Eric Celeste Rolls Up Sleeves, Does Some Work

Yesterday I chided our former colleague Eric Celeste, spokesman for the Craig Watkins reelection campaign, for giving a lackluster quote to the Morning News in defense of his boss’s expensive tuxedo. Late yesterday, Celeste, apparently having read my post, gave it the college try in an interview with Gromer Jeffers. He called Danny Clancy, Watkins’ challenger, “a sleazy defense lawyer.”

Eh, still pretty tame, Celeste. Now, if you’d called him a “d-bag defense lawyer,” I would have been impressed.

13 comments

  1. Sleaves?

    @ 11:08 am on September 23, 2010
  2. Curious. One normally rolls up the ’sleeves’ of one’s shirt to get down to work (so your cuffs won’t get dirty or torn by all that manly effort). Rolling up ’sleaves,’ on the other hand, means you’re rolling up filaments that have been divided and separated from a thicker thread — as with silk.

    Celeste is a silky character, is that it?

    @ 11:11 am on September 23, 2010
  3. *sleeves.

    Really, when I saw EC’s little “sleazy” quote, I couldn’t believe it. He really doesn’t want to take his boss down the path of seeing which candidate had the sleaziest defense career.

    @ 11:12 am on September 23, 2010
  4. I think we all need to provide Eric with things he can call his candidate’s opponent, since he’s clearly blocked.

    I will start. Poopy Head.

    @ 11:13 am on September 23, 2010
  5. @Matt, what, is pressuring a 10-year-old girl who was molested by her stepfather into signing a nonprosecution affidavit sleazy? ‘Cuz Craig Watkins would never do anything like that! Frankly, I expected better out of Celeste.

    @ 11:34 am on September 23, 2010
  6. Yesterday I said Toby Shook would never have spent THREE GRAND on a tux. After thinking about it, I don’t think he’s ever spent $300 on a suit. No offense, Toby.

    @ 12:00 pm on September 23, 2010
  7. Sleeves, yes. Bless you all.

    @ 12:41 pm on September 23, 2010
  8. So, Mr. DA, what is sleazy about this defense lawyer?
    Please be specific.
    Are you saying that a court appointed attorney should not pursue ever available line of defense?
    Are you saying some criminal defendants are not worthy of representation?
    Surely you’re not saying that.
    I have no dog in this fight, would probably vote for Watkins, but this gives me pause, real pause.

    @ 2:51 pm on September 23, 2010
  9. I wish you’d quit giving Watkins all this free press by posting these veiled “taunts” of your former colleague and drinking buddy.

    @ 3:04 pm on September 23, 2010
  10. “Sleazy defense attorney” appears to be a popular honorific, as a Google search yields over 8,000 links, whereas “sleazy plaintiff attorney” yields only four. Who knew?

    (Defense: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22sleazy+defense+attorney%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

    (Plaintiff: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22sleazy+plaintiff+attorney%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

    @ 3:09 pm on September 23, 2010
  11. @ 3:58 pm on September 23, 2010
  12. @PR: Genius.

    @ 4:25 pm on September 23, 2010
  13. @PR: I am both honored and hot.

    @ 12:57 am on September 24, 2010

Leave a Comment

* required fields