I would like to make note that while I support Deval Patrick, I am not paid by his campaign and my role in it is new, small and I recently blogged about it in a disclaimer column. Another disclaimer can also be found just to the right of my blog entries in the "about me" discription.
My slogan for the site has always been "an analysis of the current political situation and an advocate for a better future," and I'm sticking to it. I will never shy away from the truth or cover up for something I feel is wrong. I've written a negative column on Deval Patrick before and I'm sure I've had positive words for Tom Reilly as well. I'm sure Reilly has many admirable qualities, I just don't think he's the right man for the job. My slogan says I'm an advocate for a better future and, in Massachusetts, I believe a better future will be had with Deval Patrick.
Without further ado, here's Maverickdem's comment:
Ryan, wouldn't it be more fair to your readers to begin your blog with a disclaimer? For example, you could say,"WARNING: I am an unabashed Deval Patrick supporter. Please be advised that all content is intended to further that agenda. Moreover, I have never written a positive column about Tom Reilly or a critical column about Deval Patrick. I drink the Deval Patrick Kool-Aid exclusively. Thank you."
As you no doubt know, Eileen McNamara's editorial was written in response to yesterday's Boston Globe news article by Brian Mooney, "Reilly role in abuse crisis debated," 4/11/06. Mooney's objective account included a number of opinions from academics and law enforcement officials, but the most relevant opinion came from the sole abuse victim cited in the story:
Ann Hagan Webb of Wellesley, an abuse victim, said yesterday that Reilly's effort ''was unprecedented, but we were very disappointed at the time that he could not indict anyone in the hierarchy."
But Webb, the New England coordinator of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said she accepted his explanation. And, why, you may ask, was Reilly prohibited from prosecuting? Very simple - while the conduct of conduct of Church officials was morally repugnant, it was not criminal. A prosecutor can only bring a case if a law has been broken. Over two centuries, Massachusetts lawmakers had never anticipated or prepared for this type of tragic development. We all wish that they never should have had to. . .
In light of your thoroughly unbalanced presentation of this issue and Tom Reilly in particular, I would respectfully direct your readers to Brian Mooney's attempt at an objective account. It is not a puff piece, but it is far better than your Deval Patrick Kool-Aid drinker's account.