Monday, June 07, 2010
* Before we let someone else's rendition be given any credence... let us first point to the Nebraska Democrats' blog, where they complain that Mark Lakers was going over and above on his finance report, because he was listing "pledges".
Just so that we are all clear, it is the fact that Lakers NEVER HAD THE PLEDGES that is the problem (and possibly, the crime) here. We don't know what the final call will be from the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission or the Attorney General's office -- but we won't be surprised a lick to find that NONE of the pledges were actually made.
* Where the hell did Anne Boyle, and now Chuck Hassebrook, come from on all of this? This hit the news almost a month ago, and they're just coming out of the woodwork now? Where were they when the story broke, and all of their fellow Dems were piling on Heineman and Bruning?
And why now?
Here's the funny thing. The NADC and Attorney General's office said, "There are serious problems on the filing, and these need to be investigated." So, they are (as far as we know). But no one that we know of on the Republican side (check us if we're wrong) called for Lakers to get out of the race.
But now Anne Boyle and Hassebrook think that Lakers doesn't meet their moral code? Based on what new information? On what conversations?
Or is this all some sort of sour grapes that her hubby got edged out of his swan song campaign? That he didn't get one last chance to "take one for the party"? That maybe someone else told Mikey to sit down, while another (newcomer!) strode to the podium?
Democrats, we're waiting to hear from you!
And Hassebrook? Nice that the OWH essentially called him out in their article, as having a past rivalry with Lakers.
Don't get us wrong: Lakers filing is a major F-up and could possibly be criminal.
But is it Anne Boyle's place to come out against him here? When she could have simply sat on her hands and made the same point?
Something else is going on here.
* And now on to the media coverage of "Lakers' Boyle".
So the OWH writes an Editorial on Saturday on "The importance of public trust."
In it they say, "If Boyle’s claims are correct, they would reflect a gross deficiency in Lakers’ judgment...Boyle’s claims raise a legitimate, serious concern."
If whose claims are what???
Anne Boyle's claims?
Uh, OWH, this is an investigation by the NADC and the Attorney General's office.
This isn't about Boyle or her claims that Lakers should be "disavowed", whatever the hell that means.
No one answers to Anne freaking Boyle. (And if Lakers caves to her, well, that's just pathetic.)
This is a potential criminal investigation. That started a month ago.
Do you read the papers?
* And finally on our old pal Don Walton of the LJS: We appreciate Don's perspective and analysis of all things political in the Cornhusker state...but...that last article on Lakers? Really?
It started as a review of the Anne Boyle dust-up, then turned into the Mark Lakers free-for-all potshots at the Governor.
So when the hell did Mark Lakers' political opinions about Dave Heineman have anything to do with Lakers making up hundreds of thousands of dollars in pledges and potentially breaking the law?
So if Lakers robs several downtown banks, does the jailhouse interview include his calls for Heineman to commit to three debates at the State Fair this fall?
Is this where we are in coverage of the "Lakers campaign"?
Because if so, we might have to suggest that Governor Dave open up some iguana fighting rings, so that he can get his opinions on economic development in the LJS.
Posted by Street Sweeper at 8:40 AM