There’s an old saying, used by lawyers, that when the facts are on your side you argue the merits, but when the facts are against you — you argue over the rules. That honest view of strategy continues to come to mind as I watch partisans on the Democratic side come to the defense of U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd.
I have been surprised and a few times shocked by what I am hearing from otherwise fair-minded people as the news media and Dodd’s opponents sink into the ethically exposed under belly of Dodd’s life in public service.
The defense has two lines of attack that can be summed up as either; “it was only a technical violation” or shoot the messenger. What’s equally surprising to me is that these tactics seem to work, at least temporarily, with the news media. I have my doubts they will work long term because they offer only momentary diversion from the truth.
A few months back, one Dodd defender attempted to diminish the accusations being made against the senator by noting most of the critical reporting came from a single reporter with Republican leanings. Even if that was the case, it has no relevance if the questions being raised by that one reporter are legitimate issues. It is not unusual for one reporter to take up and run with a story no one else in the media is pursuing. Eventually, if the story line has merit, other news organizations pick up the cause as well. That’s what has happened in the Dodd case.
Another defender claimed the press corps has gotten lazy in the Dodd case, latching onto initial reports and repeating them regardless of their accuracy. For the sake of argument, let’s accept that premise. So what? Charges and accusations against public figures are often repeated in the news media regardless of the substance behind them. Most campaigns are full of such half truths. The test of a winning candidate is his ability to defend against them based on the merits, not based on crying foul. Seniority does not protect Dodd from being roughed up in the political arena.
Still others have blamed all Dodd’s problems on Republicans. Imagine that; Republicans trying to gain political advantage by questioning Dodd’s record in public? Democrats would never stoop to such levels. Grow up.
The most astounding defense I have seen was not a defense of Chris Dodd, but a defense of his father Tom, in a Newsweek article. A well known Connecticut Democrat, who is equally well known for his belief in strong ethics, excused the behavior that led to the elder Dodd’s censure by saying he was behind on a few mortgage payments so he used some of his campaign funds to make ends meet. A technicality, a petty violation. Wow, I guess it is equally true that where you stand on ethics has a lot to do with who you are sitting with at the moment.
The final weapon in the arsenal of Dodd defenders is the seniority argument. It is telling that this one is being used so early because it is usually reserved for the final weeks of a campaign when it looks as if the long-time incumbent is about to lose. We are being warned that if we vote for someone other than Dodd because of some perceived ethical issues, Connecticut will suffer. There is no pork for purists.
The Dodd team members are not used to being challenged on the merits. Their emphasis on arguing over the rules is an early sign of a losing campaign.
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is vice president of public affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
Reader response:
“I am surprised and disappointed to see opinionated political commentary in this publication.” — Robert Neidermyer, Manpower
“Senator Dodd has not helped his cause lately and I will likely not vote for him if he runs again. However, I don’t buy Dean Pagani’s argument – especially when he called out a Dodd supporter for minimalizing charges against the senator and at the same time, he minimalized media sloppiness. Dean, what’s good for the Senator is good for the media.” — Anthony D. Merenda, i-MARK
