Friday, July 11, 2008

The epic goes on ... and on

I hope this is my last post on Epic and WMC. Paul Soglin is indefatigable on this, but he's getting paid (although still no word on who writes the checks) and I'm not.

Paul makes this "educated guess" about Cullen's departure from WMC:

My guess is that Dave Cullen, already wishing his business was not associated with the WMC attack ads, said to himself, "I am not comfortable with my role in WMC, I do not spend a lot of time on its agenda, I have too much to do here at Cullen. I do not want people to hold me responsible for these attacks which I did not author and which I do not approve. The best thing is to leave the group and move on. My WMC membership is not helping WMC or my company. How do I manage that so I do not hurt Cullen, Epic or WMC?"

The result was Cullen's resignation from WMC and followed by Rick Esenberg's conclusion as to why Cullen left. Rick looked at the multitude of explanations and motivation about the Cullen resignation from WMC and concluded, in an incredibly flawed analysis, that they were mutually exclusive.

He never imagined, what I suspect is the truth. Cullen while exiting WMC do so motivated by a distaste for the issue ad campaign but also, did not want to hurt WMC since he believed in the core mission: to help Wisconsin business.

The problem with this guess is that Paul just made it up. It could have happened that way but there is no evidence that it did and, as I have blogged, some evidence that it did not.

I continue to think that what Cullen said about WMC(he supports it), the issue ads (nothing)and the relationship between his decision and "valued clients" in combination with the proximity of all of this to Epic's statement makes it reasonable for people to assume there was a connection. My guess is that Ms. Faulkner is not unhappy with the fact that people might make that connection.

But, quite frankly, I am uncomfortable about continuing a public debate on someone else's motives under circumstances that may be sensitive to his business. Most of what I have written about on this issue has to do with the idea of refusing to do business with people for political reasons. That, as opposed to Dave Cullen's relationship with Epic, is what's interesting here.


illusory tenant said...

Most of what I have written about on this issue has to do with the idea of refusing to do business with people for political reasons.

But Epic Systems expressly stated that it was a question of ethics related to the continuing integrity of the judiciary as an institution.

Why can't you just take them at their word?

You know at least that questions of ethics exist, and not simply questions of politics, because you're familiar with the Supreme Court Rules, including the aspirational ones.

It's clearly a matter of politics for you and a number of other observers, but that doesn't make it one for Epic Systems.

Rick Esenberg said...

Why can't you just take them at their word?

I might if they were as incensed with GWC and others.

But how do we distinguish ethics from politics. There certainly is no universal agreement about what is and is not ethical in judicial campaigns.

Anonymous said...

from this site FYI

I don't get the obsession with homosexuals, which seems to be a feature of both fundamentalist style Christianity and political conservatism. Personally I don't think about gay people too often. Christian conservatives will often tell you they aren't so much concerned with gay people per se, but rather their focus is on "homosexual acts."

Maybe that's why I'm not a conservative Christian because, trust me, homosexual acts are about the last things I care to focus on.* It makes little sense to me why self-proclaimed anti-homosexuals would want to focus on homosexual acts because the only people who should be focusing on homosexual acts are, well, homosexuals.

I don't recall having any opinion about homosexuals at all, aside from the usual high school tittering, until I read the late Graham Chapman's mostly hilarious autobiography many, many years ago.

I say mostly hilarious because it does contain at least one serious moment,** where Chapman discusses his own homosexuality. Why are two men in love the objects of so much opprobrium, Chapman wondered, when what's needed in the world is more love, not less. It made sense then, and it still makes sense now.

Wasn't the main Biblical character that Christians claim to follow all about the love, also? There's more than a little hypocrisy at work within these condemnations of homosexuality. And that hypocrisy just might be a manifestation of some deep closeting.

* The male configurations, at least.

illusory tenant said...

Doing some research, Anon?

Anonymous said...

It appears that the left continues to promote more government dependency while trying to tell people who can participate in the political process.

If they do not like your participation, they apparently hire what appear to be political assassins like Soglin that will never rat on the family, so to speak.

It sort of sounds like the godfather of leftist politics, but I’m willing to hear another explanation of what is happening.

Anonymous said...

The problem I have with discredited clowns like Illsory Tenant is that Illusory Tenant can say moronic garbage, use the term CUNT vis a vis a Rival, and Illusory Tenant is not SHIT CANNED.
If....If....any, ANY...N.E. Conservative, called Nancy Pelosi a CUNT. The reaction from the loonie left would be beyond belief.


Illusory Tenant is a CUNT.