Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In Attack on Kennedy, Echo of a Spitzer Tactic

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:43 AM
Original message
In Attack on Kennedy, Echo of a Spitzer Tactic
Source: New York Times

In Attack on Kennedy, Echo of a Spitzer Tactic

By DANNY HAKIM and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Published: February 3, 2009
ALBANY — An administration leaks damaging information about a political figure. The leak is denounced by the governor, who says that he had nothing to do with it.

This is what happened during the tenure of Gov. Eliot Spitzer, whose aides disseminated information about state-financed travel in 2007 by Joseph L. Bruno, then the Senate majority leader. This led to condemnation of Mr. Spitzer, the resignations of some of those aides, and charges that some of the aides had violated the Public Officers Law, which sets standards for state officials’ conduct.

It is also the story of what happened nearly two weeks ago after Caroline Kennedy withdrew her name from consideration for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Senate seat.

A review of public comments and interviews with more than a dozen people involved in the process make clear that Gov. David A. Paterson’s administration released confidential information about Ms. Kennedy and misled reporters about its significance as part of an orchestrated effort to discredit her after she withdrew. But the governor is unlikely to face the legal scrutiny or numerous investigations that Mr. Spitzer did, even though he has acknowledged that the information about Ms. Kennedy should not have been released.





Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/nyregion/04paterson.html?ref=nyregion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Politics ain't beanbag, as 'they' used to say. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. This isn't a case of "Poor Caroline". To me, it's a character question.
Why did Patterson allow this egregious smear of a woman who had done him no harm? She had already withdrawn her name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. This was a swiftboat attack on her
when she was already leaving. As you would see, if you read the article, the attacks were distorted and very very old. This is a woman, who has been a great Democrat, and a very good person. This is the type sleaze that befits Rove - is he who you want to live up to?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ohio AG Marc Dann was investigating 2004 election fraud, and he was "done in" too.
Hey, they seem to have quit using guns to get rid of liberals,

so what's to complain about! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MicaelS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yawn......
The woman had never held public office. So because of her NAME she automatically goes to head of the line? Crap, plain and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
movonne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. yawn....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Saying she (or anyone) should not be smeared is NOT saying the Senate seat was hers for the asking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. What was Paterson's motivation? I heard from reliable sources he was going to name her. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
5. The Bushie that Paterson hired.
According to advisers to the governor who were involved in the process, the leaks against Ms. Kennedy were coordinated by Judith A. Smith, a consultant who has been acting as the governor’s top communications strategist.

On Jan. 22, the morning after Ms. Kennedy withdrew, Ms. Smith spoke to Mr. Paterson, then went to the governor’s Midtown Manhattan offices, the advisers said.

There, she told at least two people to call major media outlets around the state. She instructed them to tell reporters that the governor had been dismayed by Ms. Kennedy’s public auditioning for the job, that he never intended to select her as senator, and that the tax and nanny issues had led her to pull out of consideration.

It is not clear how Ms. Smith would have known about those issues; she was not authorized to have access to Ms. Kennedy’s confidential application. Mr. Paterson was briefed on the application’s contents the night of Jan. 21, hours before Ms. Kennedy officially withdrew.

Something stinks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
7. Yup, something stinks to high heaven.
One of the administration’s central claims to reporters was that Ms. Kennedy had, in the words of a person close to the governor, “a definite tax issue” and “a nanny problem” that “she didn’t want to become public.”

But that story was inaccurate. The governor and his aides now acknowledge that those issues — a tax lien of a few hundred dollars in 1994, and a lapsed visa for a foreign nanny who worked for Ms. Kennedy during the late 1980s — had been resolved years earlier and were never considered disqualifying during the vetting process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-04-09 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
8. I saw Governor Paterson on Saturday Night Live and he said he didn't know anything about it.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC