Kudos to BMGer johnk, who tracked down a complete copy of the complaint in Cahill’s lawsuit against his treacherous ex-consultants, including the attachments – emails, the consulting contract, everything. Truly a great read (PDF).
Really, almost any sample of the emails makes a worthy addition to the Joke Revue – the hilarious self-righteousness of these guys, apparently actually convinced of the virtue of what they are doing as they stab their client in the back, is priceless. There’s one email where Weaver explains that he had no choice but to betray his client because he, and others “who are in this business,” “care about governing.” BAAHAHAHAHA!!!
Anyway, here’s Scout’s worthy highlights selection:
No matter who one is with in this race, it’s incredible reading for any political junky.
This line from a Sept 26 email from Loscocco’s friend/lobbyist Jason Zanetti to the former Cahill consultants John Weaver and John Yob is priceless (p. 35):I like the timing here because it we proceed as discussed, I think Paul will be credited with putting Baker ahead of Patrick in the next poll and hopefully on election day. Will definitely make for great PR for Paul and help repair his standing in the Republican Party for years ahead.
Hahahaha…How is that working out, guys? One of the few things clear about this situation is that Mr. Loscocco will never be trusted by anybody in Mass politics again.
Perhaps more seriously, Zanetti goes on the same email (which, bear in mind, was sent the Sunday before the Friday Loscocco defected and the Thursday night meeting with Baker to seal the deal):
It would be great if we could have one meeting in DC on Thursday morning and assuming that all goes will a meeting in Boston on Thursday afternoon/evening at a private location likely with the principals present.
One can safely infer that “the pricipals” are Loscocco and Baker, who did end up having a private meeting at the Seaport Hotel Thursday nght…just like these guys planned. Baker says he didn’t hear anything at all about Loscocco joining his team until Thursday day when agreed to meet with Loscocco that night. I wonder how Baker feels that Zanetti and two GOP consultants not working for his campaign were able to plan four days in advance to put him in a “private location” with Loscocco to finalize something Baker knew nothing about until the day it happened? Baker has got to be incredibly busy at this stage, how in the world could they plan on Sun for Baker to meet with Loscocco Thurs afternoon/evening specifically? Might the candidate not have other things on his plate one month before election day? If you believe Baker’s version of the timeline (as I am inclined to), it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Baker is not at all in command of his own campaign at this point.
Anyway, with friends like these…
In 2001 and 2002, during the fight with the Swift Administraton over firing Bechtel at the Big Dig, we gave him the name of Lostcauso because he turned then, and betrayed us at the Turnpike Authority. He voted and help move the legislation to add two more Board members to kill any reform or fire Bechtel. A collosal FUBR.
who is “we”?
That “we” is the Turnpike Authority, and that christy is a former member of the Authority?
Seriously, nothing short of severe brain trauma (or John Silber) would get me to vote Republican at this point.
This situation is incredible on many levels: lack of honor, glut of arrogance, and most of all – the blatant disregard for potential voter contempt. Now, they have earned it.
<
p>Agree with his views or not and polls be damned, Cahill deserves to pursue the election on his own terms, not be sent to the block at the whim of some pricey, albeit laissez-faire freelancers and barefaced opportunists. I read the entire complaint. Even if one had only two tablespoons of grey matter, they could presume the intent and apparent willingness of the RGA to lifeline campaign deserters.
<
p>For any of the participants to continue to work for Cahill, even for an hour, is dishonest to say the least. They knowingly (according to emails) made arrangements detrimental and contrary to the goals of their client – with the acknowledgement of representatives of an opposing party affiliation. Looking at the messages, it is easy to conclude something solid must have been in the works around Labor Day. Nobody suffered an overnight epiphany here.
<
p>And btw, I love how they display that above-it-all attitude about re-electing ‘Liberals’. As a used-to-be Centrist, the GOP failed to realize that even in a very short time, more they talked, the more they pushed away moderates like me.
<
p>I know the Dems have their headaches too, but to engage in this sort of behavior is the worst kind of ideological antipathy. It is enough to stoke another type of angry retribution, to come at the polls on Election Day.
Paul Loscocco…NEW VOCABULARY WORD: being a “Loscocco”: 2 faced, disloyal, cowardly, self-serving fabricator.
<
p>His statement today is a feeble effort to drag Doug Rubin into the swill pit he finds himself in with Charlie his new best friend and the GOP geniuses…sorry paul…too late for that transparent ploy.
Statement from Doug Rubin, Senior Advisor to the Patrick Campaign:
<
p>”When Paul Loscocco stood by Charles Baker last week, he once again proved that his word cannot be trusted. His most recent explanation of his actions is a desperate attempt to divert attention from his latest backroom deal, and is in fact directly contradicted by numerous emails made public recently.
<
p>It is readily apparent to anyone watching TV that the political ads produced by the Cahill campaign attack both Charlie Baker and Deval Patrick equally. In our TV ads, we compare Deval Patrick’s position with both Charlie Baker and Tim Cahill. It is clear that there is no coordination. In addition, it is widely known that my decision to work for Governor Patrick back in 2005 caused a split in my relationship with Tim Cahill that exists to this day.
<
p>The ridiculous accusations from Paul Loscocco are not true, and I ask anyone who reads them to consider the credibility of the source, and his past actions, when reviewing this issue.”
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>
However, until there’s a chain of emails that backs up what Loscocco is saying, I’m inclined to think that Cahill’s got the better of this one. That email chain is pretty damning.
which is not at all surprising…
<
p>
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>And from Loscocco’s letter–
<
p>
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/pol…
I can’t decide which is funnier – your reprinting Loscocco’s statement as true, despite its being markedly devoid of any actual evidence to back it up (unlike Cahill’s lawsuit with its attendant email chain), or the fact that you appear to actually believe it.
<
p>How big of a sucker are you?
by Neil Morrison “(a former aide now at Goldman Sachs who claims to be a close personal friend of senior Obama advisor David Axelrod)”…
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Or something.
I don’t know if Morrison has a BMG account, but Doug Rubin issued a denial in his comment above.
there’s 2 accusations, right?
<
p>1. communication/coordination w rubin/morrison/gov
<
p>and
<
p>2. communication/coordination with lottery ad buy guy
<
p>now the lottery guy has come out and said there is a bunch of communication with cahill’s campaign — just argues the communication isn’t coordination.
<
p>
<
p>i’m trying to understand – what’s the plausible reason for frequent communication between cavanagh and campbell, if not to bolster cahill?
Do you have a link?
Please tell me why anyone in their right mind, other than a Charlie Baker fanatic, would believe anything coming from Paul Loscocco? Is there anyone in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts today with less credibility than Loscocco? We should believe anything that he says? Is that why your post is part of the Weekly Joke Review?
It’s pretty common, I believe, for a candidate not to know what they’re scheduled for more than one day into the future, except for some really significant things, and to leave it all in the hands of their campaign scheduler. Often, involving the candidate in planning the schedule is a waste of time – a campaign is better off using as much of their candidate’s awake time as possible on the two things a candidate can do far more effectively than anyone else: talk to voters, and ask for money. Now, this sort of meeting does seem like the sort of thing significant enough that they’d have briefed him about it as part of scheduling it, so I’m not sure I believe his claim at face value; however, I don’t take this evidence in and of itself as showing that if he didn’t know, then something’s wrong with his role in his campaign.