Reading from time to time the stories about Diane Gordon's trial, there was definitely a feeling that she was being roped by forces better equipped (in technical ways and, yes, in sheer intelligence) than she was.
She sounded poorly educated, a little too tentative for someone in a leadership role and, most of all, a little too willing to exchange a political favor for personal profit.
And now she's been found guilty and faces beaucoup time in the slammer.
But what's new here? We've had more than our share, in the last few months alone, of New York politicians who have shown weaknesses almost Olympian in their heights (though we probably should say in their depths).
Ex-Governor Elliott Spitzer, ex-Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin, ex-Assemblyman Clarence Norman and, (though she still has a chance of wriggling herself out of the suspicions about her) City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. On it goes.
All in all, it does make a person (especially a taxpayer) wonder about the personality qualities that go into producing elected officials in New York City.
It raises questions also about whether there are enough controls over those who have so much discretion with public money and power.
But if changes have to be made through those very questionable people, how reasonable is it to expect changes?
Comments