Tom Barrett: Occupancy Permit

Here we go again.

After days of Mark Belling talking about a problem in the Tom Barrett campaign, the mainstream media address it.

A month ago, there was the expired car registration matter.

Finally, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel addressed it, albeit in a very snarky way.

The latest issue: The Barrett campaign's failure to acquire an occupancy permit.

Occupancy permit? What occupancy permit? Huh? Who? Me? What?

WISN and TMJ4 eventually do cover the story Belling brought to light.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel also gets around to it. Barrett campaign apologist Daniel Bice writes:

If anyone should know that a new tenant in a Milwaukee office building might need a city-issued occupancy permit, it would be Mayor Tom Barrett and his campaign.

Or so you'd think.

But a spokesman for Barrett's campaign conceded this week that it failed to get just such a permit from the city Department of Neighborhood Services before moving into a downtown office building at Old World Third St. and W. Wells St., not far from City Hall.

City officials say the permits are necessary to make sure buildings are safe.

"This was an innocent situation," Barrett spokesman Phil Walzak said of the failure to get the occupancy permit.

Walzak said the campaign was under the mistaken impression that it could use the permit issued to the previous tenant. He said the campaign has now paid the $281 city fee.

Oh, yes, of course. "This was an innocent situation." Oops!

No problem. No big deal.

It's just ANOTHER little mistake.

I detect a disturbing pattern here by the Barrett campaign and his supporters/apologists.

When it comes to this alleged innocent sloppiness, these cases of minor slips, Tom Barrett and his campaign and his apologists in the lib media remind me of the Left's reaction to the Sandy Berger heist of highly classified documents from the National Archives.

Poor ol' absent-minded Sandy didn't mean to break the law. He was just sloppy.

Berger was found guilty, but he just received a slap on the wrist for his lawbreaking. You can be sure that a conservative wouldn't have been given a pass by the media like Sandy.

Similarly, Barrett isn't being strung up in the media for his campaign's misdeeds. Like Berger, Barrett gets a pass.

Barrett's failure to obey laws and rules aren't even covered by the media until they're shamed into it. And then when they finally do cover it, it's excused. "This was an innocent situation." No questions asked.

Now really, would the government permit the average citizen to get by with that excuse? No harm was intended?

Oops! My car registration is expired.

Oops! I didn't get an occupancy permit.

Oops! Oops! Oops!

Bottom line: Barrett and his campaign are sloppy. They don't follow the rules. They hold themselves to different standards than everyone else. They don't bother to pay attention to their responsibilities. And when they're caught, no problem. They're innocent. These are just minor infractions.

No. How a campaign is run gives an indication of how a candidate will govern.

Barrett is lazy and ignores the details as if they don't apply to him. He's a serial violator.

Tax and fee for thee but not for me.

I don't like it.