Back in January we had one guy that seemed to be doing everything he could to NOT win the governorâs office, another guy whoâs campaign was firing on all cylinders (or is that all delegates), and a third fellow who, at the time, did not seem to care one way or the other (well, perhaps he did think he was Lt. Governor material.)
Along the way, a pesky wind farm rears its head in Nantucket Sound. We find one candidate, after a serious investigation of the issue, and listening to all 4 or 5 sides of the argument, comes out firmly in support of this new development for alternative energy in Massachusetts. The other candidate, in a politically convulsive knee-jerk reaction, claims it to be a âa huge ripoffâ. Oh yeah, that third guy, he… um… is probably for it… thinks the permitting process should run its course… and âas long as we get a good dealâ then maybe…
Now on to something subtle, but just as telling, campaigns sometimes send people to videotape their opponents â personally, I believe doing that sort of thing is a clear sign of weakness in a candidate â can you smell the fear? Patrick does not video his opponents, Reilly does, and Gabrieli, drum roll please, is undecided.
Iâm looking for a leader, are you? Deval Patrick has my vote.
I’ve not always agreed with everything Patrick has said, but I’ve always admired his willingness to take a firm stand on the tough issues.
<
p>
The first time I met Deval, in fact, we had a rather spirited exchange over his use of a phrase I found offensive. When I later (on another day) told him I was going to support him, he almost seemed surprised. [btw, I’ve never heard him use that phrase again!]
<
p>
My point is that I would prefer to have a leader, as you say, even if I don’t agree with him all the time. I do support Patrick’s stands on most major issues, and I continue to be amazed at his grasp of the subtleties of so many issues. Here’s a man who investigates an issue, then takes a thoughtful position, and announces it in a clearly articulated way. How refreshing!
<
p>
You might get a chuckle out of a post I made on my own blog about a meeting in Springfield where Deval stunned the audience, then won them over.
I have to say that Deval also seemed to win over the crowd at the Chelmsford Town Hall meeting on Saturday.
<
p>
In another example of him doing his homework, an audience member asked him about the Rte. 3 sound barrier that has been stalled on Romney’s desk for the past few years (having duly approved and funded by the legislature).
<
p>
Not only did Deval have a better idea of the problem than many audience members — he has amazing recall of details — he also volunteered to take a detour on his chock-full schedule to visit the neighborhood in question and check it out in person. Even I — a staunch Deval supporter — was impressed. (This is a guy who started Saturday morning in Washington, DC, and was still en route to campaign events at 9:30 that evening. How any of the candidates have the energy to do this is beyond me.)
<
p>
And this was the first time a lot a people had had a chance to meet and hear from Deval. My very unscientific survey afterwards seems to indicate that he really connected with the crowd.
On the first good weekend day in a while?
… SRO — although I don’t know how many seats had been set out. (It’s an Olde Sytle town hall, so it’s also not ginormous either.)
<
p>
It was still very impressive for being the first fine-weather Satuday in a while — and Father’s Day weekend to boot.
<
p>
Maybe Lynne has a better idea of the actual numbers?
Tom Christiano’s Chelmsford blog estimated about 200 people in attendance.
David, while I’m not sure I’d go so far as to suggest a particular pattern emerging, I have been a bit surprised that this is first BMG mention that I’ve seen regarding the Globe blurb on videotaping. I can’t say I’m at all suprised by which of the campaigns are engaging in this tactic — not that I see anything inherently wrong with it.
<
p>
Most striking to me was Christy Mihos’s reaction to the Healey (?) videographer. The guy seems to have no tact whatsoever. Christy: If the camera’s on, be nice for cryin’ out loud — even if it kills you! (Not that I mind either way, of course.)
<
p>
By comparison, I thought Deval’s reaction to the Reilly videographer was not only tactful, but also indicative of the kind of person Deval is and the tone he wants to set for his campaign.
The only pattern I’m seeing is a pattern of attacks on Democrats rather than Republicans.
<
p>
Deval’s campaign was the first out of the gate to throw out delegates (and no, I don’t buy the story that it was a supporter free-lancing; if a Reilly delegate had done it, we’d have gotten two weeks of whining about TEH ESTABLISHMENT!!), opening the convention speech with remarks directed at other Democratic candidates, first to fire off an attack e-mail to supporters.
<
p>
Would it be so horrible if Deval talked about Kerry Healey once in a while? He and his campaign are too busy slagging Democrats.
<
p>
Why videotape? For material.
<
p>
Reilly’s public record: Decades long. Decisions, legal arguments, press statements, interviews, several campaigns.
<
p>
Gabrieli’s public record: 2002 lieutenant governor campaign, previous campaigns.
<
p>
Patrick’s public record: none. Discussions in the boardrooms of multinational corporations outside Massachusetts aren’t made public.
Sometimes, Patrick’s tactics bemuse me. (I am a lukewarm Patrick supporter.) Because it is so tempting to make this overly focused on Patrick, I will resist by only discussing the tactic itself.
<
p>
Not video-taping your opponents is really, really dumb.
<
p>
It’s a little bit tough to explain why something so obviously dumb is dumb. But I realize that’s no excuse, so here goes.
<
p>
Your statements as a candidate are politically binding, and therefore critically important. So are your opponent’s. However, you don’t have access to most of your opponent’s statements, unless you keep your own record of them. In the war of words and ideas that is a campaign, documentation of your opponent’s words is a fundamental tool.
<
p>
When you walk into a debate, you should know everything your opponent has said in his/her last few speeches, and be prepared to hold him accountable for any contradictions he may make while trying to woo the television audience. But you can’t back that up, or even study it sufficiently, without documentation.
<
p>
A contested statement puts both candidates’ integrity on the line, and can be a decisive campaign issue. In that moment, you cannot rely on the news or “the public” to dig up the statement you are looking for. The moment you most depend on that footage you saw on Channel 8 last year, it will be lost. Failure to control these elements is a fool’s strategy.
<
p>
The only excuse for not video-taping an opponent is lack of volunteer resources. The only excuse. Anything else means you are campaigning for some strange goal other than winning the election; and that is wasting your supporters’ time.
<
p>
My 2 cents.
I agree that having video of the opponents saying indefensible things has a certain value; especially if that is the only record you have of their stand on the issues. However, this latest bit about Gabrieli not always saying âup toâ when referring to a pension contribution amount is the sort of thing you could capture on video, but to what end? I donât think video recording is the primary source upon which a campaign should base its debate on the issues.
<
p>
Candidates put out press releases, make available the text of their speeches, and post an avalanche of position papers on their websites, but that isnât what you are looking for is it? You probably want to catch the candidate at an awkward moment, perhaps when they are asked, âHave you decided to let all child molesters go free, or just the ones wearing roman collars?â Sorry, that was uncalled for, letâs rephrase, how about, âBesides all those mortgages, what else have you spent those ill-gotten Ameriquest gains on?â I will leave it to others to come up with a zinger for Gabrieli. (Perhaps something with a âmagicâ number in it.) I just simply donât see this gotcha video game as raising the level of debate. On the other hand, if somebody has video of Kerry Healey making a flip-flopping fool of herself in a mock debate, then I want to see it!
Deval Patrick does not have a public record?
<
p>
You’re not counting the four years he served in a senior position in the first Clinton Administration, then, I take it? During which he enforced the ADA and conducted the largest criminal investigation ever undertaken in this country?
<
p>
Or his time working for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund?
<
p>
And his appointment by a federal judge to clean up the employment practices at Texaco?
<
p>
Hello?
…in any of those, as there is in Reilly’s record as an elected official (obviously), or even, I would say, in Gabrielli’s semi-public role in education and stem cell research issues.
<
p>
If you feel otherwise, you might offer some news articles from those periods documenting some of the stances and actions Patrick took.
..even Reilly does not have much of a “public record”, compared to 16 years of legislative votes or dealing with a broad array of public policy issues like a Gov will do vs. AG. So Iâd certainly have to agree with Will about the other two not having the public record.
Deval was high-ranking technocrat. But still a technocrat — tasked with fitting a program of action into a wider approach, that of the president. As we’ve seen with some of Bush’s nominees, one end’s up in a mug’s game where we’re trying to differentiate between stuff he wanted to do and stuff he felt he had to do. So, no, I don’t see much value of that. Anyway, how often did we hear about him while in that post? Exactly.
The pattern that I have observed emerging from the three Democratic candidates for governor has to do with their style of leadership. The decision process might be described as: gather information, discuss/debate/negotiate/plan, and then take action. While Reilly is strong on the âactionâ part of the equation, and Gabrieli fully capable of discussing the issues ad infinitum, Patrick is the only candidate that is actively showing that he has experience with the complete process of decision-making, which is ultimately the skill that we need in our next governor. I am not attacking the candidates, I am trying to draw a distinction between them, and in this case, it is based upon my perception of their approach to leadership and making decisions.
…ya, I see the pattern emerging
You forgot:
<
p>
Patrick: “I know this is gonna be unpopular, but I really think that now is not the right time to roll back the income tax to 5.0%.“
<
p>
Reilly: “Let’s roll it back!“
<
p>
Gabrieli: “I used to oppose the rollback, but now I think we should roll it back, but do it ‘responsibly’, which I haven’t defined yet but I will, really.”