The Herald reports that Tom Reilly, when asked whether he supports gay marriage at the convention this weekend, courageously responded as follows:
I think it’s time to move on.
Well what the fudge is that supposed to mean? Is he for it or against it? I don’t even care at this point – I just WANT TO KNOW. Does anyone who was there this weekend recall Reilly making any more definitive statement?
Regardless of whether Mitt Romney decides to run for reelection, the Dems will lose if their candidate doesn’t know where he stands on gay marriage and the death penalty, to name only the two most recent incredibly high-profile issues on which Tom Reilly has given astoundingly lame answers. Remember the old "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" gaffe? That one probably determined the presidency. Let’s not go 2 for 2.
It’s not 100% clear, but if I had to guess (and I guess I do), he’s saying, “It’s a hot potato, it’s a settled legal issue, and I don’t want to deal with it.”Good enough for me. We are now the pro-status-quo position. If he doesn’t want to fight the status quo, that’s fine.
Hmm. Not good enough for me, I’m afraid. First, it is most definitely NOT a settled legal issue, as I’d bet the folks at Mass. Equality who are working their tails off to scrape together the votes to defeat the various constitutional amendments will tell you. Pretending that this issue is settled only invites complacency, which in turn hands the advantage to those pushing the amendments. The amendments WILL be voted on, and they DO have a chance of passing.Second, it’s a hot issue that everyone knows about and a lot of people care a lot about, one way or the other (rather like the death penalty, another one that he screwed up). You simply cannot be a credible candidate for Governor, in this state of all states, without a clear position on this issue that you’re not afraid to state loudly and repeatedly. OF COURSE people are going to ask about it every chance they get. The more he dodges it, the worse he looks. Geez, if he’s afraid to talk about it in a room full of Democrats, what hope is there?This is really not so much about whether I agree with Reilly’s position (whatever it is). It’s about how to win – or, more to the point, lose – an election. Especially after what happened in 2004, the idea of nominating a candidate who, well, waffles when asked about hot-button issues makes me physically ill.
I have to agree with David on this. Not only because this is one of the issues I am passionate about, but I am also sick of seeing weak candidates lose important elections. We need to know NOW if Reilly is weak in that way. We already know he’s not an exciting candidate…I have a feeling Reilly really isn’t for gay marriage, but doesn’t want to come out and say it, because it’ll alienate most Democrats, especially the grassroots. As I recall, he did say (back when Romney was begging him most unbecomingly to prosecute the first gay marriages that happened last year) he was against gay marriage personally but would uphold the judicial branch as is his legal duty.Oh, on Googling…I see he then flipped flopped…hmm, interesting. (I really do need to follow these things more closely – you miss a month or two and everything goes to hell and a handbasket.)IMHO, I’m a little worried he’s doing some old-fashioned pandering…or is that my paranoia slipping in?
There is a possibility that it will be a settled issue before the end of the year, in which case I can understand why Reilly wouldn’t want to get into it. And why should he? If the amendment does pass again this year, though, he will have to do better.
“IMHO, I’m a little worried he’s doing some old-fashioned pandering…or is that my paranoia slipping in?”As Kurt Cobain sang, “Just because you’re paranoid/Don’t mean they’re not after you.”David, don’t get me wrong, it’s definitely a weak response to the issue. But at the same time, i’m guessing there are a lot of people who feel a lot like Reilly right now — they just don’t want to deal with it anymore. So while Reilly has certainly not shown leadership on this issue, at least I don’t see him as an obstacle, and I wish more formerly anti-marriage folks would follow his example. You know, my “farewell to arms” meme — on some fronts, I’m Ok with de-escalation.
Criminy, even if I don’t agree with Kerry, as least he has the cohones to say where he is, which, given that it’s Kerry, is remarkable in and of itself. I don’t think it is too much to ask any of the candidates to take a stand. Perhaps someone can help me with this, but what is Reilly’s big selling point, his Big Issue?
Charleyis right. Reilly will go witht he status quo. Other reasons not to vote for him, but i do not see him as a threat to gay marrigae. See reilly is good when the issue is a slam dunk like crime. Yes i know microsoft and red sox sale. But they were not voting booth issues. He took a walk on the Cardinal Law and the pervert preiests without ever explaining precisely why they could not be iondicxted. His report on the abuse is general and of poor legal quality. I t was without specifics on which laws were broken and why they could not be prosecuted. Reilly sucks. Really.Hey , what about these runmblings of Capuano getting back in govs. race?
I don’t see Reilly as trying to undo gay marriage either. But my point, again, is that he comes off as lacking conviction. Like Charley, I’d be happy to see the rhetoric on this issue (and many others) toned down. But toning down rhetoric and not having a position are quite different. If Reilly has changed his mind on gay marriage, great! Why can’t he just say that he favors it, that he doesn’t see it as a big deal, and that we shouldn’t mess with the state Constitution? That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable, principled, non-confrontational position. Another one would be “I think this issue should be decided by the people of this state at the ballot box” – I may not agree with that position, but at least I understand it. I don’t understand where Reilly is on this (or the death penalty, or frankly much else) right now. I know he only just officially declared that he’s in the race, but he’s been planning this for months if not years, and you’d think he would have thought through at least the obvious hot-button issues. I’ll say it again: regardless of who the Republican nominee is, the Democrats will lose the Governor’s race – again – if they nominate a candidate who is afraid to state a position on the headline-grabbing issues.
I agree with you David. That is also my point. In my opinion, Reilly, like Kerry, is not “a man”. The way Kipling defined a man.(Yes that racist defender of the british empire) but he had a point when it came to defining character via poem.
The Globe reports today (throwaway line in a long article) that Riley supports SSM. (For what it’s worth)”State Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate and once an outspoken opponent to the SJC’s ruling, now backs same-sex marriage, as do declared candidate Deval Patrick, the former assistant US attorney general, and presumptive candidate William F. Galvin, the secretary of state.”Riley came out of the conflict last year looking pretty good from all sides. He was able to oppose SSM for a while, looking very rule-of-law official as the attorney general, but then play reasonable against Romney’s apparent obsessiveness when Mitt overreached. He basically managed to appear principled, committed to legal process, and somewhat above the fray.I’m sure he wants to do as little as possible to disturb whatever is left of this impression. Of course I would like him to make it clear that his status quo position means SSM should and will remain legally recognized. Something as simple as saying “let’s not move backwards” instead of (or in addition to) “let’s move on” could do it.
Didn’t the Attorney General send in his second string, instead of himself to argue the State’s position in the original Goodrich case? It seems to me that he wants to avoid this at all costs, then and now.
Not fair. AG doesn’t argue casesAssistant ags do
I think troll’s right on that one, especially since Reilly came from a criminal background and doesn’t really have any experience presenting a high-profile civil case to the SJC (similarly, the US Attorney General very rarely argues in the US Supreme Court – that’s the Solicitor General’s job). The government guys in the AG’s office have been there for years and are very good. That said, of course, it was ultimately Reilly’s decision (1) to defend existing state law against the initial challenge in Goodridge; and (2) to defend the 1913 law now. Of course, the AG will normally defend state law against constitutional attack – that’s his job – but he is entitled to decide in particular cases that the law should not be defended (and both he and his predecessors have exercised that prerogative in recent years). So even if Reilly has indeed changed his mind and now supports gay marriage – and I hope that is the case – I think he comes off looking kind of legalistic and technical about the whole thing, rather than actually committed to a discernible principle. This is part of why I think it can be hard for an AG to win a Governor’s race. And it’s part of why I think it’s SO important for him to state a clear position now, and if it’s a change, explain why he changed. Looking like a flip-flopper while denying that he is one is the worst thing he can do.
Ok, I am sorry if that was an ignorant comment on the AG’s job. My bad, I guess I was just succumbed to stereotypes about the AG when I heard that complaint about arguing the case.
Reilly has the sickness many long time professional prosecutors succumb to…”I am more ethical and moral than others and when I speak everyone knows I speak for good.”Tom Reilly has it. Scott Harshbarger had it. Gerry Leone does not.