Sure, it’s early. Sure, a lot of voters aren’t really paying attention to the race yet, and sure, Tom Reilly has lots of time to recover, blah blah blah.
But at the end of the day, this race isn’t about who runs the slickest campaign, or who did or didn’t pay his or her taxes on time, or even who has the longest and most honorable career in public service. It’s about who can command enough of the respect of the people of Massachusetts, and can work effectively enough with the state legislature, the congressional delegation, and a host of other factions and special interest groups, to make the people of this state better off. And guess what the set of skills to accomplish those goals is usually known as?
That’s right – political skills. And so when Tom Reilly tells us that “this is a whole different level of politics, and it’s never been my strong suit,” the people who think he’d be a great Governor should start to worry. No one is questioning whether Tom Reilly has had an honorable career in public service – of course he has, or whether his beliefs about making the lives of “ordinary people” better are heartfelt – of course they are. But if Tom Reilly himself is telling us (and, alas, showing us) that he has poor political skills and political instincts, there is a serious question as to whether, should he win, he’ll be able to do much.
Brian McGrory hits the nail on the head:
his problem is the governorship is an inherently political job. The governor has to practice politics with the Legislature, with mayors, with Washington, with special interests. Politics is about brokering and compromising, parrying and thrusting an agenda to its fullest extent.
Public service isn’t always played out in the kind of courtrooms where Reilly has spent his career. It happens at a podium or behind a closed door or in a particularly charming phone call to a partisan foe. It’s knowing when to give and how to take.
If Reilly is confessing ineptitude or distaste for this, then it’s time to start focusing on the other people in the race.
I’d rewrite the second paragraph of that quote. Politics is never played out in courtrooms – certainly not in the criminal courtrooms in which Reilly has spent the vast majority of his career. Litigation – which is most of what a District Attorney and an Attorney General do – is essentially reactive: something bad happens, and you figure out how to deal with it, either through negotiation or a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution. Governing, to accomplish anything worthwhile, has got to be proactive – you have to make things happen, not wait for them to happen to you. Is there really anything in Tom Reilly’s background to suggest that he can be that kind of Governor? So far, not so much.
“It happens at a podium or behind a closed door or in a particularly charming phone call to a partisan foe. It’s knowing when to give and how to take.”
<
p>
I think this point also underscores Deval Patrick’s great strengths. Deval is an outstanding public speaker, and is certainly charming.
<
p>
More importantly, however, I think is Deval’s own background as a lawyer. As we’ve seen from his role vis-a-vis the board at Ameriquest — and I think also from his stint at the Department of Justice — Deval seems to be exactly the kind of give-and-take consensus-builder that is required to be Governor. (I don’t know enough about what exactly he was doing at Texaco and Coca-Cola to speak to that. If anyone else can help out here, that would be great.)
<
p>
As David says, “you need to make things happen, not wait for them to happen to you.” This is exactly what Deval is showing me as a candidate — he’s both proactive and attentive — and this is what I think he means when he says that he’ll be “no ordinary leader.”
<
p>
I’m not trying to trash Tom Reilly at all; I’m trying to be realistic about both the campaign and the job of governing the Commonwealth, and trying to decide who is truly better-suited to the task. Again, I think the record speaks for itself.
…and everyone assumed that, as the highest elected Dem in the state, that as someone who had 4 major election victories under his belt, Tom Reilly had political skills. But as I wrote elsewhere, except for Lois Pines in the ’98 Primary, what tough race has he had? Even that race was not a real classic battle. He had a relatively easy first race for DA, an easy reelection for DA. The Pines primary and then an easy ’02 AG reelection.
<
p>
Many people assumed, based on a suface review of his background, that he had the political chops to run for Governor. Fortunately Tom Reilly set the record straight on that yesterday. Thanks Tom.
Although I don’t disagree with you, I find it a sad commentary on society.
<
p>
I’m amazed that people will vote for the person with the firmer handshake, the better smile, the better ability to remember your name, even the person who most closely resembles the voter (something that I think gives Patrick a handicap), even though that candidate’s philosophies are completely at odds with the voter in question.
<
p>
Tom Reilly, Mitt Romney, Christy Mihos, and Deval Patrick have four very distinct philosophies. That’s what voters should be deciding this race on. Too bad it isn’t going to play out that way.
Issues are certainly critical. Speaking personally, I was in the DP camp based on issues long before I met him in person.
<
p>
However “political skill” is a key job requirement. In my mind, if you “don’t got it” you aren’t qualified for the position. (Imperfect example being: Dennis Kucinich in the ’04 Presidential race.)
They are certainly better than Reilly’s. But I’ve been worried about Patrickâs flirtation with taxes “no unnecessary new taxes” is on public quote and I’ve heard him say worse at a house party early on (I won’t repeat it because Rep State Committee trolls around here.)
<
p>
His health care platform is a perfect example of bad politics. (Remember we’re only talking political skills and strategy here.) He comes out with a specific plan that contains two tax increases–the tobacco tax and the employer tax. (Now, if there is anyone out who wants to disputes that a candidate calling for tax increases is not bad politics…I won’t even bother to respond…we live in two different worlds and will never understand each other.)
<
p>
And really why bother coming out with a specific health plan proposal anyway, especially with the tax proposals–when there is a huge chance that Willard and the Legislature will pass something this spring. Whatever is passed (as flawed as it maybe) will be touted as a great plan and no one will see the flaws until it is implemented after the election. So Patrick will never get to run on his health care plan–because everyone will say it’s taken care of and the only thing Patrick will have to show for his plan are negative ads saying he’s in favor of raising your taxes.
<
p>
So his health care plan maybe good policy, but it’s bad politics in the long run.
<
p>
So Patrick has got a long way to go to so me he has political skills. I maintain the next Governor will be the candidate who sucks the least. By that measure, I think Gov. Patrick will be sworn in next January. We’ll have Healy’s ineptitude and Mihos’ third party bomb throwing campaign to thank for that.
Frank, what do you think about the idea that tax increases can be portrayed as tax shifts or money-saving proposals? After all, that is what Patrick’s proposals really are: his idea for a local restaurant tax, for instance, is supported by many municipal leaders precisely because it allows them to lower property taxes. His ideas for taxes on employers and tobacco are about reducing the cost of health care for all of us, because we all pay when companies don’t insure their workers and they have to use the free care pool. Of course, there will be attacks on Patrick as a “tax and spend Democrat”. For that matter, even if Reilly gets the nomination, Healey will slam him as a “tax and spend Democrat” even though he supports lowering the income tax rate. Patrick’s reply should be simple: “the regressive policies of GOP governors have been the ones that have led to higher property taxes, higher health care bills, and higher energy costs. The Patrick plans for health care, local aid, and taxes will end up saving money for most Massachusetts citizens.”
<
p>
Also, it may be bad politics to call for tax increases (though certainly good policy in some cases), but as we saw in 2002, it’s equally bad politics to be perceived as standing for nothing (see O’Brien, Shannon). Patrick so far has been willing to take unpopular positions — a trait he can and should use to show that he’s “not your usual political hack” in the general election.
that the voters won’t buy into (after the negative ads do their damage).
<
p>
Everytime you try and explain something, you lose. (If you have to explain a joke, it’s never funny.)
<
p>
Explaining that a tax increase is actually a tax shift or a longterm money saver is Orwellian and will be riduculed in debate with a devasting one line retort. (I’d hate to hear Howie Carr react to that thesis.)
<
p>
It best to leave the explaining things to voters after you get elected. I mean, did Bush run on warrantless wire taps? No, he said he’s protect us. So a candidate develops a narrative (I will protect you) with out any of the specifics (I will protect you by stomping on your privacy.) O’Brien never had a narrative that was effective against Mitt. Deval is charismatic enough to have a great narrative and should stay away from the details. If Healy is properly handled, she will be doing the same.
I certainly see your point. I think, however, that the Healey campaign will cherry-pick whatever they can to use against him (or Reilly, if that’s what it comes down to in November). Where the political skills come into play, in my opinion, is whether DP can successfully make his case for those policy stances despite the cherry-picking.
<
p>
In my personal experience I have found Deval to be passionate and forthright about his position on the issues. My impression is that he does connect well with voters, but clearly this is entirely subjective and we’re dealing with a limited sample size.
<
p>
Whether this plays with the average voter — or reduces to a 30-second TV sound-bite — remains to be seen, I guess.
Yes, the Rs will slash and burn whoever the Dem is with “tax and spend” and the meme “we can’t let the Dems control all branches of state government”. But wyy hand them the gasoline?
<
p>
I mean Bush’s opposition research team stopped looking at Kerry’s background the second Kerry said, “I actually voted for it, before I voted against it”. What more devasting things could the Bush people have found, than what Kerry handed them on a platter.
<
p>
Let;s make their job harder, instead of easier.
I agree that one generally doesn’t want to go around shooting oneself in the foot. Hence my post on the ramifications of Reilly’s mea culpa the other day.
<
p>
However, do you really think that obfuscation will trump honesty in the eyes of Joe/Jane Voter? I’d like to believe that even the most causal voters in Massachusetts are sophisticated enough to take political advertising with a hefty grain of salt and look beyond the sound bites. (The really casual ones won’t vote anyways, I’d hazard a guess.)
<
p>
So far I think that DP has demonstrated far more political adroitness than Kerry ever did in the ’04 campaign. Again, maybe I missed some obvious faux pas, but I’ve heard nothing that the R’s can throw at DP that he won’t be able to parry.
<
p>
Even the other day we’ve had the Republican spin machine blasting all Democratic candidates as “deadbeats” becuase of past tax issues (Morning Edition interview on ‘BUR). I don’t know if this will resurface if DP’s the Democratic nominee, but I think he’s successfully de-fused the issue for the time being. It certainly could have been worse if he’d simply ignored it until somone “outed” him in August or October. On the whole, I’d say that was handled skillfully.
<
p>
(And, again, there’s Mrs. Healey’s own little tax issues, if one wants to get into mudslining.)
…your comment about “do you really think that obfuscation will trump honesty in the eyes of Joe/Jane Voter?”
<
p>
My response to remind you of the headline in one of the British tabliods the day after the November ’04 election that read something like…
<
p>
HOW CAN 60,000,000 PEOPLE BE SO STUPID!
<
p>
Which brings to mind the famous Adelia (sp) Stevenson story about a voter who came up to him and said something like, “Governor, every senisible minded American will be voting for you”. And Stevenson retorted back something like, “I hope its more than that, we need to win this election”
<
p>
Which reminds me of dinner I had last weekend with good friends…he is a Harvard grad, very successfull business owner and she is a stay at home mom who volunteers and is very involved with things (community and kids). They live in a very affluent suburb. While they will reliably vote liberal and Democrat, their civic IQ is about 75. They knew of Mitt and vaguely knew Healy’s name and Reilly’s name. Forget about Deval and I didn’t even bother about the LG race.
<
p>
They certainly know international and national issues, but I doubt they know who their congressman is. Fortunately they are self identified liberals and will reasonably find the right candidate in a general election. My point is what about the same types of smart, active and engage folks that self ID as indendents (50% of the state)…they could get duped by misinformation in a statewide campaign…where they focus on the race in the last week, maybe watch one debate and make up their mind or spend ten minutes researching on the internet or see an ad that really gets their attention.
<
p>
THOSE WHO READ AND POST ON THIS BLOG WILL NOT ELECT THE NEXT GOVERNOR. It will be those independents that make judgements in the last week, based more on impressions than the facts of an issue who will decide the next Governor.
As for the 60,000,000 voters… for one thing I don’t think we have to worry about voter fraud here. 😉
<
p>
(At least I hope not. If we do, then this whole discussion is moot anyways, I guess.)
<
p>
We also seem to be lacking the “causus belli” that brought out the Rabid Right against Kerry in the swing states like Ohio and Florida. Even Republicans in Massachusetts tend to be more moderate than their counterparts elsewhere, I think. I think independents will be open to whomever has the better ideas.
<
p>
My guess — and it is a guess — is that those who even bother to vote will make a point of becoming informed about the candidates by election day. Like your friends and many people I’ve talked to myself, they may not be focusing on the race now, but they’ll do their due diligence when the time comes.
<
p>
Now, I’ll admit that there are probably some voters who will basically “wing it” based on the bits and pieces they pick up from the headlines and sound bites, etc. Do you think that this “impressionable” group represents a significant slice of the electorate? Again, I’d like to think not, but I also haven’t see anything concrete to suggest that it is.
<
p>
Those who do do their homework, however, should be able to separate out the wheat from the chaff of what gets spun out of the PR machines, and aren’t very likely to be “duped.” Which side they come down on in the end is, of course, another matter entirely.
<
p>
But in the end, as you say, you and I and everyone else here on BMG won’t be the ones to tip the scales. I guess I’m just inclined to give the average Massachusetts voter a bit more credit than you seem to be.
<
p>
Regardless, I think we’ll both agree that Deval has a lot of work to do “politicking” in the months aheads.
<
p>
Good discussion, but I guess we’ve about played it out.
<
p>
Cheers!
<
p>
– T.
I understand what you’re saying; tax increases are typically radioactive politically. But… I don’t think that people are ignorant of the fact that health care costs more and more every year — that that’s money that’s coming out of their pockets, either directly or indirectly. Maybe I’m wrong.
<
p>
The question is political, though; if he’s going to come out on top in this one, Patrick (or any real reform candidate) is going to have to go on the offensive: “So, you’d just keep things as they are, as more people lose their insurance and pay more and more out of pocket for less and worse care?” Rather than defend the plan, attack others for lacking one.
<
p>
I will say that I’m quite disappointed by the inexperience and lack of fluency by many candidates in the area of health care. Yeah, it’s complicated, but it’s simply inadequate to claim “non-expertise” and resort to generalities. Good on Patrick for addressing a really tough issue in a way that doesn’t insult our intelligence.
I certainly agree with you that it’s too bad that simple charisma plays such a role in our TV-centric political culture. But my point is a bit different – it’s not just about getting elected, it’s about what you can expect to accomplish once you win. Political skills are absolutely essential to governing as well as to winning elections. That’s why Reilly’s chalking this whole thing up to his lack of political skills is so troubling.
That is an excellent point — but I think I’d rather have someone who isn’t able to accomplish much working towards my goals than someone who is very skilled and productive working against my goals.
I wouldn’t recommend voting for a candidate who advocates for policies you dislike simply because that candidate is most likely to succeed in implementing them!
<
p>
Mike Dukakis famously said, in running against Bush I, that the election was not about ideology, it was about competence. He was wrong, of course – it was about both, as all elections are. But given a couple of candidates whose ideologies generally match yours, seems to me most would choose the one most likely to implement it.
… Electability.
<
p>
I think this is distinct from both ideology and competence, for better or worse.
<
p>
Thinking back to the ’04 Democratic primary, I would have supported Dennis Kucinich on purely ideological grounds. For me, however, that he failed the tests for competency (I’m sure he’s a fine congressman for the folks from Ohio, but I couldn’t see him in the Oval Office) and electability (there’s no question he would have been annhilated by Bush in the general election).
<
p>
So, for the primary I duely lined up behind Howard Dean — who in my eyes represented an acceptable compromise of ideology, competence, and electability. (Of course in the general election, I lined up behind Kerry.)
<
p>
Again, it’s a matter of making compromises along the way. Sometimes you have to shave a little off of one leg of the stool to get the whole thing to stay upright.