Adrian Walker has an interesting column in today’s Globe about Saturday’s Deval Patrick rally at Faneuil Hall, and about the Patrick campaign generally. The column strikes me as generally a decent assessment of where the Gov’s race stands from the perspective of someone not immersed in it.
But there’s one glaring problem in Walker’s column:
Patrick likes to say he wants to run on the issues, though I for one wish he had offered more specifics about them. It’s easy to say the governor and Legislature haven’t shown much vision on healthcare and education; it’s a lot harder to say what one would do instead, other than “lead.” A lot of the Patrick message remains squishy.
Uh … Adrian? There’s this marvelous thing now called the internet. And on this “internet,” anyone – including candidates for Governor – can post lots of information in a form that is readily accessible to everyone – including newspaper reporters! And in fact, Deval Patrick has done exactly that!
The economy. Education. Energy and environment. Health care. Cities and towns. It’s all there for anyone who wants to read it. To criticize Patrick for not being specific enough on the issues at this point in the race is nothing short of ridiculous.
Walker seems to have based his assessment that Patrick isn’t specific enough on “the issues” on the fact that Patrick didn’t stand up in front of an overflow crowd of enthusiastic supporters and tick off elements of a 10-point plan. Well, duh. That’s not what Saturday’s rally was about. Imagine Patrick standing up there with this crowd-pleaser: “my administration will work with the legislature to complete a final budget on time and provide estimated local aid or ‘cherry sheets’ to municipalities by March 1st each year, 4 months before the start of the new fiscal year. We will also examine the feasibility of multi-year budgeting to encourage sound planning for the future.” Wow, that’ll bring ’em to their feet!
There is a time and place for inspirational, crowd-pleasing, general “leadership” language, and there’s a time and a place for 10-point plans. Patrick seems to know the difference. Hard to figure why Walker doesn’t.
Just so, David. I was so befuddled by the ignorance that I sent him the URL and suggested that he do the kind of research we sluggish bloggers tend to do.
<
p>
I’m trying to imaging Deval going through two or three hours of his policy and plan on each major issue. That would have turned a rally into a dwindling party.
…Walker writes, “I for one wish he had offered more specifics about them.” That’s another way of saying, “I covered this one speech and I’ve done no other research and this is what I think.”
<
p>
Heck I think part of Patrick’s problem is he has to many specifics. Reilly and Healey do not have a 1/10th of the specifics that Patrick outlines…but they get a pass.
<
p>
So everytime you read of hear a pundit say something like “Patrick has no specific programs” they are a “drive by-pundit” who is to lazy to spend five minutes on the internet before they release the hot air that forms their opinion.
how touchy people get on these blogs. all adrian walker did, in what i thought was a fairly positive column for DP, was point out that perhaps he lacked some specifics in his presentation. seems like some of the DP supporters have a bit of a glass jaw…..let’s hope the candidate doesn’t show one or his campaign won’t last one real battle.
I don’t think it’s “touchy” or reflective of a “glass jaw” to point out that a columnist got it wrong on whether a candidate has or has not been specific on “the issues.” Walker said he hasn’t. Fact is, he has. The media has an obligation to get this stuff right.
There are still people out there without Internet access (I guess Adrian must be one of them, e-mail address notwithstanding), so it might not be as easy as it sounds for some people to check out Deval’s website to read his position papers.
<
p>
I wonder if this isn’t reflected to some extent in those poll numbers we saw recently, with the the wealthy and well-educated leaning heavily for Deval, while those demographic groups who might (?) be less “wired” are not yet fully on board? Deval Patrick is fathoms deeper on the issues than any of the other candidates, but unless this becomes common knowledge the general public isn’t going to see that he’s any different.
<
p>
This is all just speculation, of course, and I know that Deval is out there trying to make his case for the regular folks. But I think this just underscores the need for Deval’s campaign to take that next step and make sure that the Internet isn’t the only place to find out where he stands. (Hence the default to the better known quantity — Reilly.) This is where newspapers, television, and good ol’ word-of-mouth come into play.
<
p>
Still, it sounds like Walker doesn’t have any excuse for not doing his homework.
David – Adrian Walker was wrong to say that Deval hasn’t begun to clarify a message. Deval is doing it.
<
p>
BUT, you mention:
<
p>
“That’s not what Saturday’s rally was about.”
<
p>
and
<
p>
“There is a time and place for inspirational, crowd-pleasing, general “leadership” language, and there’s a time and a place for 10-point plans. Patrick seems to know the difference. Hard to figure why Walker doesn’t.”
<
p>
Well, David, you were on Tom Reilly’s case pretty hard for not having many specific policy details on his website way back when. In both Patrick’s case above and Reilly’s case, the issue is timing. There is a time for Patrick to be crowd-pleasing and a time to be policy-specific. We get that. But you don’t seem to give Reilly the same flexibility. Reilly has been releasing his plans as the voters have been paying more and more attention. Putting everything out last summer would have been quite premature.
<
p>
I’m just saying that if you’re gonna give Patrick the timing-based benefit of the doubt, extend the same courtesy to Reilly. (And, I am undecided in the gubernatorial race, and will heartily support whoever the Democratic nominee will be. Just sayin’.)
A fine point you make. I think, however, that David’s bile was aimed at Walker, not Reilly. It is part of, I would submit, a general frustration with the MSM that occasionally surfaces on this blog. And to think, they get paid.
my point is that it’s ridiculous to criticize Patrick for not being specific because he has been very specific – and it’s all up on the internet (and, in response to an earlier comment, it strikes me as totally implausible that Adrian Walker doesn’t have internet access – even if he doesn’t have it at home, the Globe has computers too, so I’m told). Reilly, in contrast, still has said not a word about the biggest issue on Beacon Hill right now – health care – nor do we have much of a clue on where he stands on anything else, save for one education proposal. Honestly, he’s the Attorney General and an ex-DA, but he doesn’t even have any proposals for what to do about the exploding murder rate in our cities?
<
p>
So: I extend the “courtesy” of which you speak to Patrick because he has earned it – he has been very specific in an appropriate place. Reilly has not, so he doesn’t get the same courtesy. Apples to apples, please.
TL: “(I guess Adrian must be one of them, e-mail address notwithstanding.)”
<
p>
…
<
p>
D: “(And, in response to an earlier comment, it strikes me as totally implausible that Adrian Walker doesn’t have internet access – even if he doesn’t have it at home, the Globe has computers too, so I’m told.)”
<
p>
Just for the record, David, my comment was meant to be sarcastic….
Specifics at this rally were inappropriate. How does one give reasoned policy details in a soundbite? Great for lazy journalists, but not really illuminating, and easy targets for the opposition – which, by the way, is the most equivocal on the issues I have seen a long time.
<
p>
I think you are right about Walker’s not doing his homework, but that didn’t seem to me to be the point of is article. “Can he win?” is the question Walker is asking. The answer is yes according to the polls, Patrick’s increase in visablity and coverege, and the fact that he will likely be the nominee at the convention.
<
p>
I found Walker’s piece rather cynical – which I would not object to were it not so underhandedly so. He said that question was in the air at Saturday’s rally. Well, maybe I was breathing in a different sphere, because there was none of that where I stood. Walker went on about fundraising, but didn’t mention that Deval has outraised Reilly for the past six months – I think – and from a far broader base than Reilly.
<
p>
I expect that sort of thing from Frank Phillips – the Rielly plant at the Globe, I anticipated better from Walker.
<
p>
that is the sound of the glass jaw breaking. i have never heard more bickering about an adrian walker column in my life. next thing you’ll hear is that walker is just another of those MSM (which i take that to mean “main stream media”) people who are shilling for Reilly. why not just celebrate the great press that DP got for what sounded like a terrific show of support on Saturday and take the hit when you have to on what i think is a very important question — can he win?
<
p>
i think the person suffering in the polling stories this weekend is Chris Gabrieli whose spite campaign has no juice. 4%? I really think it is time for someone like Kennedy to step in and tell chris that he had his time and that is over — we need to focus on the two candidates who have demonstrated (in polling and otherwise) that they can beat Kerry Healey — Deval Patrick and Tom Reilly.
<
p>
Chris, thanks for everything, but now is not the time for you.