“But it drew criticism from the campaign of a Democratic opponent, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly. “This is the third position we’ve seen Deval Patrick take on merit pay, and it seems that with respect to education policy, he has his finger to the wind trying to sense which way the special interests are blowing,” spokesman Corey Welford said in an e-mail.”
Lets watch and see how much Patrick changes his positions in the future. Consider this Part 1.
Please share widely!
Changes in position aren’t necessarily a bad thing for a candidate if they’re able to explain without B.S. why they made the change. Frequent changes, however, beg the question as to whether a candidate knows what he/she is doing and if they’re competent enough on the issues to tackle them.
<
p>
Voters are going to be looking for whether a candidate can deliver on the bullet points on their webpages and literature and on the promises made in speeches and ads. A candidate’s record of results on education and other issues, if they’re able to tout one at all, is going to make the difference in many mainstream voters’ minds in September and November.
<
p>
If voters see these position changes and no experience to back up candidates’ claims that they know what they’re doing, the credibility gap will be a difficult one to bridge.
Patrick’s position in favor of school-level rewards is somewhat less of a conservative/free market stance than his original positoin in favor of individual merit pay. As the Globe article you point to states, this new position might be more palatable to the teachers’ unions. So Patrick’s recent change of mind on this issue is actually a slight move to the left, not the center.
I agree with last poster.
<
p>
This is a not a move to center, but in other direction. It is something that precedes a teachers union endorsement – i.e., “You’re already doing our bidding on many things, give us one more special interest nugget – nix the idea of REAL merit pay for good teachers, which we oppose, and instead promote your idea to give good schools some money, for political cover.”
…RML. your candidate is living in a glass house on charges of election year changes of positions, so I’d play this card gently. How many positions has Reilly had on the death penalty (and what the heck is it today), on gay marriage on the tax roll back (he once was against it)?
<
p>
Nope this ain’t the field you want to play in.
That at every town hall I’ve seen with him, someone has brought this issue up in the context of opposing individual merit pay. Deval may be listening to unions and his wife, but he’s listening to regular people as well.
No doubt about it, Patrick has run a good campaign in terms of organization. He presents well, carries himself well, and broadcasts charisma. He’s got a good following through charm and hard work on the trail.
<
p>
My concern is, as I posted last night, is credibility on the issues and on leadership.
<
p>
As we near September, the three candidates are going to have to stop spouting platitudes and start fleshing out substantive details. That’s when we’ll start seeing who’s worthy to govern and who’s simply good at marketing.
<
p>
When that phase of the campaign begins, I think Gabrieli will have the upper hand and can show it with one line:
<
p>
“What have you done for (issue)?”
<
p>
Education, job creation, rallying the legislature to successfully support a cause (like stem cell research), building businesses, etc. Candidates can talk about what they’d like to do, but they’re only worthy to govern if they can show they’re able to do so.