Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Deval Patrick and Killer Coke

By

The campaign must be really heating up now if we’re seeing the first wave of outside groups getting involved. Today’s Frank Phillips article shows that we haven’t heard the last of Deval’s role in corporate America. While I’m not quite sure about the Killer Coke group or their history, a closer look at any candidate’s record is definitely fair game.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Why do I suspect that this ‘closer look’ will resemble the way the Swift Boaters looked at Kerry’s Vietnam service?

  2. Deval’s involvement with Coke was the first thing I knew about him a year or so ago, and I was immediately extremely opposed to his candidacy (something that has now completely changed). [This was at a time I’d just learned about a lot of the issues with Coca-Cola when a musician friend of mine was offered a lot of money to use a song in a Coke commercial, and he didn’t turn it down quickly enough for some of his fans. I suggested taking it and donating a chunk of it to Killer Coke, thought I’m kinda glad now he didn’t]

    <

    p>
    Frank Philips hightlights what was the most important issue to me:

    As general counsel and executive vice-president, Patrick was at the helm of Coca-Cola’s legal team, which defused charges of human rights abuse stemming from killings by paramilitary forces of labor organizers at a Coke-franchised bottling plant in Colombia. Coke insists its own investigation and another by the Colombian government found the company was not involved.

    <

    p>
    However, he is clearly leaving out the facts about why Deval left Coke: he left the company over this issue because he wanted to take this investigation seriously but the company dind’t want to. This is the fact that made me interested in Deval’s candidacy again and everything else I have learned since then has only added to my reasons to support him.

      • Yes, he’s taking their money, but no he’s not working for them.  Call it “hush money” if you want, but he’s not currently doing any work for Coke.

          • Coke made Patrick into a liar.  He extracted a promise from them, announced it to the world, and they reneged.  It’s clear that he’s still suffering damage to his reputation because of it.  Far be it from me to complain that he’s getting compensated for that damage.

            <

            p>
            If a company screws you over, wring every last cent out of them you can — legally of course.

            • Sco, thanks for the response. 

              <

              p>
              Let’s play it out stipulating your view of the events.  You believe a company is hurting others, but they’re not evil about it (else you wouldn’t join up with them), they just need guidance – guidance that you can provide.

              <

              p>
              So you sign up, they don’t do what you say, and now you conclude they are, in fact, ill-willed towards the people whom they harm. 

              <

              p>
              Your choices are either to resign and speak up to help the injured parties, or resign with a deal that pays you but does nothing to help the injured parties. 

              <

              p>
              If your honest intent at the outset were to help the others, why would tiy take the latter course? 

              <

              p>
              That is, let’s stipulate for a moment your view of events – Coke reneged on a deal.  So there are two injured parties – DP (small injury, one guy who’s still in pretty good shape) and the people who would have been helped by the deal (large injury). 

              <

              p>
              If DP felt screwed over, the best way to “wring them” would be to forego the personal payment to him, and to speak up for the injured party, no?

              • but it seems quite likely that someone taking on the job of general counsel would have signed a confidentiality agreement before he started.  So the choice might not have been as simple as you suggest.

                  1. David, on that narrow point, I’d respond this way. 

                  <

                  p>
                  If you can’t speak up because of a pre-existing agreement, but you are departing the company because you believe it to be immoral, then I’d define your choice as: taking their separation money for your personal use, or taking it and donating it entirely to those who you believe are on the losing end of the immoral conduct. 

                  <

                  p>
                  2. Lolorb, I guess that’s the question I’d ask you.  To your narrow point, no, I don’t think I can easily “know when someone is lying to me” by their facial expression. Sometimes yes, in my school and in poker, but sometimes no. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Let’s say that you’re indeed unusually good at lie-detecting.  Great.  But my point was not that I doubt DP – I have no reason to – it was that I was stipulating Sco’s point that DP is truthful. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Instead, I’m trying to simplify the question – I concede that I’m trying to simplify a complex issue – because I want folks here to define their views on corporate participation in easily understandable principles.

                  <

                  p>
                  Personally, I tend to share EBII’s view that DP’s Coke work was not a big deal either way.  So I have zero critique of his Coke work. 

                  <

                  p>
                  But that those on the far left who dismiss DP’s Coke work as No Big Deal seem to be the very people who otherwise are CONSTANTLY (in my find unfairly) attacking non-left candidates for any links to corporate interests. 

                  <

                  p>
                  That bugs me a little. 

                  <

                  p>
                  When various posters try to draw these far left folks out – admittedly so the next time they rail against a moderate Dem (or Republican) on a similiar issue, we can show what we see as their hypocrisy by linking to it – they (understandably) evade the general principles involved. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Here’s an analogy from the other side.  Supreme Court decides Bush V. Gore.  I think they declared the right winner, as the Miami Herald recounts have shown.  But the 5 pro-Bush justices were the same ones who always clamor for states rights, and then this one time – when their guy is on the line – they suddenly oppose states rights, and overrule the FL Supreme Court?  They are hypocritical.

                  <

                  p>
                  So I’m asking – when you get paid by a corp that you believe to be pursuing an immoral policy (immoral enough that you choose to resign, but not so immoral that you think it’s criminal or anything), and you’re in a Cinderella Man like situation with a poor family, is it the right thing to do to keep the money, buy a new car, house, prep school tuition, etc? 

                • Does Deval believe Coke “to be pursuing an immoral policy (immoral enough that you choose to resign, but not so immoral that you think it’s criminal or anything)”?  Nah. My understanding is that Deval chose to resign simply because he was undermined by the CEO.  You seemingly want to add several logs of conspiracy theory to the fire that the smear machine has built.
                  As for your Cinderella Man theory, why didn’t Deval just shut up and keep the job (and the key to the executive restroom)?   

              • Deval never gave up on the concept of an independent investigation and has continued to lobby for exactly that.  He may not be able to address his involvement per legal agreements, but Deval did not walk away with a paycheck without making damn sure the issue was addressed.  Can you tell when someone is lying to you?  Are you good at it?  Well, before I knew Deval, I asked him flat out in a way that most politicians would not handle well.  I got an honest answer.  I’m not easy (ask anyone who knows me).  He is a straight shooter who is being maligned by those who are afraid he will be put into power.  I will gladly bet anyone that Deval is exactly what he says.  He is an advocate for the good guys who has been on the inside.  We need more of him on those boards. 

          • I have to wonder if this is not only a PR tactic but an attempt to suck Deval’s campaign of money.

            <

            p>
            If Deval gets attacked and told he should no longer take money from any place he ever worked, he’ll have no money left, right?

            <

            p>
            I have never worked at a job where I received any severance. I have, however, left jobs with unused vacation time. I definitely took the money.

            <

            p>
            Whether I agreed with that company or not, didn’t I earn my vacation pay? Why shouldn’t I take it? I would argue that especially if I do not agree with the company that I should take the money.

            <

            p>
            Why should they have it? I earned it!

    • Is anyone else concerned with Deval’s seemingly poor judgment regarding the corporations that he has choosen to work for….Coke, Texaco, Ameriquest.  There appears to be a troubling pattern emerging here. 

      • Are you saying that Massachusetts would be next in a pattern of messed up employers?  If so, I would sort of agree.

        <

        p>
        If there’s a pattern, it’s that Patrick goes into problem companies because they have problems, not despite the fact they have problems.  And, boy, do we have problems in Massachusetts.

        <

        p>
        Who better to fight the ossified political culture in MA than someone who tried to change the corporate culture of some of biggest companies in the world?

      • Greencape I think you asked a legitimate question despite what the “raters” think.  (Disclosure: I am a proud Patrick supporter.)  I think that from the admittedly limited interactions I have had with Deval Patrick that he is an honest guy who is dedicated to doing the right thing.  However I will admit that I get a little squeemish when I look at his corporate experience.  I would much prefer he never touched any of those companies and instead took his work to companies where a difference could have been made.  I take some solace in the fact that obviously Patrick wasn’t politically calculating every move of his life because if he were I seriously doubt he would have gotten involved in these companies.

        <

        p>
        Getting back to your question greencape I think it will be what some voters ask themselves.  There is no doubt that the pattern emerging legitimately raises questions of why?  Ultimately I think Deval answers those questions but for those who don’t bother to listen to the answer (which is too many people) this is a little bit of trouble for Deval.

  3. If Deval gets hit from the left it will put to rest the myth that he’s some crazy socialist.  That will help him if (when!) he wins the primary.

    <

    p>
    What kind of corporate experience does Kerry Healey have in comparison?

Archives