The flap over Tom Reilly’s call to Worcester DA John Conte continues unabated. Just in today’s Globe and Herald, we’ve got one editorial, three columns, and two news stories on the subject. We’re pleased to report that many of them are taking a line similar to the one we posted here. Here’s a brief rundown of today’s stories.
The Herald’s editorial page has chimed in with a surprisingly sensible piece saying that Reilly should “probably not” have made the call he made, but also that they believe his explanation of why he made it (helping a friend keep the matter away from the media, not interfering with an investigation). Yesterday’s Globe editorial (entitled “Reilly’s poor judgment”) took a similar line: “It was a gesture that appears well-intended but was unwise.” The Herald also criticizes the Romney/Healey response to the incident as “political opportunism,” which it surely was.
Also in today’s Herald, we find the opposite end of the reasonableness spectrum, namely, Howie Carr’s column (reg. req’d). It’s pretty much what you would expect: a lot of inflammatory one-liners along the thoughtful lines of this one: “Are you in need of reasonable doubt at a reasonable price? Please make your check payable to The Reilly Committee.” But the column is notable for its conclusion: “Youâre Tom Reilly, and you canât understand why a moonbat flyweight like Deval Patrick is going to clean your clock at the caucuses Feb. 4.” Interesting.
In the Globe, both Eileen McNamara and Joan Vennochi write about Reilly’s call today, and they reach fairly similar conclusions. Both columnists think Reilly shouldn’t have made the call, and they both see his handling of the incident as raising larger questions. Here’s McNamara: “Reilly thinks the question of his role is irrelevant and impertinent. It isn’t. The public is entitled to ask whether Reilly’s call had a chilling effect on an ongoing police investigation, as Northborough Police Chief Mark Leahy has implied.” And here’s Vennochi: “when you choose as a public official to extend yourself on behalf of a friend, you accept the political consequences without tears; and you are prepared to face the political question that follows logically: Where do you draw the line on doing favors for a friend?”
Finally, the news reporters have some interesting contributions. The Globe has a long piece on the fact that it’s actually quite difficult to enforce the “social host” law, so it’s not all that surprising that charges weren’t filed in this incident.
But perhaps the most telling of all of these items is the second news story: a report that Reilly’s campaign operation has come out swinging against a Dept. of Public Health TV spot that tries to discourage underage drinking. Reilly’s people are saying that public funds shouldn’t be used for this ad because it mentions Kerry Healey’s name so it amounts to a publicly-funded Healey campaign ad.
There are two huge problems with Reilly’s take on this. First, it’s stupid. According to the Globe article, the only mention of Healey is at the very end of the ad, when it says “A message from the Governor’s Interagency Council on Substance Use and Prevention, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, Chair, and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Substance Abuse Services.” Like it or not, Healey is the sitting Lieutenant Governor, and as such she gets to have her name associated with ads like this. It would be one thing if the ad featured Kerry Healey herself talking for 30 seconds about how much she’s done to prevent underage drinking, but at least from the Globe article, it doesn’t sound like that’s the case. Moreover, it’s not like Tom Reilly has never done something similar (the article mentions a calendar, presumably printed at state expense, that is distributed to seniors and that “features a color photo of Reilly inside, along with a list of helpful telephone numbers”).
The second problem is that the timing of Reilly’s attack could not possibly have been worse. In case Reilly hadn’t noticed, the big story around here for the past four days or so has been allegations that Tom Reilly inappropriately involved himself in an investigation of a fatal accident involving underage drinking. So now he’s criticizing the Dept. of Public Health for running a TV spot designed to prevent underage drinking just because it happens to mention Kerry Healey’s name? Come on Tom – get your priorities straight. Maybe under other circumstances, it might have been worth trying to make something out of Healey’s name in the ad (though for the reasons given above I frankly doubt it). But under current circumstances, he should have kept his mouth shut. Another instance of bad judgment from Reilly.
I think public officials shouldn’t be putting their names on any of that stuff — not ads, not “Welcome to Massachusetts” signs on the highway… none of it. It’s an attractive nuisance for politicians, prone to abuse.
<
p>
That’s not to say that the ad was anything unusual or remarkable in and of itself. I just don’t like the practice.
but, as you say, there doesn’t seem to be any basis for calling out this particular ad as an unusual abuse. It’s par for the course, and the fact is that everybody does it. Doesn’t make it right, but it does mean that if you want to criticize the ad you’ve got to take on the whole practice, and Reilly didn’t do that.
When Reilly is under the gun about “being soft on drunk driving” the LAST thing he should be doing is calling attention to the Healy ad…especially when it’s just a silly tag line. Reilly keeps stepping in his own doings here…not instilling much confidence with Dem primary voters who want a winner in Nov.
I’ll set the record straight and represent that I am a Tom Reilly fan.
<
p>
I have been a fan for many years as he has used his “good judgement” for the past 20 years to protect all of us from the maggots and dregs of Massachusetts society .
<
p>
I see one instance here of a purported “poor judgement” decision on record.
<
p>
I also see 17 years successful years of public service in which thousands of “good judgement” decisions are on record.
<
p>
It is therefore illogical for anyone to conclude the man has poor judgement.
<
p> .
<
p>
I’m not Tom Reilly fan. And I think some of the criticisms about the lack of prosecutions on so many issues that was leveled at Tom Reilly by Howie Carr actually are pretty close to how I feel about his supposedly great public service. I think Reilly is a good person, I just am not persuaded that he has done a great job as the attorney general.
<
p>
However I think this entire week has been entirely overblown. He obviously shouldn’t have done what he did, because it was just stupid. But to spend a week lambasting him for making a phone call that for now looks like a pretty innocent call for the mos tpart, seems silly.
<
p>
Now going on tv and crying about it, that has to make you scratch your head. But unless something comes out that shows he actually impeded the investigation, this entire affair seems entirely media-invented. He didn’t commit a crime, and obviously nobody is “buying” the AG for $300 measly bucks.
<
p>
Now the fact that he has refused multiple requests for a debate prior to the caucuses, THAT’s an issue I’d like to see the media talk about. Just what is he afraid of anyway? Letting that moonbat flyweight get some traction? Here’s a tip for you, Mr. AG: He’s got traction.
I think that voters need to realize that there are ideological differences between the candidates that are more important than just who made more phone calls than another.
<
p>
We have a fairly hardcore Republican running against an independent Republican and two Democrats of different flavors.
<
p>
It would be a shame to focus the entire election on whether Reilly should have made this call. It would be a shame to discount the philosophies that Reilly represents, essentially accepting the other philosophies by default — due to a phone call.
<
p>
It would be a shame for people who would be harmed by Republican ideology to vote for Kerry Healey because they don’t like the fact that Reilly made this phone call.
<
p>
Let’s talk about the issues here. What does Reilly believe in? What does Healey believe in? What does Patrick believe in? What does Mihos believe in?
<
p>
We are supposedly one of the “smartest” states in the country. So how is it that we are satisfied with sound-bite campaign talk, like Mihos promising to “cut costs for businesses and to create new jobs in the state” with no detail behind it?
<
p>
And let’s stop dancing around the core issue — what kind of society do you believe in? Do you believe in one where some people can attain great heights but have no responsibility to the rest of society, or do you believe in a more balanced approach where we all live together in a Commonwealth that values the advancement of all over the hoarding of resources so that a few can prosper?
I totally agree. Which is why it’s so frustrating when politicians refuse to acknowledge that they might have made an error in judgment. All that does is create another news cycle about whether the explanation was good enough. No one expects politicans to be superhuman, incapable of error. What we reasonably expect is that people will admit their mistakes so that we can all move on.
we are all dead on. From Qane on down, I agree with the assesment.
I was out of town when the story broke. I’ve missed most of it and it seems to be calming down now. No one I know is talking about it. As I tried to figure out what happened, it seems likes the issue is this: Reilly called a DA and told him not to release reports to the press. The DA probably did not need a call from Reilly to figure that out. So was Reilly just calling as a precaution and to make doubly sure the family was protected? Or was he sending a wink, wink message to someone? I don’t know. I think most people not named Howie Carr, myself included, are willing to assume Reilly was just trying to do whatever he could to protect the family. At the end of the day, not a huge deal.
<
p>
BUT – and remember I like Deval in this race – it seems to me that Reilly’s major selling point is that he can win against Healey. Well, Healey seemed to kick the crap out of him last week. The GOP never lets the truth get in the way of their talking points, and they proved this week that they can put the AG on the defensive even if he’s not wrong. Not a good sign for his “I can win” strategy.
this was our first look at Reilly’s campaign operation when faced with something resembling a crisis. Not impressive. In fact, they could hardly have handled it worse. One wonders whether there will be personnel changes…
What, are they going to change the candidate? Check out sco’s transcript of the Greater Boston interview — it was all Tom.
I don’t think that Reilly did something beyond the pale at all. He needs to do a better job of controlling the newscycle and controlling his image. Crying into a camera, holding a press conference with no podium, no message, and no overarching purpose makes him seem weak. This seemed like a small burp in his campaign; I don’t think many people will change their votes because of it. But if this is how he deals with burps, he’s going to have serious trouble in the general election.