AP has posted an article provocatively entitled “Patrick calls Romney, Healey, Reilly ‘gang-of-three’ on Cape Wind.”
The issue is the amendment that would effectively kill the Cape Wind project and that Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) is trying to sneak into the conference committee report on a Coast Guard bill. Here’s Deval:
“I think Romney and Healey and Reilly are acting like the new gang-of-three, because they’re going to stand by and let a backdoor maneuver kill a plan that they oppose but that the regulators have approved,” Patrick said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I think what they ought to do is show real public leadership. They should be down in Washington, through our legislative delegation, trying to rally support for defeating this Young amendment.”
Not to be outdone, here’s Tom Reilly’s flack:
Reilly’s spokesman accused Patrick of betraying their party. “From the beginning, this was a backroom deal that gave away Nantucket Sound to a well-connected developer with no regulation and no compensation to the state,” said Reilly spokesman Corey Welford. “Tom Reilly supports renewable energy but believes there must be a process in place that protects our precious natural resources and our coastal communities. Grabbing a cheap line from the Republican playbook is the type of attack politics that turns people off and gets nothing done.”
Patrick is right that killing Cape Wind through an amendment to the conference report is the worst way of doing this. But this aspect of the story is a bit odd:
Patrick pointedly did not include two congressional Democrats — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and U.S. Rep. William Delahunt — in his criticism. Delahunt represents the Cape, while Kennedy has a summer home there. Like Reilly, a fellow Democrat, and Romney and Healey, both Republicans, they oppose the plan, which calls for constructing 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound.
“Sen. Kennedy and I have talked about this,” said Patrick, a former Clinton administration official. “I think that he has a point when he talks about the importance of having a regulatory framework to review offshore projects in federal waters. Where we differ is that he thinks we should have that regulatory framework in place before any projects proceed. I think that we have, in fact, built that regulatory framework over the course of review of this project.”
Kennedy, for his part, had this to say earlier in the week:
“I’ve been informed that it has been put in, and it’s an issue and a question about the sea lanes, and that’s an issue that the Coast Guard makes a judgment decision of,” the senator said. “I have not put it in; I was notified that it’s included, and I think the people on the committee ought to deal with that.”
Well, it seems to me that Patrick ought to be consistent. If he’s going to trash Romney, Healey, and Reilly – none of whom have any direct role in this Coast Guard bill – he at least ought to trash Kennedy and Delahunt. Even if those guys aren’t on the conference committee, they are closer to the process than state-level elected officials. It’s not like Ted Kennedy in particular is without influence in Congress on issues that affect Massachusetts. So to criticize Romney, Healey, and Reilly for “let[ting] a backdoor maneuver kill” Cape Wind, but then to let Kennedy off the hook by saying that he and Patrick just have a difference of opinion, looks the teensiest bit opportunistic.
I was writing something on this… Well, a couple of thoughts:
1. “Grabbing a cheap line from the Republican playbook”: that line itself is almost … Republican. Traitor!
2. Patrick is clearly making this a point of contrast between him and Reilly; he’s even made a wind turbine his version of the Howard Dean fundraising “bat”. To whom at large is he appealing? What’s the polling like for this issue across MA? Among likely primary voter Dems? The general population?
<
p>
Demands further investigation… And in the meantime Reps and Sens need to hear about this if you like Cape Wind.
The so called “gang of three” are opposed to the project, have always been opposed to the project, and have publicly set forth their positions therein on many occassions . So, I don’t understand why they ,as politicians , should care about or comment about the methods in which those in Washington quash the project .
<
p>
I suggest that Patrick desperately needs to get into the news somehow… otherwise the bump he received in the caucuses is going to disappear fast .The quiet period in the race will last for another few months until the convention. Maybe , he needs to stir the pot a bit…. I suppose that by taking complicated circular positions he hopes to increase his name recognition .
<
p>
With respect to the amendment in the conference bill that squashed the farm…….I suggest that the decision itself was a back room deal which Kennedy and Delahunt engineered with friends and cronies from Alaska. Politically speaking it was a good move .It eliminated the heat from the left by removing Teddy and Bill’s fingerprints from the amendment , while at the same time,with the stroke of a pen, cured a potential conflict with their neighbors in the Cape and Islands they don’t particularly look forward to, especially in an election cycle. Brilliant political move on their part whether you like it or not.
In politicalspeak terms someone else did the “heavy lifting”. Thank You and good night!
I’m not sure I can blame him for not picking a fight with Teddy K. about this right now. His adversaries are Reilly and Healey. By going after them he is: a.) on the right side of this controversial issue, in my opinion, and b.) he gains credibility on the left and center left with people concerned about the environment and rising energy costs.
<
p>
But it’s a real tough line to tread. Deval would still clearly like more support from Democratic heavey-weights. I feel the same way about it as I did when Scot Lehigh suggested Deval go after teachers unions. “Yeah, that would be interesting, but he’d be absolutely insane to do that.”
one can agree with both sides on this issue? I know if a politician did it, we’d claim they were trying to have their cake and eat it too, but is it wrong to want a regulatory framework in place? I don’t think so, neither do I think its wrong for Patrick to point out similair positions between his opponents, no matter their party.
<
p>
That being said, I think trying to go after Romney, Healey and the AG on backroom deal in the Capitol is stretch, to say the least.
<
p>
If he really wanted to show his independence, he’d take swing at the whole delegation … like evileddie said though, thats a tough needle to thread as you to try and build support.
One might think that by coming out strongly in favor of a project that Ted K., Delahunt, and Reilly (not to mention Romney and Healey) all oppose, Patrick has already “shown his independence.”
<
p>
In any case, that’s not what Patrick’s recent comments on Cape Wind were about. He was just trying to underline a difference between himself and his leading Democratic opponent, and he used the current news hook of Don Young’s attempt to kill the project as a way to get another bounce of that difference.
<
p>
Why on earth would he take a swing at Dems he’s not running against?