She said: No, thank you.
I say: Fine; we won't ask again.
What Dixon fails to realize is that it's not just important what she has to say about her finally concluded criminal case, but when she would get around to saying it.
And now that time has passed - specifically, at noon Thursday, when she went from Mayor Dixon to Citizen Dixon.
So enough with her empty promises about the truth coming out someday. If and when it does, it'll be old news - gossip even, the trivial details of a closed case involving some former official and some mess she made some time ago. We will have moved on. We will have quit you, Sheila Dixon.
It's not that she has exactly fallen silent during her final days in office. Instead, she has taken the opportunity of every "last" - her last "Dixon Report" e-mail, her last luncheon for the City Council, her last Board of Estimates meeting - to conduct a Cher-worthy farewell-to-me tour.
Of course Dixon would want to shape the way we view her legacy: the whole cleaner, greener thing. The end-homelessness thing. The jobs-for-youth thing. Whatever. I know what her accomplishments are, and I salute them - I think once-a-week recycling pickup is right up there with George Clooney's smile and sweet-potato fries as proof that these are wonderful times indeed.
But Dixon's valedictories are lost on me. If she would first address the whys of leaving office, then I'd listen to what she thinks she accomplished in it.
Then there have been the often loopy interviews to reporters that she gave in the wake of her conviction and ultimate agreement to step down. There was the heart-to-heart she had with The Baltimore Sun's Annie Linskey, where she rued getting romantically involved with developer Ronald H. Lipscomb. Then she opened up to the Associated Press' Ben Nuckols, trashing Lipscomb as a "player" and saying that she was the "cheapest" of his "multiple girlfriends." Oooh, way to be your own worst spokeswoman.
He might well have done her wrong - although he sure didn't come out of this without paying a pretty high price to his finances and reputation - but it does the city's chief exec no good to play the victim. You can't handle a bad romance, but you can handle the business of an entire city?
Maybe it didn't matter at that point, when she already had resigned herself to resigning her office. Take no prisoners, unload what's been bugging you all this time. But then at Thursday's sentencing hearing, when Dixon had a legitimate venue in which to speak, she suddenly fell silent.
I think Dixon is going to regret taking a pass. Just from the standpoint of pure self-interest, she could have started rehabilitating a badly frayed image. She could have acknowledged that she let down a whole lot of people who supported her, believed she was doing a good job as mayor and wanted to see her continue building on that.
I don't know how she could have explained taking gift cards intended for the poor, or failing to report gifts from Lipscomb on her city ethics forms. But she has some pretty talented lawyers who could have crafted a statement that struck the right notes of regret for dragging the city through all this, remorse for her personal failings and reflection on whatever soul-searching she has since undergone.
But, no. Maybe it was pride, or maybe it was, as Judge Dennis M. Sweeney suggested Thursday, Dixon's sincere or self-serving belief that she was "unfairly prosecuted on flimsy evidence."
In an astonishingly bluntly worded prepared statement that he read from the bench, Sweeney left no doubt that he thinks Dixon is in total denial if she believes that. In essence, he said Dixon was lucky to get away with one conviction and, had she not pleaded out the perjury case, it was a "virtual certainty" she would have gone down as well in that trial.
I sensed some simmering outrage in Sweeney's rebuke, not so much over what happened within the courthouse during the trial but what was going on outside it at the same time. As he acknowledged that the Dixon legal team's job was to throw any and all defenses out there to see what would stick, he was appalled that Baltimore City Solicitor George Nilson did the same thing over at City Hall.
Nilson had provided an opinion that Lipscomb, for all his prominent development projects that had been approved and received tax breaks from city officials, somehow did not fit the definition of someone doing business with the city - ergo, Dixon did not have to report gifts from him.
And, Sweeney continued, no other elected officials said, What? Or rather, as the judge much more judiciously put it, "This official position of the city was not met to my knowledge by any dissent or outrage by other elected city officials."
It was quite the indictment, and not just of Dixon, who he said "leaves the office in total disgrace." No, Sweeney would add other political leaders on his charging documents, and probably left room for citizens who similarly are less than outraged by what this trial revealed about city government. At least for them, though, it's not too late to heed the lessons of Dixon.
Discuss this story and others in our talk forums
More news talk forums: Local | Nation/World | Business | Health/Science | Computers/Technology
Note: In-story commenting has been temporarily disabled due to technical issues. We are working to correct the issue and will bring back this feature in the future. In the meantime, please use our talk forums to discuss stories.
Most recent local news talk forum topics: