Asking the critical questionsOver at Frankly Speaking, Stacey Campfield makes the following statement:
As of yet they have failed to tie the acts of Harber and associates to Ragsdale. The question, “What did Ragsdale know and when did he know it?” has not been asked. So far besides giving a political job to a kid who stepped over the line I dont see much of a story.
Thus far, it is true. One of the few things coming out of Ragsdale's office about all of this is that Harber is a "deeply troubled young man" and they are saying no more. Several Ragsdale apologists (as well as members of the press) are pointing out that Harber has a history of making "outrageous" claims. Nothing in part one of the Bean piece was outrageous, however, if you've ever seen the inside of a political machine.
This in only part one, however. From what I am hearing, we've only just begun to hear the meat of the Harber story. The "dirt" will come in part two, three, and four. I have to wonder if the local press (exempting Gene Patterson's weblog, perhaps) is deliberately avoiding this story because of the shake-up it could cause. I'll just be honest here: I know Harber has a shady history, but I believe he is telling the truth when it comes to his experiences in Ragsdale's administration as it relates to the Bean story. I believe he is because what I have heard from sources plus read in the HSN, this story sounds like the classic example of a political machine desperate to hold on to power at all costs-the old story in 21st-Century packaging.
If the two critical questions get asked (what did Ragsdale know, when did he know it) then it could get sticky. The press knows this, which is why it is being ignored.