Saturday, September 28, 2002
HARKIN GIRAFFE UPDATE
Another article in the Des Moines Register about the Tom Harkin Scandal. I like this quote:
While apologizing for the incident, Harkin downplayed its significance as "shenanigans" and the product of "youthful exuberance."
That reminds me of the Clinton Administration’s insistence that the FBI files were just a "bureaucratic snafu".
As for the legality of what Brian Conley did, there is this quote:
Iowa criminal-law experts have said that if someone has permission to be at a meeting, they can tape it and use it for any purpose as long as it is not to bring harm to anyone.
So, it may be illegal if Conley had malign intent. Given that he contacted the Harkin Campaign about attending the meeting, intent may not be all that hard to prove. Yet that does not change my "mea culpa". I said "definitely not legal," and there is nothing definite about it.
Also, I like this quote:
Larson said Harkin's statement was "clearly an attempt to divert attention from the facts, pawn off responsibility onto a 'young staffer,' and then shrug it all off as a 'Dennis the Menace caper.' "
"Are we supposed to believe this 'young man' acted alone in directing a 53-year-old business executive to change his voting registration, pose as a Ganske supporter, attend and secretly record a private meeting, and then transcribe and distribute it to the press?" Larson said. "Then I guess he would have us believe that Dennis the Menace controlled Mr. Wilson."
I’d say that’s pretty good statement.
Here is one way Harkin tried to divert attention away from his campaign’s involvement:
Harkin also took a jab at Republican Party Chairman Chuck Larson Jr., saying Larson could be in trouble for calling the recording an illegal wiretap if he knew it was made by an invited guest.
Nice try, Senator Harkin.
Register columnist Rob Borsellino has an interesting take on the scandal, most notably this passage:
But we still don't know what role his campaign may have played in this whole deal because there's a criminal investigation going on, and no one's been able to talk to the two main players - Brian Conley and Rafael Ruthchild. Conley is the former Harkin staffer who did the taping, and Ruthchild was the Harkin staffer - he quit Thursday - who got the tape from Conley and made it available to a newspaper reporter.
And we still don't know some other things. For example, Ruthchild - according to Harkin and Wiggins - was a kid out of school, former intern who buzzed in from D.C. and was working his first job. Conley is a guy in his mid-50s, a guy who worked for Harkin back in the '70s.
So why would Conley seek out Ruthchild? Why not some of the veterans on the Harkin staff? Or Harkin himself?
How would Ruthchild know to seek out Conley? None of that makes sense.
And it's that kind of thing that threatens to keep haunting Harkin's push for another term.
Yep, it’s legs just keep getting longer.
Finally, take a this paragraph in a story from WHO-TV:
Still no word from Brian Connolly the man who taped the conversation we tried to contact him again today.
"Conley’s" name has been in the papers for about 48 hours and they can’t get the spelling right? What is it about the difference between television and print journalists?
Also, here’s a story from KCRG TV.
. . .
MORE GIRAFFE SIGHTINGS
How do you take responsibility for something but blame someone else? Sort of like this:
Harkin told a room packed with supporters that he takes full responsibility for what happened, but says it was a junior staffer who took it upon himself to get involved in the case.
The name of the staffer who leaked the tape has been released: Rafael Ruthchild. He resigned on Thursday. "Harkin said no one else on his staff knew about the request." Anyone wanna bet that turns out not to be true?
Also, campaign managet Jeff Link resigned today too. He was replaced by Harkin's 1984 campaign manager, John Frew.
Harkin dubbed this "Dennis the Menace caper". Huh. I didn't know that Dennis the Menace secretly recorded his conversations with Mr. Wilson.
. . .
MEA CULPA
I need to post a retraction. In this blog I stated:
Again, we don’t know if the taping was made in the open. Thus, we don’t know if it was legal. If it was done in secret, it is most definitely not legal.
That is likely incorrect. I was certain of that when I wrote it, so I didn’t check the Iowa Code. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Here is the link to the relevant portion of the Iowa Code. I sent it to Glenn Reynolds, and he replied:
Here's the key: "sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication shall not be prohibited hereby from recording such message or communication;"
My read is that this means if you're openly participating in a conversation or meeting it's legal to record it -- even covertly.
I say "likely incorrect" because Glenn notes:
But this is the sort of thing where you'd have to see what the cases say.
So the case law might say that scret taping in a situation like Ganske’s meeting was in violation of the law. I have no way of finding that out at present. But given the wording of the Iowa Code, it seems very improbable that such a case would exist.
Mea Culpa.
UPDATE: The link to the Iowa Code was broken. It is now fixed.
. . .
Friday, September 27, 2002
THE GIRAFFE KEEPS SHOWING UP
Another update on the Harkin Scandal. Police are backing off the claim that Conley has asked for immunity:
Morgan said the reporter [Kathie Obradovich] asked if Conley had asked for immunity and Boggs responded that Conley would have no reason to ask for immunity because police had not determined yet whether a crime was committed.
No word yet from Obradovich.
Here is the damning part:
State Republican Party Chairman Charles Larson Jr. contended today that the person who taped a meeting of Greg Ganske supporters was directed to do so by campaign staffers for Democratic Senator Tom Harkin.
Meanwhile, Des Moines police backed away from published reports that Des Moines businessman Brian Conley, suspected of taping the Ganske meeting, has asked for immunity.
Larson said the person who taped the meeting was directed by the Harkin campaign to infiltrate the Ganske camp.
"He called the (Harkin) campaign to inquire about whether he should attend or not," Larson said at a Des Moines news conference. "He was told, yes, he should definitely attend. He was asked to stop by the headquarters before the event. At that time, he was given the recording device and asked if he would consider recording the meeting."
. . .
RADIO INTERVIEW
I'm supposed to be interviewed on the Prentice Willaims Radio Hour today, at 7pm Eastern Standard Time. The show is via internet radio, at VoiceAmerica.com. Click on "Program Schedules" and then scroll down. It's under the "Friday" heading. You'll need RealPlayer to listen. We're supposed to discuss school choice, but who knows. Maybe we'll discuss this little thing in Iowa.
. . .
MORE GIRAFFE
Another article in Salon, by AP reporter Mike Glover.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: SEEING MORE OF THE HARKIN GIRAFFE
We now know some things about the fella who recorded the Ganske meeting. His name is Brain Conley, and in the 1970s he worked for then Representative Tom Harkin. A few more random thoughts on the Tom Harkin scandal:
1. In one of my comments sections, Henry Hanks questioned whether the Media Whores Online’s assertion that “the national as well as local media broadcast GOP charges that this was just like Watergate.” After some checking, I found the term mentioned only by Howard Kurtz, among the national media, and he wasn’t quoting any GOP official. Neither is the term in the New York Times Story, nor any of these three stories at CNN (1, 2, 3). In posts below, I've linked to more articles in newspapers outside of Iowa; the term isn't in those either. So much for the national media. Among the “local” media, the only story I can find which quotes a GOP official as using the term “Watergate” is in this Quad City Times story. The only other places it shows up is in David Yepsen’s column and this editorial in the Des Moines Register, and, like Kurtz, neither of those quote a GOP official. (And don’t any of you MWO types hit me with crap that the Des Moines Register is a shill for the Iowa GOP. I know more about the Register’s political coverage and editorial page than most of you will ever hope to know. The proper response to such a charge would be: BWAHAHAHAHAHA.)
The point here is that MWO’s claim about the Watergate charge is not completely inaccurate—but it is overblown.
2. Earlier I noted that no news story has stated that Brian Conley, had, as MWO asserted “OPENLY recorded the meeting instead of taking notes. Nobody objected” Here is another reason why that is likely bunk. If Conley had openly taped the meeting, wouldn’t someone present have remembered? And if so, why haven’t they come forward to say they remember? Indeed, given that no media was present at the Ganske meeting, wouldn’t the Ganske Campaign staff had inquired of anyone who had a tape recorder out? Anyone who wants to maintain that the tape was made openly has to address those questions. Good luck.
3. In Conley’s letter through his attorney, Brent Rosenberg, he claimed that he had given the tape to a Harkin staffer because he was “incensed by Congressman Ganske’s attitude.” That is bunk, for two reasons. If this guy worked for Harkin years ago, he has probably been in politics long enough to have seen plenty of politicians say things much worse than what Ganske said in that meeting. Second, the tape recordings are now online. Listen to them, and you'll hear that Gankse in no way conveys an "attitude".
4. Finally, it is noteworthy that Conley was a registered Democrat until June, when he registered as a Republican (he later switched back to Democrat in July.) Someone in the media—if Mr. Conley can be reached—needs to ask him if he voted in the June 4 Primary. Since Iowa has a closed primary, Conley would have had to fill out a Republican ballot. The next question that should be asked of Conley is, who did he vote for? My guess is he voted for Ganske’s opponent, Bill Salier. Salier is much more conservative than Ganske—Ganske had painted him as an extremist—and had shown none of Ganske’s ability to raise money. Thus, Harkin would have had a much more beatable GOP opponent had Salier won. If Mr. Conley did indeed vote for Salier, it further demonstrates that he was not a Ganske supporter, and that he likely had malign intentions when he attended the meeting. Of course, I’m speculating greatly here, but there is that little matter of his letter to the editor that flowed with praise for Harkin—back in February.
. . .
ON DECK
Daily Diatribe coming up.
. . .
REPEATING THE SAME INACCURACIES
TAPPED (The American Prospects’ Blog) is now repeating many of MWO’s assertions about the Tom Harkin scandal. Henry Hanks has a marvelous takedown of it, and I’m only going to repeat one thing that he notes. TAPPED states “According to this statement, the individual who taped the meeting was a Ganske contributor who had been invited to the meeting and had asked if he could record Melhman's presentation in lieu of taking notes.” MWO made a similar assertion. Both linked to this statement. No where in that statement does the taper, Brian Conley, say he asked if he could tape the meeting.
Second, given that MWO has printed a “semi-retraction” on the point of Conley being a Republican, one might think TAPPED would be a bit more circumspect before repeating MWO’s assertions.
Apparently not: TAPPED also states “So, as MediaWhoresOnline points out, there was no impropriety whatsoever -- unless you count Ganske's.” Again, just like MWO, they are making assertions that are not, at this time, verifiable. In fact, this article in the Quad City Times states:
Des Moines police Detective Bill Boggs confirmed Thursday that police are investigating allegations that Brian Conley of Des Moines was the person who claimed responsibility for the taping in an anonymous statement released Wednesday by a Des Moines attorney.
“What I’m getting so far is that he does not wish to talk unless he’s guaranteed immunity, which, if he doesn’t think he’s committed the crime, what does he need immunity for?” Boggs said.
If the police detective is speculating about wrong-doing, then TAPPED has no business claiming there was “no impropriety.” In fact, I quoted this same statement in a previous post this morning. I wish the folks at TAPPED and MWO would do some homework, like actually reading the articles they link to. I’m getting tired of repeating myself.
. . .
LATE TODAY
Daily Diatribe will not be posted until 2pm CST, today.
. . .
AND MORE
Thanks to Croooow Blog for send me this update at ABCNews about the Tom Harkin Scandal. (Scroll Down.) It cathces the bit of irony that I noted before about the Quad City Times story.
The story has also made its way to the left coast, here. In fact, it’s even making waves across the ocean!
. . .
MORE ON THE ‘HARKIN GIRAFFE’
Some more pieces at the Des Moines Register. This one has the speculation of the pundits as to the fallout of the scandal. This column compares the scandal to an episode of Leave It To Beaver.
The Quad City Times has the audio tapes online. Track 1 has the quote that has a lot of lefties in a tizzy: "You've never seen a campaign where anyone will attack him like we're going to. (Pause) With a smile on our face. Not angry, not growling or scowling, just being so happy we are just going to ship back the stress from our shoulders." (The full context of the quote is in Track 4.)
It sounds pretty innocuous they way Gankse says it. He doesn’t seem to be displaying an attitude, in that quote or in any of the remainder of the meeting. It makes Brian Conley’s claim that he handed over the tape to the Harkin Campaign because he "was incensed by Congressman Ganske’s attitude" seem very doubtful.
Something that isn’t in doubt is the inaccuracy of MWO’s statement that "Aroused by Ganske's political blood lust, the meeting then degenerated into violent chants and hollers." There isn’t anything even close to that on any part of the tape. We’ll see if MWO posts another retraction—excuse me, "semi-retraction".
Also, if you listen to the tape closely, you’ll here a lot of noises as though Brain Conley is shifting in his chair. It sounds like the taping device is in one of his pockets, not "out in the open." If you have a chance, listen to the tapes and see whether you agree.
. . .
A RETRACTION, SORT OF
MWO has posted this update in its post on the Tom Harkin Scandal:
*MWO initially reported the Ganske contributor/taper was a Republican, but Iowa Republican Chairman Charles Larson said the individual reported to have taped the meeting has registered at some times as a Republican and at others as a Democrat. Iowa's KCCI reported Thursday he changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat in July.
That still doesn't explain how MWO got the initial information that the taper was a Republican, espceially when his lawyer stated he didn't know his party affiliation. And there are still plenty of other things they should retract too.
UPDATE: Jay Caruso got to the MWO semi-retraction before I did. I think he's a lot tougher on them than I am. Go take a look.
. . .
ANOTHER GOOD DAY?
Can't wait for that Ted Kennedy speech today. "Mr. President, members of Congress, our Iraq policy is about to take a nosedive off a bridge."
. . .
A GOOD DOG
Thanks to Gut Rumbles for posting a link to this. Hilarious!
. . .
WHO'S PLAYING POLITICS
The Des Moines Register editorialists accuse President Bush of playing politics with the war. Sorry, but the decision to go to war is a political decision.
The Register then wonders:
For their part, congressional Democrats haven't been above calculating the political angles, either.
Their strategists talk of quickly approving the war resolution Bush wants so that attention can shift to the economy and other issues that favor Democrats. In order to change the political subject, would they abdicate their constitutional duty to determine the necessity of war before voting?
Of course they would. That's why they are Democrats.
. . .
THE HARKIN ‘GIRAFFE’?
This story not only has legs, it may have the legs of a giraffe. Here’s this mornings story in the Des Moines Register. It shows that there is some dispute over whether what Mr. Conley did was legal; some experts think that in Iowa if one party is aware of the taping it may not be illegal. Harkin has now hired his own attorney to investigate the matter.
My no legs prediction is looking dead in the water, but this one doesn’t look too bad:
I now predict that the staffer will be named by the end of the week. I further predict that if the story lasts much past this weekend, the staffer will be fired, and the Harkin campaign will reveal the source of the transcript.
In today’s Register, "West Des Moines lawyer David Wiggins said the campaign staff member who leaked the tape and transcript of the Sept. 3 meeting to a newspaper reporter has resigned."
Not quite what I predicted, but close.
And the legs keep growing: "Wiggins added that other Harkin staffers have retained lawyers, making his work more difficult." That will slow the flow of information, keeping the story alive.
This article in the Quad City Times has this very revealing passage:
Des Moines police Detective Bill Boggs confirmed Thursday that police are investigating allegations that Brian Conley of Des Moines was the person who claimed responsibility for the taping in an anonymous statement released Wednesday by a Des Moines attorney.
"What I’m getting so far is that he does not wish to talk unless he’s guaranteed immunity, which, if he doesn’t think he’s committed the crime, what does he need immunity for?" Boggs said.
Obvious question: Why does Mr. Conley want immunity?
Regarding the QC Times article. Notice anything interesting—if not a bit ironic—about it? Post a comment with your answer. We’ll see who is the first to get it.
Meanwhile, according to this story at WHO TV, Republicans are growing bolder:
Republicans say the man used deception to get in and say they now know everyone was not there to support Greg Ganske. WHO-TV learned a Des Moines man named Brian Conley sat in on a private strategic meeting inside the Hotel Savory in downtown Des Moines.
Republicans say Conley has close decades-long ties to Ganske's opponent, Democrat Tom Harkin. Chuck Larson, chairman of the Iowa Republican party, says, "My understanding is he has long relationship with Senator Harkin and was working hand in hand to gather this information."
Republican sources say Conley infiltrated the Ganske strategy meeting by changing his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican and then donating $50 to Ganske. They allege it was all a plan of deception and openly question whether Harkin himself ordered the plan from the beginning.
Interesting.
Here are more stories:
-ABCNews Scroll down.
-Salon.com
-RollCall
. . .
Thursday, September 26, 2002
AND BETTER....
Croooow has more on the "Gore Imposter."
UPDATE: Hanks has updated the post. Go visit.
. . .
A GOOD DAY
And it just keeps gettin' better!
. . .
'HARKIN BUG' UPDATE
Here's a new story at the Iowa Channel about the Harkin scandal. (Thanks to Croooow). I'm going to speculate a bit about this gent Brian Conley in tomorrow's Daily Diatribe. For now, I'll just note that the Harkin Campaign is no longer answering questions but referring them to a Democrat attorney. Big surprise.
Over at the Crystal Ball, Larry Sabato has now switched the Iowa Senate race from "Leans Democrat" to "Toss-Up"
Guess my "no legs" prediction is looking rather sad.
But this prediction is looking a lot better.
. . .
AND EVEN MORE ON YOU KNOW WHAT
If you’re visiting here for the first time, scroll down to the previous two posts to see what the title means. In the first post, I challenged Media Whores Online’s assertion that the taper of the Ganske meeting was a “Republican.” I pointed out that even his lawyer, Brent Rosenberg, didn’t know his party affiliation. Now we know the not only his party affiliation, but his identity, according to the Des Moines Register. It is one Brian Conley, and
Conley is a registered Democrat, according to Polk County election records. He changed his registration to Republican in June, coinciding with the primary election. He changed it back to Democrat in July.
So at the time he allegedly made the tape, Conley was a Democrat. Guess MWO got it dead wrong.
Not only that, but there appears to be much more to the story than MWO would have us believe:
Brian Conley, who lives at 3100 Terrace Drive in Des Moines, wrote a letter to the Register critical of Ganske in January. Conley worked for Harkin in the 1970s as a lower level aide for a short-time period.
And the Register even provides the letter to the editor Mr. Conley wrote (fourth one from the top). He’s clearly a Harkin supporter.
I’ll be waiting for MWO to make a retraction. I’ll start holding my breath as of now. 1, 2, 3, 4…..
. . .
MORE MWO AND ‘HARKIN BUG’ SCANDAL
As I noted in the post below this one, Media Whores Online has covered the Tom Harkin scandal. I noted one thing MWO has gotten wrong. What follows is an extended analysis. To read the MWO post without having to search the MWO website, click here. MWO does not have permalinks. Given the, ahem, quality of its content, it’s no mystery as to why.
Let’s start with the assertion in one of the subtitles, “Harkin Campaign Innocent.”
Innocent? That implies that the Harkin Campaign has been exonerated. Not so. This article at the Iowa Channel notes, “Des Moines police started their investigation Thursday morning into the taping of a Greg Ganske for U.S. Senate investigation.” That, of course, doesn’t mean anyone in the Harkin Campaign is guilty, but it does mean that there is enough evidence for the authorities to begin investigating. Shouldn’t MWO wait until the investigation is over before claiming that the Harkin Campaign is innocent?
Also, the Harkin Campaign is clearly guilty of ethical lapses. How do I know? Tom Harkin apologized for his campaign’s actions:
"I make no excuses," Harkin said in an interview with The Des Moines Register. "I am the captain of the ship, and I take responsibility, and I apologize for it. These things shouldn't happen like that."
Harkin said he had no knowledge of the controversy until he read published reports Monday, learning later that day that a campaign press aide had sent the transcript to a reporter.
The aide will keep his job but faces disciplinary action. Harkin said he did not know who had produced the transcript or the tape it was based on.
Harkin would not identify the press aide, and he said he had been too angry to speak to him yet. "I am going to send a clear message to my campaign staff this behavior is not allowed," he said. "They may have the best of intentions, but you don't do these kinds of things. Please, please, check up the ladder before you start doing things."
Now, let’s look at MWO’s second paragraph:
An audio tape, recorded at a Republican info-strategy-fundraiser session earlier this month, caught right-wing GOP Senate candidate Greg Ganske, in the presence of Bush senior political adviser and Karl Rove consigliere Ken Mehlman, vowing to destroy Democratic incumbent Senator Tom Harkin with a barrage of slick and vicious attack ads. "You've never seen a campaign where anyone will attack him like we're going to attack him," Ganske says on the tape -- adding, oh so innocently "with a smile on our face...."
That Ganske quote is taken out of context. You can read the entire paragraph here. Here is the full Ganske quote:
You've never seen a campaign where anyone will attack him like we're going to. (Pause) With a smile on our face. Not angry, not growling or scowling, just being so happy we are just going to ship back the stress from our shoulders.
Looks to me like Ganske is talking about his campaign’s advertising strategy, not promoting a smear campaign. To spin that into “a barrage of vicious attack ads” is, at best, a stretch, and, at worst, an outright distortion. It’s the latter if the next sentence in the MWO piece is any indication:
Aroused by Ganske's political blood lust, the meeting then degenerated into violent chants and hollers.
Where on earth did MWO get that? It didn’t follow Ganske’s remark about his attack strategy. This is what did:
Question: Do you have a little preview of the debates? Is there anything new that you know?
In fact, neither the transcript printed in the Des Moines Register nor the one in the Quad City Times mentions anything about “violent chants and hollers.” I suspect MWO might charge that the Iowa media is deliberately leaving it out of the transcripts, but how would the author know that?
On a humorous note, this author clearly doesn’t know Ganske. Listening to him speak you’re about as likely to get ‘aroused’ as you are watching paint dry.
Next, MWO claims:
Subsequently, the Harkin campaign, obtained and publicized a copy of the deeply embarrassing tape.
The Harkin Campaign most certainly did not “publicize” the tape. In fact, the campaign initially denied having anything to do with it:
The Harkin campaign said it had no knowledge of the taped conversation or the source of the transcript….
"I don't know where (Obradovich) got it," [Harkin Campaign manager Jeff] Link said of the transcript. He suggested that the Ganske campaign had taped the meeting and leaked the tape and transcript, or that it was the work of a former Ganske supporter who had turned against the Republican's campaign.
Oops!
The next day the Harkin Campaign had to backtrack:
U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin's campaign manager admitted Monday night that the campaign had obtained a transcript of a secretly taped meeting of Greg Ganske and his supporters, then passed it along to a journalist.
"We made a mistake, and we're sorry," said Jeff Link, who previously had denied knowing where the journalist, Kathie Obradovich, had gotten the transcript.
"We take full responsibility for releasing it to the press," Link said.
And to think MWO accuses the GOP of “distraction and deception”!
Then there is this MWO claim about the person who recorded the meeting:
Interested especially in hearing Mehlman's remarks, the taper OPENLY recorded the meeting instead of taking notes. Nobody objected.
Really? Here is the portion of the statement released by the taper through his lawyer, Brent Rosenberg, upon which MWO bases its claim:
I was openly present and participating in the event. Rather than take notes of the presentation and discussions, I chose to tape-record them. Congressman Ganske arrived late and in his speech stated that, as for Senator Harkin; "You've never seen a campaign where anyone will attack him like we're going to attack him, with a smile on our face...." I was incensed by Congressman Ganske's attitude and provided the tape to a Harkin staffer.
Here is the lawyer’s follow up statement:
Based on this account, I have advised my client that he was not in violation of any Federal or state laws. He was invited and openly present, known to the Ganske campaign and was present for the purpose of hearing Mr. Mehlman. He was a participant in the discussions held at the Event and had a right to take notes or record the event otherwise.
Note that nowhere in that statement does the taper or the lawyer say the taping was done in the open. They only say that he was “openly present”. Although MWO takes pride in countering media spin, it looks like it fell for legal spin. This leads MWO to make this statement:
When the proceedings turned ugly -- too ugly for this Ganske supporter -- he handed the perfectly legally-recorded tape over to the Harkin supporters.
Again, we don’t know if the taping was made in the open. Thus, we don’t know if it was legal. If it was done in secret, it is most definitely not legal.
Then there is the MWO’s blatant hypocrisy. They accuse Ganske and the GOP of going into a “vicious attack mode” by “charging outright that Harkin supporters had secretly recorded the tape and broken the law.” They also accuse the GOP of making “phony ‘Watergate’ charges.”
But after strongly suggesting that Ganske and the GOP are making reckless charges, MWO claims that this is really “a story of Ganske's and the Iowa GOP's participation in the Rove-Davis national lie-and-smear scandal,” and the “Ganske outrage is part of a huge national smear effort which MWO has helped expose, and will continue to expose.”
Oh wait. Guess I jumped the gun on that “hypocrisy” charge. I’m sure MWO has solid, indisputable evidence of this “national lie-and-smear scandal.” I’ll be waiting with baited breath to see it.
. . .
MEDIA WHORES ONLINE AND THE 'HARKIN BUG' SCANDAL
Media Whores Online has commented on the scandal brewing in the Harkin-Ganske Senate race. Referred to affectionately by the likes of Hanks and Caruso as "Media Horses**t Online," it has gotten quite a few details incorrect. It is also spinning faster than a twister on caffeine and steroids. MWO doesn't have the balls to have permalinks, so I've posted their comments here. I'll give a more extended treatment of it later today. For now, here's a teaser. MWO claims:
The taper is a REPUBLICAN and past cash CONTRIBUTOR to the Ganske campaign.
The second part is correct, but the there is no way they can possibly know the first part given recent coverage. The identity of the taper has not been released; he or she has merely issued a statement through his or her lawyer, Brent Rosenberg. Nothing in the story at the Iowa Channel that MWO links to reveals the taper's party affiliation. In fact, this story in the Des Moines Register states:
Rosenberg, who is a registered Democrat, said he did not know his client's political affiliation. He said his own politics played no part in the issue. "I don't represent Tom Harkin," Rosenberg said.
If the taper's own lawyer doesn't know his or her political affiliation, I wonder, how does MWO know it?
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: THE CRY BABY PARTY
The Republican Party is sometimes referred to as the "stupid party." It is sometimes accurate. In the interest of accuracy, it is time to call the Democratic Party by its proper nickname, the "Cry Baby Party."
The biggest cry baby of them all is Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Yeterday, Daschle threw a hissy fit on the floor of the U.S. Senate, accusing President Bush of politicizing the War on Iraq:
But then I read in the paper this morning. Now, even the president. The president is quoted in The Washington Post this morning as saying that Democratic--the Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the American people. Not interested in the security of the American people? You tell Senator Inoue he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous--outrageous.
The president ought to apologize to Senator Inoue and every veteran who fought in every war who is a Democrat in the United States Senate. He ought to apologize to the American people. That is wrong. We ought not politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about war in life and death.
To which the appropriate response is: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!
Daschle actually took the President’s remarks out of context. Bush was referring to the Department of Homeland Security, not the War on Iraq. But even if the President had been referring to the war, so what? As Bill Quick recently noted about the dustup between Daschle and VP Cheney (also a distortion, apparently):
Oh, my goodness, how terrible that a politician should urge the American people to make their political will known on the biggest question they've had to face in the past decade.
What the hell, Tiny Tom? We're a democracy. What sort of question do you think the issue of Iraq is, if not a political one?
Indeed, during the summer, the Democrats themselves tried to politicize the war. They—along with some Republicans—consistently harped on Bush to "make the case" for a war with Iraq.
Here is Senator Joe Biden:
"A lot more spadework has to be done to make a case to the American people, its allies and the region," U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Here is Senator Joe Lieberman:
Lieberman said Bush must "take hold of this, speak to the American people, ask Congress for authorization, and then decide when and how to conduct it."
Here is Representative Dick Gephardt:
"The president has to make the case to Congress and the people, and that has not been done," House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri said during a campaign appearance Thursday for Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Ia., at the Knoxville Senior Center.
And here is that lovable little puff-ball, Senator Tom Daschle:
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Congress must weigh in before America goes to war. ``I don't think the president has the authority to launch a full-force effort'' without congressional approval, he said.
``We all support strongly a regime change,'' Daschle said on ABC's ``This Week.'' ``But I think we have to get our ducks in order. Do we have the support of our allies? Do we have an appropriate plan?''
It seemed that the Democrat’s mantra this summer was "Make the Case, Make the Case, MAKE THE CASE!!!"
Defenders of the Democrats will argue that they were just doing their noble duty by raising needed questions. Bull. These are professional politicians, many with designs on the presidency. Almost everything they do in public is designed with some political purpose. In this case, they saw the poll numbers in the early summer showing flagging support for a war with Iraq. They thought they could get some political traction by demanding that Bush make the case, perhaps even neutralize any advantage the GOP might have on the issue in the November elections.
But, then, a little thing happened on September 12. Bush actually made the case. The support for a war with Iraq shot up in the polls. Iraq started to dominate the news coverage, knocking Terry McAuliffe’s precious "Kitchen Table Issues" off the front page. It meant that national security concerns—a GOP strength—would likely be the media focus up to the election. Surely, Daschle saw his chances of remaining Senate Majority Leader going down the crapper.
Here’s a some advice to Senator Daschle and other Democrats: If you don’t want Bush to politicize the war, don’t first politicize it yourself. If you don’t want this to become an election-year issue, don’t raise it before the election yourself. And if you still do those things, don’t whine when the other side does them right back to you. Because there is only one appropriate response to that: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!
And there is now only one appropriate nickname for the Democrats: The Cry Baby Party.
. . .
REGISTER LOVES DEMS WHO OPPOSE THE WAR
I’m sure you’re stunned. In this editorial the Des Moines Register fawns all over those courageous Democrats who are now speaking out against a war with Iraq. The editorialists are of course enamored of Al Gore’s speech the other day:
Former Vice President Al Gore addressed the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco on Monday to talk about America's war on terrorism and America's proposed war against Iraq. He called Iraq a "distraction" from the war on terrorism and said this country should stay its course focusing on neutralizing an international terrorist network. Playing off President Bush's cowboy analogies and go-it-alone attitude, Gore said, "If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize a posse first, especially if you're in the middle of a gunfight with somebody who's out after you."
First, President Bush would prefer to not go it alone. He has simply stated that the U.S. is willing to if it has to. The Jesse James analogy has to be one of the stupidest bits of political rhetoric in modern history. When your posse is comprised of the U.S. military, it doesn’t matter how many other members of the posse you have. For a thorough takedown of Gore’s speech, go here.
Next:
Though the White House responded to Gore's speech with scorn, the president should not lightly dismiss the concerns of several key leaders. Former President Jimmy Carter said he was "quite concerned" about potential military action without global support. "It's a radical departure from traditions that have shaped our nation's policy by Democratic and Republican presidents for more than 50 years," he said.
Oh yes, Jimmy Carter! The president whose foreign policy set the standard for all subsequent chief executives. Yep, we should definitely take his counsel.
The Register also indulges some faulty logic:
Even some Republicans are skeptical. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has set forth a list of questions he was afraid others might not ask.
The underlying assumption seems to be that when members of the opposing party voice similar concerns, that must give your position some validity. Funny, but I don’t recall the Register conceding that Bush’s tax cut had some merit when quite a few Democrats in Congress voted in favor of it. Guess I missed that editorial.
Finally, the Register pulls out this whopper:
The skeptics provide a legitimate and needed caution about President Bush's rush toward war. If the United States is going to break with tradition by initiating a pre-emptive war, it should first have an honest national debate. Such a debate cannot happen without a loyal opposition that has the courage to pose questions and suggest alternatives.
It can’t? Why not? Have the Register editorialists had their heads in the sand the last five months? Sorry, that’s a rhetorical question. They must have missed all the editorials in the New York Times, plus comments of prominent folks like Dick Armey and Brent Scowcroft. I guess that doesn’t constitute an "honest national debate."
As far as I am concerned, we should have as much debate as possible. I’m all in favor of as many Democrats as possible voicing their opposition to the war. But most of them won’t. If the Register editorialists want to know why, they should take a look at a calendar. An election is less than six weeks away. So much for that "courage to question."
. . .
EVEN MORE ON THE HARKIN BUG
It looks like the Ganske meeting was not bugged, but was recorded by someone present at the meeting. (Thanks to Croooow Blog.)
. . .
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
JUST FOR YOU MR. FERGUSON
Thanks to DailyPundit for the link to this column by Dick Morris saying that public opinion polls are increasingly unreliable. As if I didn't have enough problems.
. . .
BLOGCRITICS
I've been meaning to link to BlogCritics for some time. Eric Olsen has done a fabulous job of putting it together. It is now part of the blog roll, under "Cleveland Blogger Bash". Here is my first contribution. There are many excellent book, movie, and music reviews at the site. Check it out.
. . .
MORE FLIP-FLOPPING
Croooow Blog has more on Gore's speech. Jay Caruso also has some posts on the matter.
. . .
MORE ON THE HARKIN BUG
Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post has this article on the matter.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: PUSHING MINOR BUTTONS
In response to my ealier button pushing, Tony at Quasipundit, posted a coherent response and a quasi-coherent response. There's an awful lot in both of these posts, and I've tried to divide it into what I consider to be the minor matters and the major ones. Today I'm going to address the minor matters, so let's get started:
1. Okay, Tony, first about the conceprt of "Policy": What Dave says "could be charitably described as 'having doubts' about Bush’s Iraq policy" on the part of Kerry isn't about "Iraq policy".
Your reasoning:
It's about plans & intentions [with regard to] implementing policy, not the policy per se. Support for regime change was 10 to 1 in the House in '98, and passed on a unanimous voice vote in the Senate.
Tony, now you are the one being clever, trying to separate the means (plans & intentions) from policy. Most dictionaries I’ve consulted define policy as “a principle, plan, or course of action, as pursued by a government.” Policy is not only about the goal—in this case regime change in Iraq—but also the means—in this case unilateralism or multilateralism. In fact, the common usage of the term "policy" agrees with the formal definition: many policy debates are about means, and not goals. Take welfare policy: in general, both conservatives and liberals agree on the goal, that those on welfare should become self-sufficient. The debate over welfare policy in the mid-90s was about means: conservatives believed in time limits and work requirements, while liberals believed in more funding for education and job training. So if the debate about Iraq is one of means, and not the goal, it is still a “policy debate”. If I accepted your definition of policy, Tony, then it clearly would not be a debate over policy. Very clever, Tony. Very, very clever. But it won’t wash, even though I do live near the cornfields.
2. Next, you claim I "rewrote" your question: And nice try, you clever you, trying to answer my question [with regard to] a specific passage by pointing to a different section of text as if that's the verbiage I took exception with — I did, and I do, but you still rewrote the question...
I’m not sure I get this Tony. I addressed the question: Somebody wanna answer me why everybody seems to think that the Dem '04 hopefuls have of a sudden come around to Mr. Bush's side? I think I addressed it in good faith. There was certainly no attempt to rewrite it. If you want to criticize me for not addressing the second question—And why have we suddenly stopped hearing 'bout GOP Members [of Congress] who have been just as skeptical as the Dem skeptics?—fair enough. (In fact, I think you do criticize me for it in sort of a round about way.) But in my original I was simply trying to address the first question, not the second. In short, no distortion was intended. I apologize if it came off that way.
3. You also question why the Republicans in the House of Representatives have not moved on a resolution until recently:
….maybe you can tell me why everybody's mau mauing the Dems over this Congressional Resolution business. Yea, yea... I know Mr. Daschle is a noted obstructionist, but he doesn't run the other chamber. Why hasn't the House moved a resolution 'til this late date? It can't be because Speaker Hastert has abdicated to Mr. Gephardt….
The reason why the House hasn't acted yet can only be because there are members of the House GOP who are just as skeptical as Democratic members. In fact, there are GOP members to whom the label Anti-War is more appropriately applied: I previously pointed to Rep Ron Paul, and now it's time to reveal who spoke the words I quoted in the begin — Rep Dick Armey![ By the way, it's interesting that these two GOP critics of Mr. Bush's approach to Iraq are both from Texas]
The only reason? How about the House GOP doesn’t want to embarrass Bush as a reason? If the House GOP brought up a resolution before Bush requested one, it would appear that the House GOP thought that Bush was not moving fast enough. In short, it would be pre-empting Bush; I can only imagine the media fallout. The House GOP is likely deferring to Bush’s leadership on Iraq policy—i.e. don’t bring up any resolutions authorizing force until Bush requests them. Since Bush is the #1 Guy in the GOP right now, and the #1 Guy on the War on Terrorism, I think the "avoidance of embarrasment" reason is the correct explanation.
4. One last minor thing: I did not defend the Krauthammer column. (I’m not saying that you said I did; you just keep referring to it so often in your posts regarding my post that I thought it necessary to address the matter.) I didn’t think much of it when I read it; clearly K was spinning, very hard. I conceded to you a while back I was wrong, that there are GOP members that are raising questions. Some are even opposed, as you dutifully point out. I have no quibbles with you over that or the K column.
I will address the major matters in the Daily Diatribe on Friday. As I see it these are the major questions: 1. The second question: why have we suddenly stopped hearing 'bout GOP Members [of Congress] who have been just as skeptical as the Dem skeptics? 2. In fact, the first question "why are all the '04 Dem hopefuls being protrayed as coming around to Bush's side?" is still open for debate. 3. Isn't it really Bush who has come around to the Dems' (or at least the multilaterlists') side? I hope I'm not missing anything, Tony. Please let me know if I am.
. . .
WAS I WRONG? MAYBE….
Yesterday I argued that the "Harkin Bug" story will not have any legs. But so far Rush Limbaugh and Reuters have picked it up (thanks to Croooow Blog.)
Des Moines Register columnist Rob Borsellino thinks that the way the Harkin Campaign is handling it all but guarantees that it will continue to make news. He has a point:
So you've got the party faithful rallying around the senator and his people, proud to know their guy would never do something so politically inept or allow his folks to pull a stunt like that.
And that's followed by a late-night press release from the Harkin campaign staff admitting they - "a junior staffer" - did release that transcript. They take responsibility, they apologize. They say they weren't lying earlier, they just didn't know at the time. They also say Harkin knew nothing about it.
But they won't say who did it or how it all went down. They won't say where the leaker got the transcript - was the room bugged, did someone wear a hidden wire? They say he will be disciplined, but not fired. And they won't say much more. End of discussion.
So they pretty much guarantee that this will continue to make news and continue to make the Harkin campaign look like it's got something to hide.
David Yepsen also suggests that it’s going to stay alive for a while:
This talk is unlikely to go away anytime soon, because law-enforcement agencies have been asked to look into it, and their investigations of things like this take time. On top of that, Harkin's operation wasn't helping reporters seeking information, a good way to keep a bad story alive.
Yepsen also argues that this will have electoral consequences:
This episode could be just the thing Ganske needs to win this election….
The question is: Can Harkin fumigate himself before the election? We'll see. He needs to stand up and make a detailed public explanation and apology and assure us this isn't going to happen again. His campaign manager and the press staffers who were party to this probably need to do the honorable thing and find other employment. After all that, perhaps Iowa voters will forgive and move on.
Even the editorialists at the Register are getting into the act:
Senator Tom Harkin's campaign has transformed a minor-league political stunt into a potentially devastating credibility failure.
Harkin's staff now admits it obtained a recording and transcript of his opponent's meeting and leaked it to a reporter. If the incident is likened to a Watergate dirty trick, the appropriate question is: What did they know, and when did they know it?
Harkin campaign staffers and Iowa Democratic Party officials at first denied any involvement when Congressman Greg Ganske said last week that someone had leaked to a reporter a transcript and a recording of a Sept. 3 meeting of Ganske supporters.
They were repeating those denials until late Monday evening when the Harkin campaign issued a brief press statement saying the staff, in fact, had received a copy of "remarks" from the meeting and that "our press operation passed it on to a reporter . . ." Harkin campaign manager Jeff Link apologized to Ganske and his campaign.
That statement did not address these questions:
Did the Harkin campaign receive the tape/transcript from a third party, as it asserts? Or did someone surreptitiously record the meeting on Harkin's behalf? Did Link and other Harkin staffers and Democratic Party officials lie when they denied knowing about the tape/transcript? Or were they unaware of the actions of someone farther down the food chain?
So, was I wrong? Does this story have legs, potentially very long ones? For the sake of seeing Ganske defeat Harkin on November 5, I hope so. But….
. . .
….MAYBE NOT
Before I retract what I said yesterday, let’s compare a few of my predictions to some of this morning’s news stories.
On the matter of who is to blame in the Harkin Campaign, I stated:
....if the Harkin Campaign actually bugged the meeting, it was probably done by a Harkin staffer without Senator Harkin's knowledge. And even if Harkin did have direct knowledge, fat chance it will ever come out. This is the age of the Clintonized Democratic Party: A loyal Harkin staff member will inevitably take the fall. In short, it will prove extraordinarily difficult to connect Harkin, especially with only about six weeks to go in the campaign.
According to the Des Moines Register this morning:
U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa apologized Tuesday for his campaign's role in passing along a transcript of a secretly taped meeting involving his election opponent. The aide who released the transcript acted independently, without the approval of Harkin or his campaign manager, the senator said.
"I make no excuses," Harkin said in an interview with The Des Moines Register. "I am the captain of the ship, and I take responsibility, and I apologize for it. These things shouldn't happen like that."
Harkin said he had no knowledge of the controversy until he read published reports Monday, learning later that day that a campaign press aide had sent the transcript to a reporter.
The aide will keep his job but faces disciplinary action. Harkin said he did not know who had produced the transcript or the tape it was based on.
Harkin would not identify the press aide, and he said he had been too angry to speak to him yet. "I am going to send a clear message to my campaign staff this behavior is not allowed," he said. "They may have the best of intentions, but you don't do these kinds of things. Please, please, check up the ladder before you start doing things."
Campaign manager Jeff Link, who apologized to the campaign of Republican Rep. Greg Ganske on Monday, also declined to identify the staffer but said he would honor the staffer's promise to conceal the identity of the source of the information about the Ganske meeting.
"I could hang a junior staffer out to dry, but that's not the stand-up way to do it," Link said.
I now predict that the staffer will be named by the end of the week. I further predict that if the story lasts much past this weekend, the staffer will be fired, and the Harkin campaign will reveal the source of the transcript.
Now let me toot my horn one more time. Yesterday I also said:
Ganske has had an ethical "misstep" himself recently. In mid-August Iowa Democrats filed a letter of complaint with the House Ethics Committee, claiming Ganske engaged in campaigning at an official town hall meeting. The problem is that Ganske used the taxpayer-funded franking privilege to advertise the meeting. If Ganske decides to keep pushing the breaching of his strategy session as a campaign issue, expect Harkin to bring up the town hall meeting. That would largely neutralize whatever advantage Ganske might hope to gain.
An article from late yesterday in the Cedar Rapids Gazette Online (sorry, you need to be a subscriber to get access to the whole article) states:
The Harkin campaign sought to deflect criticism of its actions by repeating allegations that Ganske, a four-term Republican congressman from Des Moines, "has not apologized for using an actress in a fraudulent ad to attack Tom Harkin, illegally using copyrighted footage from a news broadcast or campaigning at a taxpayer-funded event."
So far, my batting average is pretty good. It will take at least a few more days before we know if the story has any legs. And it will take another week or two (and an opinion poll) before we know if this has any election fallout. So I’m not admitting I’m wrong….just yet.
FYI: Here is another story in the Quad City Times, and the actual transcript of the Ganske meeting.
UPDATE: CNN also had this story.
. . .
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
THE FLIP-FLOPPER
Croooow Blog has an excellent post about Gore flip flops. Plenty of good links too.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: HARKIN BUG HAS NO LEGS
Chances are that you’ve already seen the stories. The Ganske Campaign is accusing the Harkin Campaign of secretly taping a strategy session that the Ganske Campaign held at the Hotel Savery in Des Moines on September 3. As proof, the Ganske Campaign released a transcript of the meeting that his campaign had received from political reporter Kathie Obradovich. Obradovich claims that she received it from a "Democratic source". Given that only Ganske Campaign staff and supporters were supposed to be at the meeting, either (1) the meeting was "bugged," or (2) someone attending the meeting secretly taped it and then handed over the tape to a "Democratic source". Although the Harkin Campaign initially denied any involvement, it has now conceded that it did give the transcript to Ms. Obradovich. (For links to more stories on this matter click here.)
So, will this turn the tide for Ganske’s Senate run? I highly doubt it, for three reasons. First, it’s not at all clear that the Harkin Campaign actually bugged the meeting; it's quite possible someone disloyal to Ganske secretly taped the meeting and gave the tape to the Harkin Campaign. Second, if the Harkin Campaign actually bugged the meeting, it was probably done by a Harkin staffer without Senator Harkin's knowledge. And even if Harkin did have direct knowledge, fat chance it will ever come out. This is the age of the Clintonized Democratic Party: A loyal Harkin staff member will inevitably take the fall. In short, it will prove extraordinarily difficult to connect Harkin, especially with only about six weeks to go in the campaign.
Second, recent history suggests that such stories have no "legs." Recall John and Alice Martin, the two Florida Democratic activists who in December 1996 used a radio scanner to illegally tape a phone conversation between John Boehner, Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders. On January 10, 1997, Jim McDermott gave a copy of the tape to the New York Times, which published an excerpt. In the end, the Martins got off with a slap on the wrist, and nothing happened to McDermott. (Boehner did sue him, but ultimately the Supreme Court threw out the case.) The reason the story went no where is that the public just wasn’t that concerned about it. I suspect that much of the public considers such matters to be just another seamy part of that already seamy endeavor called politics. Thus, it seems unlikely that this "Iowa version" will hold the media's attention for very long.
Third, Ganske has had an ethical "misstep" himself recently. In mid-August Iowa Democrats filed a letter of complaint with the House Ethics Committee, claiming Ganske engaged in campaigning at an official town hall meeting. The problem is that Ganske used the taxpayer-funded franking privilege to advertise the meeting. If Ganske decides to keep pushing the breaching of his strategy session as a campaign issue, expect Harkin to bring up the town hall meeting. That would largely neutralize whatever advantage Ganske might hope to gain.
Lastly, it should be said that the Ganske Campaign is just not doing very well. It has not been very aggressive and has lacked focus. Ganske’s chances of unseating Harkin are fading. This new story isn’t going to revive them.
UPDATE: The information that I presented on the Boehner lawsuit against Jim McDermott may not be correct. I took it from the 2002 Almanac of American Politics. This article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer says that the lawsuit is ongoing. My bad.
. . .
VILSACK THE SHAMELESS, PART 2
This article in the Quad City Times quotes Governor Vilsack as blaming the cuts in Iowa higher education on the Republican controlled legislature:
Vilsack said Gross was pointing the finger at the wrong person, saying the Republican-controlled Legislature was to blame for cuts.
Well gee, Governor, if the cuts were so bad, why didn't you use your line-item veto and remove them from the state budget? Fact is, you signed the bill that made those cuts, Governor. Take responsibility for that.
. . .
THEY DID IT AGAIN!
On Sunday the Des Moines Register editorial page did another impression of the New York Times on crime and prison population:
Iowa has led the nation in prison growth despite a barely growing population and declining or flat crime rates.
Any connection between more prisoners (and hence the need to build more prisons) and a declining crime rate? Nah.
. . .
HAD ENOUGH?
Over at Shark Blog, Stefan Sharkansky has finally been pushed over the edge by the new California bill, singed into law by Grayout Davis, mandating paid family leave. Not only has the SharkMan decided to vote for Bill Simon instead of the libertarian candidate, he's even sent him a campaign contribution!
. . .
WHAT A SCAM
This editorial in the New York Post shows the scam that is New York City's homeless system.
. . .
BEAR MARKET AND PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Andrew Biggs makes the case that the current bear market confirms the case for personal accounts to reform Social Security.
. . .
THE HARKIN BUG?
In case you haven't heard, there is a scandal brewing in the Harkin-Ganske race. Somehow the Harkin Campaign got ahold of a transript of a private Ganske campaign meeting. Here are some articles in: The Des Moines Register, Quad City Times, and The New York Times. The Drudge Report is also giving it some play. Here is Rob Borsellino's column on it in the Des Moines Register today.
These are articles from yesterday in the Des Moines Register and the Iowa Channel before the Harkin Campaign admitted to having the transcript.
Comments on this matter in the Daily Diatribe today.
. . .
Monday, September 23, 2002
REMEMBERING MIKE GARDNER
Sometimes life hits you upside the head with a sledgehammer. That’s what it felt like when I learned that my poker buddy, Mike Gardner, had passed away. He was one of the funniest gentlemen I have ever met.
I’ll briefly recount how I found out about his death, since this post is about him, not me. I was playing cards at the Isle of Capri Casino on Saturday. I saw Mike’s lady friend, Linda McGlin, walk in. I wondered aloud (out of Linda’s earshot, thank God!) if Mike was also around. Everyone at the poker table looked at me, and the dealer—a very nice woman named Dawn—asked "You haven’t heard?" She then told me that Mike had passed away about a month and a half ago. I didn’t stay at the poker table for much longer.
I must have first met Mike in 1999 when the Rhythm City Casino in Davenport was still called the "President," and still had a poker room. I recall the first time I encountered Mike’s wonderful sense of humor. Apparently there was a misunderstanding between Mike and one of the very lovely young waitresses. She thought he was upset at her. He told her he wasn’t, that it was no big deal. As she was leaving the room she said "Well, let me know if I can make it up to you." Mike grinned and mumbled "Start taking off your clothes." The whole table erupted in laughter.
The first time he directed it at me was during a game at the Isle of Capri. In poker, the slang for a tray of poker chips is a "rack." As I was heading to the table for my game, I told the dealer I needed a rack. Mike stretched his hand out toward me and said, "Here Dave, I’ll give you a rack." I started to laugh, shook Mike’s hand and retorted, "Oh, it’s gonna be a good day!"
From there it was often a barrel of laughs. Mike would laugh at almost every dirty joke I told, even the bad ones. We’d also trade impersonations of the South Park character, Mr. Hankey. One time we were joking around so much that the dealer commented that we were as bad as two little kids.
You got the sense from being around Mike that life had knocked him around a little, toughened him up some. But you also got the sense that it never really hurt his spirit: Mike was always ready with a smile and a hello. His laugh was loud and sincere, from the heart.
Here is Mike’s obituary. (Scroll down, it is the sixth one.) He was born in 1947, served in the Air Force, during Vietnam, and later worked as a carpenter. He died only one day before his 55th birthday. From what I’ve been told, he had a heart attack at the craps table while vacationing in Tunica, Mississippi. One hopes there is at least a little comfort in that when he went, he was doing something he really enjoyed.
Too all Mike’s family, I am so sorry. To his wonderful lady friend, Linda, I am so sorry.
Mike, the poker room at Isle of Capri will not be the same without you. Here’s hoping we all someday meet at the great poker game in the sky. God bless you, Mike.
. . .
|
. . .
|
