« Election Eve in Connecticut | Main | The Political World is Changed Forever »

August 07, 2006

Joel Vs. Goldie (sic)

Joel Connelly steps to the plate, intent on delivering a resounding thwack for "more civil" politics, and, uncharacteristically, whiffs.  Joel's got a beef with the shareholder lawsuit against Mike(!) McGavick.  And he takes it out on Goldy.

But Joel is way, way, way off base.  First, the lawsuit against McGavick isn't character assassination.  It's not about his personal life -- it's about his professoinal conduct.  It's not even mean -- it's about whether he committed fraud.   Goldy's hardly a deep-pocketed political operative.  And he's only peripherally involved in the lawsuit.

But Goldy is more than able to defend himself against Joel's bluster with wit.

See, I can forgive Joel for conflating unflattering facts and snark
with character assassination. I can forgive Joel for lumping me in with
some of the evil masters of the Republican attack machine. I can even
forgive Joel for publicly accusing me of being wrong about Mike!™’s
reputation as a political operative.

But there’s one final transgression for which I’m not quite sure I can ever forgive Joel.

It’s spelled “Goldy” with a “y.”

“Goldie”
with an “ie” is the feminine spelling, and as a nom de guerre for an
evil, political muckraker like me, that would just plain look silly.




Now, there's a serious question about whether a lawsuit against McGavick is likely to succeed, but there's I think it's good hardball politics that attacks Mike(!) right on his strong suit -- his allegedy-successful record as CEO of Safeco.  Joel might disagree, but if so, his beef is with plaintiff Emma Schwartzmann and her attorney, Knoll Lowney.

But I suppose that attacking Goldy is just more fun.




Posted by Jon Stahl on August 7, 2006 at 07:53 PM in Candidate Races, Inside Baseball, Media, The Politics of Business | Permalink

Comments

Jon, you said:

"there's a serious question about whether a lawsuit against McGavick is likely to succeed, but there's I think it's good hardball politics that attacks Mike(!) right on his strong suit"

My question for you: As a matter of politics (and not on the merits of the cases), do you think that the Paula Jones lawsuit, the Whitewater investigations, and the impeachment proceedings were "good hardball politics"?

I think you're mistaken about the case being about "his allegedy-successful record as CEO of Safeco." If it were, it would center more on the profitability of the company, or it's market position before and after McGavick's reign. This is more about McGavick's personal integrity -- did he take a payout he should not have? And that makes this case a reasonable analogy to the aforementioned Bill Clinton problems.

So, as political tactics, do you think that Whitewater, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, et al. were appropriate political tactics?

Posted by: Allen McPheeters | Aug 8, 2006 9:02:08 AM

Post a comment