So what we are left with is not a fact. What we are left with is an anonymous person’s account. Just because something is widely-espoused or even widely-reported does not make it a fact. It may add something – a lot, a little, or nothing at all – to the body of information on a particular subject, but unless it is a “smoking gun” memo or something to that effect, a fact it is not.
Webster’s provides the following definition for the word “fact:”
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: ‘fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
– in fact : in truth,
Disclosure: I really enjoy David’s work. Whether I agree with it (and I often do) or not, it is thorough, fair to the subject, and respectful of its audience. However, the assumption underlying David’s comment above is the same assumption that underlies far too many responses to any inquiry – no matter how respectfully made – into Deval’s corporate record: that is, to parrot Deval’s account of events. For example:
Why did Deval sit on the board of Ameriquest? To help them clean up their predatory lending practices, of course! (The fact that he made nearly $400,000 annually for serving on the board was purely incidental. . .)
Why did Deval leave Coca-Cola after a relatively short stint as its General Counsel? Because he took a bold stand against Coke’s corporate leadership when they refused to investigate labor problems in Colombia, of course! (The fact that the decision not to investigate Colombia was announced in the Spring of 2004 but Deval stayed with Coke throughout the remainder of the year and then received $2.1 million from the company in 2005 was purely incidental. . .)
Deval has answers for Ameriquest and Coke. That’s great and maybe they are even true. However, I have never, ever read a single objective account that effectively validates any of Patrick’s claims on these matters. Not one. So I am left with valid questions. . .
If Patrick played a central role in Ameriquest’s predatory lending settlement with 49 states, where is the documentation? Unless he was in a room by himself, where are the other accounts from the other participants?
If Patrick left Coke due to his moral incompatability with the company’s direction in Colombia, where are the memoes? Why did he stay throughout the year? Why did he continue to take their money for another 18 months? What evidence exists beyond his own account and that of any unnamed sources?
The fact of the matter is that there are multiple accounts, competing theories, and very few facts surrounding certain aspects of Deval Patrick’s corporate resume. The few facts that are known provide enough inconsistencies that reasonable people may not be prepared to swallow Deval’s version of events whole absent some compelling, substantiating evidence.
So, what are we left with? Deval’s account and a culture of intolerance towards those who ask questions about his version of events. Well, IMHO, that is an unhealthy environment for our candidates, our party, and our Commonwealth.
The more genuine facts that we know about any candidate, the better. However, a fact is only a fact when it is a fact. Until the facts are established, the questions are fair and valid exercises of inquiring minds, no matter how artfully or clumsily they are asked. In fact, a healthy democratic process requires serious inquiry.
And you’re right – the source may well have been Patrick, or someone sympathetic to him within Coke. Problem is, there are only two possible sources of why he “really” left: Patrick himself, and Coke’s senior management. Coke, obviously, isn’t talking. Nor is Patrick, since his severance agreement prohibits it – certainly, I’d think the agreement would prohibit him from disclosing the emails and memos you mention. So there you are.
<
p>
The account does strike me as credible, though: it’s a fact of record that Patrick publicly agreed to undertake an investigation at that Equal Justice Works event; that he negotiated for some time with that group and others mentioned in the WaPo article; that Coke’s CEO was initially supportive but then backed out; and that Patrick left shortly thereafter.
<
p>
Where does that leave us? Dunno. You go with what you’ve got, I guess. Maybe I overstated the “widely-reported fact” point – should have couched it in terms of the WaPo’s sources. But WaPo obviously knows who the source is, and presumably its editors signed off on the reporter’s story.
Good points, all.
<
p>
But it appears there are not factual answers either forthcoming or available that will satisfy those who need or want such answers. Now what? Does an entirety of a campaign get distilled to this single issue? How does the issue fit into the big picture?
<
p>
What we have to ask ourselves, then, is does the inability to verify factual information preclude Patrick’s being a viable or supportable candidate?
<
p>
Is this issue, either specifically or in the aggregate, worth ruling him out as a supportable candidate?
<
p>
Does the lack of verifiable data render him unfit for public service?
<
p>
Unless something unexpected arises, people are going to have to face those questions. Personally, I don’t see the sort of verifiable specificity on this subject arising any time soon. So now what?
<
p>
Personally, I’m kind of sensitive about weeding promising candidates out because something entirely legal in their past is unclear. Too much scrutiny (nitpicking?) will discourage good and talented people from running for office. What matters more to me is that person’s vision for the future and what the person wishes to accomplish if elected; not what s/he has done particularly in the past. People with questionable aspects of their past are certainly capable of effective leadership. We’re not voting on their past, we’re voting on their promises of the future. I’m also more inclined to view the big picture, which, I think, most other voters are, too.
<
p>
So, that’s a long way of saying you have a point with the issues you raise, but, in the longrun, does any of it really matter–and should it?
Does he quit and expect a severance package because they(the Great General Court) do not agree with him.
<
p>
In light of all these facts it would appear that Deval – much like his supporters (are these same people that supported Shannon O’Brien??)- can’t handle people disagreeing with them. Remember how easy it was to rally people for Shannon after the primary because her campaign and supporters were so democratic and supportive of other candidates rights to run against her.
<
p>
I find the incidents troubling not on their face, but rather because they show character traits of volatility and childishness. Unfortunately, government and politics is about compromise. This has been Governor Romney’s biggest shortcoming. His inability to compromise in order to achieve his goals.
<
p>
Do we really think Deval has the ability to compromise with the Legislature? When things got tough at Coke and Ameriquest Deval went packing…. Things get tough on Beacon Hill all the time – how do we know Deval won’t go packing…
<
p>
And what if he doesn’t have the ability to compromise with the Legislature??? Who is going to pay is severance package???
<
p>
So what Deval has a fit of self righteous clarity and realizes that he fundamentally disagrees with the vision of the Legislature and has to leave???
<
p>
Then we are stuck with another Lt. Governor so we should be very careful in choosing the Lt. Governor is Deval is going to be the man……
Calling the kettle black, eh?
<
p>
Ah, well, you free to disagree and support the candidate of your choice.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed it, but nobody in politics seems to be able to handle people disagreeing. Candidates and supporters alike.
<
p>
Gabrieli followers get all up in arms over stuff, Deval supporters do as well, and Reilly… well, actually, I haven’t heard much from the Reilly camp. Let’s not pretend, though, that this is somehow unique to Patrick’s campaign.
<
p>
Secondly, governmental politics and corporate politics are two completely different animals. As General Counsel, Patrick was, effectively, completely subservient to the CEO’s wishes. If the CEO and the Board wanted to do something completely against Patrick’s character, he had two choices: Do it, or quit. There’s no compromise in business unless the CEO wants to compromise. So you either cave or you follow your principles and resign.
<
p>
Nobody can say the executive is completely subservient to the legislative in government. Indeed, if you follow Bush’s shining example (not saying it’s a good idea), it’s practically the opposite. Government, though, is all about compromise, and (unlike corporate governance as described above) the parties are on roughly equal footing.
<
p>
Thirdly, you must be aware that Deval didn’t “go packing” at Ameriquest because things got tough. They got tough because the apparent conflict of interest was hindering his campaign, and he determined that that was more important. You may disagree, but you can’t say that he left there because he couldn’t compromise with the board.
I’ve heard a bit of a groundswell this week for this handwringing about “boo hoo, what if Gov. Patrick can’t get along with the legislature?” Of course, this follows twelve or sixteen years of “boo hoo, Dems can’t win because voters want someone who will balance out legislative power.”
<
p>
I know that the “can’t get along” spin is a bunch of baloney because I have seen the incredible team that candidate Patrick has put together for his campaign. Deval is qualified to work out policy solutions on his own merits – both work experience and personal qualities – but Governors can’t be effective without a good team of people.
<
p>
I have worked with Dem candidates who do not know how to pick advisors and campaign staff, and I have worked with those that do. I have never seen a campaign as smart and as carefully staffed as the Patrick campaign. Hands down. Best I’ve ever seen, from technology to fundraising to convention and beyond.
<
p>
Gov. Patrick will have incredibly talented and experienced people working for him and with him within state agencies, the legislature and with constituent groups throughout the Commonwealth. I expect some in the legislature might have to adjust their customary approach to the corner office, but he will not be a problem caused by Deval.
<
p>
By the way, this was not at all my experience:
Sorry, some of the rhetoric and irritating staff behavior out of that campaign was (in my opinion) one of the reasons we did not motivate more voters and prevail in November.
That is exactly the point I was trying to make!!!! No one wanted to work with Shannon’s people becuase they were difficult and created many enemies… I see the same things and people surrounding Deval. I am just becoming more and more concerned about Deval and his people.
<
p>
The real prize is winning in November – we as Democrats need a candidate that everyone can support.
In light of all this “Killer Coke” nonsense – I’m not even going to pay attention to the Swift Boating of Deval Patrick any longer.
<
p>
People can’t win on the issues, so they’ll just make shit up. Well, good luck. Personally, I don’t think the voters are going to buy it. They’ll hear what Deval has to say, think it’s very plausible likely (just look how clear David makes it), then pay attention to this brooding “Killer Coke’ scandal and recognize what all this crap is: Swift Boating.
<
p>
The fact that democrats are willing to swiftboat democrats is a fact I find intolerable.
<
p>
I won’t vote for such democrats. But I will work to SWEEP THEM FROM OFFICE because it’s time for a government that’s responsive to the people, not one that finds them annoying and repugnant. The days of Swift Boating will soon be over as momentum shifts to progressives.
Deval got a seven figure going away package from Coke right before the Governor’s race started. There is a clause in which Deval agrees to not speak of any activities concerning his involvement with Coke.
<
p>
Hmm, Did God blackmail Coke for $$$ to finance his campaign?
<
p>
Why didn’t he blow the whistle on this South American activity? Why can his moral concerns be so easily boughht?
<
p>
Why will Kool-Aid Drinkers ignore issues concerning Deval that ordinarily would send them into a frenzy?
<
p>
Why? Why? Why?
Because standard clauses say so, that’s why.
<
p>
Every company does this, at high levels and low. Non-competes, confidentialities, etc.
<
p>
You are smarter then that, Ernie.
The thing doesn’t past the smell test. In my opinion
First of all, it’s a severance agreement, not blackmail. Coca-Cola paid Deval serious amounts of money to come work for them. Probably because he’s such a smart, and very well connected, guy. I don’t know this for sure, but Deval probably got to know Coke sales figures, marketing research, corporate strategy, and new product lines pretty well. Hell, maybe he even got ot know the “secret formula.” In essence, if Pepsi had offered Deval even more money (if that’s possible) to come work for them, and had he accepted, Coke would have been in deep do-do if not for one thing: a severance agreement!
<
p>
Coke has lawyers. Smart ones. And they know that anytime an upper-level corporate officer leaves, that officer could to serious damage to the company by sharing corporate secrets. So, most corporations, like Coke, have their talent sign non-disclosure/non-compete agreements as standard fare. This is nothing new or controversial, Ernie. Just because there’s something non-disclosed to your prying eyes, doesn’t mean there’s a malevolent cover-up at work.
<
p>
And as for why Deval can’t come out and address this, there are two very good reasons: 1. He’d most certainly be sued by Coke, making the rest of his campaign all about Coke, and 2. He’d most certainly spend the rest of the campaign TALKING about Coke, regardless of whether he was sued. News cycle after news cycle about coke. Awesome! Where does he sign up?!?
<
p>
There’s just no practical upside to even continuing this conversation. Where is the guy that admonished us a couple of months ago for allowing Republicans to frame the discussion, so that instead of talking about, say, Scott Lehigh’s editorial today, we’re talking about this instead? Here again, we’re eating our young.
<
p>
Yes, that faint sound in the distance is the Republican party laughing at us for cutting the legs out from under the current favorite to win our party’s nomination, for no particular reason.