In an editorial published this morning, the Boston Phoenix editorial staff has called for Tom Reilly to pull out of the Governor’s race. Their reasons: pretty much what you’d expect – the Conte call, the St. Fleuriasco, his disastrous showing at the caucuses, and what the Phoenix sees as his tendency to try to “turn easy headlines into political hay.”
It’ll never happen, of course. One of the signature characteristics of a successful career prosecutor – and Reilly is surely that, whatever else he may or may not be – is a nearly unshakeable belief in the righteousness of his cause. Reilly, despite his insider connections and backing from the party establishment, sees himself as Everyman struggling against the powerful, and sees his political gaffes not as reflections of his unsuitability for the Governor’s office, but as further evidence that he really does represent the little guy and not “politics as usual.” That a lefty alternative weekly has now called on him to step aside will only strengthen his resolve to stay in and show them that the brie-nibbling chardonnay-swilling Birkenstock-wearing socialists who populate the Phoenix editorial board are out of touch with the real people of Massachusetts. (In case you’re wondering, yes, I’m being a tad facetious.)
In other Phoenix-related news, Adam Reilly has penned a long article on Deval Patrick’s business background, focusing on his stints at Coke and Texaco and on his Ameriquest board membership. No new revelations here – everything in the article has been public knowledge for a long time. Reilly thinks that Patrick should “speak bluntly about the excesses of Big Business” – he is unsatisfied, for example, with Patrick’s noncommittal answers to questions about runaway executive compensation and about the profitability of big oil companies.
But I wonder whether any of this is really that big a deal. Obviously, executive pay and oil company profits are issues over which the Governor of Massachusetts has exactly zero control. Personally, I’m much more interested in hearing about how candidates for Governor would work with businesses, big and small, to ensure the availability of good jobs for the people of this state. So far, it seems to me that Patrick understands that we really do need business on our side (Patrick in the Phoenix article: “Democrats have got to get comfortable again talking about the importance of the private economy. Because that’s where most people make their way.”). Patrick also understands that issues like the Ameriquest settlement are complicated, despite Tom Reilly’s simplistic effort to paint Ameriquest as a “bad company” (Patrick again: “they loan to people the downtown banks won’t go near. There are a lot of people, here in Massachusetts and elsewhere, who can only get their start by working with Ameriquest or one of their competitors…. So you want those practices to be first-class.”).
Modern problems are complicated. I want a Governor who understands that, and who is able to bring all the players in on working to find solutions. So far, Patrick’s business background strikes me as a big plus in that department, and I have my doubts as to whether Tom Reilly gets it. I don’t really care whether Patrick is offended by some CEO getting a big salary, since even if he wins this race he will have no control over that. I do care that Patrick appears to have been a force for positive change within Coke, Texaco, and Ameriquest, which says to me that Patrick is adept at working within the system to improve it. Strikes me as a useful skill for a Governor to have.
I thought Adam Reilly did a good job with his piece today. If I have any issue it’s with the timeline at the end of the article regarding Deval’s consulting work at Coke. It’s my understanding that Deval didn’t return to do that consulting work until after the CEO had been fired, and the new CEO had hired an independent investigator who cleared Coke of wrongdoing.
<
p>
As for the rest, I think Adam is certainly fair in wanting Deval to go after Big Oil and corporate big wigs. But I also hope Deval doesn’t take that bait. As much as I, as a liberal, like the idea in theory of having a governor who was willing to take big business down a few notches, that’s just not what a candidate for governor in any state can really afford to do. A governor needs to be able to work with big business, needs to be able to attract business, needs to be able to persuade businesses that he’s a governor who is willing to work closely with them for the betterment of the state’s economy. Lashing out at those businesses might seem like a nice moment. But it’s political suicide, not just for someone who’s running for governor, but also for someone who actually IS the governor.
<
p>
This state is already bleeding jobs. What exactly do we think the result will be of attacking big business?
<
p>
Does this mean that progressives are “settling” on Deval Patrick? I don’t think so. Political reality would seem to suggest that this is the best political candidate for any major political office we’ve seen in these parts in our lifetimes. If the ideal is Ralph Nader, then that’s only because we all know he’ll never be elected dog catcher. If the ideal is Paul Wellstone, I think Deval Patrick far exceeds Paul Wellstone as a candidate.
all the way until we got to Ralph “I’m the man who brought you the Bush administration” Nader being the ideal.
<
p>
In the perfect world, I’d love a Democratic party filled with Wellstone’s, and lets not compare Patrick to him til he wins, and does something. Its a long time between now and November. Patrick has been impressive in the last few months, but an impressive winter means nothing if it doesn’t translate into a win come this fall.
He’s starting to do that, but he needs to put it out front much more. (When I first saw him speak in January ’05 he almost apologized for it, but by last August, he finaly had it down as a bullet point.)
<
p>
I’ve always been concerned that Patrick is talking to the (liberal) base and that gets him in trouble. When he is finally introduced to the the masses (via TV ads) I hope he trumps his business experience. The Burb Voter between 128 and 495–which is where we’ve been losing the Governorship the last 4 times–needs to see Deval as the “up-from-the-boot-straps businessman/public servant”. And I mean businessman first, public servant second.
<
p>
Every candidate/party has to neutralize their waeknesses. That’s why Bush was the “compassionate” conserative and why Healey talked about helping the needy in our society during her announcement speech. Deval and the Dems have got to announce to the world how much business savy they have. This will give the independents confidence that they can vote for a “pro-business” Democrat. Because if they can’t vote for a pro-business Democrat, they’ll vote for that caring and compassionate Healey instead.
Back when Mitt lost interest in his gubernatorial duties, the Phoenix told him to resign, too. I love the impetuosity — kind of cute, really.
If anyone is still wondering why Democratic candidates have lost the corner office in the last 5 elections (well, 4, since Silber self-destructed), just read the other thread regarding Deval and Ameriquest. There continues to be a considerable segment of the ground troops — labor, self-identified liberals, sometimes the young — who would rather be anti-business than pro winning. The Phoenix article starts from the premise that Deval will be in trouble if he can’t turn on current business practices and loudly denounce the easy targets. I am happy to see several in this thread realize how foolish that would be. Doing so would gain little — the same purists would move on to find some other imperfection to give them an excuse to sit this race out again — and lose much — the vast majority of suburban voters who work in corporate America (and who actually go out and vote)would feel attacked themselves.
<
p>
Deval is a poster child for what socially responsible business could be. Several times in his career he gave up safe big bucks opportunities — right out of law school, moving from a profitable Boston firm to the Justice Department, and again leaving corporate America at the level of Coke to run for Governor — all because he is fundamentally dedicated to public service.
<
p>
When in the corporate world, he has always been a force for making a company do better. Most of us who live in the business world know how hard that is. He consistently steps into corporate problems and tries to solve them. That is why his record touches things activists don’t like — and it would have been easy to steer clear of them. If that is not obvious to most folks on the left in Massachusetts, then they better forget about ever finding any candidate who meet their litmust test.
<
p>
Deval’s problem is not his failure to denounce Coke, or executive pay. Rather, it is his slowness so far to make himself the real business candidate in this race. That is what will eventaully be his biggest appeal, a do-gooder who knows how to get something done in the business world.
<
p>
Just imagine if the people who voted for Romney (thinking that he was a business man who could do something good for the state, and could call CEOs and get companies to look at Mass., and who know how to bring the best practices of the private sector to the running of the state), actually had someone to vote for who would follow through!
I think that’s exactly right. I appreciate that Patrick finds himself in a curious bind – he really is the business candidate, and he is himself a creature of the biggest of big business in some ways, yet he’s considered (perhaps somewhat against his will) as the “liberal insurgent” candidate, and he obviously doesn’t want to irk the people who have by and large gotten him as far as he has gotten. So he has a delicate balancing act to work out, and he’s still working it out. No problem there – he’s got time. But I agree with you and FrankSkeff that at some point he needs to start trumpeting his business experience loudly and proudly, and I suspect that he will do that. And when he does, independents and Republicans will vote for him too.
…to paraphrase Jerry Maguire, “Deval had the liberal/progressive vote at ‘hello'”. He and his people may think it’s a delicate balance to be the liberal insurgent vs. the “business candidate”, but it’s not.
<
p>
I’m not suggesting he change positions and hide his progressive streak…but he can start talking and walking the business talk and walk without losing his supporters. Where are they going to go? Tom Reilly? Deval has the liberal base all to himself, time to expand and given that he has no other candidate on his liberal flank, there is very little risk that he’ll lose them.
<
p>
This frankly has been my problem with Deval all along. He started with the liberal base and just seemed to stay there. It is fair to argue that he needed to consolidate the base and move on. Fine. He has certainly done that. Time to start evolving RHETORICALLY into a more “mainstream” candidate that will have impendent appeal. As an added benefit, it will stop this âDraft Chrisâ movement in itâs tracks.
<
p>
I’m sure some people will jump all over me by implying that I’m advocating Deval change positions. I’m not. What I’m saying is that he needs to be talking about his views on economic growth and job growth instead of focusing on the more liberal bread and butter issues as health care or universal Kindergarten. And I’m sure that line won’t be too popular either.
someone who has case their (primary) stone, with the AG, let me throw my two cents in, since post september, we’re all in this together to beat back Barbie and Ken.
<
p>
I think, should Deval be elected, which would be a pretty historic win for a lot of reasons, he has a great opportunity to break down the “business vs. progress” argument we keep running into. I’ve heard him say he’s a pro-growth progressive, stealing a turn of phrase from another Clinton-ite, Gene Sperling (whose book, “The Pro-Growth Progressive” should be a must read for all progressive thinkers), and I think, especially if he were to win the primary, he shouldn’t open his mouth without saying, “well, as I’ve said, I’m a pro-growth progressive” and then say something along the lines of, “but we can grow smarter, more equitably, and in a more efficient manner” (two words for the suburbanites, one big one for progressives).
<
p>
Then again, who I am I, but a humble supporter of the AG.
…that you have the confidence that you are right (at least in your Patrick advice).
No one should be jumping on you for your position it is seeminlgy flawless. I have heard him speak of his vision of economic growth using our intellectual capital (education, training, agricluture, marine science, would that include fishing!!!!!!) I think he should take a lesson from the GOP and just reframe his message to expand his base.
“labor, self-identified liberals, sometimes the young — who would rather be anti-business than pro winning”
<
p>
Here that noise? It’s Karl hitting the nail on the head.
Esp by Rovington. We need candidates who are pro-business and progressive. I think Deval needs to say ‘if progressives never go to work for big business, then all you end up with is businesses becoming more and more entrenched with the right wing.’
<
p>
I think the fact that Texaco, Coke, and Ameriquest chose to hire Deval to help solve their problems is a good thing. And Deval should trumpet those accomplishments by saying what he did at those places that was good, and how those companies were better than when he got there. And great point also that if Deval did come out and attack business as Adam Reilly suggested, the fringe who want to not like Deval will find other reasons to attack him.
<
p>
I do think it’s way too early for Skeffington to start talking about Patrick expanding his base. There has yet to be a tv or radio ad, there has yet to be a debate, and his public appearances aren’t in front of audiences of thousands yet. The campaign has focussed justifiably on fundraising (where he’s outraised his competition over the last number of months), on issues (he actually stands for things. Imagine that!), and on the grassroots (I still think these estimates of a 2-to-1 caucus victory for Deval are selling him WAY short). I am certainly looking forward to seeing the ads start, and I’m sure that’s when he’ll go far beyond the base. But there has been no reason to do that yet. I’d be very surprised to see them do that before the convention, unless Reilly (or Gabrielli) begin to unleash a torent of attack ads.
Deval’s current–positive–position has as much (if not more) to do with Reilly’s implosion than any great strategy on the part of the Patrick camp. I’m not arguing that the Patrick camp change the mechanics of their campaign–the fund raising, the grassroots field development, issue development–but that they expand the messaging of the campaign that resonates with a broader voter base.
<
p>
If Patrick is the nominee he’ll have to withstand an onslaught of negative ads based on comments and ideas that he has put forth in the last year. While solid policy plans, advocating for 3 tax increases–an increase in the tobacco tax and the employer tax in his health care plan, and allowing cities and towns to impose new taxes to generate revenues–will be distorted by the Republicans, with, I fear, devastating results.
<
p>
As I suggested in one of the above posts, Deval had the liberal base to start with and he’s able to fire them up with issueless but passionate rhetoric. There was no political need to develop these controversial proposals in order to secure the baseâwho else would they have gone with?
<
p>
Healey and Reilly (as if he matters) are calling for an income tax cut and an increase in local aid. We all know it can’t be done, but they’ll get away with it during debates and TV ads with rhetorical slight of hands. Patrick’s approach is certainly more honest and valid, but will be skewered in the sound bite wars and he’ll be slapped with the “Liberal Tax and Spender” bumper sticker. Not fair, but that’s how it usually works. Our only hope is that Healey stumbles and shows her brittle, mean-spirited side. Or that Mihos runs as an independent and draws away Healey votes.
<
p>
In closing, I think this Gabrielli “draft” is a reaction by some Democrats that Reilly is done and that Patrick will get mowed down in the General.
<
p>
If Patrick’s positions were more centralist from the start, he’d still get the liberal base (again, where else would they go to) and I doubt you’d see any interest in Gabrielli right now.
<
p>
Of course, had Reilly executed a near mistake free campaign, we probably won’t be having this discussion.
“Issueless but passionate rhetoric” — gosh, Frank, I gotta take issue with that characterization. Maybe his convention speech last year fits that, but otherwise, Patrick has been very substantive. I hear what you’re saying about the tax proposals: It’s definitely a big risk. However, I really doubt that he made these proposals without realizing that he would be attacked in 30-second ads. I mean, could anyone really be that naive? So, maybe he has his own ads ready, too.
<
p>
“Our only hope is that Healey stumbles and shows her brittle, mean-spirited side. Or that Mihos runs as an independent and draws away Healey votes.”
<
p>
Gosh, you think any of that’ll happen? 😉
<
p>
As far as Reilly’s contra-factual “mistake-free campaign”, his mistakes so far have been those of planning, and absence thereof. They haven’t been failures of “execution”, i.e. verbal gaffes or pratfalls. And in any event, even had he done better in the caucuses; even had he never made the phone call to Conte; even had he never chosen a running mate at all; I still think we’d be looking at a close race. Most of Reilly’s big lead was based on name recognition anyway, and Patrick’s was bound to come up eventually, as would any credible candidate’s.
Don’t you mean “blatantly phony and fundamentally dishonest,” FrankS?
<
p>
What’s “centralist” about saying you will cut taxes and increase local aid? That’s not moderate or mainstream — it’s a lie. And a not very credible one either.
<
p>
If being a Democrat is to mean anything, if we are to stand for something, then expanding health care access and improving public education (which is the biggest reason for giving cities and towns the ability to option to raise more revenue) are pretty good, mainstream places to start.
<
p>
Of course, if winning elections is really more about having “our” hacks in office to give more jobs and contracts to “our people,” then FrankS’ counsel may be very sound.
<
p>
Or maybe it’s that by now voters really are so cynical about what government can do that we have to trick them into electing someone progressive, then do in office what we said we wouldn’t do during the campaign, and hope they either like it or can be distracted and tricked enough the next time to vote us in again.
I talked about Healey and Reilly’s dishonest tax cut positions in the 4th paragraph and I advocated that Patrick should have taken a more “centralist” platform in the 6th paragraph and yet in your 2nd paragraph you weave the two completely different thoughts as if I’m advocating Patrick be in favor of a dishonest tax cut and increased local aid. Not true, I never advocated Patrick take such a position.
<
p>
I understand that some people will interpret my suggestion that Patrick take a more “centralist” approach as to mean he should “sell out”, “comprise his ideals”, “join the DLC”. That is not my intent.
<
p>
Rather I suggest he emphasis different aspects of issues that he wants to be the center of his campaign. Take education. He talks about universal, all day kindergarten and lengthing the school day. Well, before we can do that we certainly have got to stop the bleeding our school systems are experiencing. So instead of emphasizing something that is two steps away–and many people recognize that we can’t afford these programs without a major infusion of revenue (I’m still waiting for Deval to explain how he is going to pay for these programs)–he should be emphasizing the issues that impact all voters everywhere: bigger classes, teacher layoffs, user fees for kids to ride the bus to school. These are my examples of “centralist” rhetoric that Patrick should be taking. Are these “sell out” issues? No, I think they resonate with a far broader electoral audience that calling for a longer school day. Yes, I think that this is sound counsel and I feel you have distorted and taken out of context my views.
<
p>
With regards to you point in the last paragraph “that we have to trick them into electing someone progressive, then do in office what we said we wouldn’t do during the campaign, and hope they either like it or can be distracted and tricked enough the next time to vote us in again”.
<
p>
Isn’t that what the conservatives have been doing in winning elections for the last 16 years in MA and the last 2 national elections? I mean did Bush run on a platform of torture and warrantless eavesdropping? Did he say the first thing he would do is attempt to privatize Social Security when reelected? NO.
<
p>
If I’m a candidate and I have positions on 1000 issues and I want to persuade you to vote for me. If asked I will tell you my positions on any of the 1000 issues. But I need to focus and repeat my positions on 5 or so issues that resonate strongest with the electorate, if I want to win. If I focus on the most controversial issues–like being in favor of torture (I’m not)–then I lose.
<
p>
I understand this is not a “pure” view that you may not accept. But there is nothing dishonest about it. And in the end I’m rather focus on the issues that I and most voters agree on and win the election, than focus on what I feel are the most vital issues to bring up and lose the election. If that makes me cynical in your book, I can live with that.
We’re going to have smaller class sizes, no teacher layoffs, no school bus charges, AND cut the income tax and either lower or keep all other taxes the same.
<
p>
Thanks for clearing that up, FrankS!!
<
p>
Also, I didn’t realize it wasn’t kosher to expect your statements in paragraph 4 and paragraph 6 to be consistent and coherent. Sorry.
<
p>
If you really are going to counsel candidates to answer all 1000 questions about their positions truthfully and forthrightly, then it won’t matter too much which 5 they emphasize, will it? Or do you suppose no one will think to ask if they might, under some circumstances, favor increasing tobacco taxes or taxes on employers to finance health coverage?
<
p>
(And how should we pay to increase health care coverage? Let me guess: economic growth will make anyone paying more unnecessary. Brilliant!!)
…do I even remotely suggest that cutting the income tax is a good idea? It’s a bad idea, as I’ve written over and over again and in no way have I suggested, implied or inferred that Patrick take that position.
<
p>
And yes, it’s entirely possible…and in this case a reality that something written in the 4th paragraph and something written in the 6th paragraph have NOTHING to do with the other. (To prove this obvious point, what do the words in the first paragraph of this very post have to do with the paragraph you are currently reading?) And when you take words from one thought and tie them to words with another thought…it’s called taking things out of context.
“Thank You so much for your endorsement of my campaign for Governor. Since the election is still 9 months away it makes a lot of sense for this support to evolve at such an early date. It shows your readers how independent and objective your editorial board can be especially so early in the race. Obviously, there is no hidden agenda at the Phoenix and i therefore, truly thank you for the support. “
<
p>
….My Best….Tom Reilly