To have even a chance of beating the legislature at a game it knows so well Patrick cannot afford to be politically compromised.
The hat trick of embarrassments that recently plagued Patrick — the helicopter rides, the leased Cadillac, the cost of his new curtains — were insignificant political sideshows. The news that Patrick telephoned Citigroup executive Robert Rubin, a fellow former official in the Clinton administration, to intercede on behalf of Ameriquest is not just wrong, it is outrageous. It pales by comparison to the call made by then–attorney general Thomas Reilly to intervene in a Worcester County drunk driving case.
Governor Patrick’s explanation that he was not acting in his role as governor and that he was only offering himself as a “personal reference” on the “character” of Ameriquest’s management simply rings hollow. Political newcomer or not, he cannot be so naive as to believe that the people of Massachusetts buy that explanation. Only the governor knows why he felt compelled to make that call. But whatever the reason, it is time for him to smarten up. He needs to comprehend his new responsibilities and the high level of personal integrity that is expected of him. He should also understand that he has powerful enemies out there who are willing and ready to drop a dime to the media whenever he strays. There is more than a budget at stake. The issue is trust.
What Libby’s conviction means
As we all know by now, the verdict is in and a jury has found Vice- President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty. Libby was found guilty of four out of five charges that he lied and obstructed justice in a special prosecutor’s investigation into who blew the cover of covert CIA staffer Valerie Plame in apparent retaliation for her husband former ambassador Joseph Wilson’s disclosure that the Bush administration misled Congress and the public about Saddam Hussein’s ability to build atomic weapons with which to attack the US. A claim, a lie, that led to our disastrous war in Iraq.
Libby’s is a complicated and convoluted case. Even today, more than three years after Plame’s outing, it is unclear whether her CIA posting was sufficiently secret to warrant the charge that naming her violated the law. So, if there was no agreed-upon underlying crime, why convict Libby of covering up? The simple answer, the legal answer, is that you should not mislead government investigators. That question and that answer prompt another question: why, in the first place, do presidents get themselves in hot water like this by naming special prosecutors? (Would Bill Clinton do it differently if he had the chance?) The answer to that one is equally simple: it seemed like a good idea at the time. The protective cocoon of the White House promotes a reckless sense of invulnerability. But as Presidents Nixon (Watergate and the secret bombing of Cambodia), Reagan (Iran-Contra), Clinton (the sordid but trivial L’affair Lewinksy), and now Bush (Iraq) found, chief executives can get away with a lot, but they cannot get away with everything.
