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.
Posts
1 comment:
Ryan, this is an extremely classy gesture on your part. You were under no obligation to give me "equal time," but I am grateful for your effort.
If you do not mind, I am also going to repost my second response in our discussion. (I hope I am not being greedy!)
With Respect, Yours Truly, Maverick Dem
MaverickDem said...
Ryan, that was an impressively swift response!
Thank you for pointing out the disclaimer in "About Ryan." I was remiss not to note it. I would never have found your disclaimer column if you hadn't pulled it up for me, but thank you for doing that as well.
I do hope that you understood my central point. The title of your column is that "Reilly [Is] Getting Fried Again." According to who? You, I guess, but your basis for writing the column was Eileen McNamara's editorial. Basically, it's an opinion based on another editorial writer's opinion. Meanwhile, Brian Mooney's news account ("Reilly role in abuse crisis debated," 4/11/06) was filled with at least a half dozen opinions, most of which were either enthusiastically or moderately supportive of Tom Reilly's role in the Church abuse crisis. All of which is to say, you seem a little over-anxious to put Tom Reilly in a frying pan just because Eileen McNamara took exception.
The Boston Globe's Scott Lehigh recently wrote a column ("Reilly's openess stands out," 3/31/06") that lauded Tom Reilly's decision to release his income tax return. Every candidate for governor since 1990, Republican and Democrat alike, has been willing to share their financial interests and possible conflicts of interest with the public. Every candidate, that is, except Mitt Romney. Now, our own millionaire candidates, Mr. Patrick and Mr. Gabrieli, want to carry on Mitt Romney's tradition and play by his rules. So, does Scott Lehigh's column mean that "Reilly is on a Roll" or that "Patrick is Hemorrhaging Support?" Of course not. It's just one person's opinion. Just like Eileen McNamara's editorial.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for your candidate. I am equally passionate about Tom Reilly. (And I also plan to rally behind our party's nominee, regardless of his name, come Fall.) However, I believe that your column vastly overstated the significance of Eileen McNamara's column, particularly in light of Brian Mooney's article and my goal was to point out that issue.
Thank you for your respectful response and for the opportunity to respond.
Post a Comment