The goal Walsh must have is to ensure that Brissette sticks to the truth. He should not be talking about himself. He is quoted as saying: “The one thing I know is I’ve done no wrongdoing, in this investigation or any investigation that’s been talked about.” Why is he saying that? Who has accused him of anything? Even with that he should know by now that whether he did anything wrong or not does not matter; there are lots of people who have done nothing wrong who still have been indicted.
Then he is quoted as saying: “I’m certainly not happy about it. I think it’s something, if this pans out with these wrongdoings here, there’s problems. … It bothers me.” What wrongdoings? Is he throwing Kenny to the wolves by suggesting there was wrongdoing?
It looks like he is running scared when he should be fighting back. He should have first said “I have full confidence Kenny did nothing wrong” and then added that “there has been no wrongdoing in my office.” Too bad he did not grow up in Savin Hill. He would know how to fight back.
Brissette’s charge comes from his dealings with a company known as Boston Calling that puts on shows twice a year. He allegedly strong armed them to hire union workers. While the mayor is ready to throw Bissette overboard; the union there Local 11 is sticking by him stating: “We are unaware of any alleged illegal activity committed by any Boston city official.”
It is all going to come down to a couple of things. First, will Brissette facing prison time if he goes to trial but the street if he implicates the mayor stick to the truth. Next, the whole indictment boils down to the language used by Brissette to the people at “Boston Calling.” The indictment says he “insisted” and that he made “demands.” No language is in quotes. The union said he did nothing wrong; was he merely making suggestions that it would be nice if “Boston Calling” hired some union workers. If that was the case he did nothing wrong.
Here’s an interesting twist in this. We know the Globe has been privy to much of what has been going on in Ortiz’s office as I noted before. Now if the past is any indication of the present we know that paper is aware of the subpoenas the federals have issued to the mayor and the material supplied in response to them. Because this blog and others are openly noting that the paper and the U.S. Attorney work together, it now looks like they want to try to hide this.
The paper wants the mayor to publicly disclose these subpoenas. It needs him to do this so it can print stories it has probably already written about them. The symbiotic relationship between that paper and prosecutor is becoming quite embarrassing.
As expected a Globe columnist is directed to do a hit piece on the mayor..
Venocchi notes both Mayors Flynn and White had their problems with the federals and now after twenty years Walsh is jammed in. She writes that federal investigations, and I would add done in conjunction with the Globe, “chip away at morale. They drain political capital. Playing offense is hard when a mayor is always playing defense. . . . Because with a potential 20-year prison sentence attached to a conviction, Brissette has every reason to think long and hard about what he allegedly did and at whose alleged behest. That’s what federal investigations also do. They create doubt. They spread fear. They beget more rumor, speculation and leaks.” (my emphasis)
See the clever way Venocchi suggests that Brissette was acting at Walsh’s direction. Earlier she noted: “Unfortunately for Walsh, the charges against Brissette hit the mayor’s political soft spot — unions. Organized labor helped elect Walsh. But to the non-labor world, the connection was always suspect. It raised concerns that this mayor would give away the city to the unions he once represented as head of the Building Trades Council.” (my emphasis)
Marty must accept there is a “Get Marty” gang at work. Right now his advisers are telling him to explain and refrain. He should forget all that. He must accept his innocence is no defense to anything. If he wants to save his job, and stay out of prison, for the same forces that sent James Michael Curley to prison are arrayed against him, he must, as the late Al Farese Sr. used to say to me (when he did not like my sentence recommendations) that he was going to take the gloves off.
For the mayor it is time to take the gloves off. He must get rid of the lace curtain advisers and accept he has powerful enemies. They will give him no quarter so he must give them none. They want his head. He must fight back at them tooth and nail. He owes it to the people who work for him and the people who elected him. .
If he wants some advice on how to do that I can give him some names of guys from Savin Hill who would gladly show him how.
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
in other news
http://whosarat.websitetoolbox.com
Farese always had the gloves off. The mayor should call the Hillary campaign and insist that she get Ortiz and the Globe to back off him and dismiss the Brissette indictment. If they don’t he is going to get the unions to support Trump. The Globe and DOJ have to toe the party line or what follows is bloody constraint. He should also close down the Kenmore Square area during the summer to protect against terrorism. The marathon bombing occurred only a short distance from there. Public safety is the highest law. Have health inspectors find violations at Fenway and close it down. Don’t go gently into that good night.
NC:
True – Farese always had the gloves off but he’d apparently forget that he took them off when he’d make those statements.
The unions don’t have much power anymore. Just look at the way they are treated by the Democratic party which accepts their support but does nothing for them. The unions have no where to turn so they are stuck with Democrats who really look down on the union leaders as being behind the social curve.
“Too bad he did not grow up in Savin Hill. He would know how to fight back.”
Assuming (as I have always done) that Walsh in fact did grow up in Savin Hill, this sentence is a subtle slap in the face to the Mayor; otherwise, it must be that he actually grew up _near_ Savin Hill (I’m skeptical on this).
Only one other possibility, as I see it: You mean that Walsh has not grown up yet (can’t believe you would write such a thing!).
GOK:
Walsh did not grow up in Savin Hill. He was from Taft Street which was just outside it and in St. Margaret’s parrish. You had to live in St. William’s parrish to be part of Savin Hill.