| Now, I don't mind anonymous people linking to either the post here at Blue Jersey, or to the online magazine where I published my memoir of the last conversation I ever had, at age 14, with my father before he died. But, let's be square with the facts. That story was published in 2001. In 1996, I was living in Texas and - if memory serves me correctly - working for a local grocery company.
None of which changes the fact that the article I cited was written by someone employed by the Jersey Journal. I'd never heard of Bob Menendez at that time - and I surely don't remember many conversations I had back then. The reporter, however, I'm pretty sure pursued "due diligence" on the article when it was printed. I'm pretty sure that the author wasn't on the Menendez payroll (I have confidence in the Journal's professionalism). I simply can't see any reason why the author would take it easy on Menendez.
Is it proof-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt that Ellen Weintraub spoke to Bob Menendez? No. But the story absolutely knocks the legs out of arguments put forth by the likes of Paul Mulshine. It shows how shoddy the research has been in the rush-job to simply yell "Hudson County" at the top of their collective lungs until everyone says "Uncle Hague". It also shows that if you lie long enough, someone will figure it out.
I only discovered the Mulshine article because another (unrelated) troll cut-and-pasted it in response to a post on Menendez' State Convention speech. Mulshine's shoddily written article irked me enough to try and out-research him. Oddly enough, the very article I posted shows this precisely.
By the way, although Ellen Weintraub is honest enough to say she doesn't remember a specific conversation with a Congressman a decade ago, she does tell Herb Jackson that Menendez' story is exactly what she would have said anyway.
"It doesn't surprise me based on what I read that I might have told him it was OK," Weintraub said. "It sounds like the kind of advice I'd give.
"He's not voting for a bill that says here's an appropriation for Bob Menendez, he's voting for a bill for a program; and the program as I understand it was Head Start."
She said it is not unusual for members of Congress to be landlords and for their tenants to be organizations or companies that receive federal funding. She said it's a conflict only if the member is "acting on something that uniquely affected him."
She said that Menendez lobbying to win the health-center qualification and the additional federal funding it entailed would have benefited all vendors to the agency, not just him as landlord to the Head Start program's offices. In addition, it would benefit the constituents of his district.
Weintraub also said it was not uncommon for such advice to be given verbally. She said usually members only asked for written approval if they believed the press was going to question them on it.
But when you've built an entire campaign on a shoddy foundation, you aren't going to give up and roll over. No, you fight back.
As the old saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Paul Mulshine has been shown to have slandered Hudson County and its residents needlessly. In his defense, he appears to at least attempted to have done some sort of research. I just happened to stumble across an article that, in my opinion, trumps it.
The Junior-Hazelbaker problem with reality and a fact-based existence, however, is another thing. As the post linking to my father points out, Congressional campaigns have the money to hire people to research things (by the way, the only money I've received that is related in any way to the campaign is from my union for organizing "Labor Walks" on Saturdays), and they also sometimes hire stealth bloggers and fake journalists to attack real newspapers and journalists. So Jill Hazelbaker might be telling the truth - she didn't misrepresent herself as a troubled Democrat to post in her own defense.
But the IP evidence is pretty damning. If it wasn't Hazelbaker, it was someone in their office. Perhaps she doesn't know exactly who did it - but she knows who besides her is dealing with massaging their "message". She knows if someone is being paid to cruise blogs (or maybe, like the Swift Boat movie, her employer kept her in the dark about his ethical lapses). If she doesn't know, it's simply because she doesn't want to know - so she can say her piece with a straight face.
When I was working as an addictions counselor; I was told, "If you listen to what an addict says, you'll get fooled every time. If you watch what they do; then you'll understand what they value." I hear a lot from Hazelbaker and Junior Kean about how they value ethics and honesty, but I can't seem to find it anywhere in their actions. One commenter intimated that it was out of line for me to hold Hazelbaker responsibility for the truth of her remarks. I think that is the very lowest level of responsibility to which we should hold those who aspire to hold public office.
Hazelbaker is either being misled and left out of the loop - a high sign of disrespect for a press secretary - or she is complicit in this legacy of falsehood scattered upon untruth covered thinly by lie. If it is the former; then I would expect a resignation from her based on the way this has reflected upon her character. If it is the latter; then I would expect business as usual.
We'll see what happens in the next few days. |
