Blunt's Eckersley Scandal, Day Eleven

In another in a string of stellar columns, Tony Messenger goes back to work today on the Scott Eckersley case, asking valid questions about whether Governor Blunt has any interest whatsoever in having the truth known, or if he's satisfied merely to play coy and avoid the obvious.  In fact, Messenger draws out many of the same points considered recently here on FiredUp!.  He writes:

Only
the governor can make this go away. He can waive attorney-client
privilege and allow Eckersley to fully disclose his opinions and
whatever documents he might have. He can order his staff to open up the
e-mail files not just to the documents they choose to cherry-pick, but
to every sheet of paper concerning this entire affair. He can make his
chief of staff, Ed Martin, available to the press so he might answer
questions about his role in Eckersley's firing.

An analogous point was made on this blog yesterday:

The media has been clear enough about the point that the
search for truth in the Eckersley matter is not an Ed Martin headhunt. 
Reporters who've come this far on the Eckersley story are unlikely to
be satisfied with anything but an agreement by the Blunt administration
to release the relevant public documents, release any claims to
attorney-client privilege over documents possessed by Eckersley, and
cease destroying public records.

But despite the apparent growing consensus that Matt Blunt needs to come clean in order to bring any closure the Eckersley story, his consistent response is to hunker down, dig in further, and repeat the same circular, implausible excuses by way of different spokespeople. Â­ He has by now used no fewer than three different mouthpieces --Rich Aubuchon, Rich Chrismer and Henry Herschel-- to spout inarguably counterfactual stories regarding the existence and maintenance of certain public documents and the reasons for Scott Eckersley's firing.  Much of the time, as others have noted, a vaguely similar though ever-growing list of rotating pretextual explanations are used.

It's as though Blunt believes that a series of lies will magically become true by virtue of having been repeated publicly by enough different flacks.

But while all of this is a descriptively accurate depiction of the current course of action chosen by the Governor, it comes up short of providing a motive and a rationale for those actions.  To come up with those, we have to use the available facts and engage in a bit of educated speculation.  In the words of the woman who is perhaps Ronald Reagan's most noted wordsmith, spoken about another elected executive: "Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to."

So what reasons could Blunt have for continuing to stonewall and dodge even though most agree the only way to get this story from the front pages is to start providing honest answers?  Presumably, the Governor believes that whatever consequences would stem from telling the truth would be even worse for him --personally and politically-- than the constant beating he's taking at present over the issue.  Some possibilities:

*Crazy Eddie Martin has chosen this battle as his own personal Waterloo.  Martin, who's been both completely absent from the scene and who some have speculated is the target of coup attempts, remains inexplicably as the sole beneficiary of the complete protection of the Governor's office.  It is possible that Blunt has committed himself to the increasingly suicidal decision to hide the truth because Martin has made clear that the totality of his actions in connection with Eckersley must never become known.  Already embarassed, Martin may well have made it clear to Team Blunt that he's to be protected from further humiliation or else he shares the wealth and talks about what goes on inside the mansion.

*Blunt has personal knowledge of events in the Eckersley case that implicate him in wrongdoing.  I should start by noting that, because he's the Governor and is responsible for his administration's acts, Blunt is responsible by proxy for any wrongdoing committed by his staff.  But beyond that, there is the possibility that Blunt himself is further entwined in the Eckersley mess because of explicit actions  he himself took.  If, for instance, the Governor was personally involved in making, disseminating and enforcing his office's "no Sunshine" policy on emails (or in Eckersley's illegal firing) he might believe that he has an incentive to dummy up and allow the controversy to continue as it has, without a focus on his specific acts.

*Blunt believes he is above the law and is using the Eckersley case as an opportunity to illustrate his extra-legal power.  It is possible that Blunt has refused to provide the truth and comply with open government law because he has a good-faith (though obviously errant) view that his executive power absolves him from the need to provide public information to the public.  Eckersley's saga could merely be the sign of this Governor and his administration laying down a marker that the law will be treated as elective in application to them, essentially daring someone --anyone-- to do something about it.  Blunt's non-compliance might simply be an audacious demonstration of dictatorial power meant to cover for his overwhelming sense of political weakness.

*Blunt believes that doing the right thing in this instance will lead down a slippery slope to his having to comply with the law all the time.  It's possible that Blunt believes that if he caves on this matter and shares the truth that he will be expected to do so with respect to other controversial situations.  He knows that --even if he slides on the Eckersley scandal-- if the press gets the idea that it can access documents and communications about fee office distribution, his brother's lobbying his office, the Nathan Cooper/James Harris scandal or any number of other sensitive items that he is irretrievably sunk.  So he's sticking by his guns, telling the media they'll get nothing and like it.

Admittedly, there are other possibilities.  These are just a few.  But one characteristic that all the many possibilities share is that they are grounded in Matt Blunt's belief that --no matter how bad the Eckersley scandal gets-- the consequence of having the truth come out will be even worse.

Think about it: if you were taking a lambasting every day in the newspaper and could make the battering stop by simply telling the somewhat embarrassing truth, wouldn't you?  Wouldn't Matt Blunt unless he was also hiding something else much darker?  Like Reagan's speechwriter said, it's irresponsible of us not to speculate.

­