Mary wrote:
> Well, that's one spin on what happened. Another is that, according to her
> own friends, Chavez was aware that the woman was an illegal alien three
> months into having her live at her home for a year, although she later
> stated publicly that she didn't know until after she left. There's also
> speculation that the immigrant was, indeed, an employee, and regarded by
> such by those who knew Chavez at the time.
It's hard to tell which version is the spin and which version is thet truth.
I was trapped in my car all day yesterday and heard reports on the radio
from both sides which also made my judgment go back and forth on the issue.
What ultimately was most compelling to me as to who to believe was hearing
the replay of the press conference from the Guatamalan woman herself, Marta
Mercado, and also hearing an interview with a and author whose name I don't
recall and and some close friends of Chavez. Maybe that's being biased on
my part, but another factor which tipped the scales for me was learning from
several news sources the following as reported in today's Washington Post:
"The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the neighbor, Peggy
Zwisler, employed the Guatemalan woman for household tasks between 1991 and
1993. The newspaper said the FBI was investigating whether a conversation
between Mrs. Chavez and Mrs. Zwisler last month was an attempt to influence
how Mrs. Zwisler would respond to an FBI background check on the nominee.
The attorney who spoke to the Journal on Mrs. Zwisler's behalf was Neil
Eggleston, the former White House associate counsel who worked with Clinton
aide George Stephanopoulos on Whitewater scandal damage control."
So if former Clinton associates are the source of the Chavez misdeeds at
this point, I tend to trust more the principals involved until proven
otherwise.
> However, on the basis of the imperfect record that exists, I would have
had
> serious, serious reservations about this nomination. First, even if
Chavez
> was at some level performing a charitable act, if she paid the woman under
> certain circumstances, she may have broken the law. Where is the vaunted
> Republican concern with the primacy of the "rule of law" in this
> instance--or does that only apply to Democrats thought to be the
wrongdoers?
> Second, the laws she may have violated concerned, yes, immigration, but
also
> *labor and employment*, the same laws she would have been sworn to uphold
as
> Secretary of Labor! <snip> Third, her truthfulness has been called into
question.
I have thought about those very factors myself and I agree. However, she is
being pre-judged without a proper trial and the apparent source of the
allegations seems suspect to me. However, as for the alleged crime, there
has been a compelling insistence that Mercado was not being hired and used
as an employee and there have been other instances where Chavez helped
illegal immigrants in need. A few people have also raised the point that if
the only crime she is guilty of is "harboring" an person of illegal status,
then indeed should the battered womems center where Mercado had gone before
being taken in by Chavez, and which reportedly sheltered many other woman of
illegal status, be prosecuted?
> Contemporaneous witnesses clearly recall her knowing about the woman's
immigration status
> and telling others about it, but she has gone on record as denying her
> knowledge. Where is the great concern with honesty that was so evident in
> some circles throughout the entire Lewinsky scandal? And again, how
> effective could she have been in her job under these circumstances?
Again I would also be very concerned if Chavez is an out and out liar. But
again, what/who are the sources of these allegations?
> Fourth, Chavez is on record as having made some especially biting comments
> about the eventually-torpedoed nomination of Zoe Baird to be Attorney
> General under the Clinton administration in 1993. Baird, I believe, had
> failed to pay taxes and/or withholding for a nanny who worked in her
employ.
I've heard this one, too, and it is based on some comments she made on PBS,
right? I've also heard that some people have reviewed the broadcast and
read the transcript and maintain that her comments were taken and snipped
completely out of context to add fuel to this fire.
> Finally, about bipartisanship and "negativity." The first doesn't involve
> the Democrats lying down and playing dead, and the second hasn't all been
> generated by one side. Politics is, by definition, a volatile and
sometimes
> nasty business.
I agree, and don't expect any group to just rollover - we would not have a
dynamic system without oppositional views, but I've never seen so much
outright lust for blood, revenge and destruction in all my life as I've
witnessed with Bush, and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. Based on what
I've seen so far, it turns my stomach to think what will be done to him and
the people who work with him in the next few years. And we are going to
have to hear about it on a daily basis. It's going to be negative, divisive
and a constant downer. And ultimately for what good purpose when it comes
right down to it? At some point Americans should be more concerned with the
politicians and representatives in government actually getting some real
work done for the country instead of wasting time fighting political wars
and wrangling on all our collective dimes. Let them fight over real matters
for a change, I say.
Kakki
