In an editorial titled “Signs of a meltdown” Lowell Sun Editor Jim Campanini reports that a, “Jan. 11 Sun Internet poll attracted a record 1,343 respondents to the question: If the election were held today, who would you vote for: Kerry Healey, Deval Patrick or Tom Reilly? Patrick won with 48 percent to Reilly’s 43 percent.”
Campanini argues that Attorney Generals have a hard time getting elected to statewide office (“Only one attorney general — Republican Edward Brooke — has won higher office in Massachusetts”), and cites the following signs that “Reilly is on the edge of a freefall with the public:” red eyes at the Conte press conference; endorsing the in-state tuition bill for undocumented aliens; disclosing an arrest for drinking as an underage college student; and standing by as “Gov. Mitt Romney’s 8.5 percent cut in 2006 auto-insurance rates was accepted,” instead of pushing for a higher reduction.
Personally, I don’t think these add up to an incipient freefall. To the contrary, Campanini’s inclusion of internet polling evidence — which members of this community should know is about as reliable as a WMD prediction by George Tenet — suggests the author is grasping at whatever straws he can find. One thing is clear, however: Reilly has some enemies.
The question for Reilly will be whether he and Conte will make common cause for votes in the Worcester Primary. Let’s not forget that they will both be in races (Conte against Joe Early Jr.). At some point Reilly will have to stand up and denounce the muck in the Worcester DA’s office if he wants to rid himself of this festering sore. To remain silent on Conte’s long legacy of selective prosecution and political heavy handedness would, it seems, be a mistake for Reilly.
the editorial is a big harsh, and an internet poll is surely among the least reliable means of determining whether a campaign is in trouble. Nonetheless, all the things the editorial points to suggest problems in Reilly’s campaign. As we’ve discussed at length, Reilly and his campaign staff handled the call to Conte unbelievably badly, turning it into a full-blown media frenzy when it never should have been more than a day’s worth of headlines. The in-state tuition bill also appears to have been a significant miscalculation by Reilly – it is now clear that the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature is not behind it.
<
p>
Reilly’s problem continues to be one of self-definition: what, exactly, is he doing in this race? Patrick has done a lot to explain why he’s running, so agree with what he says or not, he’s got a lot of substance to talk about. Reilly, to my mind, really has not done that, and as a result he allows his campaign to be defined by stuff like the Conte call. That’s not going to help him at the convention, or in the primary, or (should he make it there) in the general election.
Do Reilly and Patrick differ on the in-state tuition bill?
They’ve both endorsed it.
isn’t so much to say that Reilly shouldn’t have endorsed the bill. It’s that – especially based on his now-famous call-in to WRKO and the impromptu debate that ensued with Kerry Healey – he seems to have assumed that any right-thinking person would support the bill, and he wasn’t particularly charitable to those on the other side. That was a mistake, as the lopsided vote in the House shows. Patrick appears to support the bill, but (as far as I know) he hasn’t made a big deal out of it. Sorry – I should have been clearer about what I was saying.
If he was going to back it, he should have done it early and try to prove he can lead on such issues. From his bench in the AG office, he has much more ability to deal with the leg than Patrick, who’s a complete outsider.
<
p>
Personally, it’s a sign that Reilly isn’t a totally hopeless case that he supported the bill at all, but his miscalculations on how much of a big deal to make it (as in, real low key vs. taking leadership on it and talking to legislators) shows he’s really not ready for prime time. My thoughts is that if he gets into the general, we could very easily not win the corner office.
<
p>
But Patrick v. Healey…now THAT is a fight I want to see.
And another thing: why would a newspaper editor in Lowell, which is and always has been an immigrant magnet, consider Reilly’s support for the in-state tuition bill to be a negative?
Because the Sun’s editorial stance on most issues is just slightly to the left of Attila the Hun: legal immigrants are okay; illegal immigrants — or the children thereof — are bad. As far as the paper’s concerned, it’s a pretty black-and-white issue.