I am an unabashed Reilly supporter, but does anyone need any more evidence that Healey and the GOP believe Tom Reilly represents the greatest threat to their continued control of the governorship than yesterday’s assault? They ignored Chris Gabrieli outright. They took the opportunity to highlight Deval Patrick’s liberalism, but mostly as a means to take a shot at Reilly, i.e. Patrick is a principled liberal, while Reilly is a recent convert on the income tax issue. In the end, almost all of their ammunition was loaded for bear against Reilly – and for good reason. They know he has the best shot of beating Healey and taking back the corner office.
Reilly has effectively neutralized the income tax issue. The best that they can do is to point out that he was in favor of delaying the rollback in previous years. Meanwhile, Deval Patrick opposes the rollback outright and Chris Gabrieli is endorsing some kind of hybrid position. I understand that Patrick’s position is coupled with an argument for property tax relief, but I do not believe that voters are going to be satisfied that the only way to control their property taxes is to keep their income tax rate at 5.3% – not when other candidates are going to be talking about uncapping the lottery and providing relief within the budget. I’m sorry, but I genuinely do not believe that the voters are going to be interested in Deval’s quid pro quo.
Reilly’s career has been punctuated by an independent streak that will serve as the best claim among any of the Democrats that he can serve as a legitimate check on the legislature. Chris Gabrieli supports charter schools, but I really cannot think of another area that suggests a deviation from the Democratic norm. Deval Patrick’s argument for independence is predicated on the fact that he is from outside state government and that he has never run before. OK, but does he hold any meaningful positions that might run afoul of Democratic special interests groups or the Democrat-controlled legislature? Cape Wind really doesn’t work because there are plenty of Democrats who support renewable energy development.
Yesterday, Tom Reilly told the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers (MFT) that he supports the income tax rollback, merit pay for teachers, and charter schools, all positions that they oppose. Meanwhile, according to the Boston Globe, Deval Patrick “continued to modify what he acknowledges is an evolving position of support for merit pay for teachers. He also qualified his endorsement of charter schools — like merit pay, an issue that the teachers’ unions sharply oppose.” Not exactly a profile in political independence. In fact, with the MFT’s endorsement a possibility for Patrick, it actually sounds like pandering.
Finally, I believe Reilly is the Democrats’ best chance at making the case for Democrat-led reform. The fact of the matter is that voters will not even entertain the idea of a Democrat reforming government until he can demonstrate fiscal responsibility (which will largely be measured by the income tax issue) and independence (which will largely be based on the candidate’s positions and records). For those who contend that Tom Reilly has no vision for the Commonwealth or plan for reform, I refer you to two posts that I made last week: Tom Reilly’s Health Care Plan and Tom Reilly’s Vision for the Environment. These plans are just as specific – and often more so – than anything offered by any other candidate for Governor.
Democrats will choose our own nominee, but we would be foolish to ignore the fact that Republicans recognize the strength and appeal of Tom Reilly’s candidacy. The voters (Unenrolled, Democrat, Republican, and others) will ultimately choose our next Governor and Republicans fear that their answer will be Tom Reilly.
Of course the flipside to everything you just said is that Reilly will come out of the primaries weakened from both the left and the right.
<
p>
“They took the opportunity to highlight Deval Patrick’s liberalism, but mostly as a means to take a shot at Reilly, i.e. Patrick is a principled liberal, while Reilly is a recent convert on the income tax issue.”
<
p>
In Massachusetts, do you really think calling somebody a “principled liberal” is going to hurt them in the polls? To my ears, they just gave Patrick a boost by calling him a principled liberal. It seems to me that what Republicans of all stripes have been attacking is mostly that Democrats have no principles. They’re shooting themselves in the foot by doing this.
Since I do not believe that the majority of voters define themselves as occuping either the left or the right, Reilly’s candidacy is well-positioned to capture moderate Democrats, conservative Democrats, and the Holy Grail – independent Unenrolled voters.
<
p>
And, yes, I do think it hurts to be labeled a liberal, in Massachusetts, Kansas, or elsewhere. Republicans represent 14% of registered voters and yet they have consistently captured the governorship. Unless you believe that those Unenrolled and swing-Democrats have been voting for the Republican candidates because they are more liberal the than the Democrats then, yes, I believe it hurts to be labeled a liberal, principled or otherwise.
<
p>
Do you really think it was Kerry Healey’s intention to “boost” Patrick with that line? It was a two-fer. She paints Patrick as a lefty and takes a shot at Reilly.
<
p>
Bottom line: Reilly was her target yesterday. Reason: Reilly is her strongest opponent.
No, I don’t think that she intended to boost Patrick with that line; I do think it will backfire.
<
p>
Those unenrolled and swing-Democrats have been voting not just for Republicans, but also an overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature, Senate, Congressional delegation, Senate delegation, constitutional offices etc. It’s time to stop asking why liberal Democrats can’t win the corner office and start asking why the governor’s seat is such an anomaly.
<
p>
It only hurts to be labeled a liberal when we accept it as an insult. We’re running away from ourselves and where our constituents really are. Reilly was her target, you’re right about that. So let’s hit her with something she’s not used to fighting — Patrick: a principled liberal who’s poised and patient, inspiring and intelligent.
It’s not why can’t the Democrats win the corner office, it’s why can the Republicans only win the corner office?
<
p>
We have the weakest MA GOP in recent history. If a progressive cannot win here, where in the world do you think a progressive can win?
I do not believe a progressive can win the governorship. I thought I was clear on that point, but let me make it clear. I realize this will not be a popular position to take with some BMGers, but it is true.
<
p>
Voters are not looking to be converted, they are looking for leaders whose positionsi actually sugges that they are listening. If we field the most liberal candidate in the field after four straight Republican victories, Democrats are not only not listening, we are certifiably deaf.
I just committed one of mistakes that I most dislike: over-geneneralizing. Mea culpa.
<
p>
“Progressive” is a relative term. What I am trying to convey is that I do not believe that the state is looking for a dramatic shift to the left. I realized after reading my post that I did the term “progressive” as disservice by treating it as a synonym for such a dramatic shift.
that my typing/spelling could not be much worse today!
the governorship has been such an anomoly: it is the one position that clearly represents a “check and balance” on pocketbook issues in the minds of voters. No other statewide, federal, or legislative position presents that possibility. For one, voters look at a single legislator differently in the context of representative government (he or she is 1 of 160, or 40, or 100, or 435). Second, in most cases, the Republicans do not even field a candidate, let alone one that has a real shot at winning.
<
p>
The reason that Republicans have been so successful in retaining the corner office is because they have already been wildly successful at portraying our nominees as liberals. In most of those cases, those candidates were more moderate than Deval Patrick. I do not question your fundamental belief in Deval Patrick, but I think you are wrong if you think that the electorate is looking to embrace a “principled liberal.” Absolutely nothing that Massachusetts voters have said through their actions in the last 16 years even remotely suggests that such a hypothesis would be proven correct.
<
p>
I do not believe that “liberal” is an insult. In fact, I admire liberal activism in the face of an official State Party that is largely irrelevant. However, I don’t allow my respect for the liberal wing of the party to cloud my judgment about true composition of the electorate. The reason that Democrats are almost exclusively elected to office in this state has everything to do with the weaknesses of the GOP and very little to do with liberalism. In fact, there is nothing more overrated than the notion that Massachusetts is a “liberal” state. Massachusetts is a Democratic state that just happens to have an extraordinarily broad range of Democrats and a near absence of Republicans.
<
p>
The Republicans know that Tom Reilly represents the Democrats best chance to win and disprove the notion that a Democrat cannot provide responsible, independent leadership.
On this board, a lot of people seem to lose sight of the fact that Reilly is a progressive in many ways. He’s pro choice, favors same sex marriage, has a plan for getting to universal health care and making health care affordable, and has a long track record of fighting for consumers. He’s positioned himself to be competitive in the general election and to avoid a lot of the traps Republicans have set for Democrats over the years, but that doesn’t make him a conservative by any means. He actually to the left of most Democrats nationally.
Amen!
why did he allot the ridiculous, anti-gay ballot question go forward? Tom Reilly certainly isn’t the devil nor do I believe him to be an awful Democrat such as a Tom Finneran please, Tom Reilly is no progressive, nor does he want to be. Remember, it was his “strategy” to not care about the “activists” that run the caucuses; that doesn’t sound progressive.
He needs a constitutionally valid reason to keep a question from appearing on the ballot. After all, this is a democracy. I can’t wait to vote against it, but even those with bad ideas have the right to be heard. Because Tom Reilly supports the democratic process does not mean that he does not favor gay marriage.
<
p>
I also doubt that it was Reilly’s strategy “not to care about activists.” However, I do believe it is his strategy not to allow the left-leaning convention crowd to define his candidacy. There is a difference.
<
p>
Progressive is a relative term. Ask 100 people what it means and you will get 100 different answers.
Just founds this site and this is my first post. Looks like some there are some interesting discussions going on here and I look forward to participating in the future.
<
p>
Wanted to respond to MaverickDem’s points. First, Reilly is no friend to the gay community. Remember, his support for full gay marriage rights is a recent phenomenon. It wasn’t until after he saw that support for gay marriage does not cost you votes in Massachusetts that he had his epiphany and announced his support for marriage equality. Besides being wrong on the issue, this also shows him to be a flip-flopper who will take the politically expedient position to garner suppotrt.
<
p>
Second, Reilly did have a constitutionally valid reason for denying certification to the current amendment. Under the state Constitution, a citizens ballot initiative is not to be certified in instances where the purpose of the initiative is to overturn a judicial decision. It’s pretty clear that this initiative is trying to overturn the SJC decision in Goodrige. This is why there is a legal challenge to Reilly’s certification of the initiative pending before the SJC.
<
p>
Finally, this idea about a democratic process is quite simply insulting. Our government was established with the view of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, hence the system of checks and balances we have on the state and federal level. Historically, have not put issues of equal rights up to a vote. If we had, the results would have been disastrous. For example, when the US Supreme Court issued its decision in the Loving v. Virginia case (making laws prohibiting interracial marriages unconstitutional) a clear majority (over 80%) of Americas believed that interracial marriage was wrong. If we had allowed the people to vote then, interracial marriage bans would have remained the law of the land. Why should we suddenly change our historical practices of protecting minority rights by not voting on equal rights issues when it comes to gay rights and gay marriage?
The basis for Reilly’s decision to allow the ballot question is actually found within the impassioned argument that you make regarding the State Constitution’s important role in securing people’s rights. You are correct that a ballot question may be disapproved if it’s intent is to overturn a judicial decision. However, there is a very necessary and constitutionally sound reason why that option should not be applied to ballot questions regarding constitutional amendments. The SJC’s job is to interpret the laws and the State Constitution, but those laws and that Constitution are written by the people and for the people by a popularly-elected legislature and through a citizen-led constitutional amendment process. To suggest that a decision by the SJC, based on their interpretation of the Constitution, somehow insulates any law or any section of the Constitution from the ability of the people to self-govern is entirely undemocratic. Clearly, the legislature is allowed to pass new laws (and sometime does so in direct response to SJC decisions) and the public may do the same through the constitutional amendment process.
<
p>
Try not to think about this from the perspective of the Goodridge decision, which most of us like, but rather from the perspective of some decision that you would strongly disagree with. What if the SJC had ruled against gay marriage, 5-4, on the same constitutional grounds? Do you think that citizens should be barred from amending the State Constitution to define marriage in a way that would allow gay marriage simply because 5 judges had an opinion on the matter in 2003? I don’t. That would place a great deal of power in the hands of a handful of people over issues important to both the present and future generations of Massachusetts residents.
<
p>
On this issue, Reilly is not a flip-flopper. His office argued the Goodridge case and lost a close decision. He accepted that decision gracefully (unlike Romney and Healey) and, far more importantly, he accepted the decision personally. I realize that his personal position did not come quickly enough for some, but better late than never. More importantly though – and what I wanted to address in this post – is that Reilly’s decision to endorse the ballot question is principled. Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government excpept for all the others that we have tried from time to time. Citizen initiatives that we do not support or may even find repugnant are the price that we pay for living in this great country. It is worth it.
MaverickDem,
<
p>
Some problems with your argument. First, a few comments with regards to the role of the SJC and the amendment process. The state constitution states that a citizens petition cannot have the purpose of overturning a judicial decision. So by certifying the citizens initiative, Reilly has, in effect, ignored the state constitution. This limitation on the amendment process makes perfect sense. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution in part to protect the majority from passing laws which infringe upon the rights of the minority. Now, this is not to say that a decision of the SJC cannot be overturned by an amendment. However, an important distinction must be made. While such an amendment (overtunring a judicial decision) can be brought to the voters through a legislator’s amendment (which required the affirmative vote of 100 members of the constitutional convention in two consecutive sessions) it cannot be done through a citizens petion (which requires only 50 such votes). This is yet another check put in place to prevent the infringement upon minority rights.
<
p>
Reilly’s decision was hardly principled, but is the last in a long line of decision made by Reilly for political reasons at the expense of the gay community. First, he chooses to defend, and defend more vigorously than any state prior, the lawsuit in Goodridge. Then, once he loses, he did not accept the decision personally, he actually sought a way to interpret the decision to require civil unions rather than full marriage equality. Then, after his epiphany (made after pro-equality candidates did so well in the elections) he still agrees to defend the challenge to the 1913 law which prevents out of state gay couples from marrying (and which was originally passed to prevent out of state interracial couples from marrying in Massachusetts). Finally, he certifies a hateful ballot initiative which would deny any rights whatsoever to gay couples. Reilly may say he is for gay marriage, but his record on the issue is essentially identical to Mitt Romney!
<
p>
As for you hypothetical, if the SJC has decided the issue the opposite way, then I would advocate that the Constitution be followed and that a legislator’s driven petition was pursued to overturn the decision. And your quote…”That would place a great deal of power in the hands of a handful of people over issues important to both the present and future generations of Massachusetts residents.” First, this sounds like it comes from a Republican decrying activist judges. Second, the SJC (or any ultimate court in any state or the Supreme Court) is a handful of people who’s decisions have an impact on present and future generations. That’s why Supreme Court nominations are such a big deal. And that is the way our system has been created, to prevent the masses from passing laws which infringe upon the minority. Is it paternalistic? Yes. But it is the system.
<
p>
Your posts seem to indicate that you support the “let the people vote” notion that the anti-gay marriage folks like to use (and if I mistate your position, I apologize, but your posts have almost said as much). I reiterate…we have never voted on denying civil rights to a group of people…never. Why are gay rights any different?
First, let me unequivocably state (again) that I personally support gay marriage. You raise the red herring that I “sound like a Republican decrying activist judges” when I have said nothing of the sort. The SJC’s job is to interpret the law and I was personally pleased with the Goodridge decision, both in the result and the manner in which the Court reached its decision. Second, let me point out that there is nothing inconsistent with a personal belief in gay marriage and a recognition that allowing a ballot initiative that would amend the constitution in a manner to go forward is constitutionally sound and democratic. The issues are not mutually exclusive.
<
p>
I disagree with you that “our system has been created to protect the masses from passing laws that infringe upon the minority.” Although not infrequently stated, that notion is simply incorrect. Our system has been created to protect the rights of individuals, which sometimes results in decisions that protect classes of people who may constitute a minority of the population. The system, however, is not designed to protect “minority groups,” but rather to uphold individual rights. For example, Goodridge was not a decision of behalf of gays and lesbians per se, but rather it was a decision on behalf of those specific gay individuals who sought the rights and benefits of marriage. While it was a landmark decision for gay rights, it was predicated upon the rights of those individuals. Society simply gets to reap the benefit (in my opinion and likely your own) of that decision.
<
p>
The fact is that, while I would personally vote against the ballot initiative, it does not “overturn” Goodridge, as you claim it does. Only a future SJC decision can overturn that decision. The ballot initiative is a response to Goodridge, but it does not purport to overturn the case. The initiative – hurtful, ignorant, misguided as it is – seeks to explicitly define marriage (obviously with an eye towards future decisions that may overrule Goodridge. Under your logic, only the legislature should have that amendment right after the SJC makes a decision. A strong argument can and should be made that the public should never be denied the right to amend its own Constitution. After all, its our Constitution, not the Legislature’s.
<
p>
I see that we are not going to agree on this point, but I honestly respect your position. Ultimately, the SJC will have the final word, as it did with Goodridge (supporting the right of all couples to marry) and as it did with the 1913 law (supporting the state’s right to enforce the 1913 law). I happen to believe they got both of those issues right and I suspect that they will do the same with this one.
In gubernatorial races, the Republicans have been running (successfully) against Dukakis and the Taxachusetts label for 20 years. Reilly is a progressive on many issues, but he is less vulnerable to Republican attacks than Deval because of his position on the rollback, his prosecutorial background, and his ability to appeal to independent voters.
You write that Reilly’s independent streak “will serve as the best claim among any of the Democrats that he can serve as a legitimate check on the legislature.” I’m not so sure — Reilly has been in MA politics working with legislators for years and Healey will no doubt pound on that fact if Reilly is her general election component. In 2002, Romney successfully linked O’Brien with Finneran and was able to make the race at least partly about the Dem legislature. Healey will try to do the same thing to Reilly. You note that Deval is from outside state government, and I think this fact will have more salience in a general election than you predict. Healey can attack Reilly as being part of an old boy Democratic hack network — I’m not saying such an attack is justified but it will be used and Healey will be unable to use it against Deval.
DDD (Deval Delegate Disclaimer)
I agree that Romney-Healey successfully linked Shannon O’Brien with the legislature – who can forget the famously effective “Gang of Three” poster – but there are big differenced between O’Brien and Reilly. For starters, O’Brien actually served in the legislature, whereas as Reilly’s work has bee primarily conducted within a separate, independent office.
<
p>
I do think Patrick’s outside experience would be a plus, but his increasingly liberal positions will go a long way to negating any benefit. Remember, “outsider” status is only effective if the voters actually believe that you will be an effective check on the legislature. Reilly has not been afraid to challenge party orthodoxy, whether by taking a stand on issues such as merit pay for teachers or calling Billy Bulger to task for failing to do the right thing. You will hear Healey beat the drum on Reilly’s support for in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants, but as the vote for that legislation indicated, Reilly took that stand without the support of the legislature. In short, unlike O’Brien who was actually a Finneran lieutenant, Reilly will not be easily portrayed as an instrument of the legislature.
<
p>
Who do you think more readily fits into the “Gang of Three?” Tom Reilly – the candidate who supports the income tax rollback, stood up to Bill Bulger, and has taken and contines to take stands that some Democratic special interests do not want to hear or Deval Patrick – the candidate who opposes the income tax rollback, supports driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, and whose best example of opposing Democratic orthodoxy is to support Cape Wind (not going to lose a lot of votes on renewable energy)? I’m just stating it like we are going to see it November.
afertig is absolutely right. Being labeled a liberal does not hurt Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidates. It certainly didn’t hurt Mark Roosevelt in 1994 or Scott Harshbarger in 1998… oh, wait a second, maybe it did.
<
p>
Deval can be portrayed as too fiscally liberal for MA voters, using the same Weld-ian playbook.
<
p>
However, Tom Reilly is too DINO for much of the Democratic base.
<
p>
That’s why Chris Gabrieli is our best chance to win back the Corner Office.
<
p>
–He will keep the progressive Dem base happy with his clearly progressive positions on principle issues like gay marriage, death penalty, reproductive rights, etc.
<
p>
–He can maintain the middle with his business background and experience creating jobs and handling economic and workforce development.
<
p>
–He is recognized as a bright, innovative, creative leader in public policy.
<
p>
–He has the resources to keep up with the Healey dollars.
<
p>
–He has successfully debated Kerry Healey before.
<
p>
–He doesn’t have either the skeletons or pseudo-skeletons of either Deval Patrick or Tom Reilly.
<
p>
–People actually respond to him – as much as his opponents would like to perpetuate the myth, he doesn’t have a charisma problem.
<
p>
Gabrieli is our best chance to counter the GOP playbook and beat Kerry Healey without sacrificing progressive Democratic ideals.
<
p>
Counterpoints?
Alright. I give in. You want to talk about how they’ll call Patrick a liberal. So let’s talk horse-race.
<
p>
What does it say to you that Reilly, supposedly the biggest threat to the GOP, has such steep competition from Patrick who has never run for elected office in his life?
<
p>
You talk about how Reilly is able to hold up to GOP attacks because he’s a moderate. Yet Healey is already calling Reilly a “flip-flopper” and hitting him hard. What makes you sure that he can withstand a steady 7 months of attacks like that? To me, if it’s such a truism that Reilly’s more “electable” than Patrick he would show a bit more political sense. Reilly started out with something like 80+% in the polls with 2 million in the bank against a complete unknown in the state with virtually no money. Now he’s fighting a neck and neck primary race.
<
p>
Call it the Fleur fiasco, call it a lack of polish, call it what you want. I’d call it heavy grassroots organizing and a positive campaign on the part of the Patrick campaign. But whatever you call it, Reilly comes out of this primary heavily damaged goods.
<
p>
Personally, I think that this is the Democratic nominee’s race to lose. Healey is polling in the low 30s (if that, by most polls, but I’m generous), and she’s in the shadow of Romney the newly minted socially conservative. But Reilly has shown that he’s able to make competitive races that were formerly his to lose.
No matter who the Dems nominate in September, the GOP will claim that candidate is a pro-tax, big-spending, big-government liberal. It is inevitable. We Dems should not turn our backs on our principles, but go on the attack ourselves. Sixteen years of waste, mismanagement, cronyism. Lost jobs, lost population, lost dreams. Let’s go after them for a change.
<
p>
Why do we have two separate state agencies competing with each other to bring movie-makers to Massachusetts?
<
p>
Why did the Romney-Healey administration keep no-show Buonopane on the job for years? How many other no-shows are there out there?
<
p>
Why should we believe that Kerry Healey will be any better than Mitt Romney at creating jobs? Why was Romney such a miserable failure at what was supposed to be his strong point? Wasn’t Shannon O’Brien right about small business development?
<
p>
How come our kids can’t afford to stay in Massachusetts, or can only afford to do so by shacking up with their parents?
<
p>
What’s with the gas prices? What would Kerry Healey say to George W. Bush about that? What about our electric bills?
<
p>
What about the mess that Republicans have made of this country? Why don’t we tie Healey to Bush? Ask her where she disagrees with Bush. Is she in favor of his tax cuts for the rich and his deficit spending?
<
p>
Let’s stop be defensive and get out there and fight!
I hope everyone gets behind the primary winner and fights like hell. But as has been confirmed by some of the responses to a recent post of mine, I fear that a portion of Patrick’s supporters will turn their backs on the general election if Patrick doesn’t get the nod.
<
p>
For that reason and others, right now it’s important to me which candidate wins the primary. For reasons articulated well in this post and comments above, I think Patrick and Reilly are both vulnerable to losing the general election. Gabrieli will surely be painted as a liberal (because he is one, thank goodness), but his emphasis on smart, clean management, and his above-the-fray persona, will help him weather the attacks better than the others. I think it’s a perfect storm where the most electable Dem also would make the best governor.
Cannoneo – You don’t have to worry about Patrick supporters not getting behind the Primary winner, although a small fraction of Patrick supporters will walk away, as always happens after a primary. What you have to worry about is Patrick supporters not bringing their grassroots organization into the final election. Many Patrick supporters, like me, who always work for the Dem nominee, will do so once again. But there will be many grassroots supporters who will vote and little else. That happened with many Reich, Birmigham, and Tolman supporters in 2002, it happened with many Bradley supporters in 2000 and Dean supporters in 2004, and it could happen with Patrick supporters. To some extent, you can’t blame Patrick supporters for that, given that Reilly and Gabrieli have basically declared that grassroots Democratic Party activists don’t matter. And I certainly don’t expect Gabrieli to put in as much money into the final election if Patrick is the nominee as Gabrieli would have if he were to win the primary.
<
p>
Of course, you won’t see that question asked about the Gabrieli and Reilly campaigns because they have no meaningful grassroots support. If you’re supporting Gabrieli, you have to buy into his idea that you can buy the election — from gathering signatures on nomination papers to TV advertising — and that grassroots don’t matter. One of my primary reasons for supporting Patrick is that he gets it about the grassroots, and it’s a main reason why I think he’ll win.
I remember the day you criticized me on my own blog for being an “unabashed” Deval Patrick supporter. However, while my support for Deval Patrick may be as strong as yours, my coverage of his campaign is far more neutral than your coverage of Tom Reilly.
<
p>
You notice that Kerry Healey went on the attack against Tom Reilly. You suggest it’s because you think she thinks he has the best chance of beating her in the general election. Well, friend, the general election isn’t here yet. The much more likely reason for her attack is that she probably thinks Tom Reilly is more likely to win the primary – and better to start attacking him now than later.
<
p>
I’m quite sick of your propaganda. At least when I cover the campaign, I do it with a shred of honesty and try to really analyze the situation instead of pull a Sean Hannity and pick and choose facts to come up with a fictional scenerio. Keep up the good work, I’m sure Howie Carrs of this world would be proud.
It’s time for you to come out of the metaphorical closet. Everyone knows who I am, along with most of the prominent Massachusetts leftybloggers (such as Lynne and Susan) – who are you? Your blogs are more often than not appearing on the front page of Blue Mass Group nowadays and I have a strong suspicion that you have at least a few ties to Tom Reilly’s campaign. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, if you’re going to blog here – people have the right to know, they at least have the right to know just how involved you are in Reilly’s campaign.
Ryan, if I wanted a cult of personality, I would start my own blog. I write user posts, like a number of other people on BMG. I have no control over whether they are recommended or promoted. Until a few weeks ago, I had no idea what those terms even meant in the blog world. I do not work for the Reilly campaign, but I do support it. Frankly, I wish I had the time to volunteer, but my schedule doesn’t allow it. Instead, I am able to take a few breaks during the day, read the thoughts of an interesting and thoughtful group of people, and share my own. I’m sure some people agree with me in part, in whole, or not at all. People have made me think and hopefully I have done the same.
<
p>
Unlike some of the more remarkable BMG posters, I have not broke a story. Everything that I have written about is publicly available. I get my information from newspapers or the web. On two occasions, I promoted Tom Reilly’s policy plans because: 1.) readers seemed to be unaware of them (“Reilly doesn’t get specific, etc.” ; 2.) the mainstream media does not cover policy (which relates to #1). Both of those reports are available on Tom Reilly’s website, which is where I found them, so there is nothing unique about my access to them.
<
p>
BMG is populated with supporters of various candidates. I’m not interested in their biographies, but I enjoy their opinions. I just happen to spend my time making the case for Tom Reilly. When I have the time, I will continue to do so.
I do not pretend that I am “covering” the campaign. I’m not a reporter. Moreover, I have said time and time again that I am a Reilly supporter. I do not pretend to be neutral. It is pretty hard to claim neutrality when you support a particular candidate, which I pointed out to you earlier. In the end, whether my analysis is correct is open to debate, which has been lively to say the least.
is one that defines his/herself by the perceived mechanations of the opposing party.
<
p>
If you are NOW defining Reilly by a GOP yardstick than you have already lost 50% of the battle. To do this is to forfeit having your own plan and to concede ULTIMATE power to the opponent.
<
p>
Therefore, those who are trying to define Deval Patrick’s “liberalism” in GOP terms as a “weaknes” are only strengthening his true value. Because in reality you are saying that Deval has not conceded his power nor his values to please the GOP… and most importantly stands squarely on his own two feet not shifting in the wind in anticipation of what the GOP will toss out.
<
p>
Here is an odd notion, perhaps Rielly and Gabrieli should define themselves on the basis of Democratic values and not GOP ones… it might be helpful… and as for the myth that independents and swingvoters lean to the right… prove it. I know far more Dems and liberals who have “given up” political activism because no party speaks for them anymore than aminless wandering GOPers who have by all accounts got what they voted for. It would seem obvious that if 62% of the country right now DISAPPROVE of this adminstration and it’s doings than perhaps this is also a telltale sign that Dems who lean to the right will attract… NO ONE, not even GOP voters.
Can’t Democratic candidates tout a moderate agenda without being accused of abandoning Democratic values? I would hardly accuse Deval Patrick of not being a Democrat because he is the “progressive” (a relative term) candidate. There are different means to similar ends. Why not allow a place for swing issues, such as the income tax rollback, within the Democratic Party? Should we just cede those issues to the Republicans? Why?
<
p>
I never said that independent, swing voters lean right – I think they lean center. Republican candidates for Governor have just done a better job of occupying that position in the minds of the electorate. The proof is in the results. More than 50% of the electorate are Unenrolled voters. Republicans comprise only 14%, yet their candidates have won 100% of the last four gubernatorial elections. They did it by capturing Unenrolled, swing voters.
<
p>
Now, if you are making the argument that we will re-capture wayward Democrats and liberals if we field a liberal candidate, I think you are correct. But those numbers would have large enough to beat the deficit that we already face among swing voters and account for any additional swing voters that we will lose by shifting left. Based on recent gubernatorial election results, I personally think it will work.
I confess up front this will not be the most eloquent or cohesive post, but more a collection of some random thoughts that this string has brought up.
<
p>
I do understand and see some validity to the argument that the Repubs have done a better job of occupying the center in the minds of the voters and that this has had an effect on the elections. However, this alone is not the reason the Dems have lost (as in any election there are multiple reasons for a win or loss). I would suggest that a problem has been the Democrats have run uninspiring candidates who have ran shoddy, at times bumbling, campaigns. My fear is that Tom Reilly fits that mold. I can’t imagine a candidate who is less inspiring and for a seasoned politician, his campaign has had a fair share of pretty big problems (i.e. the whole LG mess).
<
p>
I thing there is also a lot of fatigue on the left, locally and nationally. For years, Democratic candidates keep coming to the bases of traditional support asking for time, money and support and then go out and “stake a position in the middle” to get elected, in the process throwing the concerns of those on the left under the bus. The excuse is always, well, better me, a dem, than some Republic right? I think that some are starting to get fed up with that attitude and approach. Do I want to see a Democrat in the corner office? Of course. But I would prefer that the Democrat actually represent Democratic values.
What you have done in your post is what the DLC has done for the past 20 years and the reason why the Dems have lost control on every branch of government. You are again professing that if we are more like them we will win, when in REALITY which has been proven over and over and over and over again proof positive that Dems have lost over and over and over and over again … it that when the electorate has a choice between a Republican and Republican Lite aka Centrist, Moderate, Moderately Progressive Centrist… the Republican will ALWAYS WIN.
<
p>
I think they lean center then PROVE IT
<
p>
The only person in my MA family that still registers Dem is my mother, most of my brothers and sisters have register Independent because they are feed up with the local Dem party not respresenting them and one sister even registered and voted R just to get rid of the existing Dems in power in MA and her decision was not based on issues or policies only to have change.
<
p>
She lives in Sprinfield which has shamefully and rapidly deteriorated it is a disaster zone under present Dem leadership. All the high falluting rhetoric about semi centrists progressive moderates don’t mean a hill of beans to her when the schools (thanks to Kennedy’s NCLB) are steadily deteriorating and her kids are being chased home from the school bus by one of the truck loads of indigents that have been dumped in Spfld. from NYC. Key word for her is not moderate nor centrist but CHANGE and if your agenda is be more like them and more of the same … then it is doomed to fail.
<
p>
Income tax rollback… do you even live in Mass???
If you did then you would see the effect of Tax “relief” is having on the average person who now are being charged 10 dollars a piece by the city to pick up large pieces of trash, kids have to bring their own toilette tissue to school, street lights being turned off, parks not being upkept or now charging fees, limited snow removals, crime rates soaring, state college fees soaring… who are you kidding? What do you think taxes are for??? So a Mass resident saves 40 dollars in taxes but has to pay out one thousand dollars “extras” or more for things that were paid by the city or state.
<
p>
allow a place for swing issues
<
p>
Like what?
<
p>
* Anti abortion
* Pro war
* Pro corporatization
* Institutionalized racism
* Anti poor
* Anti Social Security and New Deal
<
p>
Pray tell what is it on the other side of the fence that you find so enticing that you want to drag into the “Big Tent”?????
<
p>
The point I was making is that your entire tactic of not taking any stand that the GOP might take issue with is a deadstarter… from that point one you allow the GOP to make the rules of the game and all you can do is follow that is why it is a telltale sign of a loser candidate. Never have I seen a GOP decide their agenda based of IWDTHWTDR (If We Do This How Will The Dems React)… and that is how they won the governorship in a supposed Blue State for 20 years… they did not ask our permission.