For several days the media have been reporting on State Senator Dianne Wilkerson and her arrest on federal bribery charges. Our State Senate has voted for her to resign. I think one newspaper said it was unanimous, but I doubt Senator Wilkerson would have voted that way. Maybe she abstained, or was detained and couldn't make the vote.
This item by reporter Matt Murphy of The Lowell Sun on the Senator Wilkerson imbroglio didn't inspire confidence: "If convicted, Wilkerson could become the third consecutive senator from the Second Suffolk District to spend time in prison. Her predecessor, William Owens, spent 20 months in jail for a stabbing, and before him Royal Bolling Sr. served time for income-tax evasion."
One of the things that has not been reported is a statement by the State Senator after a late night vote on Beacon Hill (I believe it was after a vote on a "Defense of Marriage" Constitutional Amendment). I was watching a Boston news station on TV when she said "the ends justify the means." That statement should make any citizen sit up and take notice. If one believes the ends justify the means, what are the limits to which one will go to achieve this or that goal?
Does this mean that she is the likely winning applicant for the Jack Bauer franchise for New England? I would think so. Jack is one of those "do what it takes" kind of people. Does this mean that if President Bush had selected her--for some reason--to be a high official at DHS or DOJ (she does have a JD from Boston College) that she would have been supportive of water boarding terrorist suspects? If she thought it would avoid another 9/11 she likely would.
But, back to the quote--either the local media has mass amnesia or they have that peculiar malady, Mass Amnesia, where it forgets the sins of the Democrats, but vividly remembers the infractions of the Republicans. In fact, this was tangentially touched on by WGBH's "Beat the Press" on Friday. I would have provided a link, but at this early point the Web Site does not have the 31 October show up.
To sum up, what we are looking at is a woman who would likely think that taking money under the table to finance her sticker campaign for reelection was not a big deal. We will, one hopes, have a jury to sort this out some time in the near future.
Regards -- Cliff
1 year ago