As reporter after reporter fails to turn up anything to substantiate Charlie Baker’s now-famous (even made MSNBC) story about the huge New Bedford fisherman who dissolved in tears upon relating the story of his sons and their foregone football scholarships, the question must be asked: let’s say the story is fake. Does it matter?
Watch the video of Baker telling his story again. He’s awfully convincing in every detail. How the guy looked. Where he was from. Which high school the guy’s kids went to, and what sport they played. He betrays no doubt whatsoever that these are real people, and that he story he’s telling really happened.
But now, under the pressure of reporters not being able to verify what he said, Baker is admitting that he “may have gotten some of the details wrong.” I’m sorry, but what?? Which of those details, so convincingly delivered, were made up? Baker has pretty much clammed up on the matter, refusing to answer reporters’ detailed inquiries. In response, the New Bedford Standard-Times, which endorsed Baker, now sounds like they are regretting it and really want answers. In an editorial published today, they say this of Baker:
His slow response to our questions threaten to taint his relationship with this region, as our endorsement of his candidacy a couple Sundays ago praised him for his recognition of SouthCoast’s importance in statewide economic development.
We need to know that his fervor, his tears, his promises are genuine….
[W]e still want to know from the Baker campaign whether the story he shared at the debate was a symbolic anecdote or a calculated manipulation of the public — and New Bedford — for his political ends.
But, Baker insists, “the essence of the story is true.” What does that mean? Which part of it is the “essence,” and which are the apparently fake embellishments? Baker won’t tell us.
I’ve already explained why I’m pretty sure that the telling of the fish story was planned. Now, as it turns out, the story may well be fiction in some important particulars. It is remarkable to me that a story should be so powerful that it causes Baker to break down in tears every time he’s told it for the last 5 years. (Dianne Williamson at the Telegram puts it less charitably: “Should he care so much, though? Really? This big, strong man chokes up every single time he tells the same 4-year-old story?”) It’s even more remarkable if the story isn’t real.
All of which leaves us wondering what, exactly, we saw at that debate. A man genuinely moved by the plight of fishermen in Massachusetts? A father empathizing with the anguish of a man who felt he had steered his sons wrong? A candidate for office so cynical and calculating that he not only made up a powerful story but then managed fake tears in the telling of it? Some combination of the above? Hard to say.
So, does it matter? Yes. It has to matter whether candidates tell the truth, whether the subject is large or small. It just has to.
historian says
Baker made up a garbage story in an extremely obvious fashion,and his campaign manager have almost admitted as such, though the campaign manger came up with the genius move of blaming the non-existent fisherman for making up the ’embellishments’ Baker recited.
Baker also resorted to these fabrications to score political points and to attack government regulation. If he takes his weed whacked out based on this kind of bull watch out.
bean says
But it’s weird and disturbing that he lied.
Really? There was no true occasion that he could have shared instead of an invented fish tale?
JimC says
ryepower12 says
In such a way is despicable. If you can do that here, what can’t he lie about?
dasox1 says
It matters a great deal because it goes straight to the candidate’s honesty. I will grant that the question was idiotic and I too hate when the press wastes questions on nonsensical B.S. like this. However, I do not understand the argument made on other threads on BMG over the past few days that the “fish story” doesn’t matter. This whole episode shows that Baker is the kind of politician who will fabricate things if necessary to support himself and his policies. Moreover, it matters because his entire answer was concocted to play to his base’s fears about the federal government, and it is simply wrong to make up a story to motivate your base. Why not just say “You know, I cannot remember the last time I cried. But, I can tell you what makes my heart ache. I have visited with Massachusetts fisherman who have lost their livelihood because of fishing regulations that are too onerous and ill-conceived, and dictated by the federal government. This is a problem that I will work on as governor.” Same sentiment and true. Obviously, these aren’t my views but it’s a passable, and truthful response to a stupid question. Making up the story is wrong. And, the campaign knows it’s wrong. That’s why they suspended the campaign through Friday. They are trying to make it to the weekend with as little damage as possible in the hopes that they have already won the election.
hesterprynne says
it makes up in truthiness, the coin of the GOP realm.
Trickle up says
If it gets him elected, it doesn’t matter.
petr says
…If he get’s elected what’re the odds he’d get his other stories straight?
Alas, If Charlie Baker gets elected our last best hope is that a New Jersey grand jury indicts him on a pay-to-play scandal, else we have, at least, four years of fish tales and the CommonWealth scaled and gutted.
dasox1 says
Gov Polito. Shoot me.
Bob Neer says
I see what you did there.
SomervilleTom says
I’m sorry to be so cynical, but all this hubbub reminds me of the folks who argue about the guilt or innocence of a soap-opera character, or whether or not the above clip was really taped on Hulk Hogan’s birthday.
This is a campaign. The debate was media theater. Like it or not, that’s the culture we live in.
SomervilleTom says
There was a video clip in the preview for my comment above. I guess “embed” tags are still the only mechanism that works.
JimC says
I read recently that Language matters, though (2+ / 0-)
I would agree that debates are staged as theater, but no, it’s not OK for candidates to lie in them. And they’re not allowed to hide behind the culture of entertainment. NO NO NO. Debates are more analogous to job interviews, and nobody would hire someone who knowingly lied.
methuenprogressive says
Folks like Tom have carefully targeted bursts of outrage.
SomervilleTom says
I invite you to offer even one comment where I have expressed support for Mr. Baker. I wholeheartedly agree that he is scum and is utterly unqualified to hold the office he seeks.
You attempt to enforce a false dichotomy — a false dichotomy that perpetuates and enables the utterly dysfunctional governance that we currently suffer from and that, from all indications, will be unchanged by the results of next week’s gubernatorial election.
Speaking of “situational ethics”, are you prepared to hold the Democratic nominee to the same high standard that you insist on for Mr. Baker? If so, then she won’t get your vote either.
SomervilleTom says
I stand by my comment that language matters in exchanges like we have here. I would have higher expectations of either candidate if I was in a one-on-one or small-group exchange with them.
In my view, a theatrical performance like a debate is different. There is no time for answers that explore any issue beyond its most superficial aspects, and I suggest that these slogans and charades fill the resulting gap.
No job interview is published or broadcast.
ykozlov says
Evan Falchuk made a great comment today on WEMF Radio today about how all these stupid debate questions are a “sophisticated form of voter suppression”. When did you cry? When do you have your coffee? Did you smoke pot in college? All good ways to demotivate and disengage anyone who is not already a good, reliable party line voter. Any further discussions on the topic are not only more of the same, but worse. It creates the perception that not only is political debate a joke, but it’s petty. “You want me to go vote to get involved in government because some guy did or did not cry about some fish?” (re: Bumped, because fish.)
Let’s Get Out (all) The Vote, not spread apathy.
bluewatch says
For Charlie Baker, the facts are not important. Look at how he handled the Pay-to-Play scandal with Chris Christie. He said that he wasn’t a partner at General Catalyst, even though he listed himself as a partner on his contribution form.
In the last campaign, he also had a memory lapse when it came to describing his role in the Big Dig.
Basically, Charlie Baker is a liar.
jconway says
Sort of like Gary Hart daring reporters to follow him and telling them they’d be bored, or Dukakis failing to show emotion when answering a similarly asinine question from Bernie Shaw in 88′. Baker made the fatal mistake of telling a story so specific, so convincingly, that reporters will have to go digging for it. Nobody doubted that Biden sincerely cried due to lingering grief over his lost wife and daughter, but this story baited the press to cast a wide net.
methuenprogressive says
Their support of him has never been about him.
dave-from-hvad says
In the video, Baker starts to lose his composure when describing how the fisherman’s sons received scholarships to play football in college. “‘I told them no, you’re gonna be fishermen,'” Baker quotes the man as saying. “‘And I ruined their lives.'”
It doesn’t really make sense. The sons received scholarships to go to college — something that would presumably get them out of their economic trap, and the father admits he wouldn’t allow them to make use of that. Where do onerous federal regulations come into play here?
Why does Martha Coakley introduce the whole concept of federal regulations at that point? Unless I missed it, Baker hadn’t even directly mentioned federal regulations as playing a part in this. It was as if Coakley was trying to make some sense out the befuddled muck that Baker was creating at that moment. She should have let him sink in it.
methuenprogressive says
Not in the debate anyone else watched.
jconway says
Reacting to an emotional question like Bernie Shaw with a bland “you know I’ve consistently opposed the death penalty, Bernie” and Coakley similarly saying “you know, I’ve consistently favored balanced fishing regulation”. She is far more comfortable with wonky policy issues and legalese than with ordinary emotional appeals for votes. It’s why Baker 2.0 has been far more successful since he has ditched that consultant like focus on data and started ‘speaking from the heart’. In this case, his heart my have leapt faster than his brain in modifying this particular rhyme of the ancient mariner.
Christopher says
…who thought Dukakis’s answer was a good one. I want serious questions answered seriously. Everything else is a waste of time. This is why I disagree that the truth in this example just “has to” matter. By the same token all these years later I can get worked up about perjury charges for impeachment all these years later. Yes, he shaded to the truth about whether he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky (which technically he didn’t based on the definitions the lawyers negotiated), but I was and remain outraged by the charge because the question should not have been asked in the first place.
jconway says
He was caught off guard and gave an honest answer. Honestly, he could have deflected with humor ( which may have been more awkward) or gotten outraged (but not too outraged). Bernie claims he was trying to humanize him, but I feel it fit the pattern of the media turning on him. Deadb showed too much emotion, Dukakis not enough. Muskie cried too much, but Clinton’s cry at Ronald Browns funeral was not emotional enough. And they say it has liberal bias….
jconway says
N/t
SomervilleTom says
Perhaps Ms. Coakley wanted to be sure that she, too, made it clear that she “supports the fishermen”.
Both candidates are attempting to exploit the very real pain and suffering caused by collapse of the fishing industry. Both candidates follow the same political calculus — “excessive federal regulations” provide a convenient bogeyman and scapegoat, and in so doing allow them promote themselves as saviors who will rescue their livelihoods.
The hard truth is that the industry is DEAD. It killed itself. The pain and suffering are real. Neither candidate offers any real path forward.
jconway says
You could say the same for coal, which is why Liz and Hillary look the other way when campaigning for Grimes with her pro-coal/pro-KY signs and pro-keystone positions. Unlike eastern OH, KY, or WV-we aren’t a single industry region anymore, and I doubt we’ve been as dependent on fishing as both candidates implied since the 1920s. An important blue collar constituency for sure, but a small one, and one that, like its Maine counterpart (where its a MUCH bigger industry)-could benefit from more sustainable practices.
petr says
… It’s only because we demanded its suicide: we ate everything it caught.
As exploiters of natural resources go, fishermen are clean. Fishermen are unlike miners or fracking or any other the other extraction industries that destroy what lies between them and the goods they want to extract. They are even unlike farmers who overfertilize and destroy diversity. Fisherman put to sea, throw their nets, haul in the catch and bring it to your table. They don’t poison the waters. They don’t clear the mountaintop. The don’t irrigate and fertilize to a fare-the-well. They don’t dynamite. And they don’t fracture anything, hydraulically or otherwise. They have, simply, fished more than they ought… and government let them… and we ate everything they caught.
SomervilleTom says
As destroyers of an environment, the fishing industry is no better than any polluter. The giant factory ships that vacuum that sea bottom destroy the entire food chain. Saying that they “simply fished more than they ought” is like saying that Exxon “spilled a little oil” in Alaska.
The fishery is dead. The ground stocks are gone, the food chain is gone, the entire system is destroyed.
Are petroleum companies to be excused because we “buy everything they produce”? You’re not making sense.
ryepower12 says
You know, agree or not with the plight of fishermen, Martha Coakley has actually done shit to help them out. She doesn’t “support the fishermen.” She supports the fishermen.
That is real.
It certainly isn’t an attempt to “exploit” fishermen.
I agree that this industry is basically dead and much of that is of its own doing (or, rather, of society’s), but for heaven’s sake does any effort in support to a particular community have to be exploitation?
Are people who push for better schools “exploiting” kids? Are people who are upset with the loss of factory jobs — and want to do something to bring more manufacturing back to Massachusetts — “exploiting” labor?
No?
Why on earth is Martha fighting for changes to fishing policy “exploiting” fishermen?
SomervilleTom says
The exploitation is telegraphing that the federal regulations are the problem, and (by implication) that they’ll fight to relax the regulations.
Relaxing federal regulations is NOT like pushing for better schools. If anything, it’s closer to lowering standards so that more kids graduate.
I lived in Pittsburgh for a (sad) year in 1982, while the last vestiges of the steel industry were collapsing. There certainly WERE a number of politicians who were exploiting the pain and suffering of the former steel workers. Those politicians were promising that, if elected, they would “bring the jobs back” and “reopen the mills” — as if that were remotely possible. Implying to fishermen that relaxing or “reforming” federal regulations will “bring back” the fishing industry similarly exploitative, and BOTH candidates are doing it.
Finally, just what changes to fishing policy is Ms. Coakley fighting for, or proposing to fight for? How are those policies any different from those cynical Pittsburgh politicians who promised to “reopen the mills”?
SomervilleTom says
Various outlets now report Ms. Coakley making campaign stops through areas impacted by the dying fishery and competing with the GOP in pandering to those affected (emphasis mine):
A typical politician’s lie. Missing from this statement is any recognition that the fishery is on the brink of ABSOLUTE collapse, and is completely unable to tolerate ANY commercial harvesting. The question that the regulators CORRECTLY asked was “Is the possibility of rescuing a great many future jobs worth the sacrifice of a much smaller number of jobs today”.
Ms. Coakley is exploiting fishermen (and the communities that depend on them) because she is proposing bad policy that she must know will not happen and will not work if it did happen in a cynical attempt to sway the votes of those people.
fredrichlariccia says
“Balance does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.” ANON
Fred Rich LaRiccia
jconway says
She knew John, we all did, and he fought a real battle on behalf of real workers, not fictional ones tilting at mythical windmills of regulation.
bluewatch says
If Baker is so deeply concerned about fisherman, why hasn’t he done anything to help them over the last 5 years?
John Tehan says
…put me of a mind to see what the denizens of RMG thought of the question. In their world, Charlie’s answer has already won the corner office!
Patrick says
eom
john-e-walsh says
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the author of the Big Dig Financing Plan wouldn’t hesitate to say whatever he felt needed to be said to win. Hell, his pal Bill Weld STILL says the Big Dig was on time and under budget. Facts are flexible to these guys, I guess. How cynical do you have to be to keep spewing this BS and expect to get away with it?
And how about all the deeply-held 2010 positions that have disappeared to be replaced by “newer” opposite 2014 positions just as sincerely put forward – this time with a smile. It’s almost as if IT WORKED for Mitt!
Fake left, and name Tea Party Karyn Polito as his running mate. Something for everyone in the most cynical campaign I’ve seen.
With just a few hours to go, and Charlie’s former co-workers at the Pioneer Institute (a.k.a. The Baker Polito policy-shop-in-waiting) salivating and preparing the first hundred days agenda, you need to talk to your friends and make sure they understand what’s at stake.
Smiling Charlie is a big fibber. It’ didn’t start with the fake fisherman and that’s not the biggest tall tale his trying to sell us.
Vote Coakley-Kerrigan,
John Walsh