So says Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, the lead AG on the aftermath of the 49-state settlement with Ameriquest.
That quote, and many others you should read if you’re interested in Deval Patrick‘s history in corporate America, appears in a lengthy article in today’s Globe by reporter Brian Mooney. It goes into more detail than we’ve seen anywhere else on Patrick’s “big three”: Texaco, Coke, and Ameriquest. It’s an absolute must-read for this political season.
Some of what Mooney reports squarely confirms Patrick’s campaign’s version of events, such as the quote from Miller and from Mississippi AG Mike Moore, who also reports “a remarkable change” in Ameriquest (contrast this with Patrick’s primary opponent Tom Reilly, who recently said that Ameriquest’s “problems continue to this day”). And some of the article leaves questions remaining – the article generally confirms Patrick’s account of the Coke situation, for example, but it reports that the Texaco litigation (which began long before Patrick arrived at the company) is still ongoing in the courts of Ecuador, where Patrick successfully sought to have the case litigated, and that lawyer Cristobal Bonifaz (father of Secretary of State candidate John Bonifaz) does not give Patrick a free pass. (Cristobal’s son John, who assisted his father on the case, did say that Patrick’s role in the case made it “more likely” that he’d support Patrick for Governor.)
In other words, Mooney’s article is neither a puff piece nor a hatchet job. It’s just good old-fashioned excellent reporting.
I was just about to post about this. Patrick has line up all of the attacks and shot them down in this article one by one. He has a judge that says that it was fair game for him to join Texaco (even though he himself had reservations), Bonifaz (the lead in the Ecuador accusations) saying that he was fair and listened, and solid quotes supporting his decisions at AmeriQuest.
<
p>
I’m guessing that one of the reasons it’s taken so long to get an in depth response from the Patrick campaign is that they wanted to be as thorough as possible to address all the issues.
Ameriquest may be different, but that doesnt mean that they’re ‘good guys’ now. Deval provided arguments, sure, but he didn’t really shoot down those accusations. If you guys took those accusations seriously in the first place, such responses wouldn’t have convinced you at all.
<
p>
I mean, I think it’s fine to just ignore the accusations if you think they’re nonsense, but then don’t get into the issue as if you’re really examining the facts with a microscope. Either check it out and give Deval a hard time until you figure out what’s going on or step away from it.
Four comments. None before August 10. All trying desperately to keep the innuendo and Reilly meme alive. Just saying. Did give Deval a hard time, a year ago. Complete total satisfaction with every single answer and every single fact. No doubts. Ready to ignore the nonsense BECAUSE IT’S NONSENSE. Don’t need someone to explain how to vet a candidate. Done long ago with extensive checking. Tired of bad campaign tactics and bidness as usual. Want change. Go Deval. Help clean up this mess in MA.
I really don’t understand your point, if you have one. All I’m doing is condensing what’s in the Globe article. The quotes about perceived changed practices at Ameriquest are not mine. They’re from two of the AGs who sued them, including Miller from Iowa who led the charge. Are you saying that he’s a Deval backer? I don’t think so. No one, including Patrick, is describing Ameriquest as a “good guy.”
<
p>
Got a problem with what’s in the article? Write a letter to the Globe. Don’t come cryin’ to me.
-pretending the quotes prove that Deval’s ameriquest connections don’t mean anything is. I’m just having trouble here believing that all these companies hired Deval to help them ‘clean up’ since that wouldn’t really help their profits in any way.
even Wal-Mart has realized that image is important. That’s why it’s investing $500 million in sustainability projects. Global corporations lose money when their images get so bad that government sue them and consumers take notice, so it really is in their interest to at least look like they’re making an effort.
<
p>
Much to the chagrin of reilly and gabrieli supporters, this article was well-balanced and offered good support of what Patrick has been saying all along. Sure, there are still unknowns, but frankly I haven’t been given reason to think that Deval or anyone else has been lying about his involvement in these corporations.
<
p>
Is he too liberal or is he a corporate whore? Both attacks distort the truth, and you can’t have it both ways.
Well, it happens all the time, as I understand it. Companies who are undergoing a big PR hit hire someone to “clean up” — both their practices and their reputations.
<
p>
For instance, Ameriquest was being sued by 49 states and settled for $300 million+, so they had a good incentive to avoid such things in the future. I’m not qualified to comment on how much they’ve done so, beyond the quotes in the article: You have two AGs of other states who were involved in the case, and one AG who is running against Patrick.
<
p>
So, let’s flip it around: What evidence do you have that Ameriquest has not cleaned up its act significantly, beyond what Tom Reilly says? Cite us some articles from respectable publications.
“Wouldn’t really help their profits in any way”?? Oh, come on. Image may not be everything in business, but it’s a lot. Especially with a company like Texaco, which is in a business in which the products are basically indistinguishable to consumers (can you tell Exxon’s fuel from Texaco’s?), image is huge.
Image IS huge- but it’s possible (and as politicians might point out- damn easy) to build up a squeaky clean image that doesn’t line up with reality.