1. If you truly believe that price gouging is happening, you should notify the state’s lead attorney or something. Maybe they could do something about it.
2. Perhaps rather than accusing others of not acting, you should take action yourself. Perhaps you have an idea how to save residents of Massachusetts (remember us?) money at the pump. Maybe you could make a statement about the T fare hikes beyond ‘fares shouldn’t go up’? How do you intend to keep the fares down without putting the T in even further debt?
3. In your wildest dreams, do you have any ideas for alternative energy development in Massachusetts? You’re against Cape Wind, we know that, but do you have any active suggestions?
Please share widely!
What courage! He stood up to (gasp!) OIL COMPANIES!
Please. Bashing oil companies for price gouging has become an attractive way to be against high gas prices without doing anything about it. People have to face facts. Oil is not getting cheaper. There is a finite supply that we are sucking out of the Earth. The solution is renewables, not a short-term price fix. Patrick and Gabrieli have their long-term solutions. Where’s Reilly’s?
<
p>
Danny
Proud Patrick supporter
…oh wait, he’s the only candidate who does that. Whoops.
<
p>
As for suing oil companies, perhaps Deval Patrick could offer some ideas from back when he was a lawyer for them.
<
p>
Are you saying that Tom Reilly takes the bus into work from Watertown? I could be wrong, but I do not think this is the case. I feel like I would have heard about this (and that we’d have better service around here if he did!).
<
p>
Dukakis is the only major politician that I can remember who regularly commutted via the T.
Whenever he got on the same car with me, I’d get off before my stop at Auditorium to avoid the inevitable “conversation” [code for: righteous lecture] he’d end up having with passengers.
You’re right – Tom Reilly shouldn’t have joined with representatives from 15 other states to put pressure on a Bush Administration that literally allowed Big Oil to write our nation’s energy policy.
<
p>
You’re right – Tom Reilly shouldn’t oppose raising fares at the T, even though that would motivate people to avoid public transportation and create additional demand for gasoline. (A position, if I’m not mistaken, shared by both Mr. Patrick and Mr. Gabrieli.)
<
p>
And, you’re right – Tom Reilly should come up with an energy and environmental policy, like this one on his website, which is more detailed than anything offered by any other candidate.
<
p>
You are so right, it almost doesn’t make sense to let the facts or logic get in the way.
<
p>
Tom Reilly has been my District Attorney and Attormney General for the last 15 years. I had no idea who Deval Patrick was until he decided that he wanted to run my state. But you’re right, I should join the “cool” crowd and trivialize Tom Reilly’s work and support the “politics of hope” so that we may all, one day pad our pockets with executive-level salaries while some schlep carries on the difficult, thankless work of public office.
<
p>
The comment was that Reilly went to Washington to keep prices down. The point is that if he really wants to do that, he should support one of the few alternative fuel projects that could really make an impact.
And no, I don’t think T fares should go up. But how can we pay for it? I’m sure cutting the imcome tax doesn’t help our revenue stream much.
<
p>
Danny Moraff
I think MaverickDem was “just saying” that your comment represents the worst of what the Patrick supporters have fallen into. I am not certain who I will vote for come September, but I am leery of the candidate whose supporters seem to be caught in an echo chamber.
<
p>
You might not like Tom Reilly, you might think Deval Patrick is the best thing since sliced bread, but Tom Reilly has been a good DA and AG. Has he had a tough year? Yes. Does he hold positions that many on this blog disagree with? Yes. Are the majority of his positions ones that everyone on this blog and a majority of Massachusetts could get behind compared to Kerry Healey? You betcha.
<
p>
When one begins with the assumption that Patrick = Good : Reilly = Bad, you’re bound to assume that Tom Reilly doesn’t have a sound plan for the Commonwealth’s energy. As MaverickDem has pointed out, he certainly does.
Before you go defending MaverickDem and attacking the Patrick supporters on this thread, you should note that the type of post at issue here that MaverickDem responded too is similar to the types of posts MaverickDem has posted here attacking the other candidates in the race and defending Reilly. Although I disagree with MaverickDem’s candidate of choice, I do admire his/her passion and think that s/he makes this a more interesting forum. However, to accuse one side’s supporters of being caught in an echo chamber while ignoring similar tactics on the other side is slightly ingenuous. As much as other are starting with Patrick = good and Reilly = bad, MaverickDem starts with the exact opposite position and his/her posts reflect as such. That’s the nature of politics, especially on a blog like this which involves people who are more involved, more committed and more passionate.
<
p>
As for your statement regarding Tom Reilly having a “sound enegy plan”, MaverickDem has shown that Reilly has an enegery plan. Whether it’s sound or not is up to interpretation.
<
p>
And as a lifelong, committed Democrat, I am not totally convinced that Reilly’s position are that different, and therefore that much better, than Healy. In his attempt to win independents or whatever he has really become indistinguishable to some extent from Healy and the Republicans.
I agree with most everything you have to say. I have been frequenting the blog as of late, but am not that regular a visitor, so if you say MaverickDem has engaged in the same sort of tactics in the past, I take you at your word.
<
p>
I assume you meant that I was being disingenuous. While I agree that many Reilly supporters are engaging in similar tactics, I am not sure it is my place to police all of them, particularly based on the overwhleming support Patrick enjoys on this blog.
<
p>
Being involved, committed and passionate need not result in this sort of situation, however. If you’re passionate and somehow you’ve dumbed down your support to my candidate = good, yours = bad, then there is a problem with your passion. I understand that passionate people can get caught up in things, and perhaps I was too excited to see a full-throated defense of Reilly and endorsed MaverickDem’s post too quickly, but I would hope that we can avoid the my candidate = all that is right and holy, your candidate = lucifer’s love child mentality.
<
p>
My comment that Reilly’s energy plan is sound is admittedly based on my own rudimentary understanding of such issues. If you’d like to point out what precisely in his plan you disagree with, I’d love to hear about it. As I have said previously, not being committed to a candidate yet, I am interested to know about specific differences. And while I generally enjoy the blog, I feel as though there is a great deal of “Well, my candidate is just the best thing ever and any logical person would support him/her” and very little “I disagree with part x of the plan because that sort of development doesn’t work well in my area of the state…”
<
p>
And though I am but 20 years old, and have been a registered Democrat for but 2 years, my grandmother used to claim we were born Democrats and baptized Catholic. I understand your concerns about Reilly, and I am interested to see if the next 3 months will give us any insight into whether he really is as you say. Personally, I am willing to wate until September 18th to decide if I have to. Nevertheless, I admire your passion and commitment.
You really need to read “Godless” by Ann Coulter. This book will explain in detail what goes on in this blog and others like it. It will be trashed for sure at BMG, but there is a reason why it is a best seller.
She is a hate peddler pure and simple. Schilling that book is worthless. There are a few on the left and a few on the right who just don’t care about anything except distorting the facts and spreading a personal anger that poisons politics. Coulter is the worst of the worst on the right. Anyone who can honestly say, and then defend those comments when called on it, that any person is enjoying the death of their spouse because of the personal gain is without a soul.
If in fact you did not read the book and are quick to criticize it based on what you hear in the liberal media proves her point. If you read the book , which I doubt, I wish to debate those points you disagree with.
I certainly do not agree with everything she says but in the book there is more truth than fiction.
<
p>
So come on Andy, lets have it ? What do you disagree with?
<
p>
I challenged her direct quote and well as her disgusting response and defense. Folks like Coulter, and to some degree Michael Moore, do nothing more than inflame rather than reason. I won’t debate anyone who will rely on her books as a source of info because I just think that shows that individuals lack of credibility.
footnotes. The liberal media took her two page section on 9/11 wives and trashed the entire book as a result. I believe there is some truth to that story and especially Cindy Sheehan’s rampage.
Her discussion of Tookie, Sacco vanzetti.,Willie Horton, and the way the liberals coddle criminals is an eye opener. Interesting facts on late term abortions and other liberal dogma that has become more like a religion. It is precisely what happens on this site when you bring in facts to the discussion. Liberalism is sacred .
<
p>
I guarantee that any one with an open mind will enjoy the book. That is why it is doing so well.
<
p>
Michael Moore is not even on the same planet as Coulter when it comes to credibility. He is for people who get all of their information from CNN and MTV , trust soundbites for information (like you) and believe we went to Iraq so the Bush’s could line their pockets with oil money.
That was a bestseller, too. What does it tell us? That partisans buy books, and lots of them. I will NEVER enjoy a book where anyone claims that a wife whose husband is murdered will enjoy the attention she receives. Anyone who finds truth in that lacks depth and soul. Finally, enjoying her book has nothing to do with an open mind and everything to do with preexisting biases. I like Al Franken’s books because I think he is telling the truth. I believe he is usually actual facts because he can cite them. I especially loved Franken’s book book because he does such an excellent job of showing how people like Coulter, Limbaugh, and O’Reilly lie. Yes lie. He takes claims they make and the “twice as many footnotes” they use and shows how they have selectively edited, distorted, or outright misquoted people, facts, etc. to create a lie. Just because they footnote doesn’t mean they are telling the truth RML.
<
p>
However, I will readily admit that Franken’s book appeals to me because I already believed what he was saying. Books like his and Coulter’s are generally about perception. I do not believe that “liberals” coddle criminals. But that is my belief and I understand not everyone sees the world as clearly as I do. (That is a joke.)
<
p>
The last reason I won’t touch Coulter’s book is because the very title is offensive. I am not Godless.
First off…you are right, I meant disingenuous. No more posting right before bed for Wahoowa.
<
p>
My problem with the Reilly energy plan is one that has been mentioned here by others. In this day and age, any real energy plan should have a strong and firm commitment to possible sources of alternative energy. Reilly’s objections to Cape Wind, despite his supposed objections having been shown wrong or untrue, is worrisome in that regards. I mean, even Republicans see the benefit of alternative energy. Jim Nussle has made making Iowa a leader in alternative fuels one of the centerpieces of his gubenatorial run in Iowa (though admittedly, all the corn there has got to be playing into that).
<
p>
After I posted last night, something you said and something MaverickDem said clicked. MaverickDem, here and elsewhere, has made swipes at Patrick for essentially being an outsider and bases his/her support of Reilly in that he has been an elected offical for some time here. Then you made your echo chamber comment. Whereas MD likes that Reilly has this long political career (and I am not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing), I think that career politicians can sometimes get caught in their own echo chamber and end up saying what they think people want to hear to keep getting elected. Whereas somebody coming in from a different experience can bring fresh perspective and new ideas.
<
p>
I’m not surprised to see MaverickDem take a swipe at Deval’s politics of hope. On other threads I have called him/her, and Tom Reilly, and there positions and campain cynical. I think that comment adds more backing to my claim. Why is hope a bad thing? Clearly the politics as usual that Reilly stands for are not working and we need a change. And also, with regards to the cheap shot regarding Deval’s work on various boards: First, he has decided to forgo that work to run for governor. He could have easily decided to remain in the private sector and pull down a nice pay day, but instead has decided to devote himself to the people of Massachusetts. That should say something. Second, Deval actually has spent time in public service. From his work in Africa after school to the time he spent in the Clinton Administration. He is not a complete neophyte to the public sector. Third, why should we punish success? Deval, in many ways, represents the American dream of success and achievement through hard work. Why should that be trivialized and objected to rather than celebrated.
I have NEVER “taken a swipe” at Deval Patrick for being an outsider. I have, however, defended Reilly’s experience and record from the relentless attacks of certain Patrick supporters. The advantage of running from outside of government is that you really don’t have a record to defend. The challenge of being a public servant – especially an Attorney General – is that you actually have to fight for things. You cannot substitute rhetoric for a record.
<
p>
One theme that I make over and over is that it is a flat-out mistake to equate Reilly’s electoral success with incumbency. Tom Reilly has never been a favorite of the State House crowd. He has never sucked up to the State Party. He has never been instrument of special interests. That is why I admire him and support his candidacy.
MaverickDem,
<
p>
These two comments seem to be swipes at Deval for not being an elected official and having served in the private sector (while ignoring his time in the Clinton Administration):
<
p>
“Tom Reilly has been my District Attorney and Attormney General for the last 15 years. I had no idea who Deval Patrick was until he decided that he wanted to run my state.”
<
p>
“..support the “politics of hope” so that we may all, one day pad our pockets with executive-level salaries while some schlep carries on the difficult, thankless work of public office”
<
p>
I agree that there is a challenge to an elected official you do have to face your record (and why it’s so hard for Senators to run for President). However, if you have a good record, this shouldn’t be a problem. One problem I have with Tom Reilly is that his current rhetoric doesn’t match his record. You can’t say that your for gay marriage when you have done everything possible under the powers of your office to prevent gay marriage from existing.
<
p>
And Reilly isn’t the favorite of the state house crowd? Why then are both the Speaker of the House and the Senate President supporting his candidacy?
As for your the quote, I didn’t know who Deval Patrick was until he declared for Governor, so that is a fact rather than a “swipe.” (According to the earliest polls, nobody knew who he was, so I certainly wasn’t alone.)
<
p>
As for the second quote, by referencing Deval’s decision to pursue a lucrative career in the private sector and how it is lauded, I was contrasting it with Tom Reilly’s record of public service and how it is so often maligned. Of course Tom Reilly should be held accountable for his record. But more often than not, the analysis in here amounts to Tom Reilly = public servant (although never in such favorable terms = bad, regardless of the position. This post is a classic example. Explain to me why Tom Reilly, a Democrat for Governor, should be criticized for joining with 14 other states to call out the Bush Administration for selling out to Big Oil? Or why I have to read yet again that Reilly has no energy plan? (The merits of which can be debated, but the existence of which cannot.) I’ll tell you why. Because even if Tom Reilly were to say, “Hey, 2 + 2 = 4,” some people would find an excuse to criticize his position. It’s knee-jerk reactionism premised on who said rather than what was said. Why do I jest about the “politics of hope?” Because there is little that I read in these posts that would lead to me to believe that there is anything truly “different” about Patrick’s campaign. I have seen many “progressive”/”grassroots” campaign in my life. There is one virtually every election cycle. This one is quite similar and its tactics, as well as those of Patrick’s supporters, are not novel and, in some cases, quite similar to those employed by Reilly and Gabrieli. I would not bother to raise the issue if I weren’t told incessantly how “different” these lack of differences are supposed to be.
<
p>
The Speaker of the House and the Senate President are supporting Tom Reilly because they believe that he would make the best Governor after working alongside him. I follow Massachusetts politics rather closely, as do a number of political reporters who would love to exploit a “corrupt bargain,” and I can honestly say that I cannot think of a single issue upon which DiMasi and Travaglini would owe their political support to Reilly or vice versa. In fact, Reilly’s reputation on Beacon Hill is that “he doesn’t play ball,” much to the frustration of those legislators who prefer to have their bread buttered by their political allies. Who knows? Maybe after Matinee Mitt, Legislative Leaders want a real person, minus the b.s., to actually work with. That doesn’t make Tom Reilly an “insider” any more than the support of some congressmen or state legislators makes Mr. Patrick a patsy for their interests.
<
p>
As always, Wahoowa, I enjoy our exchanges. Rarely do we find common ground, but I’m not sure blogs accomplish much of that anyway. Still, we write and hope for a better Commonwealth.
Not much time to right (apparently my employer expects me to work every now and the). But just wanted to say a couple things. First, I agree with you Maverick that some here do have a presumption that Reilly’s public service is somehow a bad thing. I think that’s silly. I may disagree with his stance on certain issues or take issue with aspects of his record, but Reilly, like anyone who chooses to serve the public regardless of their beliefs, deserves credit and admiration for doing so. I hope my posts haven’t given any other impression. Having said that, I do see some benefit in the idea of someone coming from outside the political system and bringing some fresh ideas into the mix.
<
p>
And I don’t think that Tom Reilly should be criticized for joing other AG’s in attacking the Bush administration or for not having an energy plan (which is obviously not true). I do, however, think that one can criticize him for not doing more or for the merits of his plan.
<
p>
As for whether Deval’s campaign is different…I do think that his campaign is different than Reilly’s or Gabriellis. Some of this is going to be by necessity. Gabs has tons of money and Reilly has name recognition and, compared to the other candidates, the “insider” status. Have other candidates done a grassroots campaign? Of course. What I think is different, and why I buy into the idea of hope, as admittedly schmaltzy as it sounds, is because of Deval. I’ve been involved in a lot of campaigns and seen a lot of politicians make a lot of speaches. But I have never felt about any of them the way I feel about Deval. He simply strikes me as incredibly sincere and trustworthy and honest. I like that he doesn’t necessarily take the most popular position all the time, but the one he feels is the best for the state (e.g, Cape Wind, the income tax). It’s a refreshing change from the usual in politics. And it doesn’t hurt that I like his ideas as well.
<
p>
To address a point that DanielShays made somewhere in this thread, you are right that schmaltz etc only gets you so far and that you need substance. I think that Deval has that substance to back up the pretty language. My firm belief is that if people listen to Deval speak and hear what he has to say, the will come away incredibly impressed. And while they may not always agree with him, I think they will realize that he does have the best intentions of the state and the people in mind and that he will do a fantastic job as governor.
I certainly agree with your comment about pols in the echo chamber. Part of what is wrong with Democratic politics in MA is that nearly everyone’s idea of grassroots is targeting voters from purged voting lists. It seems to me that people have confused a grassroots movement with a get out the vote operation.
<
p>
The problem with being a long time elected official is that you spend a great deal of time with other elected officials and consultants and activists, and considerably less time with real people. However, I am not entirely sure Reilly fits this mold. While he may be currently cozy with state legislative leaders, he’s no Shannon O’Brien. I don’t deny that the establishment is with him in any way, but having avoided life under the golden dome for most of his professional life, I’d say he avoids the danger of the echo chamber somewhat. And by the way, I have a beef with everyone who says that the establishment is fully behind Reilly when half the congressional delegation is with Patrick, but that’s for another post…
<
p>
You have definitely hit on the problem of finding that right mix of experience and outsiderness though. Now, before anyone accuses me of dumping on politics and politicians, my father was an elected official and I am hoping my brother will soon be (the Berkshire, Hampshire, Franklin senate seat). It is interesting to see more moderate Dems. criticize a candidate for his business experience. Traditionally that would be the line of the left, and I wonder what kind of debate we’d have if the professional biographies of Deval Patrick and Tom Reilly were reversed.
<
p>
I cetainly think the fresh ideas and new experience line could play well in a state that is concerned by one party control. Try as some might, I would say that the voters desire to keep the Dems. from running everything is at least part of the equation regarding our dismal record in gubernatorial contests.
<
p>
The “politics of hope” is certainly inspiring. I will be interested to see how it resonates as this campaign moves toward wholesale rather than retail tactics. I realize Deval and his people will rely on their grassroots network, but at some point wholesale tactics play a role. In the wholesale environment, will the politics of hope sound as genuine and inspirational. Or will it start to sound like vague platitudes lacking in specifics. I suppose we shall see.
Get out in the world. That isn’t a snarky comment. I am just asking that you not judge Patrick on his supporters here on BMG. In “my real life” I am surprised at some of the people who are supporting Patrick and many of them aren’t nearly as crazy as me! 🙂
Andy,
<
p>
I certainly don’t take the comment as snarky. I am regularly out in the world, but have decamped for the summer to our nation’s capitol. Thus, BMG is perhaps my best source of info. on the race.
<
p>
You’re right though, insofar as I see this blog as echoing itself a great deal, I shouldn’t then place much credence in it as a way to fully evaluate a candidate.
Why would anyone want to be in DC for the summer?
I know, it’s horrifying.
I really don’t understand how you can make the accusation that I’m saying Patrick=Good and Reilly=Bad. I didn’t mention any other candidate in my post.
<
p>
And for the record, the T should not raise fares as much and there are several options. My personal favorite is that a few weeks ago GOP legislators suggested cutting the state gas tax for the summer with a cap of $200 million. If the state has $200 mil to spend then it should be put toward transit systems across the state to help them. Reduces gas consumption, reduces traffic congestion, reduces pollutants and the threat of global warming.
I am not sure if your reply is to me because this thread has grown so long. I wasn’t speaking specifically about you, as much as I was the passionate supporters of campaigns in general.
most people didn’t know Tom Reilly when he wanted to be your District Attorney. Everyone starts sometime is a nobody sometime. Deval’s experience qualifies him to be governor and in his case I think it is an appropriate first step.