To the first question, none knew the amount (it’s <a
href=”http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/topic/35.html”>23.5 cents,
BTW; I heard that Gabrieli later asked Keller if he knew how much the
federal tax was; he didn’t. Touché.) None would raise the tax; Gabrieli
talked transit (making “opportunities for people to get off the road”)
cost of living, and economic growth. Deval Patrick mockingly professed
sympathy for Chris Gabrieli’s gasoline bills for his campaign bus, and
talked about energy independence, Cape Wind, and lowering property
taxes. Tom Reilly said “taxes are too high in Massachusetts”, and used
the opportunity to hammer home his support of reducing the income tax
to 5.0%, and made his claim that we’re in for a windfall of $500
million, “even after a tax rollback”; a claim to which Patrick said he
“couldn’t get that math to work”. (I’ve <a
href=”http://bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1990″>addressed
this below.)
Keller asked about granting illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses.
Patrick would <a
href=”http://bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1995″>support
a bill giving such licenses, since otherwise immigrants wouldn’t
have drivers’ training; he would support the Kennedy/McCain bill on
immigration. Reilly punted: he’d want to “see the bill”, invoked 9/11.
Gabrieli was the most hard-line on immigration: he’d prioritize other
services to legal immigrants; I’m not really sure if that addresses the
question or not.
Keller asked a hypothetical question about diversity in the workplace,
i.e. whom one would lay off among two equal employees, a white or
Latino. All candidates agreed: the consensus is “flip a coin”. Nothing
to see here … move along …
To the question of which tax the candidate would raise in an unforseen
circumstance, Gabrieli hilariously replied, “Boy, that feels like
the ‘Which family member would you beat’ variation of the ‘When did you
stop beating your wife’ question.” Brilliant. He quickly turned to
ensuring the health of the rainy day fund; and talked vaguely about a
progressive tax, if needed; he later took credit for further investment
of pension funds in the MA economy. Patrick said he shouldn’t need it,
but firmly called a no-new-taxes pledge a “dumb gimmick”, and a “silly,
unhelpful way to govern”; he gamely suggested he might consider a
cigarette tax if he had to. Reilly said he would concentrate on growing
the economy to grow revenues, saying of the Romney administration,
“This is not exactly a tough act to follow.” A good line; and he
wouldn’t name a tax.
Reilly pivoted on the general discussion of taxes to attack Patrick and
Gabrieli on releasing of tax returns, noting that even Dick Cheney
released his tax returns (as required) — did I mention Reilly went a
bit over the top? I have to say that regardless of the merits of the
discussion (and I’m more on Reilly’s side on this one), Patrick took
the bait; if you’re explaining, you’re losing. He needs to find a
snappier way to address the issue. Reilly attacked Patrick on his
service on the board of Ameriquest, the sub-prime lending corporation
sued by Reilly and other AGs for predatory lending. Patrick’s line is
“Ameriquest blew it. I know it, you know it, and … they know it.” I
suspect this will not get much traction for Reilly by itself — it’s
just too inside baseball — but it shows Reilly’s willingness to ding
Patrick bit by bit. Patrick would do well to hone his jujitsu on these
attacks, since they’re going to continue.
All candidates claimed to buck the Democratic orthodoxy on various
issues: Patrick on Cape Wind; Reilly on the income tax rollback, MCAS,
and taking on Billy Bulger; Gabrieli on length of the school day.
Post-debate gaggle Q&A hewed pretty close to talking points. Reilly
attacked on taxes and tax returns: “They spent time debating on
which taxes they would raise”, he practically giggled. Still, it must
be said that they gamely answered the question that Reilly avoided.
Gabrieli was grilled on his Cape Wind position, but if you read <a
href=”http://bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1910″>our
interview with him from last week, you already know what he thinks.
Patrick fended off questions on taxes and Ameriquest, but got in the
best post-debate line: Asked if he thought he won: “There are no
winners and losers yet,” he said cheerfully. “That comes later.”
I would suggest that Deval was on the defense on a lot of issues especially disclosure and taxes which will continue to to be his achilles heal. I think he is so used to getting his ass kissed by liberals that he is incapable of answering simple questions. But the voters are not all from Cambridge and prefer the straight no bullshit answers which they got from Tom.
<
p>
As to disclosure, Tom attacked his relationship with Ameriquest and Deval tried to dance around it by answering as a savior of all those poor borrowers who were screwed by Ameriquest. “They called me in to straighten it out”. …But hold on Deval , how much did they pay you to do it is all Tom wants to know?. That is all we are looking for in disclosure. If you did it for $1 per year Deval you would get major points on the credibility scale. But if you were paid a couple of million you are simply just a self Rightious phoney.
<
p>
If Dick Cheney can release his tax returns why can’t you Deval?. I thought that was the sound bite of the day.
<
p>
When asked about a no tax pledge Deval said that it was a trick question that could not really be answered in a simple way. He is right about that that point ,but Tom responded without hesitation…. “NO”…. Exactly what the voters want to hear. Not a good answer for a political correct elite blogger’s earsbut for 90% of the voters , it was the smart way to get elected.
<
p>
Finally, Deval tried to take the drivers license/illegal immigration question and put it into some type of mambo jumbo social context. Tom, the ultimate cop played the card perfectly/ . “I am against breaking the law under any circumstances.” Not a good answer for you politically elite bloggers out there, but it is certainly what the voters want to hear.
<
p>
Bottom line, if Deval is nominated all these soundbites are Death for the Dems /
I almost feel like I don’t need to watch (but of course I will).
<
p>
Good advice for Patrick, I’m sure. Remember, he’s a first-time candidate, and he hasn’t developed that thick skin needed to ignore barbs. But he’s a fast learner, so I think you’ll see his ability improve. The good news is that he does, as you point out, have a disarming way of actually answering the questions put to him. How refreshing!
<
p>
The UMass Dems had a forum at which both Reilly and Patrick appeared. They weren’t both on the stage at the same time, but they got pretty much the same questions. Patrick gave thoughtful answers and connected with his audience, usually to the satisfaction of the questioners (even if they didn’t agree with his answer). Reilly, on the other hand, often launched into one tirade or another without answering (perhaps even understanding) the original question.
<
p>
Sounds like Reilly had a good performance (“showed that he has a pulse”) — maybe the format is good for his style. Or maybe he just realizes, like a cornered wildcat, that he’s fighting for his political life.
Reilly pivoted on the general discussion of taxes to attack Patrick and Gabrieli on releasing of tax returns, noting that even Dick Cheney released his tax returns (as required) — did I mention Reilly went a bit over the top?
<
p>
It seems to me that this was a perfectly appropriate forum for Tom Reilly to renew his request that Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick disclose the sources of their personal income. How was this an “attack?” What is the alternative? Campaign by press release? Or maybe employ the Patrick tactic: issue press releases that call for unity and then refer to your opponent on the stump as the “same old, tired politician.” (That’s civility?)
<
p>
You mention that Patrick needs to find a “snappier” way to answer the question as to why he won’t disclose the sources of his income. Here’s a “snappy” idea: release them. Issue over.
<
p>
The bottom line: Tom Reilly seized the opportunity to be direct and forcefully advocate for some of the issues that are central to his campaign. This sounds exactly like what we should want from our nominee and our next Governor.
I think we’re getting into semantics here, don’t you think?
<
p>
I pretty much agree that they should all release their tax returns. But do you really think that opponents’ tax returns is a “central issue”? Pretty thin gruel, if so.
He defends his appointment at Ameriquest as some gratuitus effort on his part to help the company. Well, if he made a substantial amount of money from his efforts shouldn’t the voters have the opportunity to see if he is really St. Patrick. . The company was also under a criminal investigation.There is a real issue here. The Globe also thought so this am.
<
p>
He has huge financial committments on his two mansions. The voters should feel comfortable that the candidate is not under financial pressure.
<
p>
“If Dick Cheney can release his tax returns, Why can’t Patrick?
If Dick Cheney can order planes to be shot down, why can’t Reilly? This question is just as ludicrous as Reilly’s other one.
<
p>
Come ON! Get some real issues. Playing “I’m the least rich” so vote for me isn’t going to go far in this race. Nor should it.
Nobody has argued that financial disclosure is the most important issue of this campaign, but that does not mean that the issue is unimportant. This used to be an important issue for many progressives. My guess is that many progressives are less enthusiastic about this issue in 2006 because: A.) the wealthy candidates are no longer just Republicans; and B.) Deval Patrick does not want to make his records public. I believe this dynamic would be quite different if Tom Reilly and Deval Patrick’s financial circumstances and positions on the issue were reversed.
Charley, perhaps it is just semantics to you, but wouldn’t you agree that “attack” implies a very different connotation than “queried?” That choice of words plays into the Patrick campaign’s spin that Deval was somehow maligned because Tom Reilly asked him pointed questions. It is a clear signal that the Patrick campaign feels it got the worse end of things in the debate when its immediate response is to mitigate any potential damage with a sympathy strategy.
boo hoo , we were attacked ……They don’t get the fact that they are going against a prosecuter who will take no prisoners. They better have the clear, concise answers that the reporters and voters want to hear. Reilly is still the Attorney General. He sued a company in which Patrick was a director. He will continue to be a pit bull on this disclosure issue. Patrick has no ammunition himself so he wants to keep the debate within some pseudo intellectual kissy face framework.
Period. When you see it, I suspect you will agree. He clearly brought it up for the purpose of making his opponents look worse by comparison. He invoked Dick Cheney. Guys, that’s an attack.
<
p>
But in any event, my use of the word “attack” does not imply that it was necessarily unfair. For instance, I attack Romney and Bush all the time, I think justifiably. You can decide for yourselves whether Reilly’s was fair.
<
p>
As for the Patrick campaign looking for sympathy: to what are you referring?
Thanks, David. I was referring to the post-debate statement in particular, not the unity letter. (The unity letter was put out on Thursday and emailed to Patrick supporters, the media, and presumably Patrick’s opponents. It was really intended for the first two groups, since nobody actually believes either Reilly or Gabrieli plan to craft their strategies around a PAtrick campaign document.)
<
p>
The debate statement was obviously put out on Friday. For anybody who follows politics, an immediate “my opponent attacked me” release is a rather standard and ineffective method of mitigating a disappointing performance.
I think you will notice tomorrow that Reilly spends more time than Gabrieli or Patrick criticizing (attacking) the other candidates, especially Patrick.
<
p>
I noticed. The press noticed. It happened. I’m sorry you don’t like my (absolutely accurate, to my mind) choice of words.
I have seen the word “attack” used in three places: your summary, the Deval Patrick press release, and the pro-Patrick user entries. I have never seen the word used in mainstream article about the debate.
<
p>
Now that I’ve seen for myself how Tom Reilly raised the issues, I am even more convinced that “attack” is hyperbole.
I look forward to watching it tomorrow, but I have to admit that I am unconvinced that Tom Reilly “attacked” Patrick and Gabrieli by merely personally asking them to do something that he had already asked them to do by press release: namely, will you provide the public with the sources of your income? Mentioning Dick Cheney and George Bush’s names hardly elevates the request to an “attack.” In fact, I previously raised the relevance of the Bush-Cheney disclosures when discussing the good government merits of financial disclosures.
Does it strike anybody as odd that we’ve spent so much time debating a debate most of us haven’t even seen yet?
I sure do think that tax return disclosure is a central issue. It goes tho the candidates interest in transparency. The issue is especially revealing for candidates that are poised to tap their own wealth to finance their campaigns. Deval has three big problems here: (1) Ameriquest, (2) Coke and (3) his wife’s big-time law firm. The Ameriquest thing is a bigger deal than most on this blog want to admit. I have been trailing these lying, thieving crooks for years. I totally agree that if he took only nominal $1 for his “reform” efforts then he would score major points. But, if he did only take $1 I’m pretty certain that we would have heard about it a million times over. The Ameriquest code of silence is frightening. No board member has EVER disclosed their salary. For that matter, the former-CEO (now a US Ambassador for whom DP wrote glowing letters of recommendation) and his family (all of whom are on the payroll), including his son-in-law who now runs the company, have never disclosed how much they reap from their shady businesses. BTW, this is the same family that backed the anti-John Kerry Swift boat veterans.
Second, Deval claims to have left Coke in protest over the comapnies business practices. Rumors abound that he is still on the receiving end of a multi-million dollar “consulting” contract with the company that requires him to do nothing. If that allegation is true, that is the type of protest for which I would definitely sign up! Very principled indeed.
Third, Deval’s wife is a big wig at a blue blood, white shoe law firm downtown. I’d like to know how much her salary has risen since Deval jumped into the race. Like everything else in the Patrick family, I suspect it is a sweetheart deal. Sort of like insurance if he wins.
While at the justice department he was involved in setting up the compliance committee involved in the $188 million civil rights settlement with Texaco. Six months after leaving Justice and after a nationwide search, lo and behold Patrick was made chairman of that same committee. Then not soon afterward after another nationwide search Patrick was hired by Texaco as General Counsel Attorney for Civil Rights.
I’m beginning to think you’re a lot more than a Reilly supporter…even a Reilly volunteer. Are you staff or being paid in any way by his campaign?
<
p>
You know that I’ve been fairly hard on both Reilly and Patrick, so I’m not asking as a Patrick partisan. It’s just that info is a little to insider and unless you give a link to an article about this issue, I’m assuming it came from Reilly’s oppo team and you have access to it. Not that I’m disputing the facts–I believe you. And if you can link to an article, my apologies for not keeping up with the Gov’s race as well as you and my compliments to you for doing so.
<
p>
It’s well known that Patrick went from DOJ to Texaco…I was not aware that there was an interim step as head of the committee to General Counsel or what the time line was. That is what is making me wonder…
RML can write what they like so long as they keep it abstract and not personal. If they want to make their statements more convincing, they should link (and, by the way, give their real name). However, let’s keep the discussion focused on the issues, not some individual’s bone fides.
or settled before it went to suit when CLinton was Governor of AR, Clinton then appointed him, you can spin all this two ways, he did a great job and won the respect of Clinton, Texaco et al, or he got “sweetheart deals” My ex wife’s attorney took me over the coals, when people I know are looking for a great divorce lawyer guess who I reccomend. Ive reccommended him several times because he did a great job and won my respect despite emptying my bak account for several years.
You should go to : http://www.adversity.net/c14_tbd.htm ….. for the background of the Texaco deal.. Its a simple google search. There is no mystery here
<
p>
“The creation of an Equality and Fairness Task Force; an independent committee selected by Texaco and the plaintiffs, with court approval, which has the power to implement personnel policies designed to rectify alleged discriminatory practices by Texaco.”The original Chair of the Texaco Task Force, approved by the Court on June 24, 1997, was none other than former United States Attorney General for Civil Rights, Deval L. Patrick.
<
p>
SIDE BAR: Deval Patrick was subsequently hired by Texaco as Vice President and General Counsel, the better to oversee ongoing racial-preference policies at the oil giant. Texaco achieved an affirmative action two-fer in hiring Patrick: (1) He’s black and (2) He was trained by U.S. DOJ in enforcement of racially preferential hiring policies.
As of Jan. 2001, Mr. Patrick has left Texaco to take a job as general counsel at Coca Cola following the soft-drink company’s settlement of a similar class action lawsuit. Thus, Mr. Patrick has become a highly paid overseer of corporate racial preferences.
Deval Patrick previously served under Bill Clinton as head of the U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of Civil Rights from 1994 to 1997.
that “adversity.net” is one scary-ass website. Did you look around it at all? Personally, I wouldn’t believe a word I read there. Any outfit that boasts of its affiliation with the “European-American Issues Forum” that is trying to establish October as “European-American Heritage Month” – all code words for, basically, “white pride,” should be taken with a grain, if not a shaker full, of salt.
Deval also sued Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, then was hired by President Bill Clinton. You think there was a conflict there too?
<
p>
Right Middle Left is continuing the Reilly tactic of issuing insinuations, without actually presenting any real facts of what might be wrong. Like wanting to know Deval’s salary on the board of the Ameriquest holding company, as if somehow that would diminish the importance of his involvement in joining that company for a year to settle and resolve their horrific predatory lending practices. Guilt by insinuation. Deval got paid by a bad company. Therefore Deval must be bad.
<
p>
It was obvious that Reilly would start his negative tactics as soon as he felt the heat. I’m sure the nastiness of his campaign has only just begun. Amusingly, I think Reilly is making a major tactical error. Gabrieli is going to take delegates away from Reilly over the next 6 weeks. I don’t see how attacking Deval is going to assure him his 15%.