Quantcast
Channel: AgendaWise Reports RSS Blog Feed
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 272

Smith’s Pitts job

$
0
0

Jim Pitts used his good buddies at the Texas Tribune to wrap a meaningless statement inside a puff piece to whitewash a growing drama.

The drama is about Texas politicians moving unqualified but politically-connected kids into admissions lines ahead of qualified, unconnected kids. National Review Online recently wrote a story suggesting Pitts intervened with University of Texas School of Law admissions on behalf of his son. In responding to NRO for their piece, Pitts expressed outrage at the line of questioning against him, labeling it “disgraceful” and “cowardly”. He did not disclose that he wrote a letter of recommendation for his son. This week he admitted to the Texas Tribune that he wrote such a letter.

Here is Pitts’ statement, divorced from the propaganda service provided him by Evan Smith.

“Did I ever call for my son-or any of the over 100 people I’ve recommended over the years-and ask for special treatment? No, I did not.”

When a person defending himself begins to ask and answer his own questions you know you have a straight shooter (sarcasm).

Notice an implied defense of his bad behavior is that he did it a lot – over 100 times. This is the old lower-the-bar trick, and it doesn’t make the behavior better. It actually makes the behavior worse, but it can make the behavior feel less manageable, and so less actionable. Very slick.

Also, Pitts didn’t actually deny the accusation against him, which was that he exerted undue influence on the admissions process at UT. He denied a different accusation, a more specific, and easier to beat, accusation that he crafted for himself in the statement. He said he did not make a phone call in which he asked for special treatment.

But who ever asked if he made a phone call for his son? Nobody. And, did he ask for special treatment for his son? Perhaps not. But then, dirty politics is almost always done with suggestion, not incriminating statements.

Consider the admissions officer or his superiors. How is he to interpret this letter of recommendation from the Chairman of Appropriations, the man who basically decides who gets money and how much. In a more honorable day people in positions like these would refrain from giving letters of recommendation due to their almost certainly discriminatory effect against other students.

Pitts picked a smart time to choose not to run for office again.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 272

Trending Articles