Jon Keller nailed Deval Patrick after the labor forum in Falmouth today on his “new kind of politics” b.s., waving evidence at Patrick that he is not just trying to keep his delegates but actually waging a subterranean battle to keep Gabrieli off the ballot. Watch the video. Patrick’s shrill response was that they weren’t breaking any rules – not exactly an idealist’s position.
It makes perfect sense for Patrick to do this, but the campaign’s holier-than-thou rhetoric is wearing very thin.
In fairness, Keller did report that the participants at the forum responded best to Patrick.
Please share widely!
Selective reporting, I guess. You seem to have forgotten to mention this quote: “Gabrieli denied any wrongdoing” — care to explain that?
<
p>
And your characterization of
is not exactly an accurate portrayal of Patrick’s even demeanor as he stated his campaign has been “playing by the rules” and added “which is what we have been doing for a year and a half.”
<
p>
I’m glad you agree that it “makes perfect sense” to try to keep the Gabber off the ballot. But I don’t see that as my mission. As a Patrick supporter, I’m doing my damnedest to get others to support him. I would love it if my efforts (and those of thousands of others just like me) resulted in so much support for Patrick that there was none left over for any other candidate.
<
p>
I’m delighted to see my candidate take his case directly to the voters and to the delegates, and I appreciate your acknowledgement that “the participants at the forum responded best to Patrick.” That, of course, comes as no surprise to those of us who have witnessed him speak before a crowd.
going when he gets defensive. He certainly would never pass a lie detector test.
and petty insults, Tom Reilly looks like ferret-face Frank Burns from MAS*H.
I appreciate your attempt at humor, but calling Deval Patrick a liar does nothing to advance the cause of your candidate.
<
p>
Patrick has pledged to support whomever wins the Primary, and I join him in that pledge. I hope we’re all in this together to elect a Democrat in November!
I got a call last week from a friend who is a Deval delegate. She received a Gabrieli mailing and was literally screaming because of the Democratic party seal and the implication that it was sent by the state party (the paid for by the Gabrieli campaign statement was in miniscule print). I’m sorry, but I smell desperate consultants and a desperate candidate. I don’t understand why people don’t see the Rovian tactics at play. I will NEVER support a Dem candidate who resorts to this stupid shit. It is so time for a change.
<
p>
Why do you think MA Dem politics are so contentious? Why is it that certain folks here are determined to slap Deval Patrick around in any way possible? I sense fear. I sense people who are afraid of losing control. What I don’t hear or see are factual arguments why Gabrieli or Reilly are better candidates (which I would eagerly read with the hopes of supporting the Dem candidate who wins the nomination at the convention).
<
p>
Things will never change until people get active, stay active and refuse to be dictated to. It’s our job to elect the best candidate. Won’t happen otherwise — do you need the list of failures for me to prove the point?
<
p>
Poor, poor Gabrieli. He got screwed by Reilly, didn’t have enough gumption to go through the process and now can’t sucessfully buy his way onto the ballot. Boo hoo. It’s all that bad, bad Deval’s fault. Give me a break!!!
Isn’t helpful to any of the candidates, and I’m sure they wouldn’t appreciate their supporters resorting to such tactics.
<
p>
How do you know theat the candidates wouldn’t appreciate it? Perhaps they have a better sense of humour than you, and can see that the previous exchange is all in good fun and laugh it off. Were either comments any harsher than you’d see on the Daily Show or the Colbert Report? (Granted they weren’t nearly as witty….) As long as comments aren’t outright libelous, I don’t think we need any self-annointed schoolmarms slapping rulers over our knuckles.
I do not think it means what you think it means. But, maybe you like being called a pointy faced, whatever you said.
<
p>
Juvenile name calling doesn’t add anything to this discussion, other than advertising your obvious lack of anything resembling a point.
<
p>
Have a nice day.
It’s not a campaign to keep Gabrielli of the ballot, it’s a campaign to make sure Patrick supporters at the convention vote for Deval on the first ballot instead of giving a sympathy vote to Chris. I am all for Chris Gabrieli wokring to convinced unpledged or undecided delegates to vote for him at the convention, and showing a real 15% plus level of support amongst that group, but the Patrick campaign has just reminding supporters that they should vote for the candidate they want to be governor. As for “Patrick’s shrill response was that they weren’t breaking any rules”, that’s a complete misrepresntation: he said “That is all about playing by the rules”, in that what they were doing was to stay in line with the rules, rather than pushing the boundaries as your characterization implies.
<
p>
Misleading attacks on trying Patrick trying to make it sound like he’s trying to destroy Gabrielli’s campaign won’t get you anywhere in convincing people that Chris is the better candidate. You’ve had some good posts in support of your candidate, but this kind of stuff just looks bad.
Keller holds in the video is an e-mail from Nancy Stolberg to supporters, which according to Keller “gives advice on how to prevent Gabrieli from getting his 15% at the June 3 convention.” I’m sure some readers of this site received the e-mail; if they think Keller misrepresented it, they should share.
<
p>
To rehash the whole exchange, for those who don’t want to bother running the video:
<
p>
Patrick says on the panel that “every idea is improved by having more contributions to the thinking.”
Keller asks him afterwards, “How is that consistent with your efforts to stop Chris Gabrieli at the convention?”
Patrick: “We don’t have any efforts to stop Chris Gabrieli at the convention.”
Keller: “Who’s Nancy Stolberg?”
Patrick: “Nancy Stollberg is our field director.”
Keller then shows Patrick a print-out of an e-mail from Stolberg “that accuses the Gabrieli campaign of spreading disinformation in an effort to pry away Patrick delegates and gives advice on how to prevent Gabrieli from getting his 15% at the June 3 convention. … What is that if not trying to stop him getting on the ballot?”
Patrick: “That is all about playing by the rules, which is what we have been doing for a year and a half.”
<
p>
OK, he sounds more condescending than shrill there; but he does sound more upset than assertive when he responds to Reilly’s Ameriquest comments. Maybe it’s his pleasant Midwestern accent (“I will NAHT be leckchured ahn cahnflict from you”). To my Boston ears such a voice can’t convey intensity with authority. (OK, I admit Chris doesn’t do intensity either – but part of his m.o. is to never be flustered, which again, served him well sitting between (and above) as Reilly and Patrick went at it.)
It’s no secret that Chris Gabrieli is actively attempting to poach delegates away from Deval Patrick, so why wouldn’t Deval and his organization do what they can within the rules to prevent that?
<
p>
Gabrieli and his surrogates have been spamming the airways, robo-calling, burying delegates with direct mail and e-mailing hundreds of delegates, whom I might add, have NEVER given, nor been asked by the Gabrieli campaign for permission to add them to Gabrieli’s self-congratulatory and at times misleading*, “look how much money I can waste on elections this week” e-mail list.
<
p>
*I mean really, how far up your own campaign’s backside do you have to be to send out e-mails trumpeting how well you’re doing in your OWN internal polling? What part of DUH doesn’t cover that? Sheesh.
My point is that Patrick’s legitimate hardball tactics don’t match his “new kind of campaign” rhetoric and specifically, as Keller pointed out, his efforts to keep Gabrieli off don’t fit his “the more people at the table the better” theme.
<
p>
As for internal polling, campaigns use it to get an objective view of the electorate, not just as propaganda. They only release it when it favors them, but that doesn’t mean it’s worthless.
Hey, I went to the caucus. I sat in Town Hall for three hours. I voted for the Deval Patrick slate. It is my expectation that my delegates vote for Patrick on the first ballot, and on each additional ballot (if necessary). If these people stood on the stage and pleged themselves as Patrick delegates, they should be held to their promise.
<
p>
What’s more, I hope that the roll call of delegates is publicly posted, so if any of my delegates broke ranks, I know who I can’t trust in the future – and will never get my vote again.
Who knew it would be Saint Deval’s folks who would bring intimidation to the democratic process?? Why don’t you threaten to break their toes while you’re at it?
<
p>
And they “pledged themselves,” did they?? Did they have to sign in blood, too? I’m not sure I want to get on board any campaign that enforces a loyalty oath.
Everyone is getting a bit too riled up about this.
<
p>
Gabrieli decided not to be a candidate during caucus time and hope that his bankroll for ads and mailings could compensate. Fair enough.
<
p>
Patrick decided to focus on building a grassroots campaign to hit the caucuses hard, and not spend so much on ads at this juncture. Fair enough.
<
p>
Gabrieli is trying, within the rules, to sway some delegates. Patrick is trying, within the rules, to prevent his delegates from swaying. Fair enough.
<
p>
I honestly fail to see the gross ethical problem on either side.
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say for awhile now.
I think you’re exactly right.
<
p>
Though I’ll add to that that I also think any delegates elected as Deval Patrick supporters, who switch, are wrong (unless they can make a convincing case that I haven’t heard yet).
Listen, Patrick and his supporters unequivocally made a claim to the higher moral ground in this campaign, from the beginning, based on among other things the notion that a campaign could be contested without conflict.
<
p>
And they launch sallies from this position, every time they accuse Gabrieli of buying his support, and Reilly of being an opportunist machine politician.
<
p>
You cannot make that move and then act shocked when opponents and their supporters try to poke holes in it the most logical way possible, by pointing to distance between the rhetoric and the practice.
<
p>
Let me correct myself: it is an inherent part of that move to, in fact, act shocked by every such response. This “How Dare You!!” stance is evident in Patrick’s responses to Reilly and Keller, and in comments that appear after every criticism of Patrick on this site.
<
p>
It’s bullshit and I’m sick of it.
“… a campaign could be contested without conflict.”
<
p>
Huh?
<
p>
“distance between the rhetoric and the practice”
<
p>
I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that, with specific reference to the 15% issue.
<
p>
“It’s bullshit and I’m sick of it.”
<
p>
Well, thanks for sharing.
<
p>
Look, if you’re talking about a generalized “holier-than-thou” attitude from Patrick supporters, or from the campaign, I suppose you’re entitled to your impressions (a la Keller’s “St. Patrick”), and maybe Patrick supporters should take note, and maybe not. But I don’t find you being very specific about that on this thread. So I rated your comment pretty low.
And, I have it on good authority (from someone who was there) that as recently as April 29 at a candidate event in Holliston, Deval said he felt Gabrieli added richness to the race and made the race better. This was just before the spate of polls came out showing him taking (poll) support from Patrick.
<
p>
Keller doesn’t give the details of the Stolberg e-mail, but no one has rebutted the notion that it outlined a strategy to keep Gabrieli from getting to 15%.
<
p>
I guess I thought the holier-than-thou bit was so self-evident it didn’t need citations. I still don’t feel like going back to all the hostile, denunciatory comments I’ve got from Patrick supporters and linking to them. But here’s one from this thread. On his web site, Patrick claims “Old politics is an insiderâs game where a few set the rules, decide whose turn it is to run, and then focus on how to win elections, rather than why we should.” Seems like he’s doing as much “how” as “why” now that things are getting tough.
Get the facts straight. Don’t confuse the discussion here with a fairy tale about some conspiracy by Patrick supporters to prevent Gabrieli from getting his 15%. The issue is, and has been since Gabrieli got into the race directly related to the misleading tactics used by the Gabrieli campaign, and his continued attempts to poach committed delegates away from Deval Patrick.
<
p>
What is it exactly do you think that Nancy Stolberg is having us supporters do? I don’t think I’m giving out any campaign secrets by telling you that all we’ve been asked to do is stay in contact with the delegates/alternates in the towns/cities/districts we’re responsible for. It’s just plain old-fashioned person-to-person grassroots organizing. Just like we’ve been doing since this campaign began and will continue to do going forward.
<
p>
To the cynical folks in this discussion, it may be hard to believe, but Deval Patrick has inspired people with his campaign. His supporters take a very active role in the field operation. We’ve worked very hard along with Deval to get his message out to people, many of whom were inspired to run as delegates to support Deval. We were successful beyond expectations at the caucuses because we did the work. Plain and simple. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that some of us Deval supporters would take umbrage with the Gabrieli campaign for attempting to mislead delegates with requests to “lend” our votes to Gabrieli. We’ve just worked too damn hard to fall for that. There’s no conspiracy. Just hard work.
<
p>
As an aside, I do believe that these efforts by Gabrieli may be having the opposite effect on some delegates. In the run up to the LG forum in Lowell, I clocked quite a few miles, and hours of speaking with delegates from all over the state and to a person, they are so sick and tired of hearing this garbage from Gabrieli and his surrogates that they wouldn’t vote for him if he was running for dog catcher.
Your equation doesn’t make sense. I have been reading your rhetoric and finally I figured out why it bothers me. Patrick has never pledged that he would do whatever he could to see that everyone gets elected. THIS IS A CAMPAIGN! Someone has to lose. Right now the Patrick people see that they can prevent one challenger from moving forward. If Gabrieli’s campaign was in Patrick’s position they would try to bump off Patrick, and rightfully so. I am happy to see Deval running a smart campaign that doesn’t give his competitors an edge, we know Kerry Healey isn’t going to lie down for a Democrat so why should Patrick lie down for Gabs?
<
p>
No one is refuting the Stoller email because who cares that it exists? If you expect Deval or Reilly for that matter to let their opponent win out of principle you are crazy. And that is what the whole Gab strategy is right now. He is saying “forgive me for not participating like the other two candidates, forgive me for not working hard and building support, forgive me for flooding your airwaves and mailboxes with my message thanks to my millions but, hey, can’t we all just have a spot on the ballot?” Nonsense. All is fair in love and politics. Patrick is playing by the rules and more power to him.
But I think it’s been worth noting the difficulty Patrick has been having squaring such tactics with his rhetoric of inclusion.
Look, if you get elected delegate through the efforts of the Deval Patrick campaign – part of a Deval Patrick slate, voted for by Deval Patrick supporters – you do have some responsibility to stick to that. If there’s a very strong reason to switch, and you can defend that, well there’s no legal obligation. But if you’re switching just because a new candidate came along who skipped the caucuses, I think that’s wrong. And I think caucus voters would be right not to trust you when voting for delegates in future years.
I am a Deval Patrick delegate and I worked very hard before the caucuses organizing so that my city would elect Every delegate as a committed Deval Patrick delegate. It wasn’t easy. It took up a lot of my time. But it happened. We won. And it didn’t cost us a penny of campaign funds to do it.
<
p>
It is not my responsibility to get Chris Gabrielli on the ballot. It is not the responsibility of any of the Deval Patrick delegates to get Chris Gabrielli on the ballot. It is not the responsibility of Deval Patrick or Tom Reilly to do it either. It is his own responsibility. If he can convince enough delegates that he is worthy, he’ll do it. But I don’t have to help him and I don’t have to feel guilty if I don’t and I don’t have to take crap from people who didn’t bother to work hard through the whole process if he doesn’t make it.
<
p>
We were elected to vote for a particular person. Keeping your word and voting for that particular person is not actively keeping someone off the ballot. I’m not voting against Gabrielli, I’m voting for Patrick.
<
p>
Gabrielli’s going to have to scramble and work hard and spend a lot of money to do it. I expect he’ll make it, but he’ll have to do it without my help.
Funny that this thread was started by a Gabrieli supporter, claiming that “Jon Keller” was “waving evidence” that the Patrick campaign was trying “to keep Gabrieli off the ballot.”
<
p>
Where did Keller get this “evidence” do you suppose? And did he check it out with the Patrick campaign before going on the air, or did he use it as a cheap trick to grab some headlines?
<
p>
The whole thing didn’t ring true to me. I’m a volunteer with the Patrick campaign, and I get lots of emails from Nancy Stolberg, with the “Talking Points of the Week” and such like, and I didn’t remember getting anything remotely resembling the email that was touted by Keller.
<
p>
So I called the campaign and asked how come I didn’t get the famous “keep Gabrieli off” email. The reason? It didn’t exist. It never went out. I know I’m a partisan, but I know and trust the people on Patrick’s staff, and I believe them.
<
p>
Do you think Keller will do the journalistically right thing and investigate this further, asking for proof from his source that the email was genuine and from the Patrick campaign to support their denial? And if he finds that it was a fake, will he broadcast a retraction? Before the Convention?
<
p>
This is why dirty tricks are so effective, and so repugnant. They are a form of political terrorism — it’s a lot easier to do mischief than it is to create a sense of community and a positive spirit of what’s possible. I’m proud to be a Deval Patrick supporter.
Did the Patrick campaign say the e-mail Keller was holding – and showed a brief screenshot of – is a fake? Or did they just say something like, Nancy never sent an e-mail outlining a strategy to keep Chris of the ballot? If the latter, then it’s almost certainly not a case of forgery, but of different interpretations of the same e-mail.
<
p>
And regarding all the scare quotes in your first paragraph, and stirring oratory in your last:
<
p>
-Yes, I’m a big fan of Gabrieli’s, and now a volunteer for his campaign.
-And I think Deval Patrick’s inspirational rhetoric is phony.
-So when I saw this report by Jon Keller, basically saying the same thing, I posted on it. It’s not the first time I’ve linked to Keller.
<
p>
I’m starting to appreciate the Deval-defense comment as a genre. This one has it all: paranoia, accusation, high moral dudgeon. The terrorism reference puts it in a class of its own, though.
I just discovered that the Herald has reported on the fake as well.