Party Over Principles? (Dated March 18)
To my loyal readers (Hi Mom!) 🙂 I’m sorry about not posting more in the last couple of weeks, things have been hectic around the office (and I’ve been working on one post regarding my opinion on the future of PR Strategy firms for a while now that I hope will be done soon). I’ve also been taking the time to watch the hinges fall off of certain Republicans in New Mexico. Specifically those who are more loyal to a person (Heather Wilson) than they are to a value (truth, justice, etc.)
Who could I be talking about? I wonder…
Former US Attorney David Iglesias suddenly found the knife in his back after speaking up about “alleged” influential calls made to his office and home by Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici regarding some of his investigations.
The Wednesday Morning QB, Republican operative Whiteney Cheshire, has said (on her blog, repeatedly) “good riddance” to Iglesias because he didn’t prosecute voter fraud in New Mexico during the 2004 election. Or more appropriately, didn’t prosecute it to her satisfaction and according to her time frame. (Dated today: Because, as we found out from Republican lawyer Jim Scarantino, Cheshire’s “mountains” of evidence were more like molehills)
This raises a question that Ms. Cheshire does not address, how long does it take to prosecute a case of reported voter fraud? I’m not a lawyer, but I have heard and read that it is very hard to prove voter fraud because there are so many variables that have to be taken into account and interviewed and located.
So she’s upset that a long and complex case wasn’t taken care of in a few minutes? That the people she sees as wronging her, or more appropriately, her candidate, weren’t taken out to the wood shed and shot in Stalinist fashion?
But if she was so upset about it, why didn’t this come out in the press sooner? Why wasn’t she this vehement about it before Iglesias dared to speak out against her beloved representative? Was she being quiet for the benefit of a fellow Republican? It appears that she was content to stew quietly while Iglesias toed the line and was loyal to her pal Heather.
Hmmmm, being quiet because loyalty trumped values. (And when your loyalty to one person or party, regardless of actions, grows beyond your loyalty to the truth, or to honor (or any of those other qualities that Heather claimed while she was quoting the Air Force Academy code..) then you have drunk deeply from the Kool-Aid pitcher.)
Interestingly, this sounds like what Iglesias did when Heather and Pete called him and tried to influence the investigation of Robert Vigil. So does this make Cheshire as guilty as Iglesias for keeping quiet? Are they in the same boat after all?
The same boat, yes. But different parts. By keeping quiet, Cheshire just showed hypocrisy (attacking someone who she was quiet about before), but Iglesias was required to report the contact to the Justice Department. (Today: He said on Meet the Press this past Sunday that he was quiet out of loyalty to Pete and Heather. At least until they shoved the knife in his back. That was his problem, he should have reported Pete and Heather’s interference as soon as it happened)
And as soon as Iglesias spoke out about the ethics-violating contact from Heather and Pete, Cheshire struck, like Warren Sapp hitting someone from the blindside and breaking their hip joint…
So for the second award in a row, we re-award the Wednesday Morning QB with the Warren Sapp Unsportsmanlike Conduct award. At this rate, we might have to actually make an award to deliver to the KNME studios!