Shadow Senator Paul Strauss

My good buddy Tom Bridge, formerly City Captain here at Metblogs, currently blogging at WeLoveDC, has been going back and forth with me about the issue of Paul Strauss’s DUI. I previously posted about it here and here. Tom’s response is here. I have a response to Tom’s response regarding Paul Strauss’s lack of responsiveness.

1) Says Tom about whether Strauss should talk to the press: “Make a simple statement, and then make your defense in the courtroom where it actually matters. Leave the media out, and let the courts do their job.”

I agree completely, but Strauss has not made a simple statement other than No Comment. On the eve of the election, Strauss owed it to the voters to get them in the loop somehow. I’m not suggesting that he should have addressed the details of the case. That would have been foolish. But he certainly should have apologized to the voters for the distraction and renewed his commitment to honesty and ethical practice in his elected office. He did not, because he is an elected official in DC and can get away with ignoring the issue.

2) Tom suggests that a recall election could be a good legal way to remove Strauss from office if he is convicted.

As far as I’m concerned, even if the 10% of voters in DC could be convinced to sign a recall petition, I don’t think that anyone could realistically expect Strauss to be voted out in a recall election. Even with this election time scandal he was elected with his typical 80% of the vote. At the same time voters continue to elect the previously convicted Michael Brown and Marion Barry.

3) Tom writes: “Does a political figure owe it to the public to explain what’s going on? Well, again, yes & no. Same reasons as in #1. Political figures have their personal liability to think about. Speaking to the press in that situation is highly unwise, and Strauss knows as much as a lawyer. Openness isn’t always your friend.”

Again, although we all seemingly agree that Strauss should not have discussed details of the case prior to his hearing, he certainly does owe it to the public to be open to a certain extent. Especially when the incident occurs the day before the election. Openness would not have been Strauss’s friend in this case, especially politically. Good. That’s how it should have been. Not talking and walking away with his 80% of the vote was a great political move, but ethically lacking at the least if you ask me.