p>
Reilly has worked as a state prosecutor, and also as a defense attorney. I have to presume that Reilly defended people who were found guilty.
<
p>
How can Reilly have both prosecuted and defended people? Isn’t that having it both ways too? What is he? A tough prosecutor looking to put guilty people in jail, or a slick defender looking to keep people out of jail?
<
p>
Should we claim that by defending someone later convicted of a crime, that Reilly agreed with the crime and that was working against the victim? No, Reilly was doing a job that any defense attorney does — he defended his clients because that is what he was being — gasp! — paid to do.
<
p>
So what makes defending your employer’s position any different when your employer happens to be a corporation versus an individual? Why do people presume that your beliefs have to line up with that of your employer 100% of the time?
<
p>
These arguments are bogus. A corporation did something that someone disagrees with. Patrick worked for the corporation — often times as a single vote on a board of directors. Therefore people claim that Patrick is guilty by association, not by action.
<
p>
If you use that logic, Tom Reilly is guilty of murdering the Big Dig Victim because he worked for the state, and the state dropped the ball on that one. Reilly did nothing to stop it from happening.
<
p>
Questions are fine, as long as they are answerable, not just designed to smear.
…at least someone is finally attacking Reilly for his record, not just because he can’t run a good campaign. (Oooh, the nasty insider uber-politician is…not really much of a politician!).
<
p>
There is a real difference.
<
p>
The adversarial process is the building block of our justice system. Defending guilty people is what makes the system work, unless you want to make defense lawyers de facto judges. The defense of people who are guilty is a fundamental part of making out system work. As is prosecuting all defendants. In both cases, Reilly is strengthening the legal system by playing by its stated rules. If Reilly had been a defense lawyer feeding information to prosecutors, then and only then your analogy would be true.
<
p>
Deval, meanwhile, was undercutting corporate rules. The laws of this country are very anti-predatory lending and anti-whatever happened in Coke that was bad enough for an investigation but not bad enough that $2.1 million couldn’t buy silence. Deval’s duty, especially as a civil-rights specialist, was to promote and provide for good corporate behavior. Coke, Texaco, UAL, and Ameriquest all failed that test. And while Deval may be a golden boy untouched by all this corruption, we still participated in that failure.
<
p>
Unless you think it’s okay for corporations to do what they want. Which may be Deval’s best appeal to Republican voters this fall.
Which he may or may not have taken himself (he’s a great photographer),but to link to an image on someone else’s server is stealing bandwidth. Not cool.
<
p>
And gee, I can’t imagine how difficult it was for the Glob to run up some anti-Patrick quotes from gay activists who are supporter other candidates. Another banner day for the Glob.
Thanks for your concern, Susan. And for your flattery!
<
p>
As it happens, this photo was a Beagle photo, and apologies that I didn’t acknowledge that in my post. I did link to their article, but unless you go there, you won’t see the credit. The other photo was mine.
<
p>
As a general principle, I wholly believe in the internet as a public square — the free sharing of information. I would only object if someone took my work and tried to profit from it (unless they offered to share, of course!).
<
p>
So, I’m happy to have people link to my pix, or my blog entries, or any of my other webstuff. I put it out there because I want people to see it, after all.
<
p>
To the substance of your comment: yeah, some of us have puzzled over why certain gay politicians would support one of Deval’s opponents who has been anti-gay (recently changed to lukewarm). Just goes to show, I think, that people are complex, and no one is truly a one-issue voter. All well and good, actually.
<
p>
As Deval has articulated, “we need to get over the notion that just because we don’t agree on everything, we can’t work together on anything.”
<
p>
We don’t like it when that works against us, but I think we have to respect the principle, and honor people’s commitment to their candidate, even though we can’t fathom their own personal political calculus.
renaissance-mansays
I appreciate your consideration on the use of the picture…
heraklessays
Deval can have it both ways because he is black. That is the way it goes. Jesse Jackson can say “Hymietown” and get away with it. Andrew Young can spout his racist core belief about Jews, Koreans and Arabs and get away with it. Reggie White can utter slurs against just about everybody and gets away with it. Sharpton? Cornell West? The ugly reality is that while non-blacks such as Mel Gibson are pilloried for their racist rants, blacks get a relatively free ride.
<
p>
Patrick, whose whole fortune comes from race hustling, gets a free ride because those are the rules. It is pathetically sad but that is the way it goes.
nopolitician says
Can Tom Reilly have it both ways?
<
p>
Reilly has worked as a state prosecutor, and also as a defense attorney. I have to presume that Reilly defended people who were found guilty.
<
p>
How can Reilly have both prosecuted and defended people? Isn’t that having it both ways too? What is he? A tough prosecutor looking to put guilty people in jail, or a slick defender looking to keep people out of jail?
<
p>
Should we claim that by defending someone later convicted of a crime, that Reilly agreed with the crime and that was working against the victim? No, Reilly was doing a job that any defense attorney does — he defended his clients because that is what he was being — gasp! — paid to do.
<
p>
So what makes defending your employer’s position any different when your employer happens to be a corporation versus an individual? Why do people presume that your beliefs have to line up with that of your employer 100% of the time?
<
p>
These arguments are bogus. A corporation did something that someone disagrees with. Patrick worked for the corporation — often times as a single vote on a board of directors. Therefore people claim that Patrick is guilty by association, not by action.
<
p>
If you use that logic, Tom Reilly is guilty of murdering the Big Dig Victim because he worked for the state, and the state dropped the ball on that one. Reilly did nothing to stop it from happening.
<
p>
Questions are fine, as long as they are answerable, not just designed to smear.
lightiris says
sabutai says
…at least someone is finally attacking Reilly for his record, not just because he can’t run a good campaign. (Oooh, the nasty insider uber-politician is…not really much of a politician!).
<
p>
There is a real difference.
<
p>
The adversarial process is the building block of our justice system. Defending guilty people is what makes the system work, unless you want to make defense lawyers de facto judges. The defense of people who are guilty is a fundamental part of making out system work. As is prosecuting all defendants. In both cases, Reilly is strengthening the legal system by playing by its stated rules. If Reilly had been a defense lawyer feeding information to prosecutors, then and only then your analogy would be true.
<
p>
Deval, meanwhile, was undercutting corporate rules. The laws of this country are very anti-predatory lending and anti-whatever happened in Coke that was bad enough for an investigation but not bad enough that $2.1 million couldn’t buy silence. Deval’s duty, especially as a civil-rights specialist, was to promote and provide for good corporate behavior. Coke, Texaco, UAL, and Ameriquest all failed that test. And while Deval may be a golden boy untouched by all this corruption, we still participated in that failure.
<
p>
Unless you think it’s okay for corporations to do what they want. Which may be Deval’s best appeal to Republican voters this fall.
susan-m says
Which he may or may not have taken himself (he’s a great photographer),but to link to an image on someone else’s server is stealing bandwidth. Not cool.
<
p>
And gee, I can’t imagine how difficult it was for the Glob to run up some anti-Patrick quotes from gay activists who are supporter other candidates. Another banner day for the Glob.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
Thanks for your concern, Susan. And for your flattery!
<
p>
As it happens, this photo was a Beagle photo, and apologies that I didn’t acknowledge that in my post. I did link to their article, but unless you go there, you won’t see the credit. The other photo was mine.
<
p>
As a general principle, I wholly believe in the internet as a public square — the free sharing of information. I would only object if someone took my work and tried to profit from it (unless they offered to share, of course!).
<
p>
So, I’m happy to have people link to my pix, or my blog entries, or any of my other webstuff. I put it out there because I want people to see it, after all.
<
p>
To the substance of your comment: yeah, some of us have puzzled over why certain gay politicians would support one of Deval’s opponents who has been anti-gay (recently changed to lukewarm). Just goes to show, I think, that people are complex, and no one is truly a one-issue voter. All well and good, actually.
<
p>
As Deval has articulated, “we need to get over the notion that just because we don’t agree on everything, we can’t work together on anything.”
<
p>
We don’t like it when that works against us, but I think we have to respect the principle, and honor people’s commitment to their candidate, even though we can’t fathom their own personal political calculus.
renaissance-man says
I appreciate your consideration on the use of the picture…
herakles says
Deval can have it both ways because he is black. That is the way it goes. Jesse Jackson can say “Hymietown” and get away with it. Andrew Young can spout his racist core belief about Jews, Koreans and Arabs and get away with it. Reggie White can utter slurs against just about everybody and gets away with it. Sharpton? Cornell West? The ugly reality is that while non-blacks such as Mel Gibson are pilloried for their racist rants, blacks get a relatively free ride.
<
p>
Patrick, whose whole fortune comes from race hustling, gets a free ride because those are the rules. It is pathetically sad but that is the way it goes.