The #MAGov news of the day – first reported by Matt Stout at the Herald, as far as I know, but since picked up at the Globe and elsewhere – is that Charlie Baker’s emotional story about the fisherman, the retelling of which caused him to choke up in last night’s debate, stems from an encounter during his 2010 run for Governor, not from this campaign.
Is that a problem? Hard to say. On the one hand, there’s no doubt that the problems facing fishermen in Massachusetts remain real, and that they are a legitimate issue for any gubernatorial candidate to care a lot about.
But on the other, the revelation that Baker’s story is actually about five years old does, at least to me, make Baker’s emotional breakdown during the debate seem less authentic, for several reasons.
- If you listen to the debate again, you’ll see that, while Baker never actually says that he heard the story recently, the way he presented it seems designed to make you think that was the case. The question, after all, was “when was the last time you cried,” and he refers to the fisherman story as one he heard during “the course of the campaign.” He didn’t actually say “this” campaign, so maybe Baker’s setup qualifies as accurate (the Politifact rating would probably be “half true”). But I came away from the story with the clear (mis)impression that Baker’s encounter with the fisherman was fairly recent.
- That leads me to think that part of Baker’s debate prep was how to respond to some kind of question relating to a campaign trail event that somehow meant a lot to Baker, and that Baker and his team decided that this story, even though it’s five years old, was the best one available.
- And if you think about it, it makes sense that Baker would choose this story. It’s totally guy-friendly – the fisherman was a “big huge guy,” and his sons were football stars, so there’s relatively little danger of opening up a masculinity gap by crying over their story (the latest WBUR poll shows Baker up 12 points among men, and he can’t afford to lose many of them since Coakley leads among women).
- More importantly, Baker’s takeaway from the story is that – and this is an exact quote – “I feel we have let the federal government drive the data process associated with this, which has driven the rulemaking process, and has left these people with no one.”
- See how perfect that is? An undeniably touching story about a Massachusetts family in very difficult circumstances is happening because of bad data. It’s the perfect rejoinder to the charge that Baker is a data-driven numbers wonk who doesn’t care about actual humans. It lets him say that data really does matter, and good data can help people.
- I’m not even saying that Baker is wrong about that. I don’t know enough about the very difficult issues surrounding MA’s fisheries to have much of an opinion on the details, but it is true that having accurate data on what is actually happening in the fisheries is the key to formulating good policy. I’m just saying that, IMHO, it is no accident that Baker chose to tell this 5-year-old story, rather than a more recent one – surely, someone on the campaign trail this year has moved Baker to tears? – that wouldn’t have let him make his point as clearly.
So. Was Baker play-acting? I have no idea – if he was, he’s pretty good at it (certainly, he convinced Globe columnist Thomas Farragher). But nobody should think that Baker told that story solely because it’s actually the last time he cried (was it really? there’s no way of knowing). I’d lay good money that he had practiced telling that story as part of his debate preparation, that he was looking for an opportunity to tell it throughout the debate, and that he told it when the moment presented itself (on a silver platter, as it turned out).
Lost in all of this, unfortunately, is Coakley’s response to the “most recent cry” question. Coakley said that she had cried that day at the memorial service for John Laughlin, a/k/a long-time BMGer striker57. We miss him too.
Of course, that story was planned as part of Charley’s debate prep. It was a calculated effort on Baker’s part. He rehearsed it.
And, of course the story is false. It simply grew over the years as one of Charley’s favorite stories. I bet that he’s used it a lot over the years, and he’s refined it.
but Mr. Baker had no tears for the employees laid off at HP or cutting off coverage for people in RI or W. Mass. Then he resurrects a company by increasing premiums, lowering wages, and decreasing coverage. Doesn’t sound like his sympathy for this fisherman is very genuine given his own history. This is the same man who thought women in Ma would be protected from the Hobby Lobby decision. When he found out he was wrong, he concocted a scheme that would bring special program to women in Ma. Of course that does nothing for women in the rest of the country. As usual, actions
The cry-me-a-river discussion is a sign this campaign has stretched for a week too long, and has had one too many televised debates.
Enough already. Are there really no skeletons left uncovered under a basement rug, no investigative grave left undigged, no cockroach crawling under a stone that we have to ask what was in Big Charlie’s mind, what twinkled in his eye at the very moment he repressed that tear, reminescing over his warm embrace of his salted, soaked, hulky fisherman half a decade ago?
Force everyone to watch marley and me* the night before debates. The stupid question will never get asked again.
* for those who truly are cold inside, Hachi: A Dog’s Tale can be substituted.
Was it “boxers or briefs” that started off this habit of asking cute, insipid, useless questions of candidates? Have we run out of serious issues to talk about, or are these local boors taking their campaign patter seriously, thinking everyone tunes in to see what questions they compose? I can think of many ridiculous, revealing, and embarrassing debate moments. But I can’t remember most any question that inspired it.
Just ask the d–n question and get out of the way. If you want to be the star, media bobblehead, run for office.
It’s less scripted and rehearsed than the questions the “reporters” ask and the replies that they accept.
How convenient–and Mr. Data apparently doesn’t out any stock in actual data about the depletion of fish, but that would not make for a good story or a good cry.
On today’s Egan and Braude show, they dedicated an entire *half hour* to “the cry” and even had Charlie Baker on.
Before Charlie was on, Egan and Braude were positively gushing about how they’ve seen him cry in the past few months personally, calling him a “crier.”
So, if they’ve seen him crying during this campaign — as recently as the debate they had with Charlie and Martha — then that means Baker was lying when he answered the crying question at this past debate. Period.
It simply was not the last time he cried — and we have witnesses out there to prove it.
It’s unfortunate that Braude and Egan spent so much time gushing over the crying at the debate and less time asking questions, like, “Charlie, was that really the last time you cried?” or “Charlie, that was a great story you weaved at the debate. When did that happen?”
If Charlie found sadness in this story it is was not empathy for the fisherman’s plight of lost income. His father had pushed him into Harvard, and time and time again he openly states his regrets. He admits “he didn’t fit itn.” You see I conclude he related more to the fisherman’s son than he did to the father. He has been steered by his dad or his dad’s friends into one job or another. This looked more like an expression of anger than one of sympathy.
You think that a Republican politician might be a seething cauldron of filial conflict, paternal expectations, insistent (and perhaps un-asked for) nepotism and conflicted feels of self-worth in a struggle for control of both psyche and purpose…?
Naaah… That’s just crazy talk…
Despite the efforts of the press, the Globe points out this morning that no one can figure out just who this fisherman is.
Not so long ago, Americans empathized with a native American who wept at the plundering and exploitation of a precious natural heritage. Now we celebrate a candidate who weeps in real or mock sympathy with the plunderers.
Conveniently overshadowed in “crygate” is the substance of the “fisherman’s tale” — the media exchange focuses on various aspects of the fisherman and the candidate as they respond to the oppressive, unfair, and tyrannical imposition of draconian restrictions by the federal government (the latter being the unspoken context for the various pieces).
None in the media seem concerned about the reality that the restrictions are, if anything, belated and not tough enough.
The fact is that the fishing industry has destroyed the local fishery. The data has been obvious for years, and should not be surprising to anyone who even glances at the data about how many tons of fish have been pulled out of these waters in the recent past.
Apparently we Democrats are so busy emphasizing how “compassionate” and “empathetic” we and our candidate are that we can’t find the courage to speak the real truth:
Charlie Baker should be crying for the plundered resource, the exterminated species, and the economic and cultural hardships imposed on the REST of society by the self-centeredness of this myopic industry.
This industry, supported by hacks like Mr. Baker and the media flacks who flog this “story”, destroyed a precious natural resource.
here is that the actor who portrayed Chief Iron Eyes was of 100% Italian heritage.
Sadly, just like Charlie Baker, he was a fake. Unlike CB, he was probably sincere.
Media personality wannabe: This question is for all the candidates. Please tell a story that makes you cry real tears, right now on camera.
John
his little toadies in his campaign, reference an article with McGrory as proof of the fisherman and story, funny thing is, there was no reference to Charlie being emotional during that story. Hmmmm.
So did these emotions just suddenly come to him during the debate, when it didn’t seem to impact him that way before?
–What was the fisherman’s name?
–What were the sons’ names?
–What was the name of his boat?
–What dock did you see him on?
–Who was with you when you met the fisherman?
–You haven’t cried since 2009?
–Did you give an honest answer to the (idiotic) question you were asked in the debate?
Seriously, we need answers to questions before the weekend, so that voters can assess Baker’s credibility.
It was a stupid fluff question.
GUYS, GUYS, WE NEED THESE ANSWERS, AND WE NEED THEM NOW.
A lifetime of working in government, private businesses, a whole ‘nother campaign and this one, and THIS is what you seriously need answers to for assessing his credibility?
Why are heads exploding over this????
You do realize the election is on Tuesday, right?
How, long did you want to give him to prove whether he was an outright liar, our just a manipulative embellisher?
I suppose we should all wait until a few days after the election for Chris Christie to release the NJ report, so we can find out whether or not Baker’s a potential felon, too, right?
I mean, it’s not like there’s anything important going on for voters before Tuesday that they may want answers to, right?
I don’t care when he cried or if he really did.
Ms. Hill/Holiday and casino mouthpiece
No one in New Bedford has any idea who this person is: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20141029/NEWS/141029327
Breaking: The fisherman’s name is Billy Tyne, from the sword-fishing boat Andrea Gail. Reputed to have gone down in the middle of the Atlantic, that’s why our crack press could not locate him. I think there was even a movie made after this!
If your Charlie Baker, who really cares. What’s the difference?
… from the image of Charlie Baker and George Clooney sharing a hearty bear hug dockside while Mark Wahlberg and William Fitchner gaze down from the crows nest… That’s just… a… ahem… a perfect storm of handsome there. Not even the weather could keep it together after that.
We don’t know yet which actor is going to play Baker or Coakley (sorry, Ty Burr!), but I vote for the foul-mouthed Wahlberg character as the fisherman.
It’s a tough call… Clooney is more hulky, Wahlberg is certainly more salted.
Billy Tyne was 34 when he died and had two daughters nowhere near college age, not sons.
Perhaps Charlie likes to think of the movie to induce his crocodile tears.
.
the idea that Baker felt that this was the appropriate response to the question. Cry about pain or the loss of a loved on. Weep at the birth of your child. Sure, but weeping about this story that reinforces your political philosophy, is just too much, too contrived. Not real.
He picked Karyn “Anti-GLBT” Polito for his running mate, fer chrissakes. But the fake crying, over a 5 year-old story, has really crystallized my dislike for Charlie Faker. Who knows what this guy really believes or is really about? It’s not crying that’s a problem for me, but the falseness and fakery. He’s been all over the map on his policy positions, from mean-2010 Baker to 2014-me-too (for anything the Democrat is for in a weaker more 1%-friendly form) Baker
It was at the WorkBar in Cambridge and he was talking about his grandfather. He cried then and I was a witness. Even went up to him afterwards and told he shouldn’t be ashamed or embarrassed about the tears.
Now I wonder how genuine it actually was.