Monday, January 30, 2006

Of Grauls and Judges

With their boy Mark Graul definitively caught with his hand in the Abramoff cookie jar, the Get Doyle crowd has decided the best defense is a good offense. To that end, they're ramping up the chatter about Doyle campaign manager Rich Judge (see McBucher and McSykes), and the fact that he (like just about every other political operative in this state) spent some time working in the now-defunct caucuses some six years ago.

The justification is that if Graul's acceptance of free luxury box tickets from Jack Abramoff in 2000 (in violation of House ethics rules) is going to be an issue, so should Judge's work history from the same period.

The comparison is bogus. And pathetic.

The reason - the one and only reason - that anyone cares TODAY about what Graul did six years ago is because he was still having trouble keeping his stories straight LAST WEEK. The event itself is ancient history, but it continues to be newsworthy because Graul still can't bring himself to tell the truth about it.

Real voters couldn't give a lick what a couple of political operatives did in 2000. But Graul has given the Abramoff issue currency through his own incompetence at keeping his story straight, and is now justifiably paying the price. That has nothing to do with what people did in 2000; it has everything to do with what people are doing in 2006.