Since I’m sure you (and many people) are taping the debate, and it’s only half an hour long, re-watch it with the following slant:
<
p>
How many times does a candidate say out loud that they agree with another candidate or that another candidate is right?
<
p>
Deval Patrick and Tom Reilly agree with Chris Gabrieli or say Chris Gabrieli is right four or five times. I don’t think they, at any time, agree with Deval or Tom on anything.
My full write-up is here, but suffice it to say I think Deval did the best, but there wasn’t any clear winner. Tom Reilly continued on the income-tax-return-turned-broken-record gimmick. Then he attacked Deval Patrick for joining Ameriquest to help fix Ameriquest (sort of like attacking the plumber for the toilet leak, if you ask me).
<
p>
My favorite part was the fact that Chris Gabrieli made a wife-beater joke… I can’t believe no one is talking about that.
<
p>
If you ask me, the only thing this debate proved is there really aren’t that many huge policy differences. Ultimately, Massachusetts voters will have to vote for who they think represents the best choice to govern based on ability to get the job done in a respectable way that brings as many people to the table. I’m sick of divisive politics – if there’s any reason why I support Deval Patrick it’s that I think he thinks every person matters, be they Republican or Democrat, and he’s not willing to walk over everyone to get his favorite policy completed. Hell, my Republican friends love the guy – even if they won’t vote for him.
p>
In any event, Gab’s joke was not really a “wife-beating” joke, per se. I certainly didn’t take it that way.
wallflowersays
I happened to read everyone’s commentary before I watched the debate, so maybe I was expecting too much from Reilly…. Personally, I thought he did not do well at all. He seemed very bitter towards Deval. As far as rolling back the income tax by .3%, while on paper it sounds good, in reality, 150$ is not going to do a thing for me. If I’m lucky, I could maybe get four fill-ups at the gas station. Reilly kind of reminded me of fights you would expect a 4 year old to have with his brother.
<
p>
I think that the winner was either Gabrieli or Deval. Gabrieli seemed to offer the most substance but Deval was more impressive in his delivery. Its tough to say which is more important now a days. Poor Gabrieli though. He seems like he has much to say and I’m excited to see how things will pan out at the convention now.
<
p>
Lastly, I hate to say it, but I think Kerry Healey will massacre Reilly in the general if he makes it that far. As everyone here has pointed out, Reilly is trying to paint himself as the centrist candidate but I do not see that as sincere at all. I believe people are looking for a candidate that is genuine. While Deval is far to the left at times, people see him as genuine. Unfortunately, this was my first time seeing Gabrieli so I don’t have any idea how he would do in the general. Any thoughts?
I can see how people can call Deval Patrick far to the left, but how can people suggest he’s way further left than either Reilly or Gabrieli? Seriously, do people just listen to Scott Leahy or do they actually read policy and issue stances?
<
p>
Deval Patrick, on paper, is not that much further to the left than either of his two opponents. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise and I’m so sick of it that I’m just going to call everyone on it now: if he’s so much further to the left, back it up and prove it to me. Not favoring a .3% rollback in income taxes is NOT going to swing the pendulum on liberalness (especially when you factor in the fact that he wants property taxes reduced).
<
p>
I don’t think it’s worse to be more liberal or that Deval Patrick would have a slimmer chance in winning, but I think calling Patrick by far more liberal than his two opponents for the Dem nomination is an ignorant statement.
jethom19says
Label’s are like lamposts to a drunk – used for support more than illuminaton. No exception when it comes to Deval Patrick.
<
p>
Patrick’s positions are considered and nuanced. If you read them, you cannot draw the conclusion that he is far left of anyone. On social issues he seems to think that a person’s well being and future matter more than where he wets his willie.
<
p>
On economic issues he wants a partnership between the state and the private sector – eliminating some regulation and making others more fair and expeditious.
<
p>
On tax issues, he simply refuses to sell the public a bill of goods – unlike Reilly. Few people realize that the tax cut that Reilly wants nets someone earning a half million dollars 1500.00 a year. Someone earning 60,000 saves 180.00 a year. Not a lot of money for the individual, but in the aggregate, important to cities and towns who would face additional cuts in state aid.
<
p>
Even on the illegal immigration driver’s licence issue – on which I disagree with Patrick – his position is essentially that it is a federal problem that is left to the state to handle. Having illegal and uninsured drivers compounds the problem.
wallflowersays
No, I did not. My point was that Deval is quite sincere in his beliefs unlike one of his oponents who seems to support what he thinks will poll well, which leads to my belief that he could not beat Kerry Healey in the general.
andronicussays
First of all, no one has mentioned anywhere that Tom Reilly had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a debate at long last. And now we know why, I guess. If he was as willing to debate issues and ideas as he was to play petty politics over personal income tax returns, maybe – just maybe – the public would have had a better sense of what a bad candidate he really is a lot longer ago.
<
p>
It was kind of odd to hear the spin over the last 24 hours before the debate even aired for the public! I was disappointed that the major news outlets would talk about winners, losers, and highlights before it was even available for public consumption. There were many significant differences between the spin and “news” stories and the actual debate. Here are three that stuck out to me:
<
p>
1. Reilly is really good at not answering questions and changing the subject. As the previous poster suggests rewatching it to see how many times each candidate says they agree with Chris (and, by the way, that could also be turned around to say “see how many times Chris agrees with the other candidates” – duh), rewatch it and see how many times Reilly actually answered a bleeping question.
<
p>
2. Patrick did not oppose an income tax rollback as Reilly and most of the news outlets like to characterize. He said the same thing Gabrieli said: you roll it back when the economy is in better shape and our reserve funds are built up. Now is not that time (by the way, there is a provision in the state laws that ALREADY requires that the income tax rate be reduced when the economy grows: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/62-4.htm – duh again). Go back and (again) listen to his exact response. He supports rolling it back when we can afford it. I find it funny that Reilly pledges not to raise taxes, but then essentially pledges to hike my property tax bill by endorsing a fiscally irresponsible cut in local aid (aka income tax cut before reserves are rebuilt and aid restored to 2002 levels). Tom Reilly: taxing working families and the elderly out of their homes. Yeah, I like the ring of that one, Tom. Slap that on a bumpersticker.
<
p>
3. Boy is Tom Reilly obsessed with Ameriquest and the Patrick family’s personal income tax returns. If he was as concerned with my property tax rates as he is with Deval’s federal income tax return, he might make a responsible public official. Maybe. Then again, if he wants to talk about public officials disclosing tax issues, maybe he should start with Maria St. Fleur. But I’m sure he would tell you he doesn’t know anyone by that name… Gee. Tom said at least twice “It’s about conflict.” Oh really? Ok, lets talk about the conflict inherent in interfering in a drunk driving homicide case to get a campaign contributor’s son off the hook. Lets talk about turning a blind eye to recovering Big Dig cost overruns while taking campaign checks from Big Dig contractors. Whoops! Oh, and by the way, Tom – Dick Cheney is required by federal law to release his income tax returns. We don’t require that in Massachusetts because we have Statements of Financial Interest (http://www.mass.gov/ethics/web268B.htm). Duh, again.
<
p>
I was trying to keep an open mind going forward. Now I’m going to send a check to Patrick.
<
p>
Tom Reilly is trying to be Republican-lite. If he’s the nominee and people have a choice between a real Republican and Republican-lite they’re going to vote for the real Republican every time. I don’t want Kerry Healey to be our next Governor.
<
p>
PS. Congrats on the great article in the Globe today, guys. As a North Shore res, I apologize on behalf of our region for the Margolis brothers. Egad.
finchnasays
Hi andronicus,
<
p>
I agree with your assessment of the debate and your point #2. As someone who’s just getting started thinking about MA state politics in a more serious way, I’m curious why you’re prepared to write a check to Patrick and not Gabrieli? I’m intersted in hearing about that from other blog readers here. Thanks for sharing.
He jumped in late in the game, after the caucuses–essentially ignoring the grassroots. He’s asking delegates who already committed to Reilly or Patrick to switch. Gabrieli must have known he wanted to be governor a year ago, and he should have made some effort to meet the rank-and-file Democrats who will be working hard this November to turn out voters in the local precincts. While he’s better than Healey or Mihos, ignoring the grassroots makes me question whether he would be good candidate to raise voter turnout–and we’re going to need that to win.
brightonguysays
I’m frustrated with people saying that Gabrieli’s entry after the caucuses “ignores the grassroots” – people that say that really don’t understand the purpose of the caucuses and the party convention (which happens annually, not just in gubernatorial election years).
<
p>
You have to take a step back and recognize the purpose of the caucuses. It is not solely to select gubernatorial delegates – and to look at the caucuses and the convention singularly through that lens does a disservice to the process.
<
p>
Party caucuses and conventions are held every single year. Party members in every town elected delegates at the caucuses for the conventions every year for the purpose of conducting party business.
<
p>
The quadrenniel gubernatorial-year caucuses get a ton more press because of the gubernatorial-selection implications. But you have to separate your mindset from that and realize the conventions are bigger than just gubernatorial candidate selection.
<
p>
Delegates get elected at the caucuses to represent their towns’ and cities’ Democratic Committees not to represent candidates. To tie those solely together misses the point, and creates an artificial deadline for candidates.
<
p>
Gabrieli, for getting in post-caucuses, has an uphill battle as many delegates have committed to Deval and Tom – but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be allowed to run. He still has to get 15% and play by the same rules.
<
p>
And those that are most unhappy for Gabrieli’s relatively late entry are those that would have publicly supported him but instead committed to Deval or Tom by caucus-time – particularly those delegates that supported Deval not because of a support for Deval but because of opposition to Tom with the caucuses having immediately followed the St. Fleur debacle and whose support for Deval was therefore soft.
<
p>
At least, that’s how it seems to me. Certainly happy to hear counterpoints.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Not to split hairs, but I believe it would be more accurate to say that the delegates represent the town or ward’s Democrats, rather than the Democratic Committee. The delegates are elected by registered Democrats at their towns and wards, nut just by members. In gubernatorial year’s it is customary for delegates to run with a commitment to support a specific candidate. People who ran with such a commitment should honor their commitment, for whatever reason the commitment was made.
andronicussays
Hi, Nathan – hope you stay involved actively in Mass politics, no matter who you’re with. It’s fun and it really does make a difference.
<
p>
I prefer Patrick over Reilly for issue reasons. I strongly disagree with Reilly’s positions on taxes, for example. But it’s partially also a personality thing. Reilly comes across to me as smug, like he thinks “it’s my turn” and no one should have the right to challenge him. Finally, it’s also strategic – I think he would make a weak candidate for the Dems in the final election.
<
p>
That said, I prefer Patrick over Gabrieli for largely just personality reasons. I’ve been engaged in this race from Day 1, and I’m just a little resentful that Gabrieli is – essentially – trying to buy his way into the nomination. Whereas Reilly feels like he’s entitled, it seems like Gabrieli feels he can purchase it. Patrick is the only one of the three who has proven to me – through the caucuses and even before then and since then, of course – that he deserves it because he’s working for it. And I think it’s reflective of the kind of work ethic he’d bring to the job. In addition, I can’t help but shake the feeling that Gabrieli’s whole campaign is based on sour-grapes – he had a deal to be Reilly’s running mate and then Reilly, under pressure from Mumbles it seems, bailed and picked Marie St. Fleur instead – snubbing him and, according to some accounts, snubbing the other declared LG candidates. Besides the sour grapes thing, there’s also something sketchy about waiting to lose out on the LG pick to throw your hat in the ring – if Reilly is such a poor candidate now (which I’m assuming Gabrieli believes, otherwise he wouldn’t be running against him), what changed so much in one week that caused Gabrieli to go from an apparently willing running mate prospect to outright opponent? I think some opportunistic consultants (the devil on the shoulder appears to be: http://www.newgrangegroup.com – same guys that ran Murphy for Sheriff and Mackey for State Senate – Dan Cence is their man and he’s been quoted as “Gabrieli’s spokesman” lately) got to him after the St. Fleurasco, showed him some polls with high number of undecideds, and convinced to give Tommy what-for.
<
p> whew
<
p>
But if it came down to Reilly or Gabrieli, I would pick Gabrieli. ‘Cause no matter why he got into this race, he is a Democrat and Tom Reilly is absolutely not.
Does he really believe that we should lower our local aid, lower our funding for police, fire and schools by cutting the income tax? You’re absolutely right, andronicus, when you say lower income tax means higher property taxes. He knows the consequences of his pledge, and if Jon Keller didn’t have that “all taxes are evil” mindset, he’d do job as journalist and point out that contradiction to Reilly.
afertigsays
Reilly talks about how Patrick is following Republican footsteps by not releasing his income tax forms. But Reilly is following Republican policy on immigration, the environment and taxation. Which is worse?
andronicussays
Well put. You put your finger on what was nagging my subconscious throughout the debate.
maverickdemsays
this comment was written in 6 minutes after the airing of the debate! That is extraordinary! Hmmm. . .
Sorry! Yes, I too humbly acknowledge the extraordinary speed of their post!
maverickdemsays
to craft something that well-organized. In fact, I probably would have had to work on it over a few days in order to respond so quickly. Truly extraordinary. My hat is off to the user who accomplished it all in just 6 minutes!
andronicussays
Thank you. You are too kind, really.
finchnasays
While there are many similarities among the candidates, I think that Gabrieli and Patrick cast themselves in a better light than Reilly. Unlike comments I read in another post, Reilly seemed defensive, spoke quickly, didn’t complete sentences (or spoke in sentence parts or points), and generally didn’t seem as relaxed or comfortable as Gabrieli or Patrick. Patrick was solid–used Cape Wind to differentiate himself from the others. I thought his response to Reilly about taxes and Ameriquest was good–but I don’t know the details. I liked Gabrieli’s education ideas. (though I’d like to hear how he plans to get the successes in charter schools to all public schools). I also liked his pension plan investments helping grow MA economy though I don’t know if the details of that are positive for the pension plan. Also, both he and Patrick spoke clearly, in full sentences. (I think that Gabrieli’s recent commercial just had the music playing too loud) Overall for the debate, thumbs up for Gabrieli, Patrick, thumbs down on Reilly.
dudeursistershotsays
Reilly seems to be less focused on what he would do for the state than on just how to get elected. Bringing up dumb and irrelevant things like Ameriquest was solely for politics, to make a political point, rather than a substantiative one. He seems to like attacking people for petty political gain, “gotcha” politics, rather than actually debating the issues on the merits. Patrick and Gabrielli seemed to have thoughtful, intelligent comments while Reilly just pandered and tried to tell people what they wanted to hear (lower taxes without regards to the consequences).
I felt that if this were a fight, Patrick and Gabrieli would be trained professionals and Reilly would be the scrappy guy that goes for the jugular. I felt that Patrick did a good job defending himself, though he took the bait on taxes and on his income from AmeriQuest. Patrick unfortunately got mired in some of Reilly’s questions, allowing Gabrieli to take the high ground.
<
p>
Was anybody else disapppointed in the questions Keller asked? Many of them were hypotheticals that didn’t deal with real-world issues, such as when you have two equal employees, (one Latino, one white) which would you fire? And which tax would you increase if you had to? These are ridiculous questions, but I think Patrick came out on top on all of them.
<
p>
I did like that Gabrieli talked about making the pie bigger–increasing the total number of jobs jobs, bringing people to MA, tackling education problems and so forth. But I do feel that this is somewhat of an inadequate argument, because when you make the pie bigger that also increases the costs to the state, not just the revenues.
<
p>
I feel that this is more and more turning into a race between Gabrieli and Patrick.
<
p>
(Note: I’m posting this before I read other people’s comments so I can give my own opinion and not be influenced by other information. Also, I’m a delegate for Deval Patrick to the convention and I volunteer for Patrick’s campaign.)
andronicussays
I, too, feel that the real contest of ideas is between Patrick and Gabrieli. And I think that either would be a good nominee for the party, but that Patrick is a much better option for both the part and the Commonwealth.
<
p>
I agree with the poster who pointed out that while Patrick and Gabrieli were talking about issues, Reilly went on the attack. …Given his falling poll numbers and increasing irrelevance, I guess he would have to go on the attack. But let the record show that on this date, the first negative campaigning of this contest – in which one candidate attacked and tried to smear an opponent – transpired and that the culprit was Tom Reilly.
maverickdemsays
Wow, I never thought I’d have a chance to quote ’80s one-hit wonder “Dead or Alive” on a political blog, but the Patrick supporters are spinning so strongly this morning that the last two decades were sucked back into their vacuum!
<
p>
“Keller asked the wrong questions (OK, whose choice was that?). . .Reilly fought dirty (he was incredibly polite, though direct). . .Reilly is a Republican (apparently for espousing moderate positions that the majority of voters share). . .Reilly is just trying to get elected (because he happens to shar the beliefs of many ordinary citizens). . .”
<
p>
Unity. This is something the Patrick camp supposedly believes in, but unity begins with accepting a diversity of beliefs within our party. Do you know why the majority of voters are Unenrolled? Answer: Because the liberal wing of our party was so intolerant of their moderate beliefs that they finally said, “We’re outta here.” Almost every one of these voters abondoned the Democratic Party to join the ranks of the Unenrolled. Do you think that they have been voting for Republican Governors because those candidates were “more liberal” than ours? I don’t think so. They have been voting for Republican Governors because we don’t listen.
<
p>
So, now the plan is to demonize Tom Reilly for sharing the beliefs of many, if not most, voters. Fascinating. So much for the party of the “big tent.” We should applaud the fact that Tom Reilly is trying to repair a breach that has caused the majority of voters to doubt the Democratic Party’s capacity to lead this state for nearly two decades.
<
p>
With all due respect to its author, the BMG poll is useless. The majority of BMG users are Democrats and left-leaning. Those people have not decided the last four gubernatorial elections: independent, Unenrolled voters did.
<
p>
For 30 minutes on Friday morning, Tom Reilly was speaking to those people and for those people.
outside-baseballsays
I just don’t see how you expect the unenrolled to be persuaded by Tom Reilly when he’s running to the right of the extremely moderate Shannon O’Brien. If faced with Reilly versus Healy, do you really believe that enough moderate votes are going to go with Reilly to overcome the likely abandonment that Reilly will face from the left wing of the party? Do you believe that the left wing of the party will just go to the polls and hold their nose as they vote for Reilly, simply because he’s a Democrat?
<
p>
Do you think that when faced with a Democrat who says he’ll cut taxes versus a Republican who says the same thing, they’ll believe Reilly over Healy? Don’t you think they might actually be MORE persuaded by the message that their property taxes are too high and keep going up, and there’s a candidate in this race who’s committed to stabilizing and even reducing that burden?
maverickdemsays
OB: I believe that the general electorate is slightly right of where Shannon O’Brien stood in 2002. Frankly, the results bear that out. Remember, Mitt Romney ran as a moderate Republican, but he was a little to the right of O’Brien fiscally and a little to the right her socially. (In reality, Romney was substantially more right in both departments.)
<
p>
You presume that because Reilly and Healey share the same position on the income tax rate that the voters will not be able to distinguish them on a number of other important issues. I believe that neutralizing the income tax rate issue will allow Reilly to focus on jobs, higher education, healthcare, housing, transportation, etc . Seriously, what is Kerry Healey without the rollback? Nothing. Reilly’s position is both respectful and necessary in order to elevate these other priorities.
<
p>
You also believe that voters want an in-depth discussion of the income tax vs. property taxes. I think that discussion is going nowhere fast. What the voters want is a return to the rate that they were promised (but the legislature later repudiated) would be restored when it was “temporarily” raised in 1989 and that they overwhelmingly demanded (but the legislature ignored) by referendum in 2000. Until we do that, they will never trust a Democrat to work with the Democrat-controlled legislature.
<
p>
As for liberal voters, I cannot tell you how many would come out to the polls or how many would stay home if given the choice between Tom Reilly and Kerry Healey. I do, however, believe that Reilly, by sharing the beliefs of the majority of moderates, stands the best chance of any of our candidates to convince General Election voters that he is a Democrat who can make good on the income tax rate and work with the legislature to move the state again.
nopoliticiansays
I believe that neutralizing the income tax rate issue will allow Reilly to focus on jobs, higher education, healthcare, housing, transportation, etc
<
p>
The problem there is that in order to spur more jobs, in order to invest in things like higher education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc., you need money.
<
p>
I have little tolerance for politicians who promise things like jobs without telling us how they’re going to do it. Is anyone actually against creating jobs?
<
p>
I think the income tax issue is a very important sign here because lowering it would mean cutting income-tax supported items. That means less investment in the state. It means more “everyone for himself” living. That’s conservatism in a nutshell.
<
p>
I have long doubted the credentials of many people in Massachusetts who call themselves Democrats, especially those who call themselves “fiscally conservative, socially liberal”. That is almost a liberatarian position — “let me keep my money and I won’t judge anyone”.
<
p>
People like to stand up and say “I’m a Democrat, but I’m against progressive taxation, I think all social programs are a waste of money, I like to live in my restrictively-zoned town which I refuse to allow any development within, and I think that we should lock up those immigrants for life when we catch them. But I’m pro-choice and I don’t mind gay marriage”. Huh?
<
p>
I find Massachusetts to be one of the most economically segregated and intolerant (when it comes to practice) states in the country, and I find that most decisions made on a local level are based on perpetuating that. So how are people who believe in that kind of stuff Democrats? Which of their beliefs makes them Democrats? “Opportunity only for those who deserve it?” “Good education for some of us?” “I believe in low-income housing as long as it isn’t in my town or as long as only people from my town, or less-threatening elderly can use it”?
andronicussays
Since when does being Unenrolled equal being a tax-cut small government conservative? Why can’t independents be progressive? Must all progressives be Democrats?
<
p>
Tommy is trying to build a right-center base. Ok. But something tells me those voters are going to prefer the real thing (i.e. a real Republican) as opposed to a Republican in Democratic clothing.
<
p>
And here’s something I forgot to mention before when I was ranting about conflicts. Isn’t it kind of a conflict to flip-flop on a major issue like choice or gay marriage, say? Hm. That didn’t come up. I’m not going to hold my breath for the Frank Phillips article on that one. But, hey, everyone look over here! Deval has large mortgage payments! Hey, over here!
<
p>
Speaking of Phillips, I haven’t seen any more of those biased articles in the Globe in a while. Is he on vacation or did they dump him from the gubernatorial beat? Maybe someone in their editor’s office found an improper connection between Phillips and Tommy?
<
p> sigh what the hell was I talking about?…
maverickdemsays
Nobody ever said that every Unenrolled voter is a tax-cut, small government conservative. But the results of the last four gubernatorial elections prove, beyond any question in my mind, that the majority of those people are socially moderate and fiscally moderate-to-conservative.
<
p>
Something tells me that voters are looking for something different too, which is exacly what Tom Reilly represents for the Democratic Party.
That I don’t agree with. Sure, Reilly’s positions on some issues are marginally to the right of Shannon O’Brien. But “something different”? He’s an old white guy who’s been an insider for years and years and hasn’t worked in the private sector since he was practically in knickers. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be Governor – but anyone looking for a “new approach” or a “breath of fresh air” in Mass. politics isn’t going to gravitate to the guy who’s been in the heart of it for much of his career. There are lots of things to like about Tom Reilly – you don’t need to make up things that aren’t there.
maverickdemsays
I do not see how Tom Reilly’s being, as you put it, “an old, white guy” has anything to do with his ability to represent something new for Massachusetts Democrats. In fact, your characterization just feeds into unhelpful stereotypes.
<
p>
Reilly is an incumbent which is quite different than being an insider. He is not, has not, nor ever will be the darling of the Democratic establishment because he has been far too independent throughout his career. If he had been “establishment,” this race would be over by now. You are correct, however, that he has a long and distinguished career in public service. What should he have done to appear more “fresh?” Cashed out and then returned to public life a presumably better person?
<
p>
Deval Patrick has lived a pretty privileged life since his attendance at Milton Academy, Harvard Uiversity, and Harvard Law School. I suppose I should just write off his ability to represent something more than limosine liberalism because he attended some of the nation’s finest, elite, private institutions before working for multibillion dollar, international companies. But the fact is that Patrick’s candidacy run more deeply than that narrow (and probably inaccurate) construction of his adult life’s resume. It certainly would ignore his childhood, which is surely a big part of who he is.
<
p>
No, I will not paint Deval Patrick with the same broad strokes that you are using depict Tom Reilly.
andronicussays
I want a fiscally moderate Governor, too. That’s why I’m voting for the only candidate that’s offered a plan (with numbers no less!) as to how to realize some savings in government. That’s why I’m voting for the candidate who refuses to let the CLT’s gimmicky and irresponsible “Let’s raise property taxes” pledge dictate each and every sentence in his platform.
I actually diddothemath. And I’ll do more. I like math.
<
p>
The math says that if we bring a million Democrats out to the polls in November, it won’t matter who we nominate (well, maybe not Silber). We could elect a ham sandwich if our GOTV effort was any good. That’s why it’s so important that we all stay unified and focus on the Mass Victory 06 effort and not wage the kind of primary campaign that will cost us the election.
The polls on this site are for entertainment purposes only, and not as the basis for an actual cash wager. But Soapblox has this fun poll feature — it’s just so irresistible…
maverickdemsays
I didn’t mean to knock your poll. It is a totally valid use of that feature. I was just using it as an example of why discussions that tend to include people who share the same viewpoint have limited value in broadening a party that has lost enrollment and support for the coner office.
Not so. The Dems have only lost enrollment as a percentage of total enrollment. The actual number of Democrats, using 2004 figures (the latest available), has never been higher.
maverickdemsays
on my part. I was actually referring to the lost percentage of Democrats in MA, which is the more relevant of the two figures. There is no question that we have taken a big hit in that department over the past two decades.
framinghamdemsays
As a Deval supporter I am was rather disappointed with his first debate. I felt the AG had a much better grasp of the issues and did a fantastic job playing to peoples emotions. Deval has to stop trying to spread his emotion on t.v. as he does so well in person, because it looks bad. He needs to be stern and serious. I think its time for Deval to move away from the extreme left. He needs to start attracting the voters in the middle otherwise the Democrats will end up falling short again. Deval needs to start going after the voters further to the right he already has the left as a moderate I am getting nervious of Deval’s chances in November, when it is a head to head match with the Republicans.
No one can predict who can and cannot win elections. Electability is utter nonsense – just look at John Kerry. He won the nomination because people thought he was the electable one!
<
p>
You vote for the person who you think will do best. Don’t believe in any electability hype (within reason, of course, but we’re talking about 3 candidates who are running and – months before the race ends – are all within 10% of each other). Any of these candidates are capable of beating Kerry Healey. Some of them may or may not have a better chance than anyone else… but to say Deval Patrick is less electable than Tom Reilly is absurd, at this point, months before the election. After all, which candidate has made the most mistakes so far – mistakes that could easily kill his chances to win? Deval Patrick certainly didn’t pick St. Fluer…
<
p>
Furthermore, all of the candidates are closely aligned on the issues. What issues does Deval Patrick differ greatly from Tom Reilly or Chris Gabrieli? How many times did he say, “I agree?” What’s the difference between 5% and 5.3%, especially when the .3% will mean drastically increased property taxes that impact the poor and elderly (with fixed incomes) far more than anyone else?
<
p>
Deval Patrick has said from the very beginning that he’s going to govern based on what he thinks is right, not politically expedient. Why should he go to the right? Will going to the right improve his chances to beat Kerry Healey? I say people prefer either real Democrats or real Republicans Republicans to fake Republicans. Republican-lite has proven to be a stupid strategy. People don’t buy it and don’t want it.
rightmiddleleftsays
Reilly’s concise answers like “no new Taxes” and “flip a coin on either firing a Hispanic or white person , and the Cheney sound bite on tax returns will reverberate much better with the voters than the “whinny” squeeky voice Ameriquest excuse by Patrick and the long winded answers technical answers from Gabrielli.
<
p>
Remember this debate was not directed to the liberal progressives , it was directed to the voters.
<
p>
Reilly hit a grand slam.
andronicussays
I love the Reilly folks on here trying to spin that Reilly is a better candidate for the Democrats because his platform is most close to the Republicans’ than the Democrats’. Whaaa?
<
p>
By the way, as was pointed out by at least one Herald columnist thus far, this whole campaign could change should one of the three fail to even qualify for the ballot in June anyway.
<
p>
On another note, one person here posted that Deval was brought on to the Ameriquest parent board to clean things up. Good point. I don’t think Tommy can understand that, though. He was supposed to clean up the Big Dig fiasco and instead he took their campaign checks and scuttled the cost recovery effort. I don’t think he understands the concept of responsible leadership and reform for the better. But he’s the Attorney General and it’s his time, dammit!
<
p>
Plus, he’s scrappy.
<
p>
…well, so’s my dog, but he doesn’t think he’s entitled to be Governor.
rightmiddleleftsays
andronicussays
Must have dozed off whilst watching Tom Reilly speak.
eury13says
Question: Would you sign or veto the drivers license law?
Patrick: Yes I would because we need to regulate people who are already on the road.
Riley: I need to read the bill
Gabrielli: We can’t be the party that reinforces illegal behavior.
<
p>
So from Riley and Gabrielli the answer is… ?
I’m about halfway through the debate so far (yay Tivo) and this scenario has played out more than once. Patrick answers the question in a straightforward way (and often explains is reasoning quite well given that he has 60 seconds) and then the other two give half-answers and waffle.
<
p>
I know that candidates are trained to “stay on message” but when you’re asked about the gas tax and you immediately start talking about the income tax, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate, and that’s a huge turn-off.
eury13says
Thoughts after the last 10 minutes:
1. Gabrielli’s positioned on the tax rollback is more nuanced than I’d heard before. Sure, he supports 5%, when the state can afford it (and he goes on the reaffirm that now is not that time).
<
p>
2. Reilly harping on Patrick’s tax filings leaves a really unpleasant taste in my mouth, especially after Patrick explained that his financial disclosures will discuss the amount of money that he has been paid by Ameriquest.
<
p>
Who won? I don’t know. I went into it supporting Patrick and that didn’t change by the end. Gabrielli moved a step up in my mind and I was kind of turned off by Reilly. (And yes, I realize I misspelled his name above… oops.)
<
p>
I hope we have more debates, because it’s clear that the discourse is necessary and more people need to get a chance to see and hear the candidates for themselves.
Why dosn’t Patrick just say that he’s following in the footsteps of Ted Kennedy, who has refused to release HIS tax returns for 40 years in both state and Federal elections?
dems-against-reillysays
Let’s remember that a few months ago Reilly wouldn’t even say the name Deval Patrick let alone attack him. Things have certainly changed.
<
p>
I think Deval Patrick supporters better hold onto their pants, because if I had to guess the attacks by the Reilly camp are only going to become more frequent. It is a shame and I hope that Deval Patrick supporters will join me in saying enough is enough.
<
p>
On a side note…A great deal of credit is due to Deval for not hitting first. I for one would have certainly been tempted!
There’s no need for that. Surely you can think of a better login name.
<
p>
You say you’re a Patrick supporter, but I doubt Deval would support that. His campaign is about rejecting the politics of personal destruction.
eury13says
Full disclosure…I am a Patrick supporter
<
p>
You’re kidding!
[/sarcasm]
finchnasays
If there is so much waste in the current administration, isn’t there some way to calculate how much would be saved by cleaning up all that waste and seeing if that would allow the income tax to be reduced to 5%?
<
p>
I’d prefer to see/hear all the candidates discussing education, increasing good jobs, developing/retaining business, environmental improvement, etc. when they have their conversations rather than can we get the income tax down (granted, to where the voters voted it) .3%.
<
p>
Is such budget planning/estimating possible from the outside?
<
p>
Also, thanks to all of you for this interesting discussion!
outside-baseballsays
…someone had a plan of some sort to find wasteful or needless spending in the budget.
Since I’m sure you (and many people) are taping the debate, and it’s only half an hour long, re-watch it with the following slant:
<
p>
How many times does a candidate say out loud that they agree with another candidate or that another candidate is right?
<
p>
Deval Patrick and Tom Reilly agree with Chris Gabrieli or say Chris Gabrieli is right four or five times. I don’t think they, at any time, agree with Deval or Tom on anything.
My full write-up is here, but suffice it to say I think Deval did the best, but there wasn’t any clear winner. Tom Reilly continued on the income-tax-return-turned-broken-record gimmick. Then he attacked Deval Patrick for joining Ameriquest to help fix Ameriquest (sort of like attacking the plumber for the toilet leak, if you ask me).
<
p>
My favorite part was the fact that Chris Gabrieli made a wife-beater joke… I can’t believe no one is talking about that.
<
p>
If you ask me, the only thing this debate proved is there really aren’t that many huge policy differences. Ultimately, Massachusetts voters will have to vote for who they think represents the best choice to govern based on ability to get the job done in a respectable way that brings as many people to the table. I’m sick of divisive politics – if there’s any reason why I support Deval Patrick it’s that I think he thinks every person matters, be they Republican or Democrat, and he’s not willing to walk over everyone to get his favorite policy completed. Hell, my Republican friends love the guy – even if they won’t vote for him.
Gabrieli’s joke was a riff on an old cliche, of the “gotcha”-style reporter asking a politician “When did you stop beating your wife?”
<
p>
The logical fallacy analysis of such a question is here. Always good to know your logic/rhetoric.
<
p>
In any event, Gab’s joke was not really a “wife-beating” joke, per se. I certainly didn’t take it that way.
I happened to read everyone’s commentary before I watched the debate, so maybe I was expecting too much from Reilly…. Personally, I thought he did not do well at all. He seemed very bitter towards Deval. As far as rolling back the income tax by .3%, while on paper it sounds good, in reality, 150$ is not going to do a thing for me. If I’m lucky, I could maybe get four fill-ups at the gas station. Reilly kind of reminded me of fights you would expect a 4 year old to have with his brother.
<
p>
I think that the winner was either Gabrieli or Deval. Gabrieli seemed to offer the most substance but Deval was more impressive in his delivery. Its tough to say which is more important now a days. Poor Gabrieli though. He seems like he has much to say and I’m excited to see how things will pan out at the convention now.
<
p>
Lastly, I hate to say it, but I think Kerry Healey will massacre Reilly in the general if he makes it that far. As everyone here has pointed out, Reilly is trying to paint himself as the centrist candidate but I do not see that as sincere at all. I believe people are looking for a candidate that is genuine. While Deval is far to the left at times, people see him as genuine. Unfortunately, this was my first time seeing Gabrieli so I don’t have any idea how he would do in the general. Any thoughts?
I can see how people can call Deval Patrick far to the left, but how can people suggest he’s way further left than either Reilly or Gabrieli? Seriously, do people just listen to Scott Leahy or do they actually read policy and issue stances?
<
p>
Deval Patrick, on paper, is not that much further to the left than either of his two opponents. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise and I’m so sick of it that I’m just going to call everyone on it now: if he’s so much further to the left, back it up and prove it to me. Not favoring a .3% rollback in income taxes is NOT going to swing the pendulum on liberalness (especially when you factor in the fact that he wants property taxes reduced).
<
p>
I don’t think it’s worse to be more liberal or that Deval Patrick would have a slimmer chance in winning, but I think calling Patrick by far more liberal than his two opponents for the Dem nomination is an ignorant statement.
Label’s are like lamposts to a drunk – used for support more than illuminaton. No exception when it comes to Deval Patrick.
<
p>
Patrick’s positions are considered and nuanced. If you read them, you cannot draw the conclusion that he is far left of anyone. On social issues he seems to think that a person’s well being and future matter more than where he wets his willie.
<
p>
On economic issues he wants a partnership between the state and the private sector – eliminating some regulation and making others more fair and expeditious.
<
p>
On tax issues, he simply refuses to sell the public a bill of goods – unlike Reilly. Few people realize that the tax cut that Reilly wants nets someone earning a half million dollars 1500.00 a year. Someone earning 60,000 saves 180.00 a year. Not a lot of money for the individual, but in the aggregate, important to cities and towns who would face additional cuts in state aid.
<
p>
Even on the illegal immigration driver’s licence issue – on which I disagree with Patrick – his position is essentially that it is a federal problem that is left to the state to handle. Having illegal and uninsured drivers compounds the problem.
No, I did not. My point was that Deval is quite sincere in his beliefs unlike one of his oponents who seems to support what he thinks will poll well, which leads to my belief that he could not beat Kerry Healey in the general.
First of all, no one has mentioned anywhere that Tom Reilly had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a debate at long last. And now we know why, I guess. If he was as willing to debate issues and ideas as he was to play petty politics over personal income tax returns, maybe – just maybe – the public would have had a better sense of what a bad candidate he really is a lot longer ago.
<
p>
It was kind of odd to hear the spin over the last 24 hours before the debate even aired for the public! I was disappointed that the major news outlets would talk about winners, losers, and highlights before it was even available for public consumption. There were many significant differences between the spin and “news” stories and the actual debate. Here are three that stuck out to me:
<
p>
1. Reilly is really good at not answering questions and changing the subject. As the previous poster suggests rewatching it to see how many times each candidate says they agree with Chris (and, by the way, that could also be turned around to say “see how many times Chris agrees with the other candidates” – duh), rewatch it and see how many times Reilly actually answered a bleeping question.
<
p>
2. Patrick did not oppose an income tax rollback as Reilly and most of the news outlets like to characterize. He said the same thing Gabrieli said: you roll it back when the economy is in better shape and our reserve funds are built up. Now is not that time (by the way, there is a provision in the state laws that ALREADY requires that the income tax rate be reduced when the economy grows: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/62-4.htm – duh again). Go back and (again) listen to his exact response. He supports rolling it back when we can afford it. I find it funny that Reilly pledges not to raise taxes, but then essentially pledges to hike my property tax bill by endorsing a fiscally irresponsible cut in local aid (aka income tax cut before reserves are rebuilt and aid restored to 2002 levels). Tom Reilly: taxing working families and the elderly out of their homes. Yeah, I like the ring of that one, Tom. Slap that on a bumpersticker.
<
p>
3. Boy is Tom Reilly obsessed with Ameriquest and the Patrick family’s personal income tax returns. If he was as concerned with my property tax rates as he is with Deval’s federal income tax return, he might make a responsible public official. Maybe. Then again, if he wants to talk about public officials disclosing tax issues, maybe he should start with Maria St. Fleur. But I’m sure he would tell you he doesn’t know anyone by that name… Gee. Tom said at least twice “It’s about conflict.” Oh really? Ok, lets talk about the conflict inherent in interfering in a drunk driving homicide case to get a campaign contributor’s son off the hook. Lets talk about turning a blind eye to recovering Big Dig cost overruns while taking campaign checks from Big Dig contractors. Whoops! Oh, and by the way, Tom – Dick Cheney is required by federal law to release his income tax returns. We don’t require that in Massachusetts because we have Statements of Financial Interest (http://www.mass.gov/ethics/web268B.htm). Duh, again.
<
p>
I was trying to keep an open mind going forward. Now I’m going to send a check to Patrick.
<
p>
Tom Reilly is trying to be Republican-lite. If he’s the nominee and people have a choice between a real Republican and Republican-lite they’re going to vote for the real Republican every time. I don’t want Kerry Healey to be our next Governor.
<
p>
PS. Congrats on the great article in the Globe today, guys. As a North Shore res, I apologize on behalf of our region for the Margolis brothers. Egad.
Hi andronicus,
<
p>
I agree with your assessment of the debate and your point #2. As someone who’s just getting started thinking about MA state politics in a more serious way, I’m curious why you’re prepared to write a check to Patrick and not Gabrieli? I’m intersted in hearing about that from other blog readers here. Thanks for sharing.
<
p>
Nathan
He jumped in late in the game, after the caucuses–essentially ignoring the grassroots. He’s asking delegates who already committed to Reilly or Patrick to switch. Gabrieli must have known he wanted to be governor a year ago, and he should have made some effort to meet the rank-and-file Democrats who will be working hard this November to turn out voters in the local precincts. While he’s better than Healey or Mihos, ignoring the grassroots makes me question whether he would be good candidate to raise voter turnout–and we’re going to need that to win.
I’m frustrated with people saying that Gabrieli’s entry after the caucuses “ignores the grassroots” – people that say that really don’t understand the purpose of the caucuses and the party convention (which happens annually, not just in gubernatorial election years).
<
p>
You have to take a step back and recognize the purpose of the caucuses. It is not solely to select gubernatorial delegates – and to look at the caucuses and the convention singularly through that lens does a disservice to the process.
<
p>
Party caucuses and conventions are held every single year. Party members in every town elected delegates at the caucuses for the conventions every year for the purpose of conducting party business.
<
p>
The quadrenniel gubernatorial-year caucuses get a ton more press because of the gubernatorial-selection implications. But you have to separate your mindset from that and realize the conventions are bigger than just gubernatorial candidate selection.
<
p>
Delegates get elected at the caucuses to represent their towns’ and cities’ Democratic Committees not to represent candidates. To tie those solely together misses the point, and creates an artificial deadline for candidates.
<
p>
Gabrieli, for getting in post-caucuses, has an uphill battle as many delegates have committed to Deval and Tom – but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be allowed to run. He still has to get 15% and play by the same rules.
<
p>
And those that are most unhappy for Gabrieli’s relatively late entry are those that would have publicly supported him but instead committed to Deval or Tom by caucus-time – particularly those delegates that supported Deval not because of a support for Deval but because of opposition to Tom with the caucuses having immediately followed the St. Fleur debacle and whose support for Deval was therefore soft.
<
p>
At least, that’s how it seems to me. Certainly happy to hear counterpoints.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Not to split hairs, but I believe it would be more accurate to say that the delegates represent the town or ward’s Democrats, rather than the Democratic Committee. The delegates are elected by registered Democrats at their towns and wards, nut just by members. In gubernatorial year’s it is customary for delegates to run with a commitment to support a specific candidate. People who ran with such a commitment should honor their commitment, for whatever reason the commitment was made.
Hi, Nathan – hope you stay involved actively in Mass politics, no matter who you’re with. It’s fun and it really does make a difference.
<
p>
I prefer Patrick over Reilly for issue reasons. I strongly disagree with Reilly’s positions on taxes, for example. But it’s partially also a personality thing. Reilly comes across to me as smug, like he thinks “it’s my turn” and no one should have the right to challenge him. Finally, it’s also strategic – I think he would make a weak candidate for the Dems in the final election.
<
p>
That said, I prefer Patrick over Gabrieli for largely just personality reasons. I’ve been engaged in this race from Day 1, and I’m just a little resentful that Gabrieli is – essentially – trying to buy his way into the nomination. Whereas Reilly feels like he’s entitled, it seems like Gabrieli feels he can purchase it. Patrick is the only one of the three who has proven to me – through the caucuses and even before then and since then, of course – that he deserves it because he’s working for it. And I think it’s reflective of the kind of work ethic he’d bring to the job. In addition, I can’t help but shake the feeling that Gabrieli’s whole campaign is based on sour-grapes – he had a deal to be Reilly’s running mate and then Reilly, under pressure from Mumbles it seems, bailed and picked Marie St. Fleur instead – snubbing him and, according to some accounts, snubbing the other declared LG candidates. Besides the sour grapes thing, there’s also something sketchy about waiting to lose out on the LG pick to throw your hat in the ring – if Reilly is such a poor candidate now (which I’m assuming Gabrieli believes, otherwise he wouldn’t be running against him), what changed so much in one week that caused Gabrieli to go from an apparently willing running mate prospect to outright opponent? I think some opportunistic consultants (the devil on the shoulder appears to be: http://www.newgrangegroup.com – same guys that ran Murphy for Sheriff and Mackey for State Senate – Dan Cence is their man and he’s been quoted as “Gabrieli’s spokesman” lately) got to him after the St. Fleurasco, showed him some polls with high number of undecideds, and convinced to give Tommy what-for.
<
p>
whew
<
p>
But if it came down to Reilly or Gabrieli, I would pick Gabrieli. ‘Cause no matter why he got into this race, he is a Democrat and Tom Reilly is absolutely not.
Does he really believe that we should lower our local aid, lower our funding for police, fire and schools by cutting the income tax? You’re absolutely right, andronicus, when you say lower income tax means higher property taxes. He knows the consequences of his pledge, and if Jon Keller didn’t have that “all taxes are evil” mindset, he’d do job as journalist and point out that contradiction to Reilly.
Reilly talks about how Patrick is following Republican footsteps by not releasing his income tax forms. But Reilly is following Republican policy on immigration, the environment and taxation. Which is worse?
Well put. You put your finger on what was nagging my subconscious throughout the debate.
this comment was written in 6 minutes after the airing of the debate! That is extraordinary! Hmmm. . .
on their remarkably efficient and expedient writing method. 😉
Sorry! Yes, I too humbly acknowledge the extraordinary speed of their post!
to craft something that well-organized. In fact, I probably would have had to work on it over a few days in order to respond so quickly. Truly extraordinary. My hat is off to the user who accomplished it all in just 6 minutes!
Thank you. You are too kind, really.
While there are many similarities among the candidates, I think that Gabrieli and Patrick cast themselves in a better light than Reilly. Unlike comments I read in another post, Reilly seemed defensive, spoke quickly, didn’t complete sentences (or spoke in sentence parts or points), and generally didn’t seem as relaxed or comfortable as Gabrieli or Patrick. Patrick was solid–used Cape Wind to differentiate himself from the others. I thought his response to Reilly about taxes and Ameriquest was good–but I don’t know the details. I liked Gabrieli’s education ideas. (though I’d like to hear how he plans to get the successes in charter schools to all public schools). I also liked his pension plan investments helping grow MA economy though I don’t know if the details of that are positive for the pension plan. Also, both he and Patrick spoke clearly, in full sentences. (I think that Gabrieli’s recent commercial just had the music playing too loud) Overall for the debate, thumbs up for Gabrieli, Patrick, thumbs down on Reilly.
Reilly seems to be less focused on what he would do for the state than on just how to get elected. Bringing up dumb and irrelevant things like Ameriquest was solely for politics, to make a political point, rather than a substantiative one. He seems to like attacking people for petty political gain, “gotcha” politics, rather than actually debating the issues on the merits. Patrick and Gabrielli seemed to have thoughtful, intelligent comments while Reilly just pandered and tried to tell people what they wanted to hear (lower taxes without regards to the consequences).
Nice to see you around. 🙂
<
p>
Great points and well said.
I felt that if this were a fight, Patrick and Gabrieli would be trained professionals and Reilly would be the scrappy guy that goes for the jugular. I felt that Patrick did a good job defending himself, though he took the bait on taxes and on his income from AmeriQuest. Patrick unfortunately got mired in some of Reilly’s questions, allowing Gabrieli to take the high ground.
<
p>
Was anybody else disapppointed in the questions Keller asked? Many of them were hypotheticals that didn’t deal with real-world issues, such as when you have two equal employees, (one Latino, one white) which would you fire? And which tax would you increase if you had to? These are ridiculous questions, but I think Patrick came out on top on all of them.
<
p>
I did like that Gabrieli talked about making the pie bigger–increasing the total number of jobs jobs, bringing people to MA, tackling education problems and so forth. But I do feel that this is somewhat of an inadequate argument, because when you make the pie bigger that also increases the costs to the state, not just the revenues.
<
p>
I feel that this is more and more turning into a race between Gabrieli and Patrick.
<
p>
(Note: I’m posting this before I read other people’s comments so I can give my own opinion and not be influenced by other information. Also, I’m a delegate for Deval Patrick to the convention and I volunteer for Patrick’s campaign.)
I, too, feel that the real contest of ideas is between Patrick and Gabrieli. And I think that either would be a good nominee for the party, but that Patrick is a much better option for both the part and the Commonwealth.
<
p>
I agree with the poster who pointed out that while Patrick and Gabrieli were talking about issues, Reilly went on the attack. …Given his falling poll numbers and increasing irrelevance, I guess he would have to go on the attack. But let the record show that on this date, the first negative campaigning of this contest – in which one candidate attacked and tried to smear an opponent – transpired and that the culprit was Tom Reilly.
Wow, I never thought I’d have a chance to quote ’80s one-hit wonder “Dead or Alive” on a political blog, but the Patrick supporters are spinning so strongly this morning that the last two decades were sucked back into their vacuum!
<
p>
“Keller asked the wrong questions (OK, whose choice was that?). . .Reilly fought dirty (he was incredibly polite, though direct). . .Reilly is a Republican (apparently for espousing moderate positions that the majority of voters share). . .Reilly is just trying to get elected (because he happens to shar the beliefs of many ordinary citizens). . .”
<
p>
Unity. This is something the Patrick camp supposedly believes in, but unity begins with accepting a diversity of beliefs within our party. Do you know why the majority of voters are Unenrolled? Answer: Because the liberal wing of our party was so intolerant of their moderate beliefs that they finally said, “We’re outta here.” Almost every one of these voters abondoned the Democratic Party to join the ranks of the Unenrolled. Do you think that they have been voting for Republican Governors because those candidates were “more liberal” than ours? I don’t think so. They have been voting for Republican Governors because we don’t listen.
<
p>
So, now the plan is to demonize Tom Reilly for sharing the beliefs of many, if not most, voters. Fascinating. So much for the party of the “big tent.” We should applaud the fact that Tom Reilly is trying to repair a breach that has caused the majority of voters to doubt the Democratic Party’s capacity to lead this state for nearly two decades.
<
p>
With all due respect to its author, the BMG poll is useless. The majority of BMG users are Democrats and left-leaning. Those people have not decided the last four gubernatorial elections: independent, Unenrolled voters did.
<
p>
For 30 minutes on Friday morning, Tom Reilly was speaking to those people and for those people.
I just don’t see how you expect the unenrolled to be persuaded by Tom Reilly when he’s running to the right of the extremely moderate Shannon O’Brien. If faced with Reilly versus Healy, do you really believe that enough moderate votes are going to go with Reilly to overcome the likely abandonment that Reilly will face from the left wing of the party? Do you believe that the left wing of the party will just go to the polls and hold their nose as they vote for Reilly, simply because he’s a Democrat?
<
p>
Do you think that when faced with a Democrat who says he’ll cut taxes versus a Republican who says the same thing, they’ll believe Reilly over Healy? Don’t you think they might actually be MORE persuaded by the message that their property taxes are too high and keep going up, and there’s a candidate in this race who’s committed to stabilizing and even reducing that burden?
OB: I believe that the general electorate is slightly right of where Shannon O’Brien stood in 2002. Frankly, the results bear that out. Remember, Mitt Romney ran as a moderate Republican, but he was a little to the right of O’Brien fiscally and a little to the right her socially. (In reality, Romney was substantially more right in both departments.)
<
p>
You presume that because Reilly and Healey share the same position on the income tax rate that the voters will not be able to distinguish them on a number of other important issues. I believe that neutralizing the income tax rate issue will allow Reilly to focus on jobs, higher education, healthcare, housing, transportation, etc . Seriously, what is Kerry Healey without the rollback? Nothing. Reilly’s position is both respectful and necessary in order to elevate these other priorities.
<
p>
You also believe that voters want an in-depth discussion of the income tax vs. property taxes. I think that discussion is going nowhere fast. What the voters want is a return to the rate that they were promised (but the legislature later repudiated) would be restored when it was “temporarily” raised in 1989 and that they overwhelmingly demanded (but the legislature ignored) by referendum in 2000. Until we do that, they will never trust a Democrat to work with the Democrat-controlled legislature.
<
p>
As for liberal voters, I cannot tell you how many would come out to the polls or how many would stay home if given the choice between Tom Reilly and Kerry Healey. I do, however, believe that Reilly, by sharing the beliefs of the majority of moderates, stands the best chance of any of our candidates to convince General Election voters that he is a Democrat who can make good on the income tax rate and work with the legislature to move the state again.
I believe that neutralizing the income tax rate issue will allow Reilly to focus on jobs, higher education, healthcare, housing, transportation, etc
<
p>
The problem there is that in order to spur more jobs, in order to invest in things like higher education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc., you need money.
<
p>
I have little tolerance for politicians who promise things like jobs without telling us how they’re going to do it. Is anyone actually against creating jobs?
<
p>
I think the income tax issue is a very important sign here because lowering it would mean cutting income-tax supported items. That means less investment in the state. It means more “everyone for himself” living. That’s conservatism in a nutshell.
<
p>
I have long doubted the credentials of many people in Massachusetts who call themselves Democrats, especially those who call themselves “fiscally conservative, socially liberal”. That is almost a liberatarian position — “let me keep my money and I won’t judge anyone”.
<
p>
People like to stand up and say “I’m a Democrat, but I’m against progressive taxation, I think all social programs are a waste of money, I like to live in my restrictively-zoned town which I refuse to allow any development within, and I think that we should lock up those immigrants for life when we catch them. But I’m pro-choice and I don’t mind gay marriage”. Huh?
<
p>
I find Massachusetts to be one of the most economically segregated and intolerant (when it comes to practice) states in the country, and I find that most decisions made on a local level are based on perpetuating that. So how are people who believe in that kind of stuff Democrats? Which of their beliefs makes them Democrats? “Opportunity only for those who deserve it?” “Good education for some of us?” “I believe in low-income housing as long as it isn’t in my town or as long as only people from my town, or less-threatening elderly can use it”?
Since when does being Unenrolled equal being a tax-cut small government conservative? Why can’t independents be progressive? Must all progressives be Democrats?
<
p>
Tommy is trying to build a right-center base. Ok. But something tells me those voters are going to prefer the real thing (i.e. a real Republican) as opposed to a Republican in Democratic clothing.
<
p>
And here’s something I forgot to mention before when I was ranting about conflicts. Isn’t it kind of a conflict to flip-flop on a major issue like choice or gay marriage, say? Hm. That didn’t come up. I’m not going to hold my breath for the Frank Phillips article on that one. But, hey, everyone look over here! Deval has large mortgage payments! Hey, over here!
<
p>
Speaking of Phillips, I haven’t seen any more of those biased articles in the Globe in a while. Is he on vacation or did they dump him from the gubernatorial beat? Maybe someone in their editor’s office found an improper connection between Phillips and Tommy?
<
p>
sigh what the hell was I talking about?…
Nobody ever said that every Unenrolled voter is a tax-cut, small government conservative. But the results of the last four gubernatorial elections prove, beyond any question in my mind, that the majority of those people are socially moderate and fiscally moderate-to-conservative.
<
p>
Something tells me that voters are looking for something different too, which is exacly what Tom Reilly represents for the Democratic Party.
That I don’t agree with. Sure, Reilly’s positions on some issues are marginally to the right of Shannon O’Brien. But “something different”? He’s an old white guy who’s been an insider for years and years and hasn’t worked in the private sector since he was practically in knickers. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be Governor – but anyone looking for a “new approach” or a “breath of fresh air” in Mass. politics isn’t going to gravitate to the guy who’s been in the heart of it for much of his career. There are lots of things to like about Tom Reilly – you don’t need to make up things that aren’t there.
I do not see how Tom Reilly’s being, as you put it, “an old, white guy” has anything to do with his ability to represent something new for Massachusetts Democrats. In fact, your characterization just feeds into unhelpful stereotypes.
<
p>
Reilly is an incumbent which is quite different than being an insider. He is not, has not, nor ever will be the darling of the Democratic establishment because he has been far too independent throughout his career. If he had been “establishment,” this race would be over by now. You are correct, however, that he has a long and distinguished career in public service. What should he have done to appear more “fresh?” Cashed out and then returned to public life a presumably better person?
<
p>
Deval Patrick has lived a pretty privileged life since his attendance at Milton Academy, Harvard Uiversity, and Harvard Law School. I suppose I should just write off his ability to represent something more than limosine liberalism because he attended some of the nation’s finest, elite, private institutions before working for multibillion dollar, international companies. But the fact is that Patrick’s candidacy run more deeply than that narrow (and probably inaccurate) construction of his adult life’s resume. It certainly would ignore his childhood, which is surely a big part of who he is.
<
p>
No, I will not paint Deval Patrick with the same broad strokes that you are using depict Tom Reilly.
I want a fiscally moderate Governor, too. That’s why I’m voting for the only candidate that’s offered a plan (with numbers no less!) as to how to realize some savings in government. That’s why I’m voting for the candidate who refuses to let the CLT’s gimmicky and irresponsible “Let’s raise property taxes” pledge dictate each and every sentence in his platform.
<
p>
Yep, me likey the fiscally moderation.
I actually did do the math. And I’ll do more. I like math.
<
p>
The math says that if we bring a million Democrats out to the polls in November, it won’t matter who we nominate (well, maybe not Silber). We could elect a ham sandwich if our GOTV effort was any good. That’s why it’s so important that we all stay unified and focus on the Mass Victory 06 effort and not wage the kind of primary campaign that will cost us the election.
The polls on this site are for entertainment purposes only, and not as the basis for an actual cash wager. But Soapblox has this fun poll feature — it’s just so irresistible…
I didn’t mean to knock your poll. It is a totally valid use of that feature. I was just using it as an example of why discussions that tend to include people who share the same viewpoint have limited value in broadening a party that has lost enrollment and support for the coner office.
Not so. The Dems have only lost enrollment as a percentage of total enrollment. The actual number of Democrats, using 2004 figures (the latest available), has never been higher.
on my part. I was actually referring to the lost percentage of Democrats in MA, which is the more relevant of the two figures. There is no question that we have taken a big hit in that department over the past two decades.
As a Deval supporter I am was rather disappointed with his first debate. I felt the AG had a much better grasp of the issues and did a fantastic job playing to peoples emotions. Deval has to stop trying to spread his emotion on t.v. as he does so well in person, because it looks bad. He needs to be stern and serious. I think its time for Deval to move away from the extreme left. He needs to start attracting the voters in the middle otherwise the Democrats will end up falling short again. Deval needs to start going after the voters further to the right he already has the left as a moderate I am getting nervious of Deval’s chances in November, when it is a head to head match with the Republicans.
No one can predict who can and cannot win elections. Electability is utter nonsense – just look at John Kerry. He won the nomination because people thought he was the electable one!
<
p>
You vote for the person who you think will do best. Don’t believe in any electability hype (within reason, of course, but we’re talking about 3 candidates who are running and – months before the race ends – are all within 10% of each other). Any of these candidates are capable of beating Kerry Healey. Some of them may or may not have a better chance than anyone else… but to say Deval Patrick is less electable than Tom Reilly is absurd, at this point, months before the election. After all, which candidate has made the most mistakes so far – mistakes that could easily kill his chances to win? Deval Patrick certainly didn’t pick St. Fluer…
<
p>
Furthermore, all of the candidates are closely aligned on the issues. What issues does Deval Patrick differ greatly from Tom Reilly or Chris Gabrieli? How many times did he say, “I agree?” What’s the difference between 5% and 5.3%, especially when the .3% will mean drastically increased property taxes that impact the poor and elderly (with fixed incomes) far more than anyone else?
<
p>
Deval Patrick has said from the very beginning that he’s going to govern based on what he thinks is right, not politically expedient. Why should he go to the right? Will going to the right improve his chances to beat Kerry Healey? I say people prefer either real Democrats or real Republicans Republicans to fake Republicans. Republican-lite has proven to be a stupid strategy. People don’t buy it and don’t want it.
Reilly’s concise answers like “no new Taxes” and “flip a coin on either firing a Hispanic or white person , and the Cheney sound bite on tax returns will reverberate much better with the voters than the “whinny” squeeky voice Ameriquest excuse by Patrick and the long winded answers technical answers from Gabrielli.
<
p>
Remember this debate was not directed to the liberal progressives , it was directed to the voters.
<
p>
Reilly hit a grand slam.
I love the Reilly folks on here trying to spin that Reilly is a better candidate for the Democrats because his platform is most close to the Republicans’ than the Democrats’. Whaaa?
<
p>
By the way, as was pointed out by at least one Herald columnist thus far, this whole campaign could change should one of the three fail to even qualify for the ballot in June anyway.
<
p>
On another note, one person here posted that Deval was brought on to the Ameriquest parent board to clean things up. Good point. I don’t think Tommy can understand that, though. He was supposed to clean up the Big Dig fiasco and instead he took their campaign checks and scuttled the cost recovery effort. I don’t think he understands the concept of responsible leadership and reform for the better. But he’s the Attorney General and it’s his time, dammit!
<
p>
Plus, he’s scrappy.
<
p>
…well, so’s my dog, but he doesn’t think he’s entitled to be Governor.
Must have dozed off whilst watching Tom Reilly speak.
Question: Would you sign or veto the drivers license law?
Patrick: Yes I would because we need to regulate people who are already on the road.
Riley: I need to read the bill
Gabrielli: We can’t be the party that reinforces illegal behavior.
<
p>
So from Riley and Gabrielli the answer is… ?
I’m about halfway through the debate so far (yay Tivo) and this scenario has played out more than once. Patrick answers the question in a straightforward way (and often explains is reasoning quite well given that he has 60 seconds) and then the other two give half-answers and waffle.
<
p>
I know that candidates are trained to “stay on message” but when you’re asked about the gas tax and you immediately start talking about the income tax, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate, and that’s a huge turn-off.
Thoughts after the last 10 minutes:
1. Gabrielli’s positioned on the tax rollback is more nuanced than I’d heard before. Sure, he supports 5%, when the state can afford it (and he goes on the reaffirm that now is not that time).
<
p>
2. Reilly harping on Patrick’s tax filings leaves a really unpleasant taste in my mouth, especially after Patrick explained that his financial disclosures will discuss the amount of money that he has been paid by Ameriquest.
<
p>
Who won? I don’t know. I went into it supporting Patrick and that didn’t change by the end. Gabrielli moved a step up in my mind and I was kind of turned off by Reilly. (And yes, I realize I misspelled his name above… oops.)
<
p>
I hope we have more debates, because it’s clear that the discourse is necessary and more people need to get a chance to see and hear the candidates for themselves.
Why dosn’t Patrick just say that he’s following in the footsteps of Ted Kennedy, who has refused to release HIS tax returns for 40 years in both state and Federal elections?
Let’s remember that a few months ago Reilly wouldn’t even say the name Deval Patrick let alone attack him. Things have certainly changed.
<
p>
I think Deval Patrick supporters better hold onto their pants, because if I had to guess the attacks by the Reilly camp are only going to become more frequent. It is a shame and I hope that Deval Patrick supporters will join me in saying enough is enough.
<
p>
On a side note…A great deal of credit is due to Deval for not hitting first. I for one would have certainly been tempted!
<
p>
Full disclosure…I am a Patrick supporter
There’s no need for that. Surely you can think of a better login name.
<
p>
You say you’re a Patrick supporter, but I doubt Deval would support that. His campaign is about rejecting the politics of personal destruction.
Full disclosure…I am a Patrick supporter
<
p>
You’re kidding!
[/sarcasm]
If there is so much waste in the current administration, isn’t there some way to calculate how much would be saved by cleaning up all that waste and seeing if that would allow the income tax to be reduced to 5%?
<
p>
I’d prefer to see/hear all the candidates discussing education, increasing good jobs, developing/retaining business, environmental improvement, etc. when they have their conversations rather than can we get the income tax down (granted, to where the voters voted it) .3%.
<
p>
Is such budget planning/estimating possible from the outside?
<
p>
Also, thanks to all of you for this interesting discussion!
…someone had a plan of some sort to find wasteful or needless spending in the budget.
<
p>
http://devalpatrick.com/issues_spending.cfm