Friday, September 22, 2006

Klobo-gate redux

Posted by Craig Westover | 4:09 PM |  

What the post below from Minvolved leaves out is that the first transgression was Klobuchar’s communications director following the link provided to her and viewing the unreleased Kennedy ad. We must assume what she did was wrong because Amy Klobuchar said so -- at least she described it as “poor judgment,” and something she should be fired for.

Second, regardless of Amy’s involvement, the Klobuchar camp is in the wrong and has to do the lion’s share of the groveling -- meaning they have some obligation to answer a pretty reasonable set of GOP questions. We are talking theft of intellectual property (I hear the smirks), and simply saying I’m sorry and moving on doesn’t cut it. Klobuchar has the responsibility to make the situation right, whatever that takes.

Third, you get some points for putting out a fire, but it is better not to have a fire at all. Klobuchar has a history of having a difficult time controlling her employees. Managing a staff well is not the kind of thing that wins elections, but it’s essential for running a Senate office. Given this incident and here union problems, Klobuchar’s management skills are fair game for questioning.

That said, this post from Minvolved is getting harder and harder to refute (emphasis in the original).
We really don’t have much to say about the whole dust-up with Blanked-Out and Mark Kennedy. Here’s what we do have to say:

The only important part of this whole mess is how your future United States Senator reacted to a possible crime/security threat. We’ll say it again with different words: the only thing that matters here is how the campaigns responded to the news. One final time: local bloggers aren’t who we vote for in November, Mark and Amy are. All this stuff about a lack of boundaries for the liberal blogosphere and whatnot…well, that’s idiotic and no one cares. What matters, and what people truly care about is how Mark and Amy respond to crisis.

Amy Klobuchar responded decisively and with little delay. She fired the staff member involved in the affair and she turned over the case to the proper authorities. In short, when presented with a security threat, Amy quickly did what needed to be done regardless of how it made her or her office look.

Mark Kennedy responded by turning the security issue into a political hammer to hit his opponent with. He displayed a stunning lack of seriousness by putting on a show with his website; purporting to “shut it down”, when, in reality, it could easily be accessed by simply removing the redirection protections on your Internet browser. Our 8 year knew how to do this and she was able to read from Kennedy’s campaign blog.

For Amy, this security issue was a call to substantial action. For Mark, this security issue was a call to meaningless and ineffective electoral tricks masked as protective measures.

Who do you want in charge of national security?
I wouldn’t want either one “in charge” of security, but I’d rather have Kennedy’s vote on national security, and I’m worried that isn’t going to happen. Kennedy had a right, perhaps an obligation, to raise questions after the breach came to light, but he and the GOP are working really hard to mess this one up.

(BTW -- for those who can’t read between the lines, Mr. Sponge is making the excellent point that bloggers should stop knocking each other and focus on how Klobuchar and Kennedy are handling the situation -- if they want to play a meaningful role in the process.)