Help Me Follow Marc Dann’s Logic
I don’t use this blog to advance a political agenda or to promote my own beliefs. I do scrutinize logic, so let’s take a look at the logic Attorney General Marc Dann is using to make the case for staying in office:
-He’s sorry
-He made mistakes
-He knows he made mistakes
-He’ll do better next time
-His office does great work
Okay, the first four could have been attributed to any 8-year-old who didn’t do their homework. The last reason for Dann to stay is that the AG’s office is quite productive, confronting issues such as payday lending. This is a more substantive argument, but it’s better made in comparison to Jim Petro or Betty Montgomery’s past performance. This argument does not deal with the problems Dann has admitted or been found responsible for by investigators. Let’s go over that list:
-Dann had an affair
-The affair was with a subordinate
-Dann denied the affair until today
-Dann tried to bring his scheduler on an overseas trip for a conference on law enforcement
-He would not explain to investigators why his scheduler stayed overnight at his townhome on many occasions.
-Dann lived with Anthony Gutierrez, but says he had no idea about the problems Gutierrez was found to have caused in the office
-Dann hired people who were not qualified for their jobs.
-He was responsible for an AG’s office described as a hostile workplace by investigators
-Dann used his state-owned Blackberry inappropriately
-Dann failed to act on allegations of sexual harassment, but accepted the forced resignation of his Chief of Policy for doing the same.
-He knew Anthony Gutierrez was drinking prior to driving a state vehicle, and did not act
-Dann’s office encouraged drinking and fraternizing between senior staffers and subordinates
Does anybody else see an imbalance between lists? I was astounded when I asked if he had contemplated resigning in the past two weeks, and Dann said he had not thought about it at all. I will not call him a liar, though he did deny the affair. But I will openly question how it is possible to say you take full responsibility for the problems in your office and not give any consideration to resigning. I can understand how you might consider and ultimately decide you have not acted so egregiously as to warrant resignation. But Dann hasn’t had that thought process play out. Help me follow Marc Dann’s logic...give me your best argument.
Other questions to ponder:
If Dann had a boss who had the capability of firing him, would he be fired?
Does Dann need the money? Does he need a high-paying job to move to before he considers resignation?
