Here’s a prime example of Chris Gabrieli keeping on message and ignoring “politics as usual”. People want results, not more rhetoric.
From the Globe’s “Political Intelligence” blog:
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Gabrieli ignores Patrick criticism
Christopher Gabrieli today declined to comment specifically on an e-mail rival Deval Patrick sent out to supporters yesterday charging that Gabrieli had sent a “cynical message” by setting such a high spending limit ($15.36 million) for the campaign.
Gabrieli instead touted his involvement in securing a new $8 million Wallace Foundation grant for after-school programs at Boston schools, which was announced this morning at the Winthrop School in Dorchester.
“That’s the kind of stuff that I think the next governor should do,” Gabrieli said. “And I think a candidate for governor should talk about what they can get done, and prove that they can get it done. That, I think, wins elections.”
Posted by Scott Helman, Political Reporter at 04:01 PM
And contrary to what some supporters of other candidates believe, Gabrieli does have a strong grassroots organization. The combination of his record of results, his volunteer operation, and, yes, cash make him the most formidable candidate in the race for governor, not cash alone.
The voters should get a campaign about real issues, real solutions, and real results. The other candidates are shying away from that because they can’t credibly stand toe-to-toe with Gabrieli in a campaign like that and instead attack using the biggest non-issue yet.
CentralMAGuy, I admire Gabrieli’s work on after school initiatives, but what exactly are his “results?” I pose this as a legitimate question. There is the after school initiative and a I give him kudos for that, but what else?
<
p>
He funded an ad campaign to support stem cell research, but I don’t think that the stem cell bill was ever in jeopardy of failing in the legislature. The ad buy was nice, but it certainly wasn’t the reason that the stem cell bill passed. The stem cell bill passed because this is Massachusetts and Romney’s pitch to national Republican primary voters fell on deaf ears. The Legislature knew that their constituents supported stem cell research. Gabrieli’s ad buy was nice, but I wouldn’t exactly call it a “result.” This is obviously an open question, so please fill in the blank.
<
p>
Additionally, I don’t blame Patrick for criticizing Gabrieli nor do I blame Gabrieli for not responding to that criticism. Both Gabrieli’s decision to spend as much as he wants and Patrick’s decision to criticize him for it are basic political calculations. I don’t see one being any less political than the other.
That seems like “results” to me. Eight million of them. That will help to change the lives of some young students I’m sure. Instead of “complaining about the advantages of another campaign”, he went into action and actually accomplished something that benefits the public good.
<
p>
Instead of going negative…
<
p>
<
p>
Just think, one more grant like that and he’ll have put $16,000,000 into work for the educational system!!
I acknowledged and applauded Gabrieli’s support for after school programs. My question was what are the other “results” to which he is referring? I’m not diminishing the $8 million, but Tom Reilly saved the Commonwealth $1.3 billion by successfully challenging law firms that were trying to collect excessive and unreasonable fees for the tabacco settlement. That victory was won during the budget crisis and Reilly’s failure to challenge successfully would have blown a huge hole in the state’s finances during the budget crisis.
<
p>
There is nothing negative about my question. I realize that “results” is part of the Gabrieli tagline, so I am just asking for some evidence to support his rhetoric.
Gabrieli worked with Treasurer Tim Cahill and the state pension board and convinced them to invest more of the fund’s assets here in Massachusetts rather than continue to indiscriminately pour capital into out-of-state, and even out-of-country, enterprises. The result has been up to 2 percent of the funds $32 billion in total assets being directed to promote economic growth here in our state. As governor, Gabrieli would push for similar investments from the state’s other retirement systems, such as the MA teachers retirement pension system. It’s our money, we should keep as much of it here as possible while keeping the pension funds healthy and growing.
Check out Massachusetts 2020 which is a non-profit promoting ed reforms and after school programs, co-founded by Gabrieli.
Here’s a list of businesses which Gabrieli invested in as a venture capitalist. Very impressive stuff.
Chris has lost the last two elections in a row in which he has been a candidate.
<
p>
There’s results for you!
<
p>
Results obviously matter.
<
p>
History books written after 1792 have recorded that Chris won the Lt. Gov. Democratic Primary in 2002. So I’m not sure what you are talking about or what point you are trying to make.
I should have said general elections – not primary elections. You are correct.
<
p>
Let me also tell you what is going through my head…I think though that if Chris were to win this primary – he could not win the general in November.
<
p>
How many Reilly supporters would back Mihos or even Healy after thinking Gabrieli got in this race for spite because Reilly did not pick him for his running mate? If Chris were thinking he was Governor material – why did he wait to see if he got picked to be the LG running mate??
<
p>
How many Patrick people would simply sit this out as well if Chris wins the primary?
<
p>
Results, shmesults. It’s the impression Gabrieli gives people. He certainly did not ingratiate himself with a lot of people when he set the cap at $15.36 million – and tried to laugh it off – that on top of all the stories we heard about his rude staff not letting people into his campaign van to check it out earlier this year?
<
p>
He and his campaign come off as aloof and too good for the “rest of us”
<
p>
So I guess the point I am trying to make is that Gabrieli is “unelectable” in the general election. Results notwithstanding…..
<
p>
Most Reilly supporters involved in the campaign right now are hardcore Democratic loyalists and will not buck the party if Gabrieli wins because they won’t want to see Healey in the corner office. Patrick supporters may stay home, but I’d like to think that they would put defeating the Republicans ahead of putting Gabrieli down should he win the primary.
<
p>
The $15.36 million cap is a non-issue that mainstream voters won’t care about come September. Only we political junkies are paying close attention to it.
<
p>
Aloof? Gabrieli made personal phone calls to delegates and alternates while the other two had robo-calls produced. Gabrieli’s supporters, like those for the others (I assume), made personal contact with other delegates as well. Also, the radio and TV spots are resonating well with the public.
<
p>
The voters are going to decide this primary and this election, the vast multitude of mainstream Democrats and even vaster multitude of Independents, people who don’t really care for the kind of crap that gets bloggers’ blood boiling.
<
p>
See you in September.
…dispite the nice things you say about me elsewhere. Only folks like us will remember the Tom and Chris flirtation. Something with the glib $15.36 million number.
<
p>
Sure Chris has got the “loser” image to overcome–which I think may have been your point about him not winning an election (and to be a real pain in the ass about facts–Chris never made it to the General Election in ’98–he lost in the primary. Don’t worry, you can make fun of my spelling and grammar).
<
p>
In the last 6 weeks, I think he’s shown a lot to overcome this loser image. Frankly, I think the “unelectable” agrument is stronger for Reilly (bland, mistake prone) or Patrick (taxes) than for Chris.
<
p>
Yes maybe Reilly and Patrick activists won’t be motivated to help if he wins. But their voters are more likely to vote for Chris that either Patrick voters supporting Reilly or vice versa.
<
p>
As for the Gabber van–I hadn’t heard that story but I believe it. The staff I’ve seen at events are a little to smug and the van has got to go! One event I was at they had it illegally parked. Sure no big deal until a Herald Phototog snaps a shot and puts it on the front page–only a matter of time.
Live and learn, right? Gabrieli’s a stronger candidate now as he has done even more since 2002 to improve life for many in the Commonwealth. I would argue that Shannon lost that election in 2002, not Chris (who won the LG primary). Tattoos, anyone?
<
p>
But let’s see here: Reilly’s never faced a serious race for statewide office (no primary and only token GOP opposition in 1998, ran unopposed in 2002) and Deval hasn’t ever done anything to give back to the state he claims to love so much and has never run for elective office. Talk about battle-tested!
<
p>
Gabrieli has taken his lumps, but what didn’t kill him politically has only made him stronger. Results will matter to voters once the campaign shifts away from the dog-and-pony show to actual substance on the issues, to which Gabrieli will have the upper hand, as I argued in this post.
I didn’t read any of the thread, but isn’t “staying on message” and “ignoring criticism,” exactly “politics as usual?” Ignore opponents, and repeat your talking points. That’s what every politician does, every campaign.
<
p>
For instance, suppose I’m running a campaign to subsidize teddy bear manufacturing. And suppose you’re the media, my opponent (say, the notorious anti-teddy crusade), or just a member of the general public.
<
p>
You: What do you say to those who say you’re bribing children with free teddy bears and candy?
Me: I’m here to talk about why teddy bears help bring joy to everybody and how teddy bear manufacturing will bring more jobs to the state of Massachusetts.
You: Allegations aside, it would cost less to just blow up some balloons.
Me: I don’t know anything about making balloons, but I do know that teddy bears bring joy to thousands of children each year.
<
p>
And so on. “Getting results,” is Gabrieli’s rhetoric.
I’m sorry, nothing personal but …
<
p>
You did NOT bother to READ ANY of the thread?
<
p>
You saw a thread speaking in favor of Gabrieli, so you attacked the thread.
Your attack is taking some phrases totally out of context.
Then you justify that with two people talking past each other about Teddy Bears, each with their own talking points?
<
p>
The message was “results matter.”
<
p>
The politics “as usual” refers to “going negative” not “staying on message”.
<
p>
Helping deliver an $8,000,000 grants isn’t “rhetoric” it’s “results”.
<
p>
Gabrieli, Reilly and Patrick will ALL need “to stay on message” in order for ANY of them to win the PRIMARY and the GENERAL. Determining the right message is left for the campaign strategists and the candidate. This thread is a discussion on the wisdom of the strategies behind the messages coming out of these campaigns.
No, I didn’t attack the thread, I questioned the first sentence of the post. Going through it, I just read the thread and there’s not a whole lot that’s relevent to my comment about politics as usual.
<
p>
Politics as usual means that you ignore whatever criticisms there are levelled at you and stay on message so that you don’t actually have to debate ideas.
<
p>
Helping deliver an $8million grant is an outcome. Those results are evidence used in Gabrieli’s rhetoric of “getting results.”
<
p>
Somehow I figured that the teddy bear example wouldn’t fly, I was just trying to use something non-controversial to explain what “staying on message” actually is.
This is not to say that Gabrieli’s message is not good. This is not to say that Gabrieli wouldn’t make a good governor. But it’s hardly anything different than what any competent politician in modern politics does. All I’ve said: it is not bad, but it isn’t “ignoring “politics as usual.”
<
p>
Remember: if you provide nothing but your message, the media can only report your message, since you said nothing else. They cannot simply make up quotations.
<
p>
Let’s plug it in:
Media/Patrick: Doesn’t setting the cap at $15.36 million make this a campaign about money and ads, not about ideas?
<
p>
Gabrieli: This campaign is about getting results for the people of Massachusetts. We need more funding for stem cell research, higher education. It’s time we had real leadership that gets the job done.
<
p>
Media/Reilly: But why set the cap so high, wouldn’t it be better for the debate to not swamp the people in ads?
<
p>
Gabrieli: What would be best, actually, is if we had a governor who got results, like I have in my non-profit work.
<
p>
Etc. etc.
But let me just put my thoughts down about a candidate and the “staying on message” issue vs. the 15.36 message.
<
p>
I’ve run several campaigns and attended many campaign training sessions. One of the most common complaints from campaign staff is that candidates “do NOT stay on message.” Many candidates think that they only have to say something once and they’re done. Staying on message in my opinion isn’t just repeating talking points over and over again, it is just, say today we’re talking about “schools” so you try to keep bringing the discussion back to some connection with schools.
<
p>
SO in the political management “school”, it is rare, in my opinion to find a candidate that can stay on message (and this would be many messages at various times) day to day, week to week through the entire campaign. Yes it drives those of us that have to listen to it nuts, but we’re not trying to reach the politicos, it’s the electorate.
<
p>
Lastly. In my opinion especially Deval Patrick has gone OFF MESSAGE in his main campain focus on the 15.36 issue.
<
p>
I’ll use a baseball analogy if you’ll allow me. The governors candidates are the pitchers. The balls are ideas.
<
p>
So the pitcher decides what type of pitch he going to give the batter (voter, media, politicos, etc.)
<
p>
So Gabrieli threw a curve ball, but Reilly and Patrick thought it was a straight
pitch. I seriously doubt Gabrieli will use 15.36 million dollars in the next 13.57 weeks. That’s a burn rate of over $1 million a week. The other day on the radio
one political analyst was saying it took $500,000/week to saturate the Boston airwaves. But the 15.36 issue was seized upon by the opposition like it was a major campaign issue.
<
p>
So what Chris did was actually pretty smart in my opinion. Strategically he
has not disclosed what his actual budget is. That would put him at a disadvantage. I mean you don’t see Reilly or Patrick having to announce what
their internal projected budget is do you? So Chris has hidden the budget.
That’s one. Two he did it in such a way that both opponents have spend a
solid week on a message that doesn’t resonate with guess who “the electorate”.
<
p>
Sure it resonates with the campaign workers and maybe they need to gin them up because the moral is low because the script said Gabreili COULDN”T make the ballot. So with only 13.57 weeks left, a solid week gone on 15.36.
I hope the stay on 15.36 for the next 13.57 weeks!
Mitt Romney. WTF??
<
p>
<
p>
and I have yet to here how Chris plans to cut “wasteful spending.” To those of us who actually work in government or analyze government, it’s not hard to point out some “wasteful spending” but that’s often not what ends up being cut.
<
p>
we’ve already heard Healey/Romney’s take on spending and how she plans to clean it up – namely cut our pensions.
<
p>
really now, this is all messaging, no substance.
<
p>
sure, Chris has done wonderful things with Mass2020, and he should tout his important work with that group. but he should also keep the blatant posturing to a minimum.
<
p>
<
p>
that is the rhetoric. show, don’t tell.
What has Deval ever done for the people of Massachusetts? Has he ever spent his own money or worked on any initiative for the people of Massachusetts.
<
p>
Oh I forgot…what do you call a person with an Amerquist mortgage….Answer: Homeless. Thanks Deval!
Do you post this same comment in every thread?
<
p>
Congratulations on the execution of the cutting and pasting gymnastics you must undertake to spread this message so well.
<
p>
One of your comments from the Gabrieli as national favorite thread:
<
p>
“You think the analysis of Chris Gabrieli as “simple” and Deval ST. Patrick as different/unique and therefore a threat to and confounding to party insiders is clear headed analysis?
Let me ask you or anyone:
<
p> What has Deval Patrick ever done for the people of Massachusetts? What cause has he ever helped to fund with his own personal money? When has he ever worked on an issue during his own personal time to make the lives of Massachusetts residents better?
<
p>
Oh wait, I forgot….
Question: What do you call a person with an Amerquest motrgage?
Answer: HOMELESS!!!!!! Thanks Deval… I think he’s done quite enough.”