evidence, I’ll delete it.) At the moment, it sure looks to me like the connection doesn’t exist, and we’d all be well-advised to stop claiming that it does.
2. What is Mr. Patrick’s position with respect to his Board membership at Ameriquest: is he going to continue unless he is elected Governor (I assume he accepts he will have to resign if he is elected), is he going to resign now in anticipation of winning the election, or is he going to take some other approach. (Just for your reference, David wrote a piece yesterday, as you may know, in which he suggested that Mr. Patrick should resign immediately, but that is just his opinion: it is not a formal editorial position of Blue Mass Group).
You can contact me any time by telephone at [redacted] if you would like to discuss this in person.
Many thanks.
Best,
Bob Neer
This post makes about as much sense as the story I heard recently at a Dem. meeting where a gentleman breathlessly told me that Deval Patrick was responsible for John Kerry losing the 2004 election and that’s why he wouldn’t vote for him.
<
p>
According this this guy, Kerry couldn’t afford to counter the ads run by SBVT which, according to him were financed by Roland Arnall, or his wife, or maybe the gardener… no one seems to know for sure, but damnit, that Deval Patrick is responsible for the whole thing.
<
p>
Conveniently forgetting the fact that John Kerry walked away from the 2004 election with $50 million dollars in his campaign account and has been quoted as saying that he would have loved to smack down the Swifties during the campaign, but was counseled not to. But you know, damnit, the whole thing is still Deval Patrick’s fault.
<
p>
Bob, is there some reason why you doubt the piece that David wrote about the apparent lack of a connection between the Arnalls and SBVT? You sure don’t seem to have any new information to offer.
<
p>
Is Blue Mass. Group so powerful now that they can demand that a campaign drop everything to respond to charges that amount to little more than unsubstantiated conjecture? Where’s YOUR links, Bob?
<
p>
I’m no Arnall apologist, but for cryin’ out loud, is this blog going to pin everything Arnall ever did on Deval Patrick? Arnall has contributed to Democrats too, you know — or maybe that doesn’t fit as nicely into this ridiculous narrative that Deval Patrick is a Republican enabler. Give me a break. Have you ALWAYS agreed with everything your boss did?
<
p>
This part is a stunner:
(Just for your reference, David wrote a piece yesterday, as you may know, in which he suggested that Mr. Patrick should resign immediately, but that is just his opinion: it is not a formal editorial position of Blue Mass Group).
<
p>
I think Blue Mass. Group may have just jumped the shark.
Susan,
<
p>
I think you may have gone a bit too far, but I agree that if this kind of negativity is to pervade BMG it will become a lot less interesting place to be.
<
p>
I’m really interested in electing a Governor who, like Patick, is thoughtful, engaged, and willing to tackle tough problems. The fact is that he was willing to go into the hornets’ nest that was/is Ameriquest and help negotiate a settlement, based on his many years of experience helping folks who were victimized by some of the practices of Ameriquest and other sub-prime lenders. I admire that.
<
p>
To tar him with a the same brush used on the company he was trying to reform is not just unfair, it’s missing the point. Do we not want good people to get involved in solving problems? Or should people be required to take an oath that they are evil before they are allowed to work for large corporations?
Not sure about the swift boat links, but a friend of mine is a former mortage officer for Ameriquest. She used to receive emails from corporate saying that she would get an all expense paid trip to DC to meet bush for a 1000$ donation to his campaign. She said the whole trip was easily worth 2000-3500 so most people didn’t flinch about writing the check. Unfortunately I have no paperwork to back this up but talk to some Ameriquest people and I am sure they would say the same.
“Chris Gabrieli, is it true that you or Whitey Bulger or Enron or anyone in your personal or professional circle has ever eaten a baby?”
<
p>
“Tom Reilly, do you have any information about the current rumor that Massachusetts, directly or indirectly, and-or Mitt Romney, individually or together, provided money to Bechtel in the past decade?”
<
p>
If you start with a baseless accusation “Deval = Swift Boat,” why would they bother to think of your question as anything but biased? We already have the name of the correct 527 group. And if you looked it up, you’d already know that Ameriquest didn’t give anything as a corporate entity. Even if his campaign were going to answer this question, they’re not going to answer it when it’s asked like THIS.
because he wants to squeak through the convention without any controversial or negative buzz. The truth will all come out after the convention, once the primary campaign starts .The real core democrats will then pin him down on his stonewalling and demand answers.
<
p>
“The truth is incontrovertible, Malice may attack it, Ignorance may deride it, But in the end, There it is.”
<
p> Winston Churchill
<
p>
@Bob:
<
p>
What was the point of the post? So if DP had not been on the Board, the donation (if it ever was made) would not have been made? No? Please explain.
That I think the Patrick campaign is scared of this issue, and is responding by trying to pretend it will go away. That’s interesting. I personally think this is a valid issue, and I don’t think it will go away. I also don’t think ostriching is an effective campaign tactic. Patrick should take a public position on his Ameriquest Board seat (if he intends to keep it, resign, whatever), and he should clarify the facts about the politics of the guy he recommended to be an ambassador. If his campaign doesn’t feel like answering the second subject, which as I wrote is interesting in my personal opinion, since it would be easy to endorse David’s position or say something comparable, they should at least address the first.
Bob,
<
p>
You’re beating a dead horse. Patrick issued a statement a loooooong time ago about this issue, and made it clear in his remarks at the time that he does not share Arnall’s politics.
<
p>
Obviously, Patrick is going to resign his board seat, but he’s not going to do it at the behest of BMG, the Reilly campaign, or any other outside pressure. He’s going to do it when he feels it’s right. And I trust his judgment around that.
<
p>
Now, can we get on to discussing the future of Massachusetts?
It says nothing about Patrick’s Board seat or any support by the Arnalls for the Swifties. Call it a dead horse if you want, accuse me of jumping the shark, compare the question to “eating dead babies,” but I’d like an answer: (1) “To the best of our knowledge, neither Patrick Arnall nor his wife provided direct or indirect financial support to Swift Boat Veterans, and we certainly disapproved of the tactics of that group,” and (2) “Mr. Patrick will resign his Ameriquest Board seat when he is elected Governor.” What is so hard about that? I stand by my statement that the most significant issue here is that the campaign has no statement: that means they are afraid — not of BMG for chrissakes, no one cares about a little blog, but about the issue in general. Incidentally, I am personally undecided about who I support for Governor.
Deval Patrick has already publicly stated what his involvement on the Ameriquest Board was all about. Since your question seems more about misleading than about getting an answer, I’m guessing it was meant to be simply rhetorical (in the most bombastic of senses).
<
p>
Isn’t it fascinating how the same old shit happens in the political arena whenever there is a challenger to the status quo? Innuendo, unsubstantiated claims, sly manipulation of questions leading one to false conclusions? What’s really amazing to me is that anyone buys this stuff.
<
p>
Let’s see how we can discredit other candidates(since we can’t win on policy or vision). I think we should (for fun) start lists of who is associating with whom just so that we can be prepared to shoot down some candidates (ala SBVT).
<
p>
I heard that Ruppert Murdoch did a fundraiser for Hillary!
<
p>
Kennedy and Kerry have had dinner with Newt Gingrich!
<
p>
Reilly met with a second cousin of Whitey Bolger!
<
p>
Gabrielli’s venture capital firm contributed to a KNOWN Republican.
<
p>
Sheesh.
As other commenters have already asked, what is your point Bob? Your recent comment does not even come close to answering that question. You sent the Patrick campaign a question to which David has already answered. Any reasonable research shows that there is no connection between the Arnall’s and SBVFT. Yet you still need to ask the question thereby keeping this false issue alive. Why? You say that the issue isn’t going away so the Patrick campaign must give an answer. This logic is somewhat circular. The issue isn’t going away because you bring it up and then claim the issue isn’t going away. I did a cursory search of the papers for the last week, no mention of Ameriquest. So what exactly constitutes an issue has having gone away? In politics a week is an eternity.
<
p>
Finally, why the push on Patrick’s Ameriquest seat? There is absolutely no evidence of wrong doing or questionable actions on Patrick’s part. The evidence we do have suggests that Patrick’s role has been in helping Ameriquest settle its indiscretions with the attorneys general and help the organizaiton reform its lending practices. Do such actions require resignation because a blogger calls for it? There seems to be a little aggrandizement going on here at BMG and I think the general tone of the questions asked to the campaign is a bit of evidence to that effect.
I don’t think discussion on BMG is a problem for the Patrick campaign. I do think this issue will get hauled out later on, in some forum with a larger readership, closer to the election, when it might actually matter, if they don’t address it now. Personally, I think David’s position on the Swifties is the likely one, but I cannot understand why, if that is true, the campaign won’t confirm it. I conclude that they don’t know, or do know but are not, in my judgment, addressing this issue in an effective manner — i.e., clamming up/ostriching rather their sharing information. The former is arguably newsworthy, at a minimum interesting; the latter, well, that’s just my opinion and that’s why this site is: a place for discussion. Note that David has also called for Patrick to resign his Ameriquest seat right now, which was my question #2 to the campaign, and which they also have not answered.
According to this article the Arnall family gave $5 million to PAVF and have organized tons of money for the Bush campaigns.
<
p>
There is no specific mention of SBVT, but it is clear that the Arnalls have given tons of money to undercutting Democrats and the Democratic message, while supporting Bush and his terrible administration.
<
p>
The problem is NOT that Deval sat on the board of Ameriquest while Arnall was president.
<
p>
The problem IS that, more than a year after Arnall worked to undercut John Kerry and get Bush a second term, Deval (according to the above-linked article) wrote a letter of support on Arnall’s behalf for an Ambassador post.
<
p>
Arnall dumps on Democrats, is as big a Bush supporter as there is in this country, and Deval writes a letter in SUPPORT of this guy.
<
p>
THAT is the problem. Why didn’t Deval have the political integrity to tell the guy off; or at least not write a letter in support of the guy???
<
p>
If Deval was a die-hard Democrat beyond reproach, there is no way he would write a letter in support of the guy for an Ambassadorship. It does beg the question how much Arnall is paying Deval for his support.
My problem with the original post isn’t that it’s confrontational; it’s that the question is misleading and dances around the real questions.
<
p>
Giving political support, not just to a Republican, but to a Republican who actively worked against our Senator, John Kerry, is a legitimate question. However, as distasteful as it politically may be, the corporate world makes colleagues and friends out of people with vastly different political viewpoints.
<
p>
Personally, I still think that Ameritrade is the 10-ton elephant in the room. It’s not that it’s currently in the news cycle, but their recent Massachusetts layoffs and the continued tie to Peter Arnall aren’t going to help Deval. I’m a Deval delegate, but I’m also a realist about these things. Regardless of his political stances, leadership ability, or social connections, he’s going to have to answer these questions at some point. (Well, at least I think so. Unless he has some sort of Dubya 2000 voodoo magic hiding in his campaign, in which case I’d actually be a lot more concerned about his candidacy.)
Hokun – Thank you for your sensible reply and thoughts on the matter.
<
p>
I’d like to know why Deval thought it appropriate to write the letter on behalf of a guy who coordinated millions of dollars to the Bush campaign and right-wing organizations.
<
p>
Even if they’re friends personally, this is politics and policy. Not to be glib, but it’s not personal. And it’s not pure partisanship. Just having an R next to your name does not make you a bad person. However, putting millions of dollars into Bush’s campaign coffers and its allies coffers certainly should make you POLITICALLY persona non grata amongst progressives.
<
p>
So it’s not just that Ameriquest is a dirty word. I want to hear a real justification of Deval’s support for Arnall for Ambassador.
Deval Patrick is beyond reproach, especially about Ameriquest. Once Deval Patrick has spoken, it is the gospel truth. Patrick says that he joined Ameriquest to help the company solve its predatory lending problems so that is that. Accept no alternatives. His compensation from Ameriquest is not important because Deval says it isn’t. His actual role in the settlement or governance of Ameriquest is unimportant because Deval says so. All things Ameriquest are irrelevant because Deval says they are irrelevant. Honestly, Bob, it is much easier to go through life if you just don’t question anything and put your unabiding faith in Deval Patrick. In Deval We Trust. . .until, of course, somebody else asks these questions. . .which they will.
<
p>
My prediction: Ameriquest is going to get worse for Patrick before (or if) it gets better. Patrick supporters would be wise to push their candidate to answer the questions on favorable terms and make decisions now rather than later. There isn’t enough Kool-Aid in the Commonwealth to get the media, the other campaigns, and the general public to simply let things drop. The steady drip-drip will only continue. Unless Deval really needs the money (and I am of the opinion that his financial compensation for sitting on the board is the most likely explanation for why he has not already walked away), he should cut his ties now.
<
p>
Keep asking questions, Bob!
Let me see if I have this right. Because Deval Patrick supporters are good at identifying hypocrisy and are suspicious of the motives of those who use SBVT tactics and innuendo, we are kool aid drinkers. I believe that someone has been boning up on Karl Rovian tactics. When was it that your mother began beating helpless puppies?
<
p>
For all those with no horse in this race, I have an analogy to the Ameriquest brouhaha (which is really the case, despite the best efforts of those who wish you to think otherwise).
<
p>
One of my best friends (gasp!) is a Republican. He is a kind, caring person who has views that differ significantly from mine. On many things we agree. When it becomes obvious to him that I was right (which happens from time to time), he admits it and we have meaningful discussions. This has happened on environmental issues (he’s horrified by the Bush administration’s failures in this area), abortion rights, packing the courts with conservatives, etc.
<
p>
My friend and I have worked together in the past. We established a solid working relationship. Does this make me a traitor? Should my name be culled from the Democratic voter list? Or, is it sometimes possible to agree to disagree? Would I recommend my friend for a diplomatic post? Absolutely, yes. The reason why I would do so is because we have a history of open discussions. I see my friend as capable of listening.
<
p>
Why the hell can’t the Deval/Ameriquest story be exactly the same? Why do those questioning this seem to have so much invested in the outcome being something else? In a state that has such a long history of doing anything to keep those in power IN POWER (remember Finneran?), doesn’t it make more sense to ask why there seems to be such a desire for a predetermined answer? Might there actually be kool-aid drinkers calling the kettle black?
lolorb – Your analogy isn’t accurate because Deval is not running to be my friend; he is running to be my Governor.
<
p>
If your GOP friend with whom you have a good relationship contributed millions to Bush and his allies and then you wrote a letter in support of him for an important POLITICAL position, then yes, your progressive bona fides would be called into question.
<
p>
You’re not a traitor (your word) for being FRIENDS with a Republican. You’re not even a traitor for being FRIENDS with a Bush donor. However, if you POLITICALLY support (say, for an Ambassadorship) a major Bush fundraiser, then, yes, it calls in question your POLITICAL loyalties and your POLITICAL integrity.
If my friend were a politician and a Bush donor and I happened to be a politician, I would still support him for an Ambassadorship if he had the ability to be a diplomat. I’d rather support a known quantity for the position (knowing that he has the ability to listen and change his mind based on fact) than another Bush lackey. For crying out loud, I’d rather have the Arnall guy somewhere in the Netherlands smoking some good weed than in this country anyways.
<
p>
Ambassadors to the NETHERLANDS nod, make nice and go to state dinners. They don’t make policy or run countries. Give it up — this is not a question of political loyalties.
Because, if so, I want to be his/her friend too. Your analogy doesn’t work. We all have Republican friends. We all probably have Republican family members. None of these people provided us with a well-compensated Board of Directors position, the timing of which could not have been any more perfect for a man who leaving his job to run for political office. Deval Patrick seeded his campaign wth about $300,000 in cash. Wouldn’t it be interesting to know if that is approximately what he received in compensation from Ameriquest? There is nothing wrong with sitting on a corporate board, but I simply do not buy Patrick’s rose colored tale about this being all about solving problems. Heck, call it enlightened self-interest: they needed him, he needed them. Fine. Just tell it like it is.
I think my friend, if he needed to do so, would pay me what I am worth (or the going rate) to do a job that needed to be done. I think his decision to do so would be based upon my abilities, intelligence and his understanding of me and what I represent (philosophically and ideologically). So, if he needed someone to come into his corporation and clean up the problems, I think he would hire me. BTW – my good friend is an SVP with a large multi-national corporation. So, I stand by my analogy. Your mention of $300,000 gives you away.
<
p>
Please stop insulting my intelligence and that of the readers here. You gave it your best shot. See you at the convention — maybe.
Dear Friends,
<
p>
I am writing today to let you know about my decision to resign from the Board of Ameriquest’s parent company. I want you to hear from me directly before you read about this in the newspaper tomorrow.
<
p>
As you know, I believe that leadership is more than grand announcements. It’s more than press conferences and photo ops. Sometimes leadership is the slow, steady, unglamorous work of making reform real.
<
p>
That is the kind of leadership that I brought to Texaco, where I helped transform their employment practices in the wake of devastating allegations of workplace discrimination. That is the kind of leadership I brought to Coca-Cola, where I was involved in steering the company through a crisis of public confidence in its internal control and accounting processes. And that is the kind of leadership I brought to Ameriquest, when I was asked to join the board of its parent company in 2004. Ameriquest was facing very serious charges about its lending practices at the time. I became a part of the solution.
<
p>
I have spent a lifetime fighting against discriminatory lending practices. Here in Massachusetts, I led the charge over a decade ago against predatory lending that targeted elderly and African-American borrowers, achieving the first statewide settlement and also mediating subsequent cases by appointment of Scott Harshbarger. As the head of the Civil Rights Division in the U.S. Justice Department under President Clinton, I implemented the most far-reaching fair lending enforcement program in American history. Millions of people got a fair chance to own a home because of the work we did.
<
p>
So when officials of Ameriquest asked me to help them learn from their mistakes and institute internal changes to ensure that unfair lending does not occur again, I was glad to join the company’s board. I served as the board’s point person for the company’s management in their negotiations with attorneys general from 49 states and helped the company reach an agreement that both holds Ameriquest accountable for past behavior and sets new industry standards for all lenders. I have also been involved in review and development of the company’s efforts to improve its internal oversight and controls. There is more to do. But these changes will place Ameriquest at the forefront of transparency and accountability in the sub-prime lending market. Since that’s the fastest growing segment of the lending industry, that’s good news for working families. I am very proud of that.
<
p>
No company is immune from general economic trends and Ameriquest was hit hard by the recent slowdown in home sales and refinancings. Just two weeks ago, the company announced it was closing all its branches across the country and consolidating operations in its four servicing centers. Layoffs resulted, including some employees here in Massachusetts. But instead of leaving our folks to fend for themselves, I went to work. I am pleased that every one of those employees has an opportunity to join a rival lender. Employees who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own now have a means to cushion the blow.
<
p>
The sad reality is that the same economic realities that are squeezing Ameriquest’s business are also squeezing Massachusetts families. At times like these, mortgage foreclosures tend to increase. That’s why I am pleased that Ameriquest will bring credit counseling and foreclosure avoidance programs to Massachusetts that the company has developed elsewhere, and has offered to partner with Mayor Thomas Menino’s task force on foreclosure avoidance in Boston. These are tangible ways that, by rolling up my sleeves, I have tried to help keep hard-pressed families from losing their homes.
<
p>
I understood from the outset that my work with Ameriquest would make some people uncomfortable. Progressives are sometimes uncomfortable in principle with people who work for large companies. Political rivals try to make it an issue. But leadership to effect real change sometimes requires more than a critique from the outside. Sometimes it requires that you bring your judgment and your conscience inside.
<
p>
Unfortunately, that spirit is largely missing from our current political culture. Many of our political leaders prefer to concentrate on getting and keeping office rather than performing the hard work of devising real solutions to our most difficult challenges. That’s why we need a change.
<
p>
Ameriquest is on a path to be a better company now. The changes I helped develop will make a real and positive difference in the lives of borrowers and in the behavior of the company. Confident that this progress will continue, I will be stepping down from the board. Besides, I have a campaign to win. But my lifelong commitment to fighting discrimination and unfairness is unchanged. I still believe that lasting reform requires good people both outside and inside. Whether at Texaco, Coca-Cola or Ameriquest, I have never left my conscience at the door. And you can count on that when I’m governor, too.
<
p>
Sincerely,
<
p>
Mr. Patrick, since it was all about bringing your conscience into the boardroom, HOW MUCH MONEY DID YOU MAKE IN THE PROCESS??? This wasn’t an act of charity, it was a fee-for-service.
MaverickDem,
<
p>
I don’t think he is saying he did it as a charity, it was a job and he was compensated for it. What’s so terrible about that? Are you saying that it is impossible to both work and have a conscience (and for your conscience or beliefs to inform your work)? That somehow anyone who works in corporate America automatically forfeits the right to the progressive label?
<
p>
I find it very funny that those who attack Patick for being too liberal to win now attack him for being not true to progressive ideals because he has helped out a Republican friend. Which is it? You really cannot have it both ways.
<
p>
And as for this letter of support for a repulican donator somehow showing that Patrick is a “traitor” to progressives, well, that is simply ridiculous. Someone here made the argument that this was a terrible act because the position was an ambassadorship. First, let’s recall that Bill Clinton actually appointed a Republican to be the Secretary of Defense and yet he wasn’t summarily asked to turn in his Democratic party card. Also, isn’t it a slippery slope to use political donations as a criteria in hiring?
Wahoowa, there is nothing wrong with sitting on a corporate board. In fact, as a Democrat, I think it can be a good thing with independent voters, if you choose your board positions carefully. My point is that Patrick was paid and, until stops withholding the exact amount, I am going to assume the he was well-compensated. So, while we know for sure that he makes “more than $100,000,” we actually have no idea what he did as a board member. He says that he played a role in the settlement. OK, point to some evidence. Otherwise, if it was just a cushy corporate board gig to help cover the expenses through his gubernatorial campaign then quit selling the altruistic angle.
Ok, first, do people on this site even understand how boards of directors work. As Patrick states in his statement, he served as the point person on the board that worked with management who was actually negotiating the deal. That’s the way board’s work. Management negotiates and the board advises and approves. So Patrick could have done exactly what he says and never had met with the representatives of the various AG’s offices (and I’m sure the AG’s were not all there themselves for all the meetings either).
<
p>
And the self-interest argument is laughable. Was he compensated, yes…that’s the practice of every corporation, so that top minds can be brought to the board. Does that negate any good work that he did as a board member? I would say no.
<
p>
I have to say I am sorely disappointed with this site. What I hoped would be an interesting and potentially educational debate on the issues is nothing more than a forum fo people to sling mud and tear candidates down. Sadly, it seems that it’s the Reilly folks who like to do most of the slinging…not surprising given their candidate releases a statement incredibly quickly after Patricks today attacking Patrick.
Mr. Patrick will NOT disclose how much Ambassador Arnall paid him to be the “face” of reform. Something tells me that the folks in Boston badly affected by Ameriquest have seen jive like this before and they won’t miss it this time. What a fraud.
BTW, since his statement references his “work” on the $325 million settlement, I think he should show us his schedule when he particpated int he discussions. Word among nonprofs is that he was a complete no-show during the negotiations. I’m sure Deval could produce an AG (other than Reilly, of course) who will vouch for his work on the settlement.
ACORN, thank you. I’ve been raising this issue for weeks. Other than pointing the the settlement itelf, can Deval Patrick demonstrate that he played a substantive role in the process. His entire justification for sitting on the board and receiving God-knows-what for compensation is that he helped solved their problems. OK, don’t just say it, prove it.
Hundreds of people in this state are without a home today. And he chooses today for his announcement? I guess it is an attempt to hide it…
single-payer healthcare or free TV for political campaigns or something that might make a difference to the people of Massachusetts.
is capable of idea exchange any more. Everyone seems to busy trying to jail Galluccio or create a scandal over a black man being successful and having a big house.
You might think Deval wrote a letter to God to get his friend appointed to the Jesus Christ post somewhere to the immediate right of the throne. And that he had the only input in the decision.
<
p>
It is an ambassadorship, for Christ sake. No biggy. And he certainly did not have a great deal to do with the decision on the nomination.
<
p>
I think this is getting entirely out of proportion. It would be one thing if someone could make a case that Patrick’s position on that board did anything but improve the lending practices of Ameriquest; or if there were some impropriety.
<
p>
But no one is saying anything of the sort. The only thing drum you seem to beat is that Patick served on a board and got paid for it. He wrote a letter endorsing the appointment of his friend and business aquaintance for a relatively minor position in the government – make no mistake, an ambassadorship is no biggy. (I would assume that that aquaintance led him to think that Mr. Arnal would make a good ambassador.) You casually neglect to mention that Bill Richardson also endorsed him.
<
p>
What is your real problem here? Not enough issues to talk about? Frankly, lately a lot of what I see here seems to be a combination of little old lady sniping and insider baseball. Beyond the fact that it is unbecoming, it is also unproductive.
<
p>
I would also point out that this personal stuff and the way it being handled smacks of the same tactics employed by the Republicans – tactics you say you abhor.
“It would be one thing if someone could make a case that Patrick’s position on that board did anything but improve the lending practices of Ameriquest; or if there were some impropriety.”
<
p>
Wait a second jethom. Deval is the guy who is claiming that HE improved Ameriquest. It is up to him to prove that. He has shown no evidence of reform. $325 Million to a company that has a $1 BILLION marketing budget is less than a speeding ticket to regular folks.
<
p>
This company has a long history of entering into settlements with law enforcement (eg 1998 and with the states of CT and GA), paying the fine, and then reverting back to their predatory practices.
<
p>
It is not up to housing activists to show the board’s complicity in ACC’s illegality. It is Deval’s job to show that he did not participate in a loan sharking operation that paid him handsomely to smile for the cameras.
First of all, it is my understanding that this settlement was entered into by most of the AG’s in the country – including Tom Reilly. I am not saying that the settlement could not be repudiated by Ameriquest – although I suspect there would be some unpalatable consequences –
<
p>
but that puts Patrick in a position of proving a negative.
For the moment, the agreement must stand on its own.
Can you please link to or cite the cases that CT and GA have brougt against Ameriquest for the second time? You seem to have a tremendous difficulty with facts.
So I do not know how to do small links and everyone gets blasted for not doing so. But risking th consequences of the Patrick disciples please see : February 5, 2005 article http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/02/ 05/sections/business/business/article_399406.php
<
p>
“Connecticut banking regulators moved last month to yank lending licenses from Ameriquest and an affiliate, accusing the company of repeatedly overcharging its customers, state documents show.” note these loans were supposed to be covered in the 1998 agreement and fall outside the terms of the 2005 agreement. Go figure.
<
p>
And this one about the cease and desist order from the Georgia banking department as chronicled by our friends at Inner City Press ( a very respected consumer watchdog)
<
p>
http://www.innercitypress.org/ameriquest.html
<
p>
This company has always been rotten, and remains rotten. The only difference is that Deval Patrick made upwards of a million dollars from these crooks and now claims to be a crusader!
Two choices:
<
p>
1) Go to http://www.tinyurl.com/ and enter your URL in the form there. It will hand back a “short” URL.
<
p>
2) Link your URL. So, if you type in your comment <a href=”http://www.example.com/“>article</a> then it will come out looking like: article.
<
p>
3) Failing all else, at least put the “http://“ on your URLs, or BMG will not recognize it as a URL that should be linked.