The “Smartest man in state government” lined up with Jeff “He had to hear me screaming and crying” Perry on that day, at the very moment when the “bad cop” was the hottest story in the state. With that, he lost his last, best chance to surprise people, strike for the center, and close the margin with Governor Patrick. David described it as his “Dukakis Moment:”
So two days ago, a woman called into Howie Carr’s radio show to ask Charlie Baker what she thought about Jeff Perry and his strip search problem. She noted that Baker had campaigned together with Perry, and she then asked “what you think about all the allegations that have come out and the victim speaking up and criticizing Perry for his actions as a police officer?”
Baker’s answer is remarkably Dukakoid, in that it shows no hint of emotion, instead rattling off prepared talking points about spending and Washington. Listen to it again.
No hint of compassion for the victim. No hint of emotion or any other human attribute; rather, a robotic recitation of talking points.
Baker relinquished any chance to salvage the situation three days later with his ludicrous one-minute “tag team” rally for Perry, followed by a series of beeps and whistles in response to an NECN reporter: “Has Jeff Perry answered the questions?” Baker: “I’m here to support the slate.” Watch the video here.
Scott Brown and Willard Romney have been equally fervent supporters of Perry. Thus are narratives — Republicans are not sympathetic and don’t care about women — formed. What a gamble, especially for the junior Senator. I suppose he will start to back away from Mr. Perry and his adventures at the cranberry bog “as the father of two daughters” in the not too distant future.
mannygoldstein says
I get the unemotional thing, but Dukakis was making a reasonable point. By contrast, Baker was deflecting a reasonable question AND defending a scoundrel.
ryepower12 says
That eliminated a chance he had to reach out to people who may have been skeptical about the governor, but worried about the Republican. But I think the fact that he could never answer anything about the Big Dig to satisfaction, or the fact that his big plan was to destroy 5000 jobs, with no rhyme or reason (the number didn’t come from a study about government efficiency, and wouldn’t have balanced the budget) were other big reasons.
<
p>I also think it’s silly to keep looking for reasons why Baker lost. I think a lot of this election can be explained by Patrick having an effective campaign that was able to reach out to Massachusetts voters and make the case for why and how Governor Patrick was able to succeed. This was less about Baker losing and much, much more about Patrick winning.
johnk says
Don’t think there ever was a “moment” that Baker lost the election. He never had the election to lose. It was Patrick start to finish. It was never a blow out, but it was always Patrick.
pogo says
historian says
I think Deval Patrick was the stronger candidate and I support his record and admire his character, so I am thrilled that he won, but there’s another side to Baker’s defeat besides his possible mistakes.
<
p>He was neither ignorant nor duplicitous enough for much of the right-leaning electorate. They want someone who is not ‘better’ than them and who rejects elitism in the form of actual knowledge about important issues. When Baker tried to fake stupidity as in his comments on global warming it was very unconvincing.
<
p>As for the second approach, complete denial of one’s previous record, Baker did not do this nearly as well as the master–his former boss.
<
p>The Republicans in Massachusetts may not get another chance like this soon, but next time they would be better off with a candidate more proud of ignorance or more dishonest.
dnm02026 says
when he announced he was a candidate for governor at a hastily arranged press conference while clutching a half empty water bottle.