Wow. Heads must be spinning over at Healey headquarters. In the span of about 48 hours, Kerry Healey has gone from being someone who could well keep the Governor’s office in GOP hands to someone who could well come in a distant third in the Governor’s race.
First, the debate business. I agree with Bob that Healey would be foolish to agree to participate in a debate with three Democrats and an “Independent.” There’s no reason for her to get involved in what is essentially an internecine struggle among Democrats at this point, and frankly I can’t think of an instance in which candidates from different parties formally debated before the primaries, at least for as high an office as Governor (though maybe others can). The problem, though, is that Healey looks ridiculous having just called – very prematurely – for four debates between primary day and election day. Others have noted how silly it was of her to issue that call at this early date. And, having jumped into the always-contentious “debate” issue way before she needed to, she now looks weak and, frankly, scared by saying, “yes, I want to debate – but not here, not now….later – I’m not ready yet.”
As bad as the debate business is, though, today’s Herald’s astounding story on abortion is much, much worse. As others have already noted, the Herald reveals that, in a videotape of a 2002 practice debate (Quicktime video), Healey advocated lowering the age of consent for abortion to 16, and explained to a faux Jim Rappaport (portrayed by John Brockelman) how “naive” Rappaport was on the issue, and how her “experience” in “criminology and social policy” gave her a far deeper understanding of the issue than he could ever hope to have.
This issue is, of course, kryptonite to “real” Republicans (witness the distress already pouring out at the differently-winged Hub Politics, which describes the story as “shocking on many levels”). And, in addition to the fact that Healey’s position on abortion in 2002 seems to have been indistinguishable from NARAL‘s, Healey looks absolutely terrible in the mock debate (one assumes that her handlers raked her over the coals after this practice session). Basically, her explanation of why she favors allowing 16-year-olds to get abortions without the consent of either parent is that she’s smarter and more knowledgeable than the “naive” people who oppose relaxing the rules in that way. She comes off as smug, elitist, and condescending – exactly what she’s been trying to get away from for the last four years, and she had been having some success in doing so until today’s revelations.
Worst of all for Healey, of course, is that this story is a videotape, which means it will be all over the TV news in living, moving color, and that it’s readily available for other campaigns to use. How did the Herald get this thing, anyway? Is there a mole working in the Healey campaign somewhere?
I will say this, though. I think all candidate debates would be tremendously improved by having a dog wander onto the stage, as happened during this practice session. You really must watch it.
That dog cracked me up.
<
p>
I also wonder how the Herald got this tape. Was it payback from Jim Rappaport? A Mihos operative? Who else would have had access to this tape? It was probably buried in some drawer somewhere at GOP HQ for the past four years.
David, a great read. The origins of the tape release are fascinating, although with the heavy-handed manner in which Romney entered the 2002 race and various reports over the years that Healey and Romney aren’t exactly chummy like Weld-Cellucci, it could be an outsider, insider, or someone in between. Regardless, is there anything more enjoyable than watching a candidate’s true colors exposed on videotape? It’s like “Survivor” for political junkies!
First, as I said, she shouldn’t debate the Dems en mass. Second, most voters favor abortion, so that issue only hurts her with the fanatics — and where are they going to go … Mihos? Third, no one is paying attention to this sort of thing except us groupies. As least it gets her name in the press. The crucial issue is how she handles the story about the story.
1) There’s video of her that makes her look like a condecending know-it-all. Yes, it was four years ago, but it is truthy — it feeds into the image people already have of her — which is why it has a chance to stick.
2) She was planning on using Reilly’s flip-flopping as a hammer. Who’s the flip flopper now?
<
p>
The abortion issue is secondary, as far as I’m concerned. Sure, anti-abortion Republicans have no place else to go aside from staying home (which I hope they do).
but to show a practice video of a debate is like showing the first draft of a manuscript or a blog post. Anybody that gets off on this video or the commentary should be subscriber to the Herald or for that matter the National Enquirer. I suppose the next thing we will see are videos of Tom Reilly practicing his smiling or a video of Deval Patrick learning how to get rid of his squeeky voice.
My money is on Brockelman as the source.