According to State House News Service, Chris Gabrieli announced that his spending cap will be $15.36 million for the Democratic Primary.
GABRIELI DECLARES $15.36 MILLION SPENDING LIMIT FOR PRIMARY: Christopher Gabrieli, who amassed a fortune as a venture capitalist, plans to spend as much as $15.36 million during the next two months, a pace rivals Deval Patrick and Tom Reilly are unlikely to be able to match. Gabrieli filed his self-imposed spending limit today with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, days after announcing he would not join Patrick and Reilly in abiding by a $1.5 million spending cap and receiving public funds. Not coincidentally, Gabrieli received a matching 15.36 percent of the delegates at last Saturdayâs convention, fewer than 20 actual votes above the threshold needed to qualify for Sept. 19 primary, meaning that he may spend up to $1 million per percentage point of convention support. Calling it âarbitrary,â Gabrieli said heâd chosen âa number thatâs been pretty lucky in my life lately.â Addressing reporters outside the McCormack Building Friday afternoon. âItâs an amount of money that I certainly donât think anyone will have to spend to win the Democratic primary, since thatâs going to be a battle about whoâs got the best ideas to get results for Massachusetts.â Gabrieli said he didnât think he would need to spend that amount, and called the specific number an attempt at humor. He joked with reporters, âI hope people thought it was at least slightly humorous that I picked 15.36 â worth a momentâs laugh, come on, somebody laugh!â
For some perspective, Mitt Romney spent $9,361,003.52 for his ENTIRE campaign in 2002 and that was a record. Tom Birmingham spent the most in the contested Democratic primary: $4,581,356.35 million These figures and more from the 2001-2002 race can be found in this report from the Office of Campaign and Polical Finance.
Tom Reilly has more than $4 million in his campaign account. Deval Patrick’s fundraising has also stepped it up. They both had something to risk by agreeing to participate in the public finance system. Yet both of those candidates were willing to abide by a $1.5 million spending cap for the primary. However, Gabrieli decision to opt-out allowed him to set the cap for everyone. . .apparently at $15.36 million.
He says that the number is “arbitrary” and that this race will ultimately be decided by “who has the best ideas,” but for all practical purposes, Gabrieli has now allowed himself to spend whatever he wants from now until September.
Clearly, Gabrieli intended this monstrous figure as a joke, but I’m not sure people are laughing. I think that was what The Phoenix’s Adam Reilly is alluding to in his post. I’m guessing that it has the potential to go over like a fart in church, i.e., not well at all.
Thoughts?
alexwill says
What an absurd number… It really does seem like he wants the costliest roughest primary possible..
cephme says
I said I would wait on deciding if Chris being on the ballot was a good or a bad thing until he released his cap today. He has and I am NOT amused. Basically he is saying, “I will spend as much money as I want to on this campaign to drowned out the other two candidates. I do not care what anyone else in the race has to say, no one will ever hear them.” We deserve to loose again this year for letting him on the ballot. I am so glad I was not swayed to vote for him, I would be killing myself right now.
susan-m says
“I’m lucky enough to have money to waste on elections.”
Chris Gabrieli, GLAD meeting, March 2006
<
p>
What’s next? Let them eat cake?
cannoneo says
I don’t think a self-made, self-funded candidate could say anything more humble and self-deprecating than that. I don’t see the Marie Antoinettean arrogance at all.
susan-m says
and people say WE’RE kool-aid drinkers?!
<
p>
Funniest thing I’ve read all day.
cannoneo says
But I’m serious! When you’re self-made, and you say “I’m lucky”; and you’re self-funded, and you say you’re wasting money; these are clearly ways of trying to be humble or at least deflect the hostility some people have toward the wealthy. This is precisely the opposite of what the apocryphal Marie Antoinette quote means, which is a total lack of awareness of wealth.
<
p>
I suppose it’s hard for a rich man to say anything about his wealth without sounding arrogant. What did Deval say when he released his income statement? “I have worked hard and been very blessed.” Someone who hates the rich could easily take umbrage at the idea that hard work and God’s grace are the reasons someone makes $3.6m in a year. Lots of people work just as hard and are grateful to get one-hundredth of that.
lightiris says
Elections are not generally for sale or handed out as rewards for entrepreneurial success. Are you really unable to see how offensive this is?
<
p>
On second thought, if you can’t see why this “humorous cap” is offensive, I’m glad, actually, because that tells me that you have no idea how tone-deaf your candidate is–and, by extension, how tone-deaf his true believers are, as well. And that bodes well for both Reilly and Patrick.
<
p>
greencape says
So everyone is supposed to be thick skinned when the Deval supporters act ruthlessly at the Convention, when they pull credentials from democrats and try to crush others from speaking and voting freely. However, Deval supporters are not too thick skinned, themselves when Gabrieli sets a high ceiling for campaign spending. At least Gabrieli is willing to put his own money where his mouth is. The millionaire Deval certainly does not appear to want to back up his rhetoric with his own vast wealth, does he? Why should Gabrieli handicap his own ccampaign efforts? Remember, Deval supporters politics ain’t bean bag. The 15.36 cap is brillant and reminds all of us who the real winner on Saturday was.
peter-dolan says
rhetoric a rest, please. In my district at the convention it was a Gabrieli supporter who was almost out of control. His behavior toward the teller was hostile and aggressive to a point where some people were concerned for the teller’s safety. I can’t speak for the others, but my mayor was one of the people whose credential were pulled. He endorsed Kerry Healy for governor (and I suspect the challenge was not filed by a Patrick supporter)
centristdem says
We had Patrick supporters challenging Mayor Dolan from Melrose and Mayor Howard from Malden. We also had some very real challenges on the floor at the convention. The only reason this stuff has been pointed out is that there are some here that want to canonize Deval prior to the primary and it is galling to them when it is pointed out that Mr. Patrick plays “hahd ball” with the rest of them.
<
p>
Relative to the Gabrieli supporter who was out of control. I have every intention of calling the office on Monday and reporting it, particularly because you claim that there was concern for the teller’s safety. It’s the right thing to do; apart from the fact that it’s utterly inappropriate to treat people that way, that kind of behavior does Chris no favors. My cousin is from Gloucester…and aren’t you the Gloucester Chair? Perhaps I can get his/her name from my cousin. I know we wouldn’t want anyone to think this was Gabrieli sanctioned behavior.
<
p>
peter-dolan says
Greencape was on a role, saying that some Patrick supporters were “trying to crush others from speaking and voting freely.” I thought I should point out that some individual supporters of other candidates were working hard for their candidates, and to ensure the integrity of the voting process.
greencape says
It was clearly documented by the Boston Globe 5-29-06 that all 5 people whose credentials were pulled were the result of challenges made by Deval Patrick supporters.
publius says
Most expensive self-financed campaign in state history:
<
p>
15.35 million dollars.
<
p>
Warchest filled with lots of insider, lawyer, wise guy, access money:
<
p>
4 million dollars.
<
p>
A talented, inspiring candidate and an extraordinary field organization:
<
p>
Priceless.
cephme says
I have already made my acerbic call to gab HQ and might head down there for a bit of “face time” after work. (Yes, Andy now I am putting on my grumpy face. :P) The giggle has lightened my mood a bit. Thanks.
tim-little says
I had just thought up the same “MasterCard” spot the other night, and Publius beats me to the post. :p
publius says
…er, kvetching. 😉
ost-guy says
Two candidates with NO RECORD of accomplishment in Massachusetts on any issue which my progressive brethren claim to have worked for over the course of their careers.
<
p>
One candidate he has staked his wealth not on houses, cars and god knows what else but on after school programs in New Bedford and Lowell, fighting the religious right on stem cells, and backing every Democratic candidate for statewide office over the past decade.
<
p>
And for that, you thank him with this BS about what he would theoretically spend to put the corner office back in Democratic hands.
<
p>
Name me one thing that Deval has EVER done for the people of Massachusetts and I’ll begin to take you seriously. THAT would be priceless.
joeltpatterson says
from his Fanueil Hall Speech:
“Jacqueline Jean-Pierre from Cambridge, who remembers more than 25 years ago when I defended her and her family against an unscrupulous landlord in Somerville District Court”
sabutai says
Who has spent the most time fighting in court for the people in Massachusetts….hm…
ost-guy says
Doing a law clinic in grad school is laudable for a 25 year-old job applicant. It’s pathetic as the sole piece of evidence of service to this state over a 20+ year career. Chris has done more for the people of Mass. in the past YEAR than Deval has done in his entire life.
greencape says
Thanks OTS Guy. The first time that most Massachusetts residents probably ever even heard the name Deval Patrick was last Sunday when he appeared on the front page of the Boston Globe.
lynne says
But SO him. Savior of the damned Democratic party and all that.
<
p>
This really makes me mad…like I said on my blog, why the fuck have a spending limit if he’s the ONLY ONE who can come within even 33% of spending that?
<
p>
Let’s see if he can buy volunteer loyalty on that amount. Putz.
since1792 says
But he just lost the general election.
<
p>
I would not vote for this man EVER.
<
p>
I can’t imagine anyone in Deval’s ground force would put up with this arrogant @*#.
greencape says
Lynn, you have as much class as most of the Patrick supporters who attended the convention had. Way to go, your use of profanity is certainly persuading me that Saint Patrick is the best candidate. Keep up the good work.
lynne says
You’re seriously an ass. No offense, but you should be banned for posting this.
<
p>
Guys, 15.36 is the percentage Gabby won the ballot on. It’s obvious MaverickDem is pulling a very bad joke on people to see their reaction.
<
p>
Tasteless. Seriously. I love a good joke as much as the next guy, but this is in bad taste.
sco says
Lynne, it’s being reported by Jon Keller and State House News.
<
p>
It’s a joke, but it’s Gabrieli’s joke, not MaverickDem’s. Gabrieli specifically set it at 15.36 because it’s “been a lucky number” for him recently.
<
p>
He’s making a joke of the spending cap.
lynne says
Holy shit, seriously???
<
p>
Mav, sorry man, I take it back. But you can see why I felt punked. Now I feel punked by Gabrieli. Holy crap!
<
p>
This guy thinks this race is a joke, doesn’t he? I know the new image of him I have now – gadfly and man-about-town.
<
p>
I’m…speechless.
maverickdem says
I am reporting a fact. If you read carefully, I quoted directly from a SHNS account. Boston.com is reporting this story as well.
<
p>
So, I’m the “ass?” I am “tasteless?” My post is in “bad taste?” I’ll gladly let the room decide who is worthy of those errant and judgmental characterizations.
<
p>
Honestly, you win no fans for Mr. Patrick with such a post.
davemb says
In Lynne’s partial defense, after I saw her post I tried to verify it on the web at StateHouseNews’ site (subscription only, front page was cycling yesterday’s headlines) and the Boston.com page that links from the Globe front page (no link to the Boston.com story that MaverickDem just linked to). This is not MaverickDem’s fault, of course.
<
p>
So Lynne had some grounds for suspicion, but should have checked further before using relatively intemperate language. Thanks to .08 Acres for posting a quickly verifiable source (Keller’s blog).
<
p>
Any advice on the best sites to use for breaking MA political news? Keller just scored some points in my book. MaverickDem — where did you find the Boston.com link? That’s probably a site I should have bookmarked.
<
p>
Returning to the substance, this does look like a stupid move on Gabrieli’s part. One of the nastier narratives that can and will be used against him is the ratio of money spent to votes in his two previous races. Doesn’t this just give both the media and his opponents that chance to repeat those uncomfortable facts? Not to mention the many campaign finance reform idealists in the state, some of whom are liberals that Gabrieli should be trying to woo away from Patrick. Showing contempt for the Fair Elections process won’t win him any friends there.
maverickdem says
State House New Service (subscriber service), Keller’s blog, Adam Reilly’s blog, and Boston.com, in that order. Oftentimes, BMG beats them all!
davemb says
In retrospect, the best indication that your original post was legitimate was that rollbiz posted the same State House News story at about the same time.
<
p>
I assume we are all agreed that if you had done what Lynne had thought you’d done, you would have been out of line.
maverickdem says
if I had done what Lynne had thought I had done is not the issue here. I didn’t. Period. Please, don’t even go there. It was unjustified and unjustifiable.
lynne says
It was totally justifiable if you HAD actually posted something fake like that, completely. Just think of how pissed you would have been to be tricked like that. Regardless of whether or not it’s actually true. I completely thought it was another in the line of satires that we’ve seen here, except without the tongue in cheek that indicates satire. Because it was so breaking, I couldn’t find anything else to verify it at the time. I noted that number when I posted my reaction to it at my blog and went, crap, I’ve seen that number before…I got punked! It was far more likely I was punked by fake news than Gabrieli actually made that the cap, especially after trying to verify it elsewhere failed. You know, Occam’s razor and all that. How was I to know that Gabrieli was really THAT much of a doofus??
<
p>
And if you had posted that as fake news, yes, it would be perfectly within the community’s perview to react that way.
<
p>
Get over your hurt feelings. You were in the right. I admit I was wrong. I apologized twice. Sorry it caused bad blood. Given the info I had and the past history of the satire here, it was an easy trap to fall into. Even you have to admit your post, well that number, SOUNDED impossible, if you hadn’t yet seen the news?
lynne says
I mean, given that I couldn’t find any links to verify (went to Boston.com which is generally updated fairly quickly). The 15.36 number was just that unbelievable!! When I wrote my own post, I was startled to realize where I’d seen the # before.
<
p>
I was in such disbelief, and we had that hilarious but “realistic” (sort of) satire of a fake Reilly complaint about how his opponants were against him in the primary…when I couldn’t verify, it was just too unbelievable.
<
p>
Apparently I completely underestimated what levels Gabrieli would sink to to…what? Make a joke? What the hell point could be possibly be making except to point out his only main reason for running is because he has “money to waste”??
<
p>
I’m still pissed. You see, on a level playing field (a cap all candidates find reasonable) then it’s the SMARTER spending that wins. It forces the candidates to build their case with an actual case. It’s better for the debate, and better to sharpen the candidate for eventual ACTUAL governance. How does Gabby possibly spending 4:1 against his opponants add to the debate, exactly?
<
p>
And again, sorry to MaverickDem, if I hadn’t said it enough.
cannoneo says
You always knew he had more resources than the other two, and they’ve always believed they could beat him anyway. And there’s no reason to believe he’ll spend anywhere near this limit, as some are assuming. If he had any intention of getting close to it, he surely wouldn’t have picked a number that’s also a joke. What would be the point right now of trying to project how much the campaign will cost, and then imposing a number that could hamper you in the last week of the race?
sco says
Reilly and Patrick both agreed to $1.5 million. Gabrieli then set the cap himself at 10 times that.
<
p>
As for “projecting how much a campaign will cost, and then imposing a number that could hamper you in the last week of the race,” if Gabrieli can’t run a campaign on a budget, how can we expect him to run a state on one? Especially a long-term budget.
<
p>
Gabrieli was always going to outspend both of the other candidates, but it rubs me the wrong way how he’s treating the campaign finance laws as a joke.
migraine says
… Reilly and Patrick agreed to the 1.5 million ONLY because they know that they don’t have to abide by it since Gab was going to opt out of it.
cos says
By agreeing to the cap, they put the ball in his court. If he’d set a low cap, they’d have had to abide by it. Regardless of what they “knew” he would do, he was the one who made the decision, and he could’ve made a different decision.
<
p>
What if he’d said $4 million? We’d probably still grumble about it, and be unhappy, but we wouldn’t be so shocked and apalled.
<
p>
What if he’d surprised us all by saying $1.5 million? We’d be in for a much better, healthier campaign, and would be better prepared to beat Kerry Healy in the fall (because our nominee would be less bruised and have more money for the general).
<
p>
Patrick and Reilly left the door open for a $1.5 million cap, or a $4 million cap – whatever Gabrieli picked. They were going to abide by it. He made the choice here. He doesn’t escape responsibility for that choice with claims that the other candidates “knew” what he was going to do, so therefore he just met their expectations (and really, I doubt any of them expected a number this high).
trickle-up says
<
p>
Now that would have been an impressive, bold statement! “I’m running on my ideas, which can hold their own without a 2-to-1 spending advantage.”
<
p>
Ironically, multimillion-dollar shock and awe sends the opposite message–it ain’t the ideas, it’s the dough.
charley-on-the-mta says
Gabrieli just upstaged himself with the money — which he was in danger of doing already. He’s no longer the “results” guy, he’s the money guy.
tim-little says
But the “joke” is definitely in poor taste.
lynne says
I totally lost my Friday high.
<
p>
Again, with apologies to MaverickDem.
<
p>
Good lord.
leftisright says
set the limit at what the sox spent in 04 to reverse the curse if he wanted to make it a joke. Maybe he will for the general. Serioulsy no one sees any humor it this?
maverickdem says
I just noticed that you assassinated me on your own blog. You weren’t “Punked,” Lynne. That’s a lame cop out. You were impestuous, insulting, and rude.
<
p>
I will not comment on this again and I hope that everybody is able to focus on the intent of this (wholly accurate)post which is to assess the impact of Gabrieli’s decision to spend a virtually limitless amount of money and, IMHO, his poor attempt to cloak that decision in humor.
lynne says
Given that your blockquote had no link above it (I assume it was from an email?) it looked EXACTLY like the satire we had earlier in the week. Again, easier to believe you were faking it than he would pull something so – at best – gimmicky! Ug.
lynne says
As SOON as I knew it was true I changed the whole post and apologized to you personally. So I hope that’s enough for you, because that’s all I got.
andronicus says
Good lord. Imagine if he had managed to buy as many delegates as Deval earned. The cap would be nearly $60 million!
<
p>
I better send in that check to the Patrick camp now. Gotta get to that $15.36 million…
greencape says
I was a undecided delegate and Gabrieli called me twice and his campaign staff also called me. Deval and Tom never called me personally. Gabrieli did not buy my vote he worked for it. Maybe your candidate should have done the same instead of making lofty proclaimations that he was going to capture 70% of the delegates.
rightmiddleleft says
Once Reilly’s speech was over they were required to go right to the balloting. Rather , they played games for a while manipulating delegates over to gabrielli , end of story.
greencape says
If there are any challenges made, they have to be worked out before the balloting began. I understand, based on reliable sources, that the Patrick campaign in their gluttony to remove non Patrick delegates made several challenges as did the other two campaigns. A very poor strategy by the Patrick campaign, don’t you think. Perhaps you should complain to the Democratic State party officials and staff. Despite the fact that the vast majority of them were openly committed to Saint Patrick, the Deval supporters see conspiracy everywhere.
andronicus says
I’m sure he didn’t personally hand you a check for your vote. Not what I meant. But those robo calls and dozens of slick mail pieces and television ads that drove up his poll numbers amongst casual voters so that he could justify that he was a credible candidate… yeah, those all cost money.
<
p>
But, water under the bridge. Let’s focus on September.
greencape says
GROW UP. It’s called campaigning. I also think that the poll that you refer to also showed Gabrieli in the lead amognst likely democratic primary voters not just the “casual voter”, as you put it. Saint Patrick obviously took his delegates for granted. What happened to his prediction of 70% of delegate support???? Fell a little short. Maybe if Saint Patrick dug into his pocket and spent some money on his own ads, robo calls and slick mailings, he may have attained his ultimate goal of keeping Gabrieli off the ballot. Then he and the likes of you would not have to deal with Gabrieli’s money. Frankly, I like supporting a candidate who is will to back up what he says with his own resources instead of taking the money from needier candidates down ballot.
frankskeffington says
…could you please stop this “Saint Patrick” crap? This venom is going to make it all the harder to support the winner in the primary. I want Patrick people supporting Chris if he wins, and your turning people off. At the same time, in the middle of your mind, you have to be prepared to embrace Patrick or Reilly in the General. I am. Yes, I understand all the arguments about self rightous people, but keep your eye on the ball and that is Kerry Healey, not the trashing of fellow Dems.
lightiris says
In fact, I find Gabrieli’s insensitivity rather shocking. So much for Republicans being the party of excess, buying elections through the squandering of millions. Guess we have our version of “Republican” excess right here at home. So much for the marketplace of ideas, the notion that a candidate will rise or fall on the merits of the campaign, not prime-time carpet-bombing. What’s wrong with a reasonably level playing field? Mr. Gabrieli’s rejection of public funding tells me he doesn’t believe his message can stand on its own merits.
<
p>
I was already uncomfortable with a man who would eschew a process every other candidate respected and then spend over $2 million trying to get 15% of convention delegates to vote him onto the primary ballot. But this $15.36 million “cap,” no matter how, err….playful?…. is both insulting, cynical, and disrespectful.
<
p>
Mr. Gabrieli’s sense of humor tells me more about him than anything his campaign can buy for $15.36 million.
since1792 says
cos says
I commented earlier that I hoped Gabrieli wouldn’t force the Governor’s race to be high-spending, and noted that I didn’t think he’d do what I hope… but this is worse than I thought. And now it looks like we’re gonna have the same thing happen in all of the contested statewide races, where the candidate with the biggest bank account will take to the air. This is awful politics, awful for democracy. We need public financing of campaigns.
<
p>
(for example, a public financing system could promise matching funds to candidates with less money, destroying any incentive a candidate with more money has to spend more of their money, which would lower spending all around)
wa-hurd says
While Gabrieli’s 15 million might be some kind of misguided statement, Deb Goldberg (4 mil) and Bill Galvin (just under 3 mil) also set the money bar at a high level, without the accompanying caveat of irony. Public financing of campaigns would be just as helpful for evening the playing field as Instant Runoff Voting, for which many people are rightfully clamoring. Massachusetts has the opportunity to take the lead in Clean Elections by supporting both a public financing system like Cos’ above and IRV.
rightmiddleleft says
to run for Governor of this state. Reilly has been running fundraisers for over three years. That is the only way he has been able to reach the $4 million in his campaign fund. Hundreds and hundreds of fundraisers are required to reach this level. The $500 maximum is a joke ,and rather than stimulating a fair election it allows the wealthiest to (.Romney, Healey, Mihos, Gabrielli) to gain a significent political advantage .
greencape says
Deval’s a multimillionaire too. Just because he doesn’t want to put his money were his mouth is, don’t balme Gabrieli. Apparently, Deval has less faith in his candidacy than you do. Too big of a risk for him?
greencape says
I thought you wanted everyone to play by the rules????? Gabrieli is playing by them and you do not like it because the advantage is Gabrieli’s and not Deval’s. Grow up. Did you really think that Gabrieli would set a limit that favored Deval and not him? I think the cap is number is very funny Deval can spend his own money too. No one is stopping him.
cephme says
A few days ago I predicted $10 mil on Talking Politics. That to would have been an astronmical sum. I was hoping for aroudn $5-7 Million which still would have been a significant increase over 2002. By not only setting the mark so high, but also by making it in to a joke, he has basically said he does not care about an issue that many of us think is important to (small d) democracy. That is where the shock comes from. He could not have possibly done it in a more insulting way.
shillelaghlaw says
I’m a Deval supporter, and I have no problem with Gabrieli either saying thathe will spend obscene amounts of money, or with him actually spending said obscene amounts of money.
<
p>However I do have a problem with the sheer snarkiness (is that a word) of the “15.36” number. Kind of like those Yankee fans who used to come to Fenway and chant “1918” at us Red Sox fans. Throwing out the “15.36” number just points to the petty mentality of Chris’ staff and consultants.
<
p>That said, we haven’t heard the Yankee fans chant “1918” since 2004- we all know what happened then. I’m pretty damn sure that the Deval people will be chanting “Fifteen-Three-Six” at the unity breakfasts after September when Chris has to endorse Deval for November.
northshoredem says
“1918” was a cheap way for Yankees fans to point out years of Red Sox futility. 15.36 is something that was accomplished by the Gabrieli campaign. Maybe using that number as the cap was unnecessary, but it seems to be celebrating an accomplishment, not pointing out someone else’s futility. Unless, of course, you consider Gabrieli getting on the ballot to be in spite of Patrick’s futile attempts to keep him off the ballot. Sounds pretty cynical to me, coming as it does from a Patrick supporter.
shillelaghlaw says
even cynics like me! 🙂
lynne says
for all the deals that were made to get Gabby his extra delegates, or all the favors he pulled in from his donations to other people/organizations/candidates over the years.
<
p>
You see, it’s not that we don’t understand these are within the rules. But the outsider people DO understand that they got involved with Deval because he doesn’t conduct business as usual. As a registered Dem, I’ve watched people leave the party for Unenrolled and who vote for Republicans for governor because they are really frigging tired of this sort of insider-trading stuff. Seriously, the offense is NOT to Deval – it’s to the whole process. Sure, it’s legal. But it’s gross, it’s crass, and it’s – frankly – cynical. To think that we can’t win in a non-traditional ground game of ideas, but we need a money man to step in and save us with his bag of tricks and redeemed favors. That’s what offensive. If he pulled this and Deval was not in the race I’d be as offended I think. Maybe not as emotional, but as turned off to the process as I am with a horse in the race.
lynne says
That the old way of doing things has just been working out for us real peachy these last 16 years…
lightiris says
I also think this diary should be promoted to the front page; this “cap” is an important issue.
<
p>
One last thought, too (uh, until the next one comes): so much for the plea for “unity” coming out of the convention, that we should not cannibalize ourselves in the run-up to the primary. Gabrieli has just assured there’ll be nothing left for the push to the general but bits of bones and teeth.
<
p>
This is going to be ugly–and the Republicans have got to be rubbing their hands in glee already.
charley-on-the-mta says
… but not before I wrote my own post, not seeing Maverick Dem’s.
<
p>
Note to self: Always. Check. The. Diaries.
lightiris says
What matter is it’s front and center with some momentum. Thanks for responding to my posted nudge. 😉
centristdem says
It is….what it is. Let me tell you something; if Deval, Reilly or any of the others make “clean elections” the central theme…at the expense of property tax relief, then the outcome will be very predictable.
<
p>
I happened to have voted for the clean election law, and the ceiling that Chris has set is definitely “in your face;’ to quote MaverickDem – “politics ain’t beanbag.” The man is in it to win. This is game theory, kids. You either play to win or you’re only playing to play.
<
p>
So let me ask you this; how many millions would be “acceptable” to those of you who find self-funding objectionable? What’s the right number for any gubernatorial candidate and who gets to decide what’s appropriate? I ask because I suspect that no matter what number Gabrieli came up with – you’d still be carrying on. I also think that if St. Patrick of Milton had done something different – it would be “all good.”
lightiris says
all three candidates accepting the public funding and letting the merit of ideas replace the money? When did “playing to win” stop meaning that your ideas are the best, that you’re the best candidate for the job based on your vision and plans? When did “playing to win” get replaced with “whoever has the most money”?
<
p>
Gabrieli should have accepted the public funding and started working on his message. Period.
southshoreguy says
Gabrieli is in it to win. What is wrong with that? Wasn’t Deval in it to win last week when he tried to make it a one or two person race? I assume that Reilly is in to win with his $4M and growing war-chest? Deval, his political supporters, and his delegates tried to knock Gabrieli – and maybe even Reilly – off of the ballot at last week’s convention. They played hardball and failed despite winning the convention in convincing fashion. I know because I saw and heard ther tactics. If you were there last week, you did too if you are honest. Everyone knows why Gabrieli picked that number. He’ll never get near there unless Deval and/or Reilly do too. It is an arbitrary figure and given that the MA general election record was set by Romney in ’02 at $9M-$10M while Birmingham set the primary record in ’02 at ~$5M. It is unlikely that anyone crosses the $7M figure – less than half the 15.36. Don’t blame Gabrieli for playing to win Deval backers. If you do, you are hypocrites.
<
p>
Best,
Southshoreguy
<
p>
P.S. Blame Reilly if you don’t like Gabrieli being in the race. Reilly left him at the LG altar with the St. Fleur pick and combined with his lazy approach to the convention, he then left the door open for a third candidate. Gabrieli just happened to be the person who walked through it.
lightiris says
Your argument is self-serving at best and disingenuous at worst.
<
p>
Is any lucid individual actually suggesting that Patrick and Reilly aren’t in this to win? No, no one is. Or, no lucid individual is, anyway. They are both in this to win, yet they didn’t see the need to forgo the limits of public funding. There’s a reason for that. Hmmm…..wonder what it could be?
<
p>
The issue here is the tactics and measures taken to secure the win. Clearly, Patrick and Reilly decided, for whatever reasons, that they could run races funded by public monies. Gabrieli could easily have done so, too, but chose not to. Why? Could it be that he is afraid his message and vision, when measured against his opponents, will come up short in the eyes of voters? Doesn’t he trust voters to make informed decisions based on the merits? Must he carpet-bomb them with a bought-and-paid-for multimillion-dollar campaign designed to drown out his opponents? Gabrieli’s antics today reveal him to be cynical and flippant. Now that sounds like a winning combo.
sabutai says
And any smart campaign should be too.
centristdem says
But playing to win is the name of the game…and lightiris, I know you know that. You’ve been in politics way too long not to know that. And you also know that money drives the message, too….and that’s why you’re having a veritable canary over Gabrieli’s ability to self-fund himself into the stratosphere.
lightiris says
Yes, I have been around long enough to know what the game is all about–and around long enough to take a principled stand when I need to.
<
p>
I think respect for the people you must depend upon to get yourself elected is important. I feel disrespected by Gabrieli and so do many others. I won’t support a candidate I don’t respect–and I don’t know anybody who will.
<
p>
So, you may be right. There will be enough people out there to carry Gab over the finish line should he be the one left standing. And that’s fine.
<
p>
In the future, too, please refrain from telling me why I think and feel the way I do. I can articulate my own feelings and the reasons for them rather adequately, thanks.
centristdem says
Nice combo, lightiris. You must be a blast at a party. Excuse, could I have a glass of hypocrite to go with my Chardonnay. Thanks, dear.
charley-on-the-mta says
‘I also think that if St. Patrick of Milton had done something different – it would be “all good.”‘
<
p>
I don’t think you have much proof for that. From what I can tell, the reason why folks feel invested in the Patrick campaign is that the campaign is really depending on them more than the other four campaigns. QED.
<
p>
The “St. Patrick” bit is really getting tired … We keep hearing things like: “If Patrick was really running a different kind of campaign, he (fill in the blank)
<
p>
a. wouldn’t try to get all the delegates!
b. wouldn’t make so much money
c. would make me some delicious chocolate chip cookies right now!”
<
p>
etc.
<
p>
BTW, Gabrieli has said he thinks public financing is a good idea. Can’t one turn this on him? “If Chris Gabrieli thinks public financing is a good idea, why doesn’t he:
<
p>
a. accept public campaign money;
b. declare a lower spending limit, to keep parity with his opponents;
c. make me some delicious chocolate chip cookies right now?”
<
p>
etc.
centristdem says
Charlie,
<
p>
I, too, am tired about hearing about Patrick as though he was a choir boy. I was at the convention; I know otherwise. While I don’t have any “proof” per se relative to my comment that “if Patrick were doing it, it would be all good,” I have watched the various gyrations that supporters have taken when Patrick does fall short on “ideals” like keeping Democrats from voting. It’s not a huge leap to think they’d follow him anywhere.
<
p>
Okay…so cue up the music….I will follow him; follow him where ever he may go….
lynne says
I’d be pissed, and the campaign would know it on my blog AND personally with a phone call. And I would definitely lose some enthusiasm for campaigning.
<
p>
And they know that. So they don’t do it!
greencape says
Deval did pull this crap. His campaign acted as if it was run by the Republicans and W, himself, when they had credentials pulled from elected democratic officials, tried to intimidate voters who wished to vote for Gabrieli, held up silence signs when Gabrieli was speaking, tried to barr two candidates from the ballot etc etc. I thought I was at the Republican National Convention for a second with the likes of Carl Rove and Lee Atwater. But I guess that behavior is all right if it is done by St Patrick of Milton or his campaign fluggies.
cos says
Well, if he said $2 million or $2.5 million it wouldn’t be awful, but really, the answer to your question is obvious.
<
p>
Patrick and Reilly both agreed to a $1.5 million cap. Gabrieli could’ve agreed to the same cap, and then we’d have a relatively low-spending (amazing that we’d think that’s low these days!) campaign, where they’re all even on money, and have to compete through message and grassroots support and clever strategy and targeting and so on, rather than compete on who has the most money. It would also make it much easier for the eventual nominee to have money for the general election, or raise more then.
george-phillies says
Readers may recall, or perhaps not, that in 1998 the General Election the Libertarian candidate, Dean Cook, was obliged to set a limit, and set a limit in the billions. About six of them, I think, but perhaps my memory has faded.
alexwill says
$19,514,800,000
demredsox says
It’s to be expected. You use everything in your arsenal. However, it is a legitimate criticism that he is putting himself ahead of the democratic values he claims to stand for.
<
p>
Of course, most of the critics, including myself, are Patrick supporters. The impossibility of objectivity for all of us, myself included, is frustrating. Who knows what we’d think if Patrick had the dollars?
Although, I would add that as a Patrick supporter, Patrick should have come out in support of the banished delegates.
<
p>
Danny Moraff
lynne says
That mayor (sorry, can’t remember which town) already endorsed Healey before the primary It’s obvious that guy is a true DINO – joined the only game in town for the cookies (to extend a theme from above). Frankly, that guy should be banned from running as a Democrat for his next election, nevermind delegates.
<
p>
it’s a big tent party, but it’s still a party – to endorse, with your elected status as a Dem, the opponant from the other party before we even have a nominee (and there’s three people to choose from!) means you are not really interested in the party. Dead weight.
danielshays says
But the problem with going after municipal officials in particular is that they are technically non-partisan. That is, in their elections, there are no Dem. or GOP primaries etc. So for the party to punish these people, there really is no way other than yanking their credentials. I suppose the party could make some sort of announcement saying “Mayor X is not a real Democrat” and I am certain any mayor worth his salt would have his city committee make an announcement stating the exact opposite. Frankly, I don’t even know why you’d want to be at the convention if you were endorsing Healey, and I think the controversy over this is the ultimate inside baseball. It might be fun to debate, but no one aside from us cares.
sabutai says
Um, Kerry Healey for Governor.
<
p>
Remember her? The candidate that we’re all supposedly working to defeat? The millionaire who’s going to exploit our broken campaign financing system to try to buy her win? Gabs isn’t making it expensive to run for governor. That would be Kerry Healey. All the other candidates are rolling with the punches, Gabs is just doing it best.
<
p>
And yes, the system is broken, and yes we should fix it, and no we won’t be able to before Election Day.
<
p>
The millionaire who talked consistently about spending millions on running for governor just announced that he’s spending millions on running for governor. (Just like he did when running for LG, when everyone loved him for it. Remember that?)
<
p>
And let’s face it, if Patrick or Reilly can’t compete with a millionaire in the primary, then they’ll get crushed by the millionaire in the general. ‘Cuz Healey isn’t going to hold back on the spending in the name of ideals and warm fuzzies.
<
p>
I know a lot of people are going to want different rules for the primary than the general. I’d rather have it be game on, and toughen up our winner. Because I want to win this November. Unless you’d prefer a primary campaign of arbitrary spending limits, uncontroversial issues, rare debates, or heck, let’s limit the campaigning to giving out cookies and smiles. No — let’s let everyone use their advantages and get in shape for the final sprint. Gabrieli was a money surplus he’s going to use, Patrick a charisma surplus he’s going to use, Reilly an experience surplus he’s going to use.
<
p>
As for the 15.36 figure, I think this was a minor joke that has succeeded brilliantly. The number was a not-so-subtle jab at the campaign that failed to keep him off the ballot, and it worked brilliantly. The number’s a just a tease at Deval, and his campaign and supporters should laugh it off, rather than go into outrage mode and look like sticks in the mud to the undecideds. It makes Chris’s campaign look comfortable with the gamesmanship of the process (which they already do coming off the convention), and others as too serious. Because if you’re willing to go to the barricades over a decimal number, then you’ll be giving primary voters outrage fatigue in the next few months.
<
p>
lightiris says
No, no, no. When you say this:
<
p>
<
p>
you missing the point. Who, really, is in a position to determine whether the “minor joke” “succeeded brilliantly”? Reaction in my circles is uniformly negative. You are offering the reality you want instead of the reality that is. If you consider success simply making Gab supporters smile, then that’s all well and good, I guess. But that certainly won’t motivate all of the folks who are now completely turned off by the Gab campaign towards helping him in September should he win. No, the joke is a miserable failure making Gab look petty, cynical, and disrespectful. Those are the words flooding my email.
<
p>
Moreover, telling Patrick supporters (or Reilly supporters, I imagine, too) that if they don’t laugh, they look like “sticks in the mud” is off-target, as well. Jokes are intended for listeners, not tellers. If the listener doesn’t laugh, the joke, no matter how amusing to the teller, is not funny.
sd1 says
I figured out how Gabrieli can lower the taxes to 5%. He can just take all that personal wealth of his and donate the last 0.3% each year to cover the gap.
bostonshepherd says
Elections cost money. It’s expensive to build name recognition. Consumer product companies spend millions to differentiate their toothpaste for their competitors’. Why are political ideas any different?
<
p>
I indeed hope Gabrelli spends that $15+ million; I want to know what he stands for, and I believe everyone in the Commonwealth deserves to know, too. That’ll take $15 million, for sure.
<
p>
If it costs $10 million for an unknown name to become known and their ideas communicated, why not spend it? What’s wrong with committing the necessary funds to broadcast those good ideas?
<
p>
Why does everyone think political money spent this way is so evil?
<
p>
Jello spends around $113 million annually in advertising, about equivalent over 4 years to an entire presidential candidate’s campaign. Is Jello more important that electing a president?
<
p>
I think it was Scot Lehigh who had a piece in the Globe the other day commenting how in MA we now have a narrow selection in elections: self-funded millionaires, or professional politicians with war chests built up over many years in office. I think this is a serious predicament.
<
p>
If you think Deval Patrick is the best Dem choice, and he needs $5 or $6 million to win the primary in a 3-way, given our state’s campaign funding regulations it’ll be very, very difficult, if not impossible. Why can’t 6 wealthy donors who believe in Patrick give him $1 million each? Will these 6 people corrupt Deval Patrick?
<
p>
Our existing campaign finance laws end up restricting the competition for political ideas; it’s a terrible outcome for our long-term political well-being and diversity, for both D’s and R’s. It’s leading to complete polarization our our politics (that’s a bad thing.)
<
p>
The only scheme more restrictive and life-choking would be public financing of campaigns…the last people I’d want writing the rules and deciding who gets funding are self-dealing politicians and full-time political activists.
<
p>
It would lead to less money for funding campaigns, and this destroys the competition for political ideas, left and right.
<
p>
Besides, I want to retain the right to prevent my money from funding someone I do not wish to support and in whose ideas I do not believe.
<
p>
Let the best ideas rise to the top. This takes a lot of money. So let politicians get that money more easily, without restrictions, and with full and instant disclosure. Let voters decide who’s in the bag and who’s not.
<
p>
At this point Patrick and Reilly supporters have nothing left to do but complain about “closing loopholes” and casting aspersions on how much the Gabrieli and Healy campaigns will spend.
<
p>
That’s a shame.
tim-little says
Is still the best advertising — for anything — and as Publius pointed out above it doesn’t take a lot of cash.
bostonshepherd says
Word of mouth may be fine for the tiny, tiny subset of likely voters comprised of political junkies and party activists, but it doesn’t get it done when trying to reach 6.2 million voters across the Bay State in the final 60 days of a campaign.
<
p>
That’s the window when the general public starts to pay attention. Don’t forget that most voters in MA are non-aligned and do not follow the ebb and flow of politics like you do.
<
p>
Primaries may be different, but the more candidates vying for the party nomination, the more costly the task. And a 3-way splits loyal party donors’ cash more widely.
<
p>
Word of mouth? Silly. You need TV, radio, mailings, public appearences, consultants, buses and chartered planes, and staff. Or get buried.
<
p>
In the general election, Mihos will add to the background noise making a huge war chest all the more important.
<
p>
Imagine that … 3 deep-pocketed millionaires all running for governor.
tim-little says
I’m hardly a political junkie myself, but I do take pay some attention to issues that effect me. In that, I don’t think I’m very different from most other voters, regardless of political orientation.
<
p>
While I agree that candidates can’t completely forego “traditional” campaigning — unfathomably large media buys being a phenomenon of, what, the last 20 years or so? — I think that individuals speaking to individuals about issues of common interest (schools, healthcare, taxes, the environment, etc.) can have a profound effect even in this media-intensive age.
<
p>
Which is really more likely to have a meaningful impact: A generic TV or radio spot, or a one-on-one discussion with a freind, family member, neighbor or colleague? It’s simply human nature to trust the known quantity over the unknown, and grassroots marketing/campaigning taps into this tendency, regardless of the product being sold.
andy says
I gave you a 5 even though I don’t really agree with most of what you say in your comment here. That said, I think you deserve a high rating because you raise difficult questions that I think are hard to answer logically. I think it is easy to counter your premise about comparing an election for the presidency or any high office with the sale of product. The two are without comparison though the “sale” of each can be similar. We shouldn’t choose our elected officials in the same manner we choose which peanut butter we like. These two “products” serve vastly different purposes and, in my opinion, should therefore be chosen in vastly different ways.
<
p>
That said I agree with you that allowing the politicians to set limits on themselves is a rather laughable exercise. If we all are quietly honest with ourselves I think the overwhelming majority of us would admit that putting a genuine check on a particular activity would be difficult because our inevitable self interest would either consciously or subconsciously creep up and dilute any measure to some degree. I am true believer in campaign finance reform but seem to be in your camp in that I don’t think we have even come close to figuring out a way to reform the system. Elections are exercises in fluidity yet our laws are neccessarily rigid. I don’t think the $500 limit on a contribution is a joke when everyone is limited to a $1.5 million cap. However, in instances like we now find ourselves, I think the law should allow for fluidity and raise teh cap on contribution for Patrick and Reilly to a much higher figure like $10,000. If the intent is to make elections more equal then arm the candidates equally. When facing a self funding trillionaire a non-self funding candidate should be able to raise big chucks of dough and fast. However, if our purpose is to reduce the amount of money in a campaign then there should be no opt-out option. Our laws are antiquated, we are incorportating two conflicting purposes that clearly cannot work in harmony and in the end allow for more and more money to be spent each year.
<
p>
I like what you say because too often we are unwilling to ask the tough questions when they are not convenient and do not fit into our view. It is heresy for a progressive even to question unlimited spending. Yet I think it is impossible for us to come to our true principles unless we can effectively dismiss the other side’s reasoned arguments with reasoned arguments of our own and the only way that happens is by first questioning our own motives. Thanks for the challenge.
bostonshepherd says
Andy — I appreciate your comments but aren’t you trying to eat your cake and have it too? You want to make an exception now “in instances like we now find ourselves…” and raise the cap to $10,000. What instances? Perhaps it’s because you’re concerned Gabrielli will bury your guy (Partick? Reilly?) in the primary because of his ability to self-fund.
<
p>
Why not raise the cap to $100,000 or $1,000,000 (better still, NO CAP!) with the proviso that donors can only be registered MA citizens and only individuals, no PACS, no unions, no corporations, etc. And all donations must immediately be posted on the internet for all to see.
<
p>
I think with this “reform” you’d see an explosion of political ideas, from far left to far right, kooks along with interesting and exciting new blood.
<
p>
Can someone tell me how this sort of money would be corrupting? I view no-cap or high-cap campaign funding more like political venture capital than bribery. It would, I believe, create a politcal environment with new and fresh platforms instead of the same-old stale rhetoric, from both sides, year after year after year.
<
p>
And if the now-elected candidate tries to change horses in the middle of the stream, imagine how easy it’d be for honest new comers to mount a challenge.
andy says
I am still mulling what you said but I do have one response to the cake comment. My point was this: if all candidates agreed to the VOLUNTARY spending limits then I think the $500 contribution is reasonable. Where I think the law fails is when someone opts out of the public financing system because the law significantly burdens those who are opting in by dramatically limiting the contributions they can receive. I do worry that Gabrieli will bury my guy (Patrick) but also that he will bury Reilly, too. Let me quickly clarify here, by bury I don’t mean beat, but I do mean bury them in scripted commercials and nullify their message by blanketing us all with his dollars. That is a huge concern. Reilly and Patrick’s message gets drown out creating an uneven playing field. The law, instead of encouraging behavior our society considers positive, namely releiving the political system of huge sums of money, actually discourages individuals from taking public money because it will hamper their efforts.
<
p>
So yeah, I think it is possible to have my cake and eat it to by creating a law that would greatly incentivize candidates to take public money but would simultaneously arm those candidates against an uber-rich individual who doesn’t need public financing (on the federal level I think this is referred to as the “millionaire provision”).
cannoneo says
His ads will be issue-oriented. He’ll be very publicly talking about making college education affordable, countering right-wing insanity on stem cells with an aggressive research plan, etc. He’ll be moving the entire electorate closer to our side on these issues, which will benefit whoever wins the primary.
centralmaguy says
I’m tired of the implications and allegations that Gabrieli supporters were somehow “bought” by the campaign. If they were bought, I’m still waiting for my check. 😛
<
p>
In all seriousness though, I was a Deval supporter on caucus day, but not an avid supporter. He was the anti-Reilly who was more appealing because he didn’t have the screw-ups and gaffes that Reilly had. His politics were more in line with mine that were Reilly’s.
<
p>
Then Chris Gabrieli entered the race. I figured I’d hear him out since I was fairly non-committal about Deval. I had the opportunity to meet Chris, heard him speak, and had a one-on-one conversation with him about education, job creation, smart state budgeting and investment, etc. I was bowled over and have been an ardent supporter of his since.
<
p>
But still no check! 😛
<
p>
I worked my butt off for him leading up to the convention, and the result was that my state senate district was one of two that he won and that he swept two towns (including my town’s 12 delegates) and nearly swept a couple of others.
<
p>
But still no check. 😛
<
p>
The point is that I’m a supporter of Chris Gabrieli because of the hard work he has done in the private and non-profit worlds, which had tangible results on job creation, education reform, and stem cell research. While the other candidates have talked about grand plans for our Commonwealth, Chris is the only candidate with a record that makes victory in November and implementation of his plan believable.
<
p>
I’m tired of the vitriol coming from some supporters of the other candidates. Gabrieli supporters are not mindless drones who have been bought off. They’re not somehow less enlightened because they’re not backing the horse of some others on this blog.
<
p>
Gabrieli has a strong field organization, one that I’m proud to be part of, working with numerous other volunteers across the state for a candidate we believe in. And NONE of us are getting paid for it.
steven-leibowitz says
You don’t drop a couple million in a month without some very happy checks going to the media folks, consultants, and signature gatherers. I’m glad you are a committed person, seriously. I think it is naive for you to think that the rest if the 15.36% were equally impressed and committed. I don’t think Gabrieli will be able to compete on the ground with either candidate. He will attempt to make up for that with spending exponentially more than his competiton. I’m not sure that will carry as much weight as it does on a down ticket race, as gubernatorial candidates will get their fair share of news slots. Further, it is misleading for him to infer he is taking the high road of not using taxpayer money; I believe this funding comes from the dollar check off on state taxes. I hope he is more consistent on other issues, than he is on rolling back the income tax or support for public funding of campaigns.
centralmaguy says
WHile I appreciate your remark about my commitment to my candidate, I take issue with the insinuation that I somehow believe through naivete that all 15.36% are ardent supporters. I never wrote that. There was horse-trading and deals made by all camps in Worcester, as well as delegate challenges and the rest. I’ve been involved in campaigns (and managed a couple) and I’ve been a delegate to conventions for the last six years. None of this is new to me.
<
p>
What I can say 100 percent certainty is that those delegates and alternates I worked with ARE strong supporters, though deals were made on the floor. Such is life in politics, as is spending.
cannoneo says
for this firm defense of Gabrieli supporters’ bona fides, CMG. I had stopped responding to these kinds of accusations because those who level them didn’t seem to want to listen, and I was only getting dragged into pissing contests.
<
p>
But it’s been a remarkable blind spot in the generally high standards of BMG discourse: one candidate’s supporters are routinely accused of being paid off, a serious accusation. Sometimes it’s explicit — in my first posts I was accused more than once of being on a payroll and lying about it; other times it’s the general claim that Gabrieli’s support is bought, which denies the existence of all our volunteer efforts and sincere beliefs.
<
p>
Regarding civility, I would much rather someone call me a stupid, elitist motherfu**er than a paid plant. The former is just a rough way of expressing disagreement, while the latter is an effort to discredit my very presence.
southshoreguy says
Hey lightiris – if you have been in politics as much as you and others profess, then perhaps you should come clean and tell the truth. Please stop insinuating that Reilly and Patrick would have accepted public financing if Gabrieli had done so first. Do you really think Reilly and Patrick chose to accept the public funds earlier in the week because they really wanted to? Or is it perhaps because they both knew Gabrieli was NOT going to accept them and tried to score cheap political points and a “free” $750K – at the expense of needier candidates further down the ticket who really could have used it. Remember, if they did not take it, it would have gone to the other candidates lower on the ticket. I am sure that a candidate like Bonifaz really appreciates their “commitment” to this issue. Please. Gabrieli has been clear from day 1 on his funding intentions (i.e. before this week’s “momentous decisions” by Deval and Tom), so it should have been no surprise to an “expert” like you when he opted out. More to this point, if Reilly really was in this for public funding, he would not have $4M in his account. Along the same lines, Deval wouldn’t already have over a million $ and growing. I am sorry that your candidate’s hardball tactics at last week’s convention did not succeed with what you really wanted – Gabrieli off of the primary ballot. Now for the next 3-5 months you’ll see/hear him and his impressive commercials more often than those Bob’s furniture spots! Enjoy!!! 🙂
lightiris says
Comments like this:
<
p>
<
p>
do nothing to further the debate. I never claimed to be an “expert,” so I can only surmise that you are being snide and condescending. Why are you so angry?
jethom19 says
As an early and ardent Patrick supporter, and an one who, for a variety of reasons did not think it fair for Gabrieli to be on the ballot, the fact is that he IS on it and that will not change.
<
p>
The personal attacks do nothing to further the efforts of my candidate, nor of the party. The language being used in some of these posts by supporters of all three candidates does little to promote the discussion.
<
p>
It seems to me that one thing that would do so is discourse that makes us proud to be Democrats. That is hardly the case with this sort of vitriol.
southshoreguy says
lightiris, I am not angry. Please do not resort to “holier than you” commentary after being called out. You classified my earlier post on this topic last night “self-serving at best and disingenuous at worst”. Then I responded again and you call me “snide and condescending”. Question – why are you lecturing on tone and tenure? It seems Deval backers only like jokes about others and only like rules when they benefit their guy.
<
p>
The order of posts and replies can get cluttered in the traffic, so I tried to distill it for context. Let’s review further by quoting portions of our various recent posts on this topic.
<
p>
1) You posted
What’s wrong with (6.00 / 1)
all three candidates accepting the public funding and letting the merit of ideas replace the money? When did “playing to win” stop meaning that your ideas are the best, that you’re the best candidate for the job based on your vision and plans? When did “playing to win” get replaced with “whoever has the most money”?
Gabrieli should have accepted the public funding and started working on his message. Period.
<
p>
by: lightiris @ June 09, 2006 at 19:15:24 EST
<
p>
2) I posted
In it to win (4.00 / 1)
Gabrieli is in it to win. What is wrong with that? Wasn’t Deval in it to win last week when he tried to make it a one or two person race? I assume that Reilly is in to win with his $4M and growing war-chest? Deval, his political supporters, and his delegates tried to knock Gabrieli – and maybe even Reilly – off of the ballot at last week’s convention. They played hardball and failed despite winning the convention in convincing fashion. I know because I saw and heard ther tactics. If you were there last week, you did too if you are honest. Everyone knows why Gabrieli picked that number…Don’t blame Gabrieli for playing to win Deval backers. If you do, you are hypocrites.
Best,
Southshoreguy
<
p>
3) You replied
There’ll all in it to win. (5.00 / 1)
Your argument is self-serving at best and disingenuous at worst.
Is any lucid individual actually suggesting that Patrick and Reilly aren’t in this to win? No, no one is. Or, no lucid individual is, anyway. They are both in this to win, yet they didn’t see the need to forgo the limits of public funding. There’s a reason for that. Hmmm…..wonder what it could be?
<
p>
The issue here is the tactics and measures taken to secure the win. Clearly, Patrick and Reilly decided, for whatever reasons, that they could run races funded by public monies. Gabrieli could easily have done so, too, but chose not to.”
<
p>
by: lightiris @ June 09, 2006 at 20:20:00 EST
<
p>
4) CentristDem posted
Nothing “wrong” with it… (4.00 / 1)
But playing to win is the name of the game…and lightiris, I know you know that. You’ve been in politics way too long not to know that. And you also know that money drives the message, too….and that’s why you’re having a veritable canary over Gabrieli’s ability to self-fund himself into the stratosphere.
<
p>
by: CentristDem @ June 09, 2006 at 21:21:33 EST
<
p>
5) You posted
Well, we can agree to disagree. (5.00 / 1)
Yes, I have been around long enough to know what the game is all about–and around long enough to take a principled stand when I need to.
I think respect for the people you must depend upon to get yourself elected is important. I feel disrespected by Gabrieli and so do many others. I won’t support a candidate I don’t respect–and I don’t know anybody who will.
<
p>
So, you may be right. There will be enough people out there to carry Gab over the finish line should he be the one left standing. And that’s fine.
<
p>
In the future, too, please refrain from telling me why I think and feel the way I do. I can articulate my own feelings and the reasons for them rather adequately, thanks.
<
p>
6) I posted
Get real lightiris – some facts (0.00 / 0)
Hey lightiris – if you have been in politics as much as you and others profess, then perhaps you should come clean and tell the truth. Please stop insinuating that Reilly and Patrick would have accepted public financing if Gabrieli had done so first. Do you really think Reilly and Patrick chose to accept the public funds earlier in the week because they really wanted to? Or is it perhaps because they both knew Gabrieli was NOT going to accept them and tried to score cheap political points and a “free” $750K – at the expense of needier candidates further down the ticket who really could have used it. Remember, if they did not take it, it would have gone to the other candidates lower on the ticket. I am sure that a candidate like Bonifaz really appreciates their “commitment” to this issue. Please. Gabrieli has been clear from day 1 on his funding intentions (i.e. before this week’s “momentous decisions” by Deval and Tom), so it should have been no surprise to an “expert” like you when he opted out. More to this point, if Reilly really was in this for public funding, he would not have $4M in his account. Along the same lines, Deval wouldn’t already have over a million $ and growing. I am sorry that your candidate’s hardball tactics at last week’s convention did not succeed with what you really wanted – Gabrieli off of the primary ballot. Now for the next 3-5 months you’ll see/hear him and his impressive commercials more often than those Bob’s furniture spots! Enjoy!!! 🙂
by: southshoreguy @ June 10, 2006 at 15:58:32 EST
<
p>
7) And you replied with
Comments like this:
<
p>
…so it should have been no surprise to an “expert” like you…
do nothing to further the debate. I never claimed to be an “expert,” so I can only surmise that you are being snide and condescending. Why are you so angry?
<
p>
by: lightiris @ June 10, 2006 at 16:16:54 EST
<
p>
greencape says
Bravo Centralmaguy. I’m another committed Gabrieli volunteer and proud of it. I was an uncommitted delegate until I spoke with Chris and found him to be a true genntleman concerned with stem cell research and education issues. I have two small children so obviously education is a key issue in my household but I also have a father with MS and a diabetic mother and I appreciate the time, effort and money that Chris put into defeating the religious right agenda of squashing stem cell research funding and legislation. I look forward to this summer and fall’s campaign season and feel each candidate should use all assets to his own advantage. Deval certainly tried to do that last week at the convention. Chris will become a household name because of ideas that are funded by his vast campaign war chest. I am only too glad to be part of his team so that I can help spread the word.
steven-leibowitz says
Reading about how the Gabrieli supporters, those hearty 15.36% ;), can both fawn all over their candidate, while making their sarcastic Saint Patrick remarks. Irony noted 🙂
<
p>
I remember a wonderful line from Barney Frank’s first campaign for Congress. He said the only time he voted for a perfect candidate was the first time he ran. By the next time, he had done a couple things he wasn’t sure about, but decided to vote for himself anyway. But it is terribly amusing to see the Gab people showing exactly the same tendencies they are so critical of in the Patrick campaign and supporters.
frenchgirlfromma says
Had they not do so, $750,000 would be available for candidates down the ticket. But, apparently, it was more important to score points than to help other races.
<
p>
Gabrieli certainly set a huge cap, but as I understand it, it is the rule of the game. All we can hope is that ALL OF THE CANDIDATES will have the intelligence not to go that high.
katie-wallace says
to get Kerry Healy elected in November?
<
p>
These attacks on candidates and their supporters are not helping the Democratic party. By the time you are done and the primary is over it won’t matter who won because you will have so angered the supporters of the other candidates that they won’t want to vote for the nominee. As for the majority of the population who are not so involved, they will be sick and tired of it too and come to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter who they vote for Democrat or Republican because they both stink.
<
p>
Can we raise the level of debate here please and stop giving each other virtual wedgies?
charley-on-the-mta says
in this post.
<
p>
The abuse is over the top, and makes everyone look bad. I can’t imagine what purpose it serves to trash a legitimate, and indeed quite progressive candidate as Gabrieli; nor do I see the purpose of Gab’s folks going even further to alienate a very organized bunch as are the Patrick supporters.
<
p>
The civility thing is not just a fetish, folks; it’s smart politics.