Scott Peters just pulled Donna Frye out for a press conference.
Supposed blockbuster news.
Nothing, other than she is saying she “thinks” there are other victims.
In other words, nothing, but the press will have a field day with it.
Pins and Nothing
Scott Peters just pulled Donna Frye out for a press conference.
Supposed blockbuster news.
Nothing, other than she is saying she “thinks” there are other victims.
In other words, nothing, but the press will have a field day with it.
Comments 10
Carl is gay. Now, the three people who didn’t know that, since 2009, might reconsider their vote.
Peters might try to run on his record
I disagree Brian (sort of). To suggest that Peters run on his (abysmal) record is downright cruel. He’d be INSANE to do so.
Brian,
Does the fact that someone is gay automatically excuse them when they are accused of sexual harassment?
HQ, should a single uncorroborated accusation of sexual harassment from a highly suspect enemy of the candidate — an accusation the DA concludes provides no grounds for prosecution — be the main issue in the last month of a campaign — regardless if the candidate is heterosexual OR homosexual? Should the candidate be rejected based on that accusation?
Well, yes — IF they are a Republican, right HQ? But if it’s a Democrat, you would not (and DID not) draw that conclusion until at least (X) number of harassed individuals — allies of the Democrat — filed complaints against the Democrat.
How many complaints did it take, HQ? 4? 8? A dozen women filing complaints? At what point did YOU finally decide that Filner had to go?
I understand, HQ. The usual liberal double standard — by a VERY wide margin.
Richard,
I am not sure what makes the accuser suspect and he certainly wasn’t “an enemy of the candidate” at the start. Also, “insufficient evidece to prosecute” does not equal “he didn’t do it.”
More to your point, I was very late to the realization that Filner was guilty and had to go. I regret that and probably always will. You, on the other hand, can avoid that regret and learn from my mistake. Or not.
Filner had dozens of victims. None of them had been fired for plagiarism and were suspects in an office break-in.
The D.A. declined to press charges on the break-in. Of course, we know that doesn’t necessarily mean that DeMaio’s accuser wasn’t guilty of the crime.
I think many on this site intellectually know that DeMaio is probably guilty of what he is being accused of. Unfortunately, partisanship often trumps the intellect. I know because I have been there.
Specifics aside, Carl’s failure is one of leadership. The most successful people in politics, business, the military, non-profits, etc. are those that view themselves an institution whose success is founded upon building that institution on the positive contributions of the people who are invested in it. No executive ever became CEO of a Fortune 500, or an officer a 5-star general, without the positive contribution of many stakeholders that include subordinates, close staff, industry colleagues, and other peers. The successful ones do not abuse their leadership position.
When looking at Carl on a macro scale, the alleged offense is symptomatic of someone who failed to realize that there is something at work larger than himself. This is also why he has been abandoned by everyone who once supported his career. Even Filner, when he was in DC, had people willing to babysit/protect him from himself. That Carl’s former council staff, campaign staff, and fundraiser were willing to throw him under the bus are an indictment on his leadership.
“Second staffer accuses DeMaio of sexual harassment.”
http://inewsource.org/2014/11/02/second-staffer-accuses-demaio-of-sexual-harrassment/
Are we all still in denial?
I have hundreds of campaigns under my belt. I am having trouble remembering a congressional race that fired/replaced more people than DeMaio.