For a political press release, the statement released by the Maine House Democrats March 5 regarding the party line rejection of former legislator Jon McKane’s nomination to the Dirigo Health Board of Trustees feels very personal.
It is so personal, it is almost childish, petty even; especially considering the source. It is the kind of sniping you might hear around the water cooler, but would hardly expect to find in a prepared public statement endorsed by a major political party.
The release criticizes McKane’s demeanor during the hearing, accusing him of laughing in response to a question, and cites comments he made in obscure message boards in 2005.
It makes no mention of McKane’s serious efforts on behalf of Maine rate payers during his eight years in the Maine House.
What the release also doesn’t say is that Dirigo was undeniably a major boondoggle; another of Gov. John Baldacci’s grand plans that cost too much money and did too little good for too few people. This newspaper said at the time, many times, the idea was laudable but the execution was terrible.
The real problem was rather than fix the program, Baldacci’s minions took the easy way out: they just kept throwing money at it.
But all that is beside the point.
What’s intriguing here is that it is possible to find plenty of reasons, on the record, both for and against Jon McKane’s nomination, but it feels like little of that was used. It feels like rather than addressing the substance of McKane’s criticism, it was the tone of his comments that counted.
McKane has compiled a lengthy record of public service and, to his credit, he has never run from his record. When he was in office, McKane demonstrated he said what he believed, attempted what he said he would, and in our experience, he was always willing to explain himself to any constituent who asked.
It is probably accurate to say every constituent did not always like every reason or explanation, but that is probably true for every public servant, everywhere.
You could argue that nominating an outspoken critic to oversee a program is a smart move, and within reason, we might agree.
The outcome however, doesn’t feel like a decision made solely on the merits. If that is the case, that’s a disservice to all of us.
