in T'interwebs

Dirty politics hurts real people: Massa v Dickert

Ye gods – some things make you weep.

In the main stories of Democrat gains in the US Senate and House mid-term elections, one sad story of manipulation and bullying is just hitting the headlines – besmirching someone of good character along the way.

Sanford Dickert – a humourous, generous, dedicated, dynamo of a man – has been working in US politics for a while: using the power of the web and online community to further the Democrat cause. He’s behind Political Gastronomica.

He’s also starring (reluctantly) in a battle with Eric Massa to get paid wages he’s contractually owed and to clear his name after some rather unpleasant name-calling.

Sanford’s weblog has details of the case but it’s most succinctly covered in his own statement.

Hopefully this will be resolved soon. While I’m sure that Sanford’s concern – in the ‘google age’ – is that some mud will stick, my own view is that the record will show that poor judgement, salacious allegations and welching on contracts go to the heart of a person’s character (or lack of). Whether you consider that these attributes are plus points or negative for a political career will depend upon your level of cynicism.

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. I read those things – why did Massa sling so much mud rather than just paying the man his wages? By this point, since Dickert didn’t run from the bully, lawyers probably cost him more! Now I’ve heard he blames Dikcert for his loss – what a load. I hate to see a Repub. win, but Massa’s loss was an indictment of his character, not a reflection of legal cases.

Comments are closed.

Webmentions

  • Bleak House Redux: Sanford gets his apology from Massa December 1, 2006

    […] I initially commented on this case – which is pretty off-topic for me – because I know Sanford and respect his energy, enthusiasm and 110%+ commitment to all the causes into which he throws himself. I’m no softy when it comes to political machinations and manipulations, but I was stunned and disappointed that someone who was standing for a position of trust and authority would use defamation, slur and the conduct of his son in to wheedle out of his agreement. The whole thing reminded me of Jonathan Aitken’s brazen challenging of the media with his sword of barefacedness and the trusty shield of a false familial alibi. […]