Deval Patrick is making a serious mistake, in MHO, in getting so far out to the left of everyone else in the Governor’s race. First, taxes. Now, drivers licenses for people who break the law.
From Jon Keller’s report on the debate: “The candidates also clashed over a controversial bill pending on Beacon Hill that would give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. When asked if they would sign it or veto it, the candidates responded like this:
“Deval Patrick: âIâve got to sign that bill because frankly, without signing it, we get what we’ve got now, illegal immigrants driving without training, without accountability.â
“Chris Gabrieli: âI think we have to be very careful and making very clear to people as democrats, we are not in favor of illegal behavior, we’re not in support of people violating laws. That’s not why we have those laws. Citizenship should mean something.â
“Tom Reilly: âIn the aftermath of 9-11 we have to be very careful in terms of the security of this country, the security of our borders, our ports, and transportation, so I would agree with Chris.â
Patrick has already got a strong showing assured at the Convention. Now he should be tacking back to the center and showing how his business experience will help get the Massachusetts economy back on track. Instead, he is going farther afield. And, oh yeah, he still won’t come clean on his taxes: why not?
Hey, Bob, back off!
<
p>
One of my mantras in this race is going to be Deval’s brilliant analysis of right versus left: “I know what’s possible, and I know how to work for what’s possible. And labels do not help. They don’t help! It’s a tactic in government, to label candidates, to label programs, and I say, leave the labels aside! Because, frankly, if a good program that works is compassionate, so what if somebody calls it liberal? If there’s a good idea that makes good fiscal sense, so what if somebody calls it conservative? Leave aside all the debate about the right and the left; let’s start talking about the difference between right and wrong!”
<
p>
Bob, “let’s start talking about the difference between right and wrong!”
<
p>
There is nothing “left” about Deval’s position that we need to restore state aid to localities, and calling it a shell game to shift the tax burden from the income tax to the property tax. If you believe that people who make lots of money should pay less than their fair share in taxes, and you want to call that a “center” position, I’d have to quibble with you. Most people in this state would not benefit from an income tax rollback, if you factor in what they have to pay in local property taxes.
<
p>
Now, on to “illegal immigrants” — first of all, we in Massachusetts have to deal with the consequences of a failed federal policy on this issue. Let’s talk pragmatically about what we need to do to deal with that.
<
p>
We desperately need these “undocumented workers.” I know many businesses in this area that depend on them. Many of them have lived here for years and years, and are members of our community. What would you do? Send them “home” (when most of them think of here as home)? They are wonderful, caring, contributing members of our society.
<
p>
That they are here “illegally” at some abstract federal level does not change the fact that they are an integral part of our society. They are not criminals. They are productive workers who are helping to make our world a better place. What they are doing in no more illegal, in a natural sense, than many “illegal” activities of past generations.
<
p>
Prohibition made it illegal to sell alcoholic drinks. That was a big boon to organized crime, but did little or nothing to stop consumption of booze. Oscar Wilde and many others went to prison for the “crime” of being homosexual, but somehow that didn’t stamp out that “perversity.” Slavery was “legal” in this country for an embarrassingly long time, but many people were outraged by it. Let’s not confuse what is “legal” with what is moral, or even beneficial.
<
p>
We need the undocumented workers. It’s a fact of life. Let’s try to figure out how to make the most of a bad situation. Deval’s proposal to give them driver’s licenses seems eminently sensible, since it would allow them a certain peace of mind and would protect the rest of us from unqualified drivers coursing our roadways. Get real, please!
<
p>
Thanks.
<
p>
Sorry for the long post, but (in case you can’t tell) I was ripped!
…about the length of an op-ed. How many swing voters–the folks who decide elections–will read that explanation? They’ll have the attention span of a 30 second spot about Deval not respecting the law and letting criminals have special privilegesâand wonât read 519 word retorts. All BS and unfair, but when was life fair? Especially electoral politics?
<
p>
I think Bob’s point is more strategic than substantive. Yes, the Reps will tag all Dems as “tax and spend liberals”. But does Deval have to paint a target the size of Gillette Stadium?
<
p>
As for the current the issue of undocumented workers. I’m certainly not one who wants to build a wall or deport them. But as a progressive and a Democrat, I do have some major concerns about the impact of this issue.
<
p>
First, they (undocumented workers) are depressing the labor-market across the county, hurting labor unions by allowing businesses to under cut hard earned wage increases for the working class. The Democratic labor unions are getting hurt and the business interests are benefiting.
<
p>
Secondly, there are major aspects of immigration that is highly exploitive of this vulnerable population. Some aspects of it is human slavery, with today’s unheated box cars replacing the ship galleys of another horrific era.
I’m not suggesting youâre in favor of undermining the hard-earned progress of labor unions or you are an advocate of slave trade, but to suggest the Bob is “wrong” and you are “right” is simplistic at best.
<
p>
Certainly you paint an incomplete picture about undocumented immigration with your rose colored glasses.
You don’t want to deport them, or build a wall that keeps them out. Good, because I don’t think either of those “solutions” could work, even if we wanted to do them. I’m with you so far.
<
p>
You’re concerned about how undocumented immigrants are exploited, and how some among them are enslaved. You’re concerned that their low wages drive down everyone else’s wages and hurt unions. Yup, I’m still with you.
<
p>
Here’s where I lose you: How do the above points square with the view you express? These people are here, you don’t advocate rounding them up and deporting them, you worry that they’re underpaid and exploited… but you think a small step to normalize their lives is a bad thing? How do you intend to counter the exploitation and poor pay of undocumented workers, who are exploited and underpaid because they’re undocumented… if you oppose any step to document them, and integrate them better into legal society?
<
p>
I don’t understand. What do you advocate?
This is sort of a fallacious belief.
<
p>
Generally, the companies involve first break up the unions — then, once the unions are broken, they bring in low wage workers, documented or otherwise.
<
p>
Union busting leads to wage undercutting, not undocumented workers. The employment of undocumented workers is something of a symptom rather than a cause.
<
p>
Moreover: I wouldn’t disagree with the point that there are some horrific and exploitative practices in terms of today’s wave of undocumented immigrants — but that’s all the more reason to lighten up and welcome people in. The more draconian our immigration policies, the further the extremes people will have to go to get here.
<
p>
The most accessable example, off the top of my head — build a fence across the passable stretches of desert? Hundreds will die in impassable stretches of desert; the ‘coyotes’ don’t care — they get their money up front whether or not the immigrants’ journey is successful.
<
p>
Making it harder for undocumented workers who live here or arrive here doesn’t stamp out those exploitative or horrific practices — to some extent, I would imagine it would help promulgate them.
who speaks his mind, isn’t afraid that people will abandon him if he takes a position on an issue that they disagree with, and actually seems to have a backbone, not just a finger to the latest gust of wind.
<
p>
<
p>
Yes, because the Democrats’ efforts in recent years to “tack” to the “center” have been so well received by the voters that we’ve got the third longest winning streak for Republican Governors. Maybe just this one time we should try something different. If we don’t blow it and win for a change, we can get back to tacking for the first place.
This whole meme that the reason the D’s have lost the Governorship 4 straight elections because we keep abandoning our values and tack to the middle is completely revisionist. In ’90 the liberal Dem pulled out of the primary (Murphy) and Silber got the nomination–I (and I suspect many folks on this blog) in fact voted for the liberal candidate in 1990–Bill Weld. (Silber was a fascist, just ask Howard Zinn.) It could be argued that Silber did tack to the middle, but he tacked from the right.
<
p>
In ’94 we nominated a liberal–who I voted for–but Mark Roosevelt was no match for the quirky and popular Bill Weld (you may not be able to handle the truth, but Weld was popular.) Roosevelt did not tack to the center, at all.
<
p>
In 1998, arguably the liberal standard-bearer, Scott Harshbarger won the nomination (unless you considered the Chair or Ways and Means, Pat McGovern the liberal choice–at best it’s a toss up). Harshbarger lost because the party boys (that would be primarily you Mumbles and Tommy Finneran) dragged their feet supporting him. And Harshbarger did not lose because he tacked to the center. He lost by Celluci clobbered the D’s with the tax and spend crap.
<
p>
As for ’02, hey the liberal wing of the Democratic Party lost the nominationâTolman (my candidate) and Reich. Shannon was not a great candidate—but she wasn’t bad either. She didn’t tack anywhere–she was a centralist, so she stayed in the middle. Like Weld, folks on this blog will hate to admit a simple fact: Romney was a heck of a candidate in ’02. Rich, looks, successful businessman and he had just “saved” the Olympics. Now that might have been all veneer, but it was enough to scare Jane Swift back to the Berkshires. A sitting Governor did not want to take him on! And Shannon did surprisingly well, losing by less than 2 %. If 60,000 votes, or so, went the other way–she would have won.
<
p>
I’d really like to hear a detailed argument–and not some bumper sticker–about how Dem candidates for Mass Gov have tacked to the center and that’s why they lost the race. Itâs just not true.
Frank, what I’m arguing against is the mindset epitomized by most of your comment, and the piece of Bob’s post that I quoted. I think once you buy into the notion that you can divine what the center is, and somehow tack to it, you get a “tell the voters what I think they want to hear” approach. This produces a candidate who may or may not have abandoned Democratic values, but who clearly seems to not have any of his or her own. My opinion, that’s weakness, not evidence of the capacity to lead, and most voters can smell it a mile away. I could be wrong – politics is the sport with more armchair quarterbacks than football – but given the fact that the Democrats have progressed from losing to Weld to losing to Romney, why not try a different approach?
<
p>
While we’re here, how does a Warren Tolman supporter come to call himself “Frank Skeffington”? As I write that I realize it could be your real name, but most people seem to post under what the CB folks used to call a handle (for you younger people, back in the ’70’s CB was like a chat room with audio and without the written transcript) . I’m trying to imagine the common ground between Tolman and James Michael Curley who is generally considered the model for Skeffington in The Last Hurrah. Is there a story there?
My basic response was that none of the Dems we nominated in the last 16 years actually tacked to the middle. Shannon was already there–she had a long record centralist record prior to be nominating. Silber was way-to-the-right, Roosevelt did not tack and Harshbarger lost becuase “old boy” Dems sunk him.
<
p>
I absolutely agree that any candidate that changes their views to be more acceptable to the general electorate will be quickly spotted as a phoney by the voters. I do not subscribe to deception or dishonesty.
<
p>
But lets not equate talking about issues that appeal to the “center” with changing positions on issues. I’ve been critical of Deval for just talking to the liberal base and not reaching out to a wider audience. Lately I’ve seen signs of him doing exactly that. There are literally thousands of public policy issues that a candidate can have a position on. But there are only a few they can focus on. In an election, it is vital–essential–to talk about the issues that will get 51% of the vote. Some will call that tacking to the center, I suggest it’s addressing the concerns of the voters.
<
p>
As for my “handle”, I certainly did not take it based on idealogical reasons. I wanted something political, yet obscure and something that was deep in MA politic and folklore. I’m not sure how many people “get it”. Some folks made comments about the movie version with Spencer Tracey. You Peter, get it.
Frank Skeffington. . .a character from “The Last Hurrah?” I seem to have a recollection of that name appearing in that book. . .
Howabout the fact that he was the main character? While I’m not certain, but he may ahve appeared in every page of the book. As Peter noted, Frank Skeffington is the fictional character in the book “The Last Hurrah” based on James Michael Curley’s last run for Mayor of Boston. I read the book years ago and can’t remember is Skeffington did time in prison like the real-life Curley.
<
p>
Maybe I should have the tag-line “Vote early and often” which was the saying of one of Skeffington’s cronies.
I so closely associate his character with its inspiration, James Michael Curley, that I had forgotten it was fiction. Obviously, I should read it again!
it would be “Bill McKay” from the movie “The Candidate”. But most folks would think that is my real name. And Googling it would probably get you nowhere. Whereas googling Frank Skeffington immedaitely indicates it’s a handle.
“So vote once, vote twice, for Bill McKay … you middle-class honkies…”
In an election, it is vital–essential–to talk about the issues that will get 51% of the vote.
<
p>
Actually, no it’s not. Issue-oriented voters make up maybe a quarter of the electorate. Talking about issues that directly appeal to voters who choose who to vote to based on the issues, is not how you win (nor is it how you lose).
<
p>
In an election, it is vital to have a message that appeals to enough people that, with your ground campaign, you can get your vote above the other candidates’ (with multiple candidates, that’s often less than 51%).
<
p>
A message is not a collection of issues, and it appeals to many people who don’t pay attention to the issues. However, when you talk about issues, you do have to be mindful of whether you’re reinforcing your message, undermining your message, or straying off it entirely and leading to possible confusion about what your message is. It’s “vital, essential” to have a consistent, clear message – otherwise, the majority of voters who don’t pay careful attention will be confused about what you stand for and why they should or shouldn’t vote for you.
<
p>
If Patrick states a position you disagree with, by all means, say you disagree with it and why. But if, in stating that position, Patrick is reinforcing his message rather than undermining it, don’t tell us it’s “Another Patrick Mis-Step”. Bob is wrong, and at least a bit offensive, in doing so, IMO.
ITS OVER BEFORE IT STARTS. PATRICK HAS NO CHANCE… REILLY IS GOING TO WIN AND YOU WONT BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETEWEEN HIM AND ROMNEY.
use it. 🙂
Frank is talking “liberals”, he leaves out a few of the more “progressive” candidates, such as Bachrach and Barrett in ’94; Birmingham in 2002. In both those years, the split in progressive votes (Bachrach and Barrett; Birmingham and Reich) ensured defeat. In 1998, McGovern was outgunned by Harshbarger, from a money and institutional standpoint. The AG then lost an array of traditionally Democratic areas across the state — Waltham, Taunton and other blue collar cities (he did win Boston, BTW, and if he had carried every vote in Boston, he still would have lost).
<
p>
A “progressive” candidate should talk about job creation, about housing that families can afford, about a community college system that fails our young people, about giving local communities the resources they need to prosper and about a positive agenda to move our state forward. They would yell like hell about gas prices and call on Washington to do something about it.
<
p>
A progressive candidate also passes the “beer” taste, would you actually be able to sit and have a beer with this person, and feel that they are on your side, not on every litmus issue, but that when it all comes down to it, that they’ll make the right decision for average people.
<
p>
And that’s what motivates Democrats to participate, to come out and vote and to win elections.
<
p>
Deval got my support when I asked him at a house party about what he would do to create jobs in cities like Springfield and New Bedford, which don’t have some of Boston’s natural advantages (tourism, edcuation, hospitals etc). He gave a strong answer that was a combination of New Democrat technology emphasis and good old fashioned caring about people, more people need to see that Deval, frankly.
<
p>
If a canddiate like DP can talk to real issues that affect families in Massachusetts, then the irrelevant process commando issues that some of the other campaigns (and their media allies) raise become just that. But in a vacuum, crap becomes king (per Don Henley, “Dirty Laundry”).
<
p>
Anyway, wouldn’t it be better to fight out these issues as the party in power? Let’s not wait 86 years like our beloved baseball team.
<
p>
Thanks for listenin’
<
p>
“Another Patrick Mis-Step”? Huh? He made no mis-step, he stated a position you disagree with. I happen to agree with his position, and I’d comment about why, but not if you mislabel the post like that. I think it’s hype and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that prevents me from reading the post with an open mind.
But Patrick committed hari kari with the average voter. That is what important.
I’m naive enough to believe that maybe the voters will go for somebody who speaks their mind, who makes sense and who won’t “tack to the center” — i.e. perjure themselves for votes.
<
p>
Michael, above, is correct: People will do what they gotta do. They will drive to work; they will drive to the doctor; they will drive to the grocery store. Let’s be realistic about this: lack of a license isn’t going to stop them.
<
p>
If you’re bound and determined to view them as hideous law-breakers, stop and think: if they’ve broken the immigration laws, why should they obey the driving laws?
<
p>
If, on the other hand, you view them as people with the same basic rights as you or me, you’ve got to wonder: what’s the connection between citizenship and driving? Most of these people do in fact pay taxes, and they contribute to our economy. Why should they be banned from operation of a motor vehicle? While we’re at it, we might as well mandate ID checks at the grocery store — if you can’t buy food, you’ll go home right quick, right?
<
p>
I just can’t believe that alienation of twelve million people is really the right answer to this problem. After all, look where it’s gotten France.
Good points, DC.
<
p>
I’ll admit immigration is a complex and emotional issue. And it’s certainly true that undocumented workers are exploited by businesses. But, hey, let’s not blame the victims! Let’s instead enforce existing wage and workplace laws (something that Patrick has called for).
<
p>
The only reason these workers “drag down” wages is because employers can exploit them with little risk of being reported. These workers live in fear of being discovered and deported. The point about modern-day slavery is a bit of hyperbole, but there is a grain of truth to it.
<
p>
The whole idea that our candidate should move to the “center” (wherever that is!) because the voters are too stupid to understand the difference between right and wrong is repulsive to me. It’s up to us (as self-appointed opinion leaders) and our candidates and public officials to state firmly and clearly what we believe to be right and moral. The idea that we should say what we need to say to get elected is alien (you should pardon the use of the word) to me, and one of the reasons I support Patrick (because he decries it).
<
p>
As for why the Dems have lost, I think it’s a combination of what Peter said and the between-the-lines message from the long list of also-rans: we haven’t put forward an appealing candidate. Patrick is (and comes across as) a person of conviction, and his views happen to coincide almost exactly with the Democratic Party platform (see this analysis)
A little Googling shows that human trafficking generates more than 5.3 million items and human trafficing garners another 20,000 items. When does hyperbole warrant a special Department of Justice unit?
<
p>
Modern-day slavery is is a booming business. It certainly represents a small percentage of immigration problems, but we must work towards elinmatating it and if those measures slows down the overall immigration…so be it.
We all know about modern day slavery, but we were talking about undocumented immigrants who live and work in Massachusetts and referring to it as “modern day slavery” without explicitly stating that you’re talking about something else made it seem like you were referring to the status of undocumented immigrants in general. So, calm down, just be clear about what you’re saying.
Bob, your post is dead on. There is virtually no support for providing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Just look at the in-state tuition for illegal immigrant children debate. The push back was so intense that the legislature soundly rejected the measure. And that was about KIDS who had nothing to do with their parents’ choice to illegally immigrate. How do you think a measure on behalf of those parents will fare? Answer: terribly.
<
p>
Nobody is saying that any candidate shouldn’t say what they believe, but Patrick’s position on this issue will hurt him with independent voters.
First, as “Frank” noted above, my observation was basically a strategic one. Personally, I think taxes should be rolled back because voters voted for that, and I think some kind of intermediate ID should be considered for illegals that brings them into the driving system (since they will drive, and we should figure out some way to let them buy insurance) but does not convey the practical citizenship that a drivers license offers (since there are valid security concerns, and we want to encourage legal immigration not reward people who broke the law). But who cares what I think. Really. My point was that running an extreme campaign is not going to get Patrick elected — just ask Howard Dean. That’s why it was a mis-step in MHO … but time will tell.
There are many, many of us here who firmly believe Howard Dean was a better general election candidate than John Kerry, partly because he seemed “tougher” by taking bold positions and standing by them.
<
p>
Howard Dean didn’t lose the general election, he lost the Democratic Primary. He didn’t lose it for being “too far left”, he lost it because Kerry successfully convinced other hardcore Democrats that he was more “electable” – in other words, these strong Democrats guessed that people who aren’t like them, would more likely vote for Kerry in the general election. So, because they so badly wanted to “beat George Bush!” (a common cry of the Kerry campaign), they voted not for the candidate that most appealed to them, but for the candidate they guessed would most appeal to other voters who they didn’t actually understand.
<
p>
They were wrong. Just ask John Kerry.
<
p>
If we want to win as Democrats, we need to take that lesson to heart. Those strong Democrats who voted for Kerry because they thought his middle-splitting approach was “electable” were wrong.
<
p>
Which is to say, voters thought he was an extremist. And, in fact, his positions were pretty extreme on some issues: Iraq, NAFTA. And, he lost.
of the failure of Dean’s candidacy is extremely simplistic–and not very accurate. What you leave out–the lack of Party support at the national level, Dean’s problematic relationship with the media, and Dean’s own gaffe-prone style–has more to do with the notion that Dean was a liberal extremist than his actual positions on the issues.
<
p>
As for Patrick, your disagreement with him on his position on an issue does not, by default, render his position a misstep, a word, by the way, with specific meaning. A misstep is a blunder. For example, Reilly’s flirtation with St. Fleur was a misstep as was his entanglement with the drunken-driving deaths of the girls from Northboro. Patrick’s position–one that we assume he sincerely holds– on this issue is not a misstep, it’s simply a position you don’t support and believe voters won’t support.
<
p>
Precision in language is important in these matters. Let’s not harm candidates by either intentionally or unintentionally labelling their views or their actions inappropriately.
Beggars would ride. If he had had support from the Democratic Party. If he had been better with the media. If his campaign staff had made sure he got some sleep so he didn’t look crazy on national TV. If the microphone in that room hadn’t been set wrong so what was a reasonable presentation made him look like a maniac. If, if, if. The plan fact is (a) he took extreme positions, (b) he lost. It does not detract from Dean or his effort to be frank about what happened. It does hurt what that campaign stood for — a campaign which I spent months working on and traveled thousands of miles for, I might add — to pretend that his position on the issues was not in large part responsible for his failure to win the nomination.
Dean worker, my friend, so you’re appeal to authority by experience means nothing to me.
<
p>
Reasonable people can disagree on the implosion of the Dean candidacy.
<
p>
I notice, however, you do not address my main point, which is your inappropriate use of the term “misstep,” and that is the issue.
The fact that Patrick, after deliberate consideration, has taken the position that illegal immigrants should have drivers licenses is, in my opinion, a blunder, to use your terminology. It could also be considered a mistake, which is the other definition the dictionary provides. Nothing inappropriate about my terminology.
Wait, are you arguing that Patrick will lose the primary because Massachusetts Democratic primary voters will think he’s “too liberal” to beat Kerry Healy? If that’s what you were trying to argue, your defense of your comment might make some sense. But you’re saying Patrick needs to tack center to win the general, aren’t you? And if so, your defense doesn’t stand up.
<
p>
Please note that this sub-debate is entirely separate from the offense I took at the title of your post. Right or wrong about whether Patrick’s strategy is a winning one, he did not “make another misstep”. I’m still quite offended and my regard for you is significantly lowered by that inflamatory, wrong title (not by our disagreement about the substance).
I didn’t say he will lose. In fact, I think he can win both the primary and the general — but not if he gets too extreme. Thus, a mis-step, blunder, mistake, strategic error, excess of enthusiasm by a first-time candidate, call it what you will. He’ll do fine playing to the extremists in the run-up to the Convention because, again in MHO, the people who go to the state Democratic Party Convention are more extreme than the general population in Massachusetts. As to offense, I don’t actually think the headline was that inflammatory. It was blunt. If I had titled it, “Another Fuck-up by the Patrick Campaign Pandering to the Extremists in the State Democratic Party,” that would have been worthy of offense (that was a joke, incidentally). In any event, thanks for your thoughtful comments. By the way, why can’t we have some intermediate position where illegals get some form of ID but not an official Drivers License.
I know this is not directly related to the gubernatorial race, but let’s not refight 2004. That having been said, Howard Dean would have gotten crushed in the general vs. George Bush. crushed.
That’s speculation. We don’t have the actual election results to back you up any more than we have the results to back me up. Why? Because Dean didn’t get the nomination. Which completely undermines Bob’s comment. Which is my point.
What about nannies who are undocumented? People who are here without documentation are not cruel savages. They are human beings, doing a service to us all. I don’t see childcare workers unionized. I don’t see unions (which for the most part I appreciate) doing their part to protect women’s rights to re-enter the workforce. So many women use undocumented immigrants to care for children….
<
p>
You disagree with Patrick. Fine. He didn’t do something that many business owners and some women who understand child care difficulties don’t understand.
I know that some don’t like this argument but America is a land of laws, and I know we don’t always do a good job of enforcing them. However we must show people who do illegal behavior that it is not okay and the opposite argument is going to be hard to argue to Mass voters. This is in fact criminal behavior and should be stopped. In High School there are kids who are not old enough to drive but they still drive. Should we tell them okay now you can drive, that’ what I hear when Deval talks about illegals driving. And thats what alot of other people say when I talk to them about the issue. Alot of Dems are being soft on illegals. Dems lose elections on the state and national scales because we are perceived as soft on issues that are important to voters outside the party. Republicans who run for governor and higher offices seem to have easier anwsers to tough question while Dems loose the voter while giving long anwsers. We should say something like, This is a very complicated issue but here is where I stand. I’m just curious how people feel about Patrick doing so good so early. I pose the Question does anyone think that Deval is peaking to early and he would of benefited from doing better more closer to September. When your ahead people attack you and I just wonder if that could actually diminish his hope to be governor.
I’m being serious when I ask this question; can someone explain to me the major philosophical difference between Tom Reilly and Kerry Healey?
<
p>
Reilly is sounding a lot like a Republican. “No new taxes”. Link illegal immigrants to 9-11. “We must test our students rigorously”. Innuendo.
<
p>
I think this state needs a dramatically different direction. Reilly mostly seems to be playing to the Howie Carr crowd.
I am not aware of any significant policy differences between Reilly and Healey.
<
p>
Which, to me, confirms two things that I’ve thought for some time. First, Reilly is a pretty conservative Dem. Second, Kerry Healey is going to be a lot harder to beat than a lot of people think.
obviously, at least at one point in time, Reilly and Healey differed significantly on in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants (their famous impromptu radio debate). Reilly, apparently, has concluded that being “tough on immigrants” is the way to go.
First, your message seems to suggest that Tom Reilly has abandoned his support for in-state tuition for illegal immigrant children. I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that this is the case. He fought that battle when public support was against him and when most of the legislature bowed to public that opinion.
<
p>
Second, the tuition issue is markedly different than the driver’s license issue. The former deals with CHILDREN (who had little or no choice in their illegal status) while the latter deals mostly with adults (who had a choice in their illegal status). The license issue also deals with the most commonly accepted form of personal identification in our society – a legitimate security concern.
<
p>
In my opinion, both positions are sound public policy and they are easily distinguished.
I agree with you that the two issues can sensibly be distinguished. But as for in-state tuition, while you may be right that Reilly hasn’t changed his mind, I’d be really, really surprised to see him push it now that the Dem-controlled legislature has killed it. It’ll be interesting to see if he gets asked about it, and what he says.
Of course Tom Reilly is going to be asked about it. Virtually every statement issued by Eric Fernstrom (Romney’s communications director) and Tim O’Brien (Healey’s campaign manager) relative to Tom Reilly includes some variation of “our Attorney General Tom Reilly, who supports unlawful activity by supporting tuition breaks for illegal immigrants.” It’s Tom Reilly’s version of young Theo Epstein’s “28 year-old Red Sox General Manager Theo Epstein.” It’s practically become part of his official title according to Republican spin doctors.
<
p>
Which brings us back to the subject of this post: just how big a mis-step was it for Patrick to support providing driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants? The reality: it is going to hurt pretty badly in the general election. As I’ve already mentioned, there was very little support for illegal immigrant children on the tuition bill, so how much support do you think there is going to be for illegal immigrant adults? Almost none.
<
p>
You believe Reilly is a conservative Democrat. (I actually think he is pretty mainstream and much more reflective of the general electorate than the left-leaning activists who tend to populate the Democratic State Party, i.e. the “official” State Party, the convention delegates, etc.) As I noted above, Healey is already attacking Tom Reilly as a liberal, even with his moderate record. What do you think they will do with Deval Patrick? We’ll be reading Tim O’Brien’s quotes daily: “Deval Patrick is so liberal that he won’t support the voter-approved tax rollback AND he wants to give people who are here illegally the right to drive and the most commonly accepted form of personal identification.” Patrick supporters seem to think that his charisma and substance will trump that argument. I wholly disagree and I point to 16 years of Republican success on the same message as the best evidence.
There’s a bigger problem in this country with 16-18 year old drivers who get tanked and smash their cars into some unsuspecting victim or a tree.
<
p>
Or idiots yapping on cellphones while trying to drive their cars like the one that almost sideswiped us today.
<
p>
Or the epidemic of red light runners that have prompted my neighbors to begin a petition campaign for more enforcement.
<
p>
There are bigger issues for the Commonwealth than illegal immigrants with drivers licenses (won’t they be easier to track that way — BTW).
<
p>
Or how much money DP made from Ameriquest, or his “guilt” by remote association to lobbyists for the Turks.
<
p>
We deserve better.
You hit the nail on the head. Republicans amd evem conservative Democrats will try and make this election about “morals and taxes”. The challenge is to steer it away from the red herrings and make it about people’s everyday lives.
<
p>
Will the average person’s life get worse if the children of illegal immigrants get the in-state tuition at UMass? Absolutely not. But we’ll convert people who would otherwise be burdens on our state into productive members.
<
p>
Will the average household (median income of $50k in 2000) gain immensely if 0.3% is taken off the income tax? Even with zero deductions or exemptions, that comes to just $150. The rollback squarely rewards the wealthy and hurts the average guy as his kids (not in a private school) will see their sports and music cut, or will see their property taxes go up by far more than $150.
<
p>
Republicans speak to a person’s heart, but Massachusetts is known for its brains. It is completely possible to frame any issue so that intelligent people understand it.
<
p>
Put a face on the immigrant issue, show a straight-A kid who was brought here as an infant, who has only known this culture, and tell the voters that Kerry Healey not only wants to deny this kid a college education, thereby dooming him to be a burden on society, but even wants to send him away to live in mud huts in a foreign land because his parents broke the law fifteen years ago.
<
p>
Show people the math — let the fat cat save $5,000, you save $150, but you have to spend $500 more on your kids athletics fees because of local budget cuts. Or your kids are now taught by unqualified teachers which hurts their chance of getting into the right college.
<
p>
Show people that although blocking development seems like a good idea, when their children get out of college they will move to the South because they can’t afford a house here, and their grandkids will grow up never knowing their grandparents.
<
p>
What is “center”? Isn’t this supposed to be one of the more progressive states in the country? Is everyone hypnotized by Howie Carr and Rush Limbaugh?
NoPolitician, I was thinking the same thing. If I wanted to vote for a Republican, I could. So far I have one choice: Healey. (Unless Andrew Card surprises everyone of course.)
<
p>
Among Democrats, I have 3 choices:
<
p>
1. someone who has been an active, competent, elected official for many years (although I think he might be passing the buck on dealing with sex offenders).
<
p>
2. someone who has been active as a wealthy contributor to the State Dem. Party and has interesting ideas but seems to be in the race because he didn’t get picked as the #2 man.
<
p>
and
<
p>
3. Someone refreshingly different, someone who has not always had it easy and acknowledges the family support and social programs that helped him get over. Someone who doesn’t want to play the game the way those who are vested in it want. Someone who is qualified to balance the needs of the state and the localities and actually keep people in Massachusetts.
Maybe the reason we Dems have been on the outside looking in for 15 years is we have consistently failed to nominate a Democrat with a clear message, and with any real ability to deliver what message they have. Voters aren’t interested in Republican light, especially when the Republican in the race is Republican light. Democrats should not be afraid to talk about why they are Democrats, and what that means.
<
p>
What I like about this primary is we have some stark choices. A Democrat who seems to be only a Democrat in name only, in Tom Reilly. A Democrat who’s off running a vanity campaign as some form of retribution, but who so far doesn’t really seem to have any ideas outside of the longer school day. And a Democrat who actually will tell you what he believes, and will work hard to tell you why those beliefs make sense for all of us.
<
p>
Why is it that we think a Democrat needs to tack to the middle to win? If we learned ANYTHING from the 2004 presidential election, wasn’t it that to win an election, you need to motivate your base?
<
p>
Do you really think voters who want nothing more than a tax cut and to deport or jail illegal immigrants are going to vote for ANY Democrat, no matter WHAT they say? Of course not. So why worry about them?