Soccer Dad

More on O'Malley/Ehrlich

A commenter on my earlier post asked:

You say that O'Malley simply has to make the smear conection to Ehrlich, but isn't it possible that that is what happened to O'Malley?

Frankly I don't think that Ehrlich had anything to do with the smear. Despite what the Baltimore Sun alleged (with no supporting evidence) in its editorial and Michael Olesker's attempt to establish a pattern, there's no evidence tying Ehrlich to the rumor.
The most interesting aspect to the rumor - which I agree was a terrible thing - is that there's a possibility it was first popular in Democratic circles. A caller to the Sean and Frank show last week said he first heard it a year and a half ago from a member of Baltimore County's Democratic Central Committee. I think that Sean added that he had heard it from some Democratic Montgomery County officials. If so it would suggest that people supporting Doug Duncan started the rumor.
Again I don't blame O'Malley for being outraged. I'm just suggesting that his choice of target for that outrage is cynical.
I wrote earlier that I expected the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post to run with this story in order to damage Ehrlich politically. Neither has disappointed.
In an editorial "Dirty tricks redux" and a column by shunned columnist Michael Olesker, "'Dirty tricks' allegations dot Ehrlich's past", The Sun is anxious to tie the Governor to the rumor about O'Malley. But allegations (and not all of those items cited by Olesker constitute dirty tricks anyway) do not equal proof. It is highly irresponsible for the Sun to make the accusation absent any hard evidence. But then that's why the Sun has found a reporter and a columnist, Olesker, banned.
On its editorial page, The Washington Post has bigger fish to fry than the rumor, but at least it is honest enough to admit in "Mr. Ehrlich's 'Grim Reaper'":

The operative, Joseph Steffen, a close associate and aide to Mr. Ehrlich for a decade, resigned from his state government job after learning that The Post planned to publish a story about his role in spreading the rumor on a conservative Web site. He insisted that in targeting Mr. O'Malley, a Democrat positioning himself to run for governor, he was acting alone and not on Mr. Ehrlich's orders; the governor agreed. There is no evidence, so far, to the contrary.

I think that the Post here, should have offered a criticism of the Sun for its reckless editorial charge. But even though the Post will almost certainly prefer Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan over Mayor O'Malley, I suppose that the overall goal of unseating Governor Ehrlich next year takes precedence.
But the next few sentences tell what's really bothering the Post (the Sun covers the issue too):

The broader question is whether Mr. Ehrlich is seeding Maryland's agencies of government with other political hacks like Mr. Steffen, whose job description as spokesman for the state insurance administration obscured the fact that he seems to have acted for years as the governor's hatchet man, or, as he described himself, a "Prince of Darkness."

Later the Post backs up the charge:

Democrats say scores or hundreds of state employees may have lost their jobs in this manner at the hands of Mr. Steffen and other agents of the governor who infiltrated agencies of state government. Mr. Ehrlich and his aides have denied it, insisting no Maryland state workers have lost their jobs for being Democrats.

If the Democrats' assertions that workers were vetted for loyalty are true, it may or may not have been illegal -- Maryland governors are empowered to hire and fire more than 7,000 state workers who serve at the pleasure of the executive.

Scores or hundreds? How many of those 7000 have been fired? The Post and the Sun both quote an Ehrlich spokesman who put the number at 284. Yes that's scores and even hundreds. But as a percentage it's 4%. Has either paper done the digging to confirm or contradict that number? I hardly think that an executive who retains 96% of those appointed by a previous administration is carrying out a witchhunt.
The end of the Sun article is interesting because it takes the view of a public employee's union at face value:

Unionized employees also are concerned.

The governor's budget eliminated 134 filled positions as of June 30. Sue Esty, a lobbyist for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, has asked some of those workers to go to Annapolis to protest.

They have refused, she said, because "they've been told if you speak out, you'll be fired sooner."

"To be fired and to still be afraid to speak out is a clear indication of what has to amount to a reign of terror," Esty said.

I don't know anything about this planned protest. However if it's during work hours it very likely violates terms of employment. I wish that there was some reporting done on this subject. But I guess it was more important for banned reporter David Nitkin to leave readers with the "reign of terror" impression.
Incidentally, there's an item toward the end of the article:

Another controversial figure is Craig Chesek, a former Ehrlich district staffer. He has worked in the state Department of Natural Resources and the state Public Service Commission, agencies where many workers have been fired despite solid qualifications and long service. Several workers at the PSC have filed lawsuits, saying they were improperly terminated.

Chesek declined an interview when contacted yesterday, saying he had been told by Ehrlich not to speak to a Sun reporter. "I recognize the directives of the governor," he said.

Then go to the end of the article and there's a line:

Sun staff writer Ivan Penn contributed to this article.

Now Governor Ehrlich banned state agencies from talking to the main reporter on the story, David Nitkin. But if another reporter was working on the story too, why didn't the Sun have him, Ivan Penn, call Chesek?
The Sun with its wild accusations and its dishonest reporting has earned the scorn of Governor Ehrlich. While the Washington Post is not much better, it still has shown some honesty that the Sun is incapable of.

Posted by SoccerDad at February 13, 2005 10:54 AM | TrackBack