Healey’s hypocrisy

I’ve only got a couple of minutes before heading out for the morning, but I can’t let this pass without a quick note.

As I noted yesterday, and as the Globe describes today, Kerry Healey’s latest ad features her at a signing ceremony with a variety of Democrats, including DA Dan Conley and Senator Steve “Big Dig” Baddour.  The announcer proclaims how well Healey works with the Democrats in the legislature.

Today, in light of Deval Patrick’s meeting with Sal & Trav, Healey is claiming that Patrick “went into this race saying he had no debts to the political establishment on Beacon Hill. As of yesterday that statement doesn’t hold.”

Um, excuse me?  This, from the person whose newest TV ad proclaims the value of working with the legislature?  This, from the person whose only hope of ever accomplishing anything on Beacon Hill is to have effective working relationships with the legislative leadership?

This, furthermore, from someone who has no clue what happened in those discussions?  I very much doubt that Deval Patrick walked into that meeting hat in hand, begging for the assistance of the mighty Sal & Trav.  He has no need to do that, after all, having just won a historic primary and soundly beaten the candidate they both backed.  I’m guessing he went in as the new standard-bearer for the party, secured their support, and explained that he looks forward to working with them, but that of course there will be times when they don’t see eye to eye — and on those occasions, he will not go along to get along, but instead retains the ability to take his case directly to the people who elected him.  Well over a year ago, in assessing this new guy who had just jumped into the race against the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of Tom Reilly, and comparing him to Robert Reich’s failed campaign, Scot Lehigh wrote the following:

So if Patrick is to make his run real, he’ll need to chart a more disciplined course [than Reich]…. He’ll need to demonstrate that he’s politically adept enough to work with State House Democrats, but that he has the backbone to stand up to them as well.

Looks to me like that’s exactly what he’s doing.

Relatedly, Healey talked up her alleged role in Melanie’s Law yesterday, claiming that “I went public and tried to expose the hypocrisy of calling that bill a reform.”

That claim, as far as we’ve been able to determine, is basically false.  As noted in this post, I went back to review the Globe’s fairly extensive coverage of the debate over the watered-down version of Melanie’s Law, passed right before Geno & Co. jetted off to Portugal.  Here’s what I found:

Interesting footnote: news coverage at the relevant time – late October, 2005 – makes no mention of Healey’s alleged role in restoring the tougher provisions.  In fact, a Google search for Globe articles including “Healey” and “Melanie’s” picks up not a single article from late October of 2005.  In contrast, a search  for Globe articles including “Romney” and “Melanie’s” picks up at least four articles from that time period – and Kerry Healey is not mentioned in any of them.  A couple weeks back, when Healey’s ad touting her alleged role in re-toughening the bill came out, Charley wrote

I’ll bet no one remembers Kerry Healey from the whole contretemps. I’ll bet that this is the first that most people have heard that Kerry Healey had a significant role in passing that or any other law.

Well, she sure slipped her role past the Globe.

So, how’s about it, mainstream media?  Is Kerry Healey telling the truth here?  Does she have a “candor gap” with respect to her allegedly front-and-center role in restoring the tougher version of Melanie’s Law?  Or was this — as it appears to my untrained, non-journalistic eye — a Mitt Romney show from start to finish?

This post was originally published with Soapblox and contains additional formatting and metadata.
View archived version of this post

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Mon 20 Oct 10:08 PM