Taking stock of today’s developments in Loscocco-gate [updated]

• Loscocco is finished as any sort of political player.  He’s shown himself to be a treacherous, opportunistic loser who, after being rebuffed by Baker and signing on with Cahill instead, then invented a reason to desert the Cahill campaign (“Cahill can’t win” – when that was true all along), and then a week later made wild accusations of collusion with Democrats that so far seem to be totally unfounded.  If there’s anyone in Massachusetts who still trusts the guy, I’d love to talk to them – I have some awesome bridgefront property available.
• Cahill is in big trouble.  The emails, as reported by Adam Reilly, seem at first blush to be pretty damning.  From Reilly’s reporting, there’s this, for example (“Strother” is Dane Strother, one of the Cahill campaign’s hired consultants):
  

  Strother: I just got the go ahead on everything we discussed. Yes on lottery ads and he has plenty of money. Yes on stepped up fundraising….

  Strother: …we just found a million for extra publicity. But Tim can’t be in the ad.

  Meldrum: aah ok.

  Strother: but we run ads about the lottery being well run and putting money back in the communities. I am going to speak to the ad company about copy Cahill agreed. [ouch!]
  

  Now, maybe there’s a perfectly good explanation.  But it sure doesn’t look good.

  UPDATE: The Cahill campaign has issued a statement that doesn’t really clear anything up, but does suggest that they’re not going down quietly.

  Cahill’s campaign issued a statement saying that the emails “show nothing more than chatter between campaign consultants.”

  “There was absolutely no connection between the campaign and the state Lottery, which had already planned an ad campaign in the fall, as it does every year,” the statement said. “Tim Cahill is treasurer until January 2011, and he will continue to do everything in his power to protect the state Lottery, the state Treasury, and aid to cities and towns from baseless political attacks.”
  

  It’s a bit hard to square that with emails showing Strother appearing to be part of decisions regarding the ad campaign.  Perhaps more details will be forthcoming.

• The jury remains out on how badly this thing is going to hurt Charlie Baker.  We’ll know a lot more when Weaver et al. file their sworn statements.  One does wonder whether a political consultant’s head explodes when he is placed under oath to tell the truth … anyway, the statements will be filed Monday.  If they show that campaign materials were disclosed to the Baker camp, that’s awful news for Baker.

  In that regard, recall that there is little doubt that the Baker campaign was aware of, and very interested in, all of these shenanigans while they were going on.  Consider these examples, from the Cahill emails.

  • Meldrum to Yob, 9/23/10, 4:21 pm (the day before Meldrum resigned as Cahill’s campaign manager) – emphasis mine:
    

    Please keep me in the loop on what you are doing? Cahill was here in with me right now, he is fine and talking this out with me. AP just broke this … Baker’s camp is messaging me … Cahill’s guys just pulled him out of the office from me … they are very pissed.

    I am in a really awkward position here.
    

  • Zanetti to Weaver, Yob, and Meldrum, 10/3/10, 12:23 pm – emphasis mine:
    

    I spoke with Tim O’brien just now. He wants to let the Paul story die on the vine. I wouldn’t mind at least one discussion with Adam and a reporter though about the “deep divisions” between the camps, disrespect/distrust of Paul/his team, etc.

    However, the Baker folks would really appreciate any “hard evidence” emails/documents that shows improprieties … Adam and I just spoke and he has some stuff. I think we should give them everything we have.

    also, I know there were lots of state employees doing political stuff when they shouldn’t have been but we’d need proof. We want to stop the “sympathy” that this is generating.
    

  • Zanetti to Yob (and likely Weaver and Meldrum), 10/3/10, 11:39 am:
    

    I’m supposed to talk today with Tim O’brien re putting out some of the problems re the campaign. Would you guys be able to join the call? I can try to schedule at a time convenient for you.
    

  Whether that adds up to anything that can continue to hurt Baker down the stretch remains to be seen.  If it turns out that Team Baker was aiding and abetting Loscocco’s defection, that surely hurts Baker.  If it turns out that Baker spokeswoman Amy Goodrich’s carefully-worded statement about not having received any “written internal information” about the Cahill campaign turns out to have been an artful dodge, that also hurts Baker.  On the other hand, if the sworn statements don’t turn up anything, that probably means that Tim O’Brien won’t be deposed before the election (if ever), which at least could stanch the bleeding.

• Deval Patrick remains able to coast above all of this.  The total failure of anyone to come up with any evidence of collusion between his campaign and the Cahill operation means that he can talk about his priorities, while everyone else still has to answer awkward questions about embarrassing shenanigans.  Unless something surfaces that ties the Cahill and Patrick campaigns together, Patrick comes out of this looking like the only candidate who isn’t engaging in exactly the kind of behavior that makes people cynical about politics.
  

What did I miss?  What do you think?

Please share widely!

0

0