OK, I think we’re back on track, here:
“I apologize to anyone who feels we didn’t come forward with all the facts,” Patrick said at a campaign event in Worcester.
Patrick told reporters he should have researched his involvement in the case before offering statements to the media over the last week that minimized his role.
“We screwed up in terms of how we handled doing the homework before answering questions. I take responsibility,” Patrick said.
But as for, you know, doing his job as a defense attorney — no apologies, folks:
“I don’t apologize for the work I’ve done and I will not have it trivialized or minimized by someone who has never been inside a courtroom,” Patrick said.
Please share widely!
…when he remarked, “I can take care of my enemies; it’s my goddamn FRIENDS that are killing me!”
<
p>
Based upon the responses from Deval’s ‘Friends’ on this thread – http://www.bluemassg… – it is apparant that he should apologize PROMPTLY if such a situation ever arises again.
This wasn’t an apology for lying. This was an apology for getting caught. Inclusion of the qualifier “anyone who feels” is a way of avoiding admitting guilt. A true apology would have been “I apologize for not coming forward with all the facts.”
<
p>
He told the family of the victim he was sorry this had become a campaign issue? How about apologizing to the family for writing two letters in support of releasing the felon that raped their mother?
<
p>
Well, it’s pretty clear. He’s not sorry about that. He might be sorry about not doing his homework on the campaign, but he’s not sorry about doing his homework on the case.
<
p>
…
<
p>
I once thought the Democratic party represented justice. Sticking up for the little guy. No more.
<
p>
A conviction of a rape case is a long and difficult path. The accused has rights at each step of the way, as well they should. But the victim has no such protections. They need to submit to having evidence taken from their body, they must retell their story multiple times, and in this case, they must face their assailant in court.
<
p>
Mr. Patrick’s letters are not an appeal for a new trial. They are an appeal for a release of a convicted felon. Mr. LaGuer had legal options to pursue, but like any convicted felon, he should pursue those options while serving his sentence.
<
p>
Mr. Patrick does not recognize the error in advocating for the release of a convicted felon based (solely?) on a exchange of letters. This is a man who not only lied to the press, he’s lied to himself.
<
p>
<
p>
As I said in an earlier post, the incident does call his priorities and thought process into question, and provides an interesting window into them..
<
p>
And frankly, I referred to his statements as an apology because that is as close as we will get. It is up to the electorate to decide if it is adequate or not.
“I once thought the Democratic party represented justice. Sticking up for the little guy. No more.”
<
p>
Wow, Patrick’s disembling on his involvement with LaGuer has caused you to reassess and dismiss the entire Democratic party? That’s amazing.
<
p>
Wow does that play with your signature which implies you came to this conclusion long before the LaGuer issue came up?
Well, at least I’ve learned what disembling means. I’ve seen it used quite a bit today. But it wasn’t Patrick’s actions, but the discussions that followed that have marked the tipping point for me.
<
p>
Admittedly, it’s been a long time coming.
Patrick is very clearly saying that he didn’t remember, not that he lied. He takes responsibility for making statements before digging into the past to make sure he had all the information. He does not apologize for saying things he knew weren’t true, because he didn’t do that.
<
p>
He told the family of the victim he was sorry this had become a campaign issue?
<
p>
Well, sure – it’s probably painful to have all this get back into the press again. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t stand by his letters. He was right – that guy ought to get a new, fair trial (even if Patrick seems not to think so anymore in light of the DNA test).
“A conviction of a rape case is a long and difficult path. The accused has rights at each step of the way, as well they should. But the victim has no such protections. They need to submit to having evidence taken from their body, they must retell their story multiple times, and in this case, they must face their assailant in court. “
<
p>
Yeah, and…? Do you have a system to propose that would make the path easier for a victim while still preserving the constitutional rights of the accused? If so, I’m all ears.
“I don’t apologize for the work I’ve done and I will not have it trivialized or minimized by someone who has never been inside a courtroom”, could that be directed towards Muffy the Criminologist?
<
p>
Let review Mitt and Muffy’s record on crime, well if you’re in their camp, that’s the stuff you want to run away from. Instead put out this crap in commercials because you can’t run on your record.
The way he’s handeled this shows a weakness we haven’t seen in him before. It’s not pretty.
Deval has caused this problem. Not the Globe or Kerry Healy or Howie Carr.
he’s “dodging.”
<
p>
And if he does, as forthrightly as he has, he’s “slick.” Nice.
<
p>
Make up your minds, guys. Which is it?
<
p>
By the way, do you still beat your wives?
He blew it in the beginning when he didn’t stand up strong.
Now he’s just explaining the word “is”.
Clinton after Ruby Ridge: “I didn’t go over every strategic part of it. It is a decision for which I take responsibility.”
<
p>
Patrick after LaGuer Gate: “We screwed up in terms of how we handled doing the homework before answering questions. I take responsibility.”
<
p>
From the master….
What I love about EB3 is his unfilingly positive attitude about life.
“You believe what you want to believe, you hear what you want to hear.” This is my recollection of a line from an album called (I believe) “The Point”, a late 70’s pop opera about people with pointy heads.
<
p>
People who didn’t like Deval last week or last month are going to see death, doom and destruction in this latest squabble. People who support Deval will see it as what it is, a dredged up association which can be used to pander to some of our baser instincts.
<
p>
People calling Deval’s statements a lie are just exposing themselves as partisan. Let’s remember to hear their comments in that context. And like many good Republican operatives we know, they might get some play out of it, with the help of less-than-careful headline writers. “Oooh! Did you hear Deval lied?”
<
p>
So he screwed up. He shouldn’t have spoken without having someone do the research. Was it 15 years, 10 years, 8 years or 6? Of course, if he says “I’ll get back to you”, he’s hiding. No amount of handwringing and moaning by anti-Deval partisans (which, by the way is not the same as pro-Healey) is going to make this any more relevant. Let’s not forget what we’re talking about here. Letters or money in support of a controversial cause is not “weakness on crime”. Challenging a death penalty judgment in Florida is not advocating the release of cop killers.
<
p>
Let’s keep our heads and trust in the judgment of an electorate that has already recognized the wonderful opportunity we now have in Massachusetts to turn a corner to a better future.
You write, “People calling Deval’s statements a lie are just exposing themselves as partisan.” Sure. But after a 3 million dollar media blitz on this issue, there will be a lot on uninformed swing voters who will believe this was a “lie” also. Not a good day.
<
p>
I’m sorry… I must have missed the memo when you were given responsibility for uninformed swing voters (whomsoever that might be…)
<
p>
Methinks you are much much more afraid of losing than you are hopeful of winning… else why the hypersensitivity to the smears and the slime and the oh-so-quick willingness to throw in the towel? I submit to you that your chicken little (‘the sky is falling! The sky is falling!‘) attitude is far more persuasive to your fellow Dems and/or swing votes, than ANY accusation made by Healy and/or the Repubs. Why does the GOP win? ‘Cause they never EVER would poison their own well with such statements as yours. Get over it.
Yes, I admit, I am afraid of losing than I am “hopeful” of winning (although a big lead, Kerry as a candidate and Christy in the debates are good reasons to be hopeful.) But I’m either in awe of your ability to shrug off 4 loses for Governor, not to mention 2004, or you have no memory of victory being snatch away one to many times over the recent years.
<
p>
And Chicken Little to come across my mind today…but as for the last past of your post, I just don’t get and I’d like to hear more of your thoughts.
<
p>
You seem to suggest that the GOP wins becuase they run postive campaigns not poisoned by negative thoughts (or tactics).
<
p>
The overall point of my comment is that TV advertising in a vacum works. If a lie is spread with 3 million dollars in ads, people will beleive the lie. If your disputing that, please argue your point.
<
p>
And get over what? Losing the last 4 elections for Governor? No I won’t get over it until we win.
<
p>
It is simple: nobody votes in a vacuum. J. Random Voter is
never swayed by the headlines, ads and/or whatever heat and light passes for media coverage but by the reactions and discussion that occur, with their peers, co-workers, family,etc, about the headlines, ads and what not.
<
p>
J. Random Voter: “Gee, I’ve heard Kerry Healey say some things about Deval Patrick… I know, I’ll ask that Skeffington fellow what he thinks!”
<
p>
FrankSkeffington: “RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!”
<
p>
J. Random Voter: “Oh dear! There must be something to this…”
<
p>
<
p>
No. I suggest that the GOP, once having decided upon a strategy commit wholly to it and would never admit it’s not working. Never poison, never panic. It is a very effective tactic for even the poorest strategy, and is pure gold for a winning strategy. Now, I’ll be the first to point out that the GOP sometimes carries this to absurd extremes and I would counsel Democrats not to mimic them in this… but the flipside can be devastating: constant infighting, incessant trashing and outright panic send so much more powerful signals… And those signals, outright and inherently strong, are magnified in importance when the message of hope is so inimical to that of fear and panic…
<
p>
You just can’t have it both ways.
<
p>
You have to choose: Hope or Fear.
I hesitate to disagree with someone so “esteemed” (Charley on the MTA 10/5/06) who is obviously knowledgable, but doesn’t recent experience, i.e. the Gov and LG races, indicate that money can’t buy everything in politics? Remember, we are working with a world class communicator here. This is no Mike Dukakis. Why can’t Deval put this in its proper place?
<
p>
He’s got the time to do it. I’m not interested in the Deval-haters who are giddy with excitement at this recent development. Screw ’em. As for the undecided, bring ’em on. I’m comfortable with letting Deval be Deval and Healy be Healy. We know who wins then.
…fine, downplay the role of money and TV advertising at your own risk. There are lots of reasons to be optimistic–lead in polls, Kerry is weak and Christy is helping.
<
p>
But when you ahve a couple of bad days like this, hopefully you learn some things from it and not ignore warning signs. I don’t think that it’s just Deval haters that will react negatively when the “one letter 10 to 15 years ago was my sole involvment” turned into giving a donation 5 years ago and sending 4 letters. I think reasonable people not as involved in the race as you or I will pause about this and have to think about it. Especially if they see 15 ads telling them that Deval was a “liar”.
<
p>
Against all the “noise” I’m not sure if Deval can put it in it’s proper place. It may take the next four weeks to do that and he still may fail at it. That’s way I think we need to make Kerry explain some things–liek the 500 cops lsot in 4 years, or the heroin problems over the last 4 years on and on and on.
<
p>
If we just stay “postive” and react to Kerry’s charges by explaining them…we piss away all the advantages we have–the lead and it becomes a tight race.
<
p>
Yes, I just want to win. I don’t give a damn if we win it with a halo around our heads.
Do we really know if Deval donated $5,000 for the DNA testing? I’m of the crowd that believes that would be hard to forget giving five grand five years ago–no matter how rich you are.
<
p>
But who is the source of the $5,000 number? A convicted rapist, that’s who. After seeing a thank you letter for making a contribution, Deval not realizes he made a contribution–but still can’t remember making it.
<
p>
Tells me that the contribution was rather small and Benjamin Laguer is not only a rapist, but a liar. Why do the media and Kerry Healey believe him? Isn’t that what they are ultimately criticizing Deval for.
<
p>
Lastly, Benjamin Laguer dropped a dime on Deval with both Dan Rea and Adrian Walker. Deval Patrick tried to help Laguer and Laguer through Deval under a bus. Isn’t it time that we get off the “free Benjamin Laguer” bandwagon. Maybe he is a victim of sloppy police work and a racist juror. But he’s screwing our chance, and all it means for regular folks, at winning back the Governorship. Let him rot in jail, just for that.
He’s no mere convicted rapist – he’s ‘Ben’, Deval’s very own pen pal.
<
p>
Know what fascinates ME about the Patrick response? His assertion that $5,000 was just a drop in the bucket, too insignificant to remember amongst all the worthy causes and appeals he was helping to finance.
<
p>
So – WHO ELSE has he been writing checks for? John Walker Lindh? The Unibomber? Believe me, Ken Mehlman is checking every crackpot cause in the country for ANOTHER hit like this from Deval’s checkbook!
He has not said how much it was. The $5000 figure comes from LaGuer. In fact, Patrick said something to the effect that “I think I would remember that. $5,000 is a lot of money to me.”
<
p>
Make of that what you will.
Maybe he deducted the $5000 as charitable donation.
One does not use a qualifier in an apology if one is sincere.
<
p>
If Patrick said, “I apologize to the people of Massachusetts for not being forthright in my account of the facts relating to my involvement in the LaGeur case”, that would be an apology.
true only if he was lying. Not “being forthright” implies active deception.
<
p>
If you take as a premise that he actually forgot and had no intent to decieve, and spoke from memory rather than fact, THEN how would you suggest he phrase the apology? Seriously, I’m interested, how you would suggest he phrase it if you accept the premise for just a moment.
…then you can accept his explanation.
<
p>
I can not, however, accept that a supposedly sharp, intelligent lawyer would “forget” having recent involvement in such a prominent case, and whether or not he contributed financially to the appeal of a heinous individual.
“Recent”? And as for the donation, I forget who I gave to last year (and I’m poor). I suppose if I gave to a “heinous” person, I might remember it, but I bet that wasn’t Deval’s frame of mind.
…well, there’s my point.
What bothers me most about this “Apology” is his use of the word “Feels:”
<
p>
“I apologize to anyone who feels we didn’t come forward with all the facts.”
<
p>
Deval, you know why we “Feel” that you didn’t come forward with all the facts? Because you didn’t!!!
Instead of focusing on the issues that our sensationalistic media wants us to think about, let’s focus on the issues. In my opinon, Patrick is a much stronger candidate on all the issues I care about. I’m sure in the next 5 weeks trash about Healey will come up too. So, I’m trying not to focus on this, rather on my values.
you’ve found a “reason” to not vote for Deval. Does this mean that you’re going to vote for Kerry Healey? On what basis? I’ve reviewed the blogs and have yet to find any legitimate argument you’ve made in favor of Healey.
It’s understood that your fly-in-the-ointment presence on this blog is amusing and at times beguiling. EB3 has been unflinching, accurate and very funny in pointing to the many embarassments in the D party. Gary, getting beyond his pomposity, has provided well-considered and convincing defenses and arguments to various D talking points. Some of the others here seem like lonely Hubbies who have realized that emailing three friends in the same room about Mitt’s hair and the Gipper’s sunny disposition isn’t quite a movement.
So friends and neighbors, what’s it gonna be? Just kick the sh*t out of Deval to light Ryan’s hair on fire? Or is there actually a conviction (other than anti-Deval) to your madness?
It sounds to me as if you’re having trouble convincing yourself that Deval wouldn’t be a far superior governor than Murph (or Mitt, for that matter) and your repetition seems to support it. Other than the opportunity to say “see how stupid you Ds are in nominating a libby ” will you be happy with Governor Healey? Will she make you and your party proud (sorta like your national party does)? Will the legislature continue trample on her like they did her most recent boss?
What’s this all about guys?
If I could get a 50/50 honest legislature in the bargain.
<
p>
Most of us understand that the problem here isn’t who’s in the corner office.
gopnews.com raises this question. (I know, I know I bet you don’t visit there often). But, I think it’s rather thought provoking:
<
p>
<
p>
Ok, before you get the spin-machines going think about it.
<
p>
He writes some letters. Ok, got it. I got no problems understanding the letters recommending parole. The guy’s case looked like justice may have failed; Patrick supported him. LaGere was a Cause Celeb. Got it.
<
p>
Here’s the hard part for me:
<
p>
<
p>
Right? Isn’t that right? If you gave five large as a contribution to get a DNA test wouldn’t you be a little curious how it turned out? “Here ya go guy take this 5 spot and take a guilty/not-guilty test. I’ll call ya.”
<
p>
He never called. He never wrote?
<
p>
<
p>
He also said he only kept checks for 3 years. Come on. I’ve been in this tax biz for decades and never met anyone who actually got rid of checks older than 3 years. Ask me and I’ll tell you keep them 8 years. Most
packratsfolks keep them forever.<
p>
Also, he says he gave over $100 grand in charities, 5% of which is a pretty big number. $5 Grand is a number I’d remember. It’s also a pretty big number to give to a total stranger. A gift like that? I’d remember. For many years. Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you remember five grand spent on a Cause Celeb, Barbara Walters guy?
<
p>
I’m wondering, did he actually give the $5000? If so, why and why wouldn’t he remember. And, if not, why substantiate that he did so.
is the number LaGuer claims Patrick gave.
<
p>
I’m more interested in the question of why someone challenging evidence has to pay for his own extremely expensive DNA test. But whatever.
I agree. The $5000 donation just doesn’t make sense. Come on. What’s going on with that?