Alan Khazei has been in the news a lot lately. Some of it, of course, had to do with Eric Fehrnstrom’s ill-fated CrazyKhazei Twitter account – more on that in a sec. But some of it was less flattering: a revelation that Khazei had hired his brother as a consultant for his nonprofit, Be The Change, and had possibly done so in a manner not consistent with the nonprofit’s own conflict of interest policy.
To his great credit, Khazei has acknowledged that he should have done things differently, and has apologized. From today’s Globe’s letters:
I made a mistake in not seeking the board’s approval at Be the Change when hiring my brother, and I apologize for the error. Regardless of my confidence in his skills, his hiring should have been reviewed and approved in advance by the able board there.
That’s the best way to handle something like this: admit that you screwed up, apologize, and move on.
Compare that adult manner of dealing with this kind of thing to Scott Brown’s juvenile approach. When BMG broke the news that Eric Fehrnstrom was behind the satirical CrazyKhazei Twitter account, and news organizations around the nation picked up the story, nobody could get a comment out of Scott Brown. Emails and phone calls to Fehrnstrom, Willington, and Brown’s Senate and campaign offices went unreturned for hours and hours, presumably as Brown, Fehrnstrom, and the rest of Team Brown strategized on how to minimize the damage.
Finally, the next day, Brown emailed a mealy-mouthed statement in which he (a) claimed to have had no knowledge of what Fehrnstrom (and his colleague Rob Willington) were up to; (b) claimed that all Fehrnstrom was doing was trying to “inject a little levity” into politics; (c) tut-tutted about how it wouldn’t happen again, but apparently took no action whatsoever against Fehrnstrom or Willington; and (d) said nothing about Khazei – specifically, he didn’t apologize to him.
The whole response was embarrassing, but the last one – Brown’s failure to apologize – is astonishing, particularly coming from someone who claims to be offended by negative campaigning. Let’s give Brown the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s telling the truth when he says he didn’t know anything about it. Nonetheless, wouldn’t the gracious, adult thing to do be to apologize to Alan Khazei for what his campaign staff had been up to?
deepthinker says
Let’s ask Scott Brown to take a campaign pledge not to slander his opponents.
doubleman says
Do Republicans (the modern kind that bears little resemblance to Republicans of generations past) ever apologize or admit mistakes?
hesterprynne says
is something done only by the cultural elites who hate their country and their flag. Not for nothing did Mitt Romney call his book called “No Apology.”
Unless it involves the retraction of a claim to have seen a photograph of the corpse of a famous terrorist, Scott ain’t gunna apologize.
merrimackguy says
US government officials and politicans have rarely admitted to making mistakes while in office in the last 100 years. I studied it in school 30 years ago and it’s part of US political culture. Business leaders don’t admit to mistakes either.
That being said, I think this needs to be taken into account:
Khazei- he did it
Brown- consultant did it, not him
Khazei- issue was not about his campaign
Brown- issue was about his campaign
Khazei- not in office, no chance of winning anything
Brown- in office, chance of losing
Nost importantly
Khazei- people who care might vote for him
Brown- people who care aren’t going to vote for him anyway. when you get down to the general public 50% probably don’t even know what Twitter is.
So I would suggest that their differing responses made sense.
David says
you could argue that Brown’s response “made sense.” From the perspective of acting like a responsible adult, no.
merrimackguy says
He is after all a US Senator, and before that a state elected official, town elected official, practicing attorney and let’s not forget a Colonel in the Army.
He is a lot more “adult” than most people. Just because he says that he didn’t know Fehrnstrom was doing it (and there is no proof to the contrary) and doesn’t see it as a big deal doesn’t diminish that.
David says
😉
sabutai says
He’s a Colonel in the National Guard. Some difference there.
merrimackguy says
Especially considering that over 10% of our current wars casualties have been National Guard.
kirth says
To include him within the ranks of “the troops” is a serious abuse of the term. He’s a lawyer in the National Guard. He does lawyering, not warfighting.
stomv says
US Senator requires 35
State elected official requires 18
Town elected official requires 18
Practicing Attorney requires 24 in practical terms
Colonel in the National Guard requires ? in practical terms (dunno)
Now consider:
Member AARP requires 50
Collecting Medicare requires 65
Senior Discount at IHOP requires 55
All of the things you listed for Scott Brown are served by responsible adults. All of the things you listed for Scott Brown are served by irresponsible adults. Every single one. Getting elected, passing an exam, and being promoted are accomplished by both responsible and irresponsible people.
But you knew that.
merrimackguy says
We are living in a world where people act like children, including many on Beacon Hill and the rest of the Commonwealth is filled with people not acting like adults, not holding jobs, not staying sober, not supporting their children, not paying their bills. The bar is particularly high here I guess.
stomv says
is that “adult” [your quotes, not mine] is a function of age, and proves nothing. The key word is “responsible.”
Accomplishing any of the things in my post, Scott Brown’s or others, doesn’t prove responsibility. There are plenty of irresponsible folks in both lists. The fact is, on this issue, Scott Brown hasn’t behaved like a responsible adult because he hasn’t behaved responsibly. His list of accomplishments is irrelevant to the discussion, just as is my list of other age related accomplishments.
And yes, for US Senator, the bar is high. Shouldn’t it be?
dont-get-cute says
I’m confused how A) going around the board, B) hiring a relative, and then C) acting as though it was no big deal, is OK because he made a statement apologizing for his “error?”
At least Scott Brown’s statement said it wouldn’t happen again. Khazei’s just said (paraphrasing, in Napoleon Dynamite voice:) “Jeez, next time I’ll get the stupid boards approval first, God!”
kirth says
In other words, you’re making shit up.
Again.
dont-get-cute says
My paraphrase, which I said was a satirical paraphrase, was nevertheless an accurate paraphrase of the content of Khazei’s statement and the childish impudence of refusing to admit to inappropriate nepotism and abuse of power. His “mistake” was more than procedural. And my description of Brown’s statement is also a fair summary of the content.
Also, what’s up with Khazei taking SEVEN DAYS after the story broke to issue that statement? Was there something I missed before the letter? Because last I checked, seven days was more than one day, yet david implies Brown took way too long and Khazei was prompt. I guess he’s calling em like he sees em again? I think the ump needs glasses.
kbusch says
I find this story about Khazei quite disturbing. I find it disturbing in a Senator, and I find it disturbing because it hinders his ability to win an election.
Nepotism is bad. Nepotism apologized for is still not good.
Granted, I don’t know much about Khazei. So, sure, there may be many splendid reasons to vote for him or work for him.
SomervilleTom says
I share your dislike of nepotism. The reason I’m not nearly as concerned about it is that Mr. Khazei does not hold a high public office. Mr. Brown is the headliner, not Mr. Khazei.
Eric Fehrnstrom epitomizes the shamelessly sleazy back-biting dishonesty that so permeates today’s right wing and GOP. The fact that Mitt Romney and Scott Brown still employ him speaks eloquently to their similarly sleazy back-biting dishonesty. Mr. Ferhnstrom joins luminaries such as Marc Morano — originator of the Swift Boat lies, and subsequent Climate Change liar-in-chief for Senator Inhofe.
Such dishonesty is the stock-in-trade of today’s GOP.
Parenthetically, I note that the moderators of the Boston Globe comments deleted my comments expressing this. Apparently, it is not ok to call a liar a “liar” on the comment pages of the Globe.
mski011 says
The fact is that the real story is not about Brown’s response or lack thereof, but that he is a hypocrite on the subject of negative campaigning. The irony may be that since Khazei’s misdeeds with his charity will be used against him, if he becomes the nominee, the @crazykhazei thing my be at least partially neutralized. Brown is still going to face questions about a double standard over negative attacks (well any mention of his record he perceives as an attack, but I digress) and he will face calls to disavow or demand negative attacks from third party groups go away. However, he will do neither and the whole affair will become a process story.
However, if it is somebody else as the nominee, it will be a lot harder for Brown to sneak away from the double standard accusation. It won’t matter that Khazei is not the nominee, because it wont be that hard for even the most vapid political reporter to fine the “intent” narrative.
kbusch says
“Who’s putting up those Crazy Karzei tweets?”
Is Senator Brown perhaps incurious?
hesterprynne says
A 2008 Globe article ($) on his campaign to win re-election to the State Senate says that Scott Brown is “a self-described workaholic.”
My reaction — really, a workaholic? Does anybody else find this implausible?
I have searched in vain for evidence that anybody besides Scott Brown has described Scott Brown in this way. And I have wondered what it might be that could bestir him to such overachievement. I remain dubious that the Senatorfold burns much midnight oil, but maybe the task of never forgetting what he doesn’t know and why he doesn’t know it is the point of the restless industry he claims to have.
David says
I can think of lots of ways to describe our lovable junior Senator … but “workaholic” sure isn’t one of them.
merrimackguy says
Would you have characterized Sen. Kennedy as a workaholic BTW?
David says
The fact that Scott Brown has found the time to train for a triathlon or whatever demonstrates that, as to his actual job, he is not a “workaholic.”
And, to answer your entirely pointless second question, no.
merrimackguy says
I just don’t understand this particular one.
He is unfit for office because he doesn’t address a gaff (the importance of which is debateble) by a paid advisor?
You imply that he’s not working hard? How do you know? What is the criteria there?
David says
Did I say he was “unfit for office”? No. I said that I thought he handled this particular episode poorly, and in a rather childish fashion. And I certainly hope that he loses in 2012. But unfit for office? That’s something else entirely. I used words like that about Jeff Perry, as I recall, but I don’t remember saying anything similar about Brown.
And where did I say that he’s “not working hard”? I said he’s not a “workaholic.” (I also said that Ted Kennedy wasn’t one either.) Do you actually know what that term means?
merrimackguy says
Sorry I can’t put my writing through sufficient scrutiny- I’m working my job and writing between working on spreadsheets.
‘Workaholic” has no real defintion. No more so that “shopaholic” or anyother characterization.
I won’t respond anymore because we’re just going in circles now and you can move on to a new topic.
David says
I sure do.
Bob Neer says
He just thinks he’s a “workaholic.”
kbusch says
He is vain enough that a small amount of work qualifies as being a workaholic.
merrimackguy says
I should add them up. It’s a wonder that his children and wife have anything to do with him considering all his negative traits.
kbusch says
Not only does it fit his behavior but it has the advantage of being immediately understandable by low information voters.
hesterprynne says
Daughter Arianna’s fundraising letter refers to her father’s “hectic two-week jobs tour”. Hectic, you know, as in stopping in at invitation-only events to share Ayn Randish bromides about the economy with like-minded people.
Trickle up says
the “self-described” part, I mean.
A legend in his own mind.
goldsteingonewild says
seems like you could have a lot of fun with it.
smile a lot and take it as a lucky break. “sen scott brown calls me Crazy Khazei. he thinks it’s crazy that i believe X. he thinks i’m crazy for believing Y and Z. what do you think?”
appear at scott brown’s office, ask staff a few questions, release viral video.
next video. khazei with kids. “hey kids. scott brown’s daughter was on american idol. who’s gonna do that for me.” “my dad IS crazy.” etc.
on any stage, khazei is smartest guy in room — that’s why globe endorsed him if i recall (may be wrong on that). he’s raised some decent $. he’s gonna get crowded by the new wonk in the race. time to gamble, have fun, become electable.
David says
It was, in fact, a lucky break for Khazei – it’s a no-lose for him. You’re absolutely right that he should milk it for all it’s worth. Once Elizabeth Warren jumps in after Labor Day (assuming that she does), there will be serious oxygen problems for all other candidates, if the last couple of weeks are any indication. He could get some fun free media right now, and he should do it.
Bob Neer says
But all of the other candidates can benefit enormously from this, not just Crazy K. The golden opportunity that Brown has handed them is that by declining to actually act against his paid advisor his mask slipped: he is just an ordinary politician. And that means he is just a regular Republican candidate running against some regular Democratic candidates, which is not a good race to be in in Massachusetts.
merrimackguy says
Could explain why he’s run for numerous offices starting with town assessor. Great investigative work.
kbusch says
In the special Scott Brown dialectic, the word “politician” is always preceded by the word “machine”.
kbusch says
merrimackguy says
and there most certainly is not.
kbusch says
is every Democratic politician a machine politician.
lovable-liberal says
Brown hired Fehrnstrom, and it could not possibly have escaped his attention that Eric is a professional asshole. Why else would he have the job?
mski011 says
Now, now. Let’s be nice. Could Eric Ferhnstrom be the terminal of an intestinal track? Yes, but let’s be realistic, Ferhn & Co. did successfully pull the wool over the eyes of Massachusetts voters w/ Brown’s everymanhood. Republicans like Brown running statewide hire Ferhnstrom because they know he and other GOP gremlins know how to hit those disaffected veins in the Bay State populace. When faced with less than stellar candidates like Coakley or more blatantly machine pols like Shannon O’Brien, voters are taken in by their smarmy or phony tactics. Long story short, Brown and Romney have hired consultants like Ferhnstrom because they know how to get results WHEN the conditions are right. That does not make them an anus. Ferhn’s tactics and arrogance make him one.
SomervilleTom says
I generally think that in this context, knowingly hiring an a**hole makes one an a**hole. Hence, it is transitive…
If a -> b and b->c then a->c
mski011 says
I don’t disagree w/ your math, but if we are equating Brown to the human evacuation point, he has done far more than that to earn the description besides hire Ferhn.
SomervilleTom says
Agreed