Harshbarger and O’Brien had constituencies working for them, but still couldn’t pull it off, losing the suburban voters who are not fans AT ALL of political machines. O’Brien in particular was really hurt by this when Romney slammed her as being part of the State House gang of 3.
Even though Healey is running this year as an incumbent, I see no reason why she won’t slam Reilly/St. Fleur as an “insider” ticket that is out of touch with the voters who decide elections. And she’s probably right.
So that’s why I think that Democrats ought to seriously consider running a ticket that can truly call itself an outsider ticket. That means Deval is the candidate, and either Silbert or Goldberg is the LG. (Frankly, if Murray is in there, he doesn’t hurt, but the new-ness factor is dulled somewhat given his insider status. I also think Dem activists are so hungry, they’d get behind whatever ticket ends up getting the nod in September)
Which gets me to my larger point:
If more Democrats like Deval and Silbert ran for office, maybe Democrats wouldn’t be so hesitant to support the “businessperson-turned-politician.” Not everyone who has an entrepreneurial streak wants to be a Mitt Romney. In fact, I’d argue that most business owners are much more altruistic than the Romney’s of the world.
Democrats need people like Deval and Silbert to run for office because we keep getting clobbered by the fact that we have too many hacks in power and they’re easy targets. Granted, these new candidates need to prove themselves on the hustings – and Patrick appears to be doing so. Silbert probably has some work to do, but her story of helping women start businesses to generate jobs and tax revenue is EXACTLY the kind of person Democrats should be promoting. Woman; mom; real world experience; can relate to every family in MA. Plus, the kinds of business Silbert has helped start have been the kinds of businesses Mass. needs now – interesting, entrepreneurial ventures, whether it be an ethnic food shop in an New Bedford neighborhood, a designer boutique in Framingham, or a niche-tech company in Kendall Square. Silbert seems to me to be a classic example of using one’s talents for the Common Good.
Now, I’m not sure if she can pull off the victory, but she’s trending in the right direction thus far. Murray certainyl has a formidable base, and his record of helping turn Worcester around is excellent. He’s just the kind of politician we want as well: young, invigorated, ready to lead. But he’s probably more likely to be able to be smeared with the “in the pocket of the developers” label that Menino gets all the time, so why take that chance? (Why? Because of his political skills and his base: his being the LG candidate would mean that any accusations of an “unclean” ticket would not stick to a Gov. candidate as much. Obviously, he’s more suited to complement Patrick than Reilly. But he’s not any more suited to Patrick than Silbert or even Goldberg are.)
However, it would be a real coup if Silbert pulls off getting the LG nod, because I think it would open up a lot of doors and encourage other progressive, thoughtful businesspeople to run for office and impart their Democratic ideals to public life.
Note: Gabrieli has failed as a a businessperson-turned-candidate twice, so while I’d put him in that category of people who should be in government, he’s proven himself to be a poor campaigner, and thus would be much better suited for an appointed post like Secy. of Economic Affairs or something.
Harshbarger, if I recall correctly, did reasonably well with the suburban voters. If he had done as well in the cities as O’Brien did, I believe he would have won in 1998. I don’t have the data on hand to back that assertion up, but I’m pretty sure that’s the case.
<
p>
The story goes that Harshbarger pissed off the wrong people in the party by trying to do things like ‘rout out corruption’ and the city machines did not turn out for him (or turned out for Cellucci).
The story goes, as I heard it, that Finneran directly tried to torpedo Harshbarger so he could (continue to) run Beacon Hill, and that’s why a lot of the party apparatus didn’t turn out for him.
Also, however, Menino chose not to rally the troops for Harshbarger, for whatever reason, as I recall.
You’re right that the voters we need to reach out to- the surburanites living in and around the 495 belt- reject the usual Democratic party hacks. Total agreement there. It’s fairly obvious they don’t want the Democratic Legislature running roughshed tax and spending wise so they’re putting in GOP governors to counter that.
<
p>
But what makes you think Reilly is just some political hack that would be rejected on those same grounds? If the qualification is to be holding office, then so be it. But otherwise, Reilly is a law and order guy who previous to being AG was a well-liked and well-respected District Attorney in the state’s highest voting county. People know who he is and I don’t think they see him in the same light as they do the Legislature.
<
p>
For Reilly to win, he needs to balance the fact he’ll be an independent voice from the Legislature while maintaining a clearly Democratic platform. It’s a tough balancing act and politically he may not have the skills to do it. But I can’t agree that he is automatically tied into the perceived hacks and that makes it imperative to support Patrick.
<
p>
One last thought. Shannon O’Brien allowed herself to be tied into the Gang of 3. She had every Democrat in the state and country out there for her at one point or another because the whole theme was party unity would bring victory. That allowed Romney to walk in here as the independent savior who would protect the state from those crazy liberal Democrats. That is not in play this time since Healy is part of the establishment and does not have the credibility Romney had coming off the Olympics. Additionally, this primary is going to clearly show Reilly as the more moderate when compared to Patrick. Now, I like Patrick very much on many issues, but that is what will happen in the primary. That will help Reilly frame himself perfectly going against Healy as the center-left candidate.
Actually, I’d wager a very solid majority of Massachusetts voters have no clue who Reilly is, and even if you just look at the ones who are actually going to vote in the general election, very few of them have much of an impression of him (and I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them couldn’t even tell you who he is). The initial impression, when they do hear about him, will be “another incumbent Democratic Attorney General = another party hack”. Whether it’s true or not is not what will make the difference. It’s how good a job Reilly can do in turning the message around, that will make the difference. That is, assuming he wins the primary.
He’s been elected statewide twice and previously was the DA from the very large Middlesex county, so I do think he has faily solid name recognition amongst those likely to vote in November. He’s also been a fairly active AG too so his mug has been in the papers and on the news for some time. To be fair, I went searching for some name recognition polls and couldn’t find them, but I stand by my previous statement. In terms of their perception of him, I really don’t think people tie him in with DiMasi, Traviligni, etc. His position as the AG and a law and order guy gives him distance from them. Now, the key for him is to make sure it stays that way if he wants to win the general, in my opinion.
… that the “outsider” model for the Republicans have worked better that the “politican” model the Dems have practiced. The two exceptions were the Siber/Weld race where they where both outsiders and the Celluci/Harshbarger race where is it was framed in your typical conserative / liberal meme, but was not the reality of the situation.
<
p>
My short-hand take on the last 4 gubnatorial races:
<
p>
Movie star looks/Olympic saving Mitt vs Shannon, who was a great candidate who did not save the Olympics and did not have a big check book.
<
p>
As pointed out in other postings–the Dems killed themselves in teh Celluci/Harshbarger race. Harshbarger spent 3 weeks of a 6 week camiagn begginf other Dems (Menino and Finneran) to support him. Sad.
<
p>
Except for the name, what chance did Mark Roosevelt have against Weld?
<
p>
As for the Weld/Silber contest. The liberals voted for the most liberal candidate. Anyone old enough to vote then will to fess up and confess to who they voted for in 1990?
the $500 per person maximum campaign contribution will keep the average person from running for Governor. You can debate who can be the best candidate until the cows come home, but the do gooders who set the $500 bar cut their own throats. It will take $10,000,000 this year by the time this governors race is over . Unless someone starts raising money today for the 2010 election the average person won’t have a chance. Unfortunately, its all about the money in this so called liberal state of ours.
one of these days I’m going to publish a dictionary of words that should be dropped from the progressive lexicon … but for now I’m going to take aim at one word in particular “hack” … what does it mean? A hack could be an insider or a hack could be an outsider. A hack could be a pro or a hack could be an amateur. A hack could be a carpetbagger (see: Bill Weld in NY) or a hack could be someone who has spent their whole life in a state.
<
p>
There’s a million reasons to drop the word hack from our lexicon, but heres the one that resonates with me … if we use the connotation of “hack” (someone who has run for office before, been elected, and is seeking higher office) then ANYONE who has entered public service to improve the lot of others, ANYONE who has dedicated their life to the common good, ANYONE who has put themselves in the public arena, sacrificed (much of) their personal life … is a HACK.
<
p>
How then, do we get good people to run for office? If Deval Patrick wins the nomination and wins the corner office, is he then, by default, a HACK? Are his supporters then, HACKS?
<
p>
I’m not saying we all have to get along. There is wide spectrum of views within the Democratic party, especially within Massachusetts, and those differences should be respected and debated in the public arena. And while there are clearly strengths to having a background in the private sector or outside of the “establishment” (another bogus word), we all should be careful what paths our word choice leads us down. Denigrating public service, and assuming the worst of those who have put themselves up for elected office, should not and cannot be a plank for any progressive majority.
Whomever we nominate, let them have the ability to stand before a crowd of people and electrify them. Not a crowd of politicos and hacks, such as we are, but a crowd of any sort of people you might find in any square of our cities.
<
p>
Deval Patrick is one of these. I would listen to him read the phone book!
<
p>
For us, it is enough to listen critically to content, but for most people, listening for content is what they do after they’ve fallen in love with the candidate. Let us revive the long-neglected art of homeletics, and ban the DLC dictated cardboard standup.
<
p>
If we field one more dry white box, I will cry. There is no reason white men can’t have juice. Jack Kennedy had juice — I think a lot of the Kennedy politicians (of whatever generation) do. Howard Dean (in his way) has juice.
<
p>
But if we can put people in front of America that have the sort of juice (and the content!) that Barak Obama and Deval Patrick have, we will start winning elections.
<
p>
We need passion. We need the conviction of our principles, and we need that to ring out!
Why limit ourselves… there are candidates outside the current field who fit the bill. We need
<
p>
progressive
passionate
real experience
committed
<
p>
and as tobey on the west wing is described, someone with a ‘watchable quality’
<
p>
ive been watching the news all week and i think i know who we need: da martha coakley. Shes articulate, tough, and she’s presumably got a full campaign for attorney general up and running…. and no one could ever accuse her of being truly ‘outsider’.
<
p>
What do you think about drafting ms. coakley?