I got an email from Deval Patrick’s campaign in which he included a letter that he sent to Tom Reilly and Chris Gabrielli calling for steps to ensure party unity.
Dear Tom and Chris:
There can be no doubt that our Party’s divisive and late primaries have contributed to the difficulty Democrats have had in winning the race for Governor of Massachusetts. I hope you agree that too much is at stake for our Party, our Commonwealth and, frankly, the Nation for us not to learn from this history.
Yesterday, at the Victory ’06 launch, our Party chair called for unity. All three of us stood with him in agreement that if we work together we can deliver a Democratic victory in November. I believe that.
In that spirit, I am asking you to join me in committing to a plan to assure a dignified, substantive primary, and a Democratic victory in November. I propose three parts to the plan:
First , join me in agreeing to actively support the Democratic nominee â whoever of us it may be âbeginning the morning after the primary vote. To be successful this year, we will not have the luxury of prolonging our own differences once the primary is over.
Second , join me in a pledge against negative advertising. Specifically, let’s agree not to name any other Democratic candidate in any of our respective campaign’s paid advertising. Let’s keep our focus on substance and vision, on why we, as individuals and as Democrats, should hold the highest executive office in Massachusetts. It is what the voters want and deserve.
Third , let’s commit to at least one media-sponsored debate each month between now and the primary. It can be on television, the radio or the Internet. Let’s do some with Spanish and Portuguese outlets, as well as in additional languages that may be helpful to voters. We have real and principled differences in vision and policy. Let’s give the voters a chance to choose based on substance, not just rhetoric.
I ask you to join me in these three, simple concepts. I believe this is a better way to present a spirited and exciting primary to Democratic primary voters, and to ensure a Democratic victory in November.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Deval L. Patrick
Democratic Candidate for Governor
In regards to the first point – all candidates lining up behind the winner the day after the primary – I would hope that everyone can agree to this. It would really be poor form for anyone to sulk off after they lost.
The next two are less likely in my mind. At some point someone’s going to take a jab at their opponent in an ad. Gabrielli has a lot of money to spend and a lot of ground to make up. At some point it’ll be in his campaign’s interest to draw distinctions between him and his opponents. I agree that everyone should avoid character assassinations and stick to the issues, but a hard-hitting comparative piece is a weapon no one will want to give up.
And monthly debates? Hah! I’ll bet Gabrielli would love it, but I can’t see Reilly going for it.
It seems like this was a smart move on the part of the Patrick campaign. They have to know that the other two candidates won’t sign on so they get automatic brownie points for being the forward-thinking unifiers while getting to paint the other guys as uncooperative and against party unity. Of course, they can no longer put out an attack ad without being hypocritical, but they seem to be the one campaign that needs them least.
“Gabrieli has a lot of money to spend and a lot of ground to make up. At some point it’ll be in his campaign’s interest to draw distinctions between him and his opponents.”
<
p>
Gabrieli is already on the record saying that “a debilitating primary” is bad for the party. It will be interesting to see which wins out for him: principle or pragmatism.
Point 1 is a gimme, as you say. Every candidate should at least come out with a similar statement.
<
p>
Point 3, monthly debates: A good thing. One way to look at it is that if any of the other candidates refuse, it makes them look bad and Deval look good, so it’s a good political move. But another way to look at it is that if they do all agree, we’ll have a better campaign. The more debates there are, the less any particular gaffe or turn of phrase matters, and the more we get to revisit issues and focus media on those issues. So it’s a genuinely good proposal on the merits.
<
p>
Point 2 is interesting. It’s important to draw contrasts, and sometimes mentioning another candidate’s name is a more honest way to do that. If candidate turn rhetorical twists to avoid naming each other, some of what they say can seem fake. On the other hand, is there a clear-cut way to define a “bad” attack ad?
<
p>
I do think that if other candidates run ads mentioning Patrick by name and he then responds with ads that mention them, the public won’t punish him for hypocrisy. He’s proposing an agreement, and it’ll look good for him to abide by it as long as the others do, but if they don’t, he doesn’t need to either.
The only really controversial one is the “no mentioning other candidates in ads.” But, in my view, there is a very large distinction between genuine negative attack ads and honest ads that draw distinctions between the candidates’ positions. And often, the easiest way to do that is to talk about the other guys. “A few years ago, the voters of Massachusetts said they wanted the income tax rolled back to 5%. I’m Tom Reilly, and I think we should respect the results of that vote. My opponent, Deval Patrick, does not.” What’s wrong with that?
In that case, it’s easy to argue that we’d have a more positive, unifying campaign if your hypothetical Reilly ad dropped the last line, and not lose much for it. On the other hand, keeping the last line without mentioning Deval Patrick by name would be lame and seem fake, so this does sort of illustrate my point.
<
p>
I do think Deval Patrick is urging candidates to make ads that don’t include the equivalent of that last line. There is merit to that, and it also has drawbacks.
<
p>
A better example of what I’m thinking of might be an ad of this form:
<
p>
“[Candidate A] proposes a plan to [do X]. I believe if we [do X], [unwanted thing Y] will happen. I support a plan to [do Z].” This can be useful if the general public doesn’t know candidate A’s plan to do X, and it wouldn’t make sense to just start an ad referring to X and why it won’t work. Voters would wonder, “what’s he talking about?” and without context, either be confused or not remember the point of the ad later on.
That can turn into a negative attack ad quickly, when the guy writing the ad twists Candidate A’s nuanced position into something that contrasts better with his.
Now here’s the rub: Any time candidates talk about what other candidates say or do, they have a tendency to misrepresent it. It’s a very strong temptation. If candidates agree not to try to present each others’ positions at all, just their own, they’re much less likely to engage in that. So, if they agree to it, they lose some worthwhile ability to make substantive contrasts, but they may gain something substantive in return. Deval Patrick thinks it’s a worthwhile trade-off, and one that will help Democrats win in the general election. My point is that it is a trade-off, unlike his other two proposals which are unambiguously good ideas.
Proposal one is a fine idea. I know some posters are uncomfortable with this “loyalty to the party” issue, but I expect each candidate seeking a Democratic nomination should pledge to support to nominee and work hard or his/her behalf in any race.
<
p>
Proposal three is also an excellent one. Casual voters rarely tune into debates, but any forum featuring these candidates will help fine-tune them for the general.
<
p>
Proposal two is a little too pie-in-the-sky for me. Pledges to stay positive inevitably lead to unproductive and distracting debates about whether and when the pldge was violated. Might as well let them have at it in whatever way they feel is appropriate. Kerry Healey and Mihos won’t treat the nominee with kid gloves, so the primary needs to serve as a vetting process. As for me, the type of ads these guys run will help reflect their character and values. Anyone who runs a truly negative ad as opposed to what I consider a legitimate policy disctinction ad will be hard-pressed to get my vote, pledge or no pledge.