A few years ago I felt that Mr. Reilly was a lock to be the nominee and had an excellent opportunity to become Governor. I planned on supporting him. The first sentence is still true. I now have serious misgivings about his candidacy, however.
<
p>
The Attorney General faced one key test during his two terms–the child abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church. While other prosecutors around the United States (and even in Massachsuetts) took action and brought indictments, the sum total of Mr. Reilly’s efforts appear to be a report posted on the internet, exonerating all Church officials of unlawful wrongdoing of any kind. His job was to enforce the law and punish the guilty. This was his test. He failed.
<
p>
The rest of his accomplishements don’t add up to much. He didn’t save Harved Pilgrim Health Care. Charlie Baker did. The big Ameriquest settlement? If you read the settlement agreement, you will find that no Massachusetts offical, much less Mr. Reilly, even signed it. As far as I can see, Massachsuetts was a free rider on a deal negotiated by others.
<
p>
I have heard him speak many times. I don’t understand his vision, hear no passion, and get no sense of his leadership. Clearly, he has been working up to this moment for years. He has been elected statewide. You are right, he is the likely nominee. It saddens me.
danielshayssays
If you were to ask Charlie Baker, and I believe some reporter did along the way, he would tell you Reilly did in fact save Harvard Pilgrim. In fact, the relationship forged by their work together on the issue is a big part of why Baker isn’t running for Governor this year.
<
p>
Multi-state deals with large companies are commonly negotiated by one or two AGs who were particularly aggressive in the investigation.
<
p>
Primary responsibility for prosecuting in the Commonwealth falls to DAs. Most pursued investigations, some brought indictments. All were hampered by statutes of limitations and the difficulty of proving a conspiracy after the fact.
frankskeffingtonsays
If a mailman delivers the mail, is he a hero or doing his job? If Harvard Pilgrim Health goes bankrupt and the AG sues on behalf of policy holders to ensure their health plans (which are contracts) are maintained, the AG simply doing his job. Or are you suggesting this was some kind of “profile in courage” thing?
<
p>
Yes, multi-state settlements are negotiated by the one or two lead AGs who (in your words) “were particularly aggressive in the investigation.” And that explains why Reilly was not part of the negotiations…he was not particularly aggressive with Ameriquest–except when attacking Patrick on it.
<
p>
As for the Church scandal…you omit one very important fact. Many DAs were aggressively investigating the abuses. But before any of them had a chance to form Grand Juries or issue subpoenas, Reilly exercised his legal option and consolidated the investigations under his office. There was enough evidence to indict for obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Who knows if a conviction could have been won–probably not? But indicting Cardinal Law would have been a real “Profile in Courage”, but Reilly ain’t that guy.
danielshayssays
Certainly didn’t mean to imply the “Profile in Courage”. I’m not sure that I did, but I also know that I didn’t make the opposite point, which leaves it up to interpretation.
<
p>
True that Reilly didn’t take a big swing at Bernard the Cardinal, but I’m not sure he could have laid a glove on him. Might it have made us stand up and clap if he had tried? Sure. Would he have been successful? Was the conspiracy as easily proven as you stated? If it was, feel free to let me know. Being from the MA hinterlands, this issue was a little less hot there, and so I followed it less closely. It was big news, but not the dominant story it was elsewhere.
<
p>
I think we may be talking past each other on one point. I assume you know what you’re talking about when you say Reilly consolidated the cases under his office, I was unaware of that. But I still think that many DAs pursued cases related to priest abuse, though unrelated to the Law et al coverup. For instance, DA Bennett in Springfield indicted the former Bishop, Tom Dupre.
frankskeffingtonsays
…so I used the Profile comment to highlight that Reilly has not really stood up and shown extraordinary leadership. He is a leader, I will not deny that. But when I first heard him talk about “health care” and bring up taking Harvard Pilgrim to court, I just shrugged my shoulders and said to myself–he wouldn’t have been doing his job if he didn’t go to court.
<
p>
As for Ameriquest, my point stands–Reilly’s office followed the lead of the other State AGs who first pursued the case–yet he got up on his soap-box and attacked Patrick and made it sound like he (Reilly) did the heavy lifting on the class-action suit. Reilly did very little substance on the Ameriquest suit and totally played politics with it. (Not bad for a guy who says he doesn’t play politics very well.)
<
p>
As for the abuse scandal–yes there is a ton of gray area with statue of limitations and such. It is true Reilly’s office did consolidate a certain part of the investigation under his authority. In fact Reilly’s has been criticized for comments he made in April about taking credit for Law’s reassignment to Rome–so his office was very much involved in the church scandal investigation. As to why some cases remained at the DA level and what went to the AG level, I am unclear.
<
p>
But my basic point about Reilly’s (and others) handling of the abuse scandal is the deference he showed to an institution that clearly crossed the line of socially acceptable behavior. I’ll accept Reilly’s point that there was not enough to convict Law.
<
p>
But if Reilly can take on Bill Bulger in a politically grandstanding move (or grandstand with the Ameriquest scandal) why didn’t he send a clear and strong public message that Law and his cohorts were renegades and were more interested in saving face than helping the lives of abused children. For example, he could have named Law as an unindicted co-conspirator, or raided the chancellery in the middle of the night and haul away cartons of documents–instead of asking (subpoena) for the documents–to send a message about what he thought about Law and he’s cohorts. (Raid the Chancellery just like a whore house or a betting parlor–becuase that is the level they are at.)
<
p>
No. Reilly used kid gloves with the Catholic Church. Reilly used kid gloves because he did not want to upset his urban Catholic base of voters. Understandable. But let’s call it the way it is and not make excuses like it was the DA’s job or that the case wasn’t strong enough. We put organized crime guys in jail when they fail to testify–no charges, no trial–because people want to publicly embarrass them. That is the very least Reilly should have done with Law–but he did not.
wallflowersays
Reilly’s relationship did not impact Baker’s decision to stay put. Rather, a week after Baker said he was thinking about running for governor as a repbulican, Kerry Healey’s husband cashed $13 million in stocks. From what I heard, that was enough to scare him away. Correct me if I am wrong though.
danielshayssays
I think all of us, perhaps myself vost visibly in this thread, are fully caught up in the context of a campaign.
<
p>
In reference to Frank’s comment, a mailman is not a hero for delivering the mail, but then again mailmen don’t run for election. In the context of a campaign, suddenly the ordinary and expected acts of a public official are courageous and groundbreaking.
<
p>
Generally I’d be less inclined to this kind of hyperbole, but I think that all parties, at least in the Gubernatorial campaign thus far, are to blame for aggrandizing past accomplishments. The AG suddenly lead the pack on fighting Ameriquest; Deval Patrick was waging a crusade for progressive values when he left the Justice Department to work for Coca Cola; Gabs was working hard to build the party, not feather his own nest.
<
p>
As far as Baker is concerned, I would say that Reilly’s presence in the race made him somewhat leary, it was not a fight he relished (the AG was far and away the frontrunner at this time). And the decision you mentioned about the Healeys, I am sure that made him see how impractical it would be to start from neutral and beat that kind of money. In my mind, further evidence of the folly of the $500 annual limit.
<
p>
At least in my experience, it is rarely any one thing in politics, it’s the combination of things. I hope my post can be seen in that light, that is the light of getting caught up in things, and having woken up twenty minutes before.
frankskeffingtonsays
Your post is the first I heard of that and conventional wisdom said it was Healey’s money.
<
p>
What was the time-line of Barker coming on broad at Harvard vs the Bankurpcy…Barker was brought in to clean it up. He may have forced the bankrupcy (sp), but if Reilly took aim at Charlie’s management skills–I think the press would not have bought it and it could have backfired.
<
p>
And back to the mailmen for a second–I’ve lived in two towns where the mailmen have won election as Selectman. So I will accept your point that if mailmen ran for office they would tout their accomplishments for delivering the mail. And my history proves they will win.
danielshayssays
Baker went to Harvard Pilgrim sometime in the late spring of 1999 I think. I don’t know how/when that fits into the bankruptcy timeline. A recent Globe article had this to say, “…health care executive Charles Baker decided against running for governor, in part out of concern about an expensive, divisive battle with Healey for the Republican nomination” (June 3, 2006, I have no idea how to link correctly). Certainly supports your hypothesis. I was certain that there was press commentary at the height of talk about Baker that he thought Reilly was a good guy, had helped him at Harvard Pilgrim, and didn’t relish a fight against him. But alas, my rudimentary internet searching skills and a desire to watch Family Guy at 9 have cut my research short.
<
p>
I didn’t mean to imply Baker was afraid of Reilly. I think his thinking was as follows: Healey has a head start, in organization and money; I’ve never run for anything before; Tom Reilly will be the Dems. nominee; Reilly was good to me when I came into a mess at Harvard Pilgrim; why get into a primary I might not win, only to run against a decent guy. Whether that was his real thinking, I imagine it is what Reilly thought Baker was thinking.
<
p>
To be honest with you, however, I don’t even remember what this thread started out about. Frank, if I am wrong, so be it, I stand corrected. I am very willing to be corrected by any character from my favorite novel.
<
p>
Just out of curiousity, do you support anyone for Governor? I started out strong for Reilly, then cooled off, and am just sort of hemming and hawing now. I’ll probably end up voting for him, but I just don’t know. Where do you stand?
frankskeffingtonsays
I voted for Gabrieli and if the Primary was today I’d vote for him. Second choice is Deval–who any Democratic has to love, but I have concerns about him winning the general. Reilly…I’d support wholeheartily over Healey. But I do have to many concerns about him. Dispite his protest otherwise, I think he plays way to much politics and yes, he plays it poorly. Whether it was his early zig zags on the death penalty (which I’m still not sure were he stands) or gay marriage to his complete embrace for the tax roll back (although I am grudgingly moving in that direction for poliitical reasons–Reilly is way to in favor of it), never mind his bland presentation and his proven ineptitude in making big decisions.
<
p>
When it was Reilly/Patrick I was looking for my Goldilocks candidate–and SO FAR Chris was run an aggressive issues orientated campaign that I can believe in and also win in November.
It wasn’t a fight against Reilly or any other Dem that kept him out. It was the prospect of a primary against a candidate who both has limitless resources AND is currently an incumbent.
dick-elricksays
In order for any candidate to garner my support, he must have a vision for the future of the Commonwealth, and equally important, he must have the “voice” sufficient to rally the people to that vision. In Reilly’s case, he has neither.
<
p>
Reilly lost me when he came down to the Cape and in the most ignornace based, politically motivated act I’ve seen in some time, and announced his opposition to the vital Nantucket Sound wind farm project. The future for Massachusetts, and this country, lies in developing renewable energy resouces to reduce our reliance on middle east oil for national security, health, and environmental reasons that should by now be self-evident, even to the most uninformed.
<
p>
In 2003, while I was in the last of my 3 terms as a Barnstable town councilor, Reilly came to Barnstable to stand with the not-in-my-backyard crowd and annouce his unprincipled opposition to the Cape Wind project. I say unprincipled, because when he spoke it was clear that he knew nothing about the project’s specifics. That same lack of knowledge was still present in a recent debate where he inaccurately said that the developer was attempting to build the wind farm without any payment to the state or to the locally impacted communities. Thankfully, he was corrected by both Patrick and Gabrieli.
<
p>
As far as I’m concerned, it’s ok to be oposed to the project, but you damn well better have one credible fact-based reason to be opposed. Such was not, and is not the case with Reilly. It was obvious that the only reason he opposed the project was because Sen. Kennedy, and the majority of elected officials down here opposed it. There’s no courage or wisdom there, and certainly no vision for the future.
<
p>
Patrick, on the other hand, after talking with all sides, and learning all about the project, concluded, even though he knew it would ruffle the feathers of the politically connected down here, that the project should proceed.
<
p>
By way of further background and perspective, I’ve am a 25 year ferry boat captain on Nantucket Sound.
<
p>
And by the way, a solid “Majority” of Massachusetts voters do understand the need to develop renewable energy resources, and support the Cape Wind project.
A few years ago I felt that Mr. Reilly was a lock to be the nominee and had an excellent opportunity to become Governor. I planned on supporting him. The first sentence is still true. I now have serious misgivings about his candidacy, however.
<
p>
The Attorney General faced one key test during his two terms–the child abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church. While other prosecutors around the United States (and even in Massachsuetts) took action and brought indictments, the sum total of Mr. Reilly’s efforts appear to be a report posted on the internet, exonerating all Church officials of unlawful wrongdoing of any kind. His job was to enforce the law and punish the guilty. This was his test. He failed.
<
p>
The rest of his accomplishements don’t add up to much. He didn’t save Harved Pilgrim Health Care. Charlie Baker did. The big Ameriquest settlement? If you read the settlement agreement, you will find that no Massachusetts offical, much less Mr. Reilly, even signed it. As far as I can see, Massachsuetts was a free rider on a deal negotiated by others.
<
p>
I have heard him speak many times. I don’t understand his vision, hear no passion, and get no sense of his leadership. Clearly, he has been working up to this moment for years. He has been elected statewide. You are right, he is the likely nominee. It saddens me.
If you were to ask Charlie Baker, and I believe some reporter did along the way, he would tell you Reilly did in fact save Harvard Pilgrim. In fact, the relationship forged by their work together on the issue is a big part of why Baker isn’t running for Governor this year.
<
p>
Multi-state deals with large companies are commonly negotiated by one or two AGs who were particularly aggressive in the investigation.
<
p>
Primary responsibility for prosecuting in the Commonwealth falls to DAs. Most pursued investigations, some brought indictments. All were hampered by statutes of limitations and the difficulty of proving a conspiracy after the fact.
If a mailman delivers the mail, is he a hero or doing his job? If Harvard Pilgrim Health goes bankrupt and the AG sues on behalf of policy holders to ensure their health plans (which are contracts) are maintained, the AG simply doing his job. Or are you suggesting this was some kind of “profile in courage” thing?
<
p>
Yes, multi-state settlements are negotiated by the one or two lead AGs who (in your words) “were particularly aggressive in the investigation.” And that explains why Reilly was not part of the negotiations…he was not particularly aggressive with Ameriquest–except when attacking Patrick on it.
<
p>
As for the Church scandal…you omit one very important fact. Many DAs were aggressively investigating the abuses. But before any of them had a chance to form Grand Juries or issue subpoenas, Reilly exercised his legal option and consolidated the investigations under his office. There was enough evidence to indict for obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Who knows if a conviction could have been won–probably not? But indicting Cardinal Law would have been a real “Profile in Courage”, but Reilly ain’t that guy.
Certainly didn’t mean to imply the “Profile in Courage”. I’m not sure that I did, but I also know that I didn’t make the opposite point, which leaves it up to interpretation.
<
p>
True that Reilly didn’t take a big swing at Bernard the Cardinal, but I’m not sure he could have laid a glove on him. Might it have made us stand up and clap if he had tried? Sure. Would he have been successful? Was the conspiracy as easily proven as you stated? If it was, feel free to let me know. Being from the MA hinterlands, this issue was a little less hot there, and so I followed it less closely. It was big news, but not the dominant story it was elsewhere.
<
p>
I think we may be talking past each other on one point. I assume you know what you’re talking about when you say Reilly consolidated the cases under his office, I was unaware of that. But I still think that many DAs pursued cases related to priest abuse, though unrelated to the Law et al coverup. For instance, DA Bennett in Springfield indicted the former Bishop, Tom Dupre.
…so I used the Profile comment to highlight that Reilly has not really stood up and shown extraordinary leadership. He is a leader, I will not deny that. But when I first heard him talk about “health care” and bring up taking Harvard Pilgrim to court, I just shrugged my shoulders and said to myself–he wouldn’t have been doing his job if he didn’t go to court.
<
p>
As for Ameriquest, my point stands–Reilly’s office followed the lead of the other State AGs who first pursued the case–yet he got up on his soap-box and attacked Patrick and made it sound like he (Reilly) did the heavy lifting on the class-action suit. Reilly did very little substance on the Ameriquest suit and totally played politics with it. (Not bad for a guy who says he doesn’t play politics very well.)
<
p>
As for the abuse scandal–yes there is a ton of gray area with statue of limitations and such. It is true Reilly’s office did consolidate a certain part of the investigation under his authority. In fact Reilly’s has been criticized for comments he made in April about taking credit for Law’s reassignment to Rome–so his office was very much involved in the church scandal investigation. As to why some cases remained at the DA level and what went to the AG level, I am unclear.
<
p>
But my basic point about Reilly’s (and others) handling of the abuse scandal is the deference he showed to an institution that clearly crossed the line of socially acceptable behavior. I’ll accept Reilly’s point that there was not enough to convict Law.
<
p>
But if Reilly can take on Bill Bulger in a politically grandstanding move (or grandstand with the Ameriquest scandal) why didn’t he send a clear and strong public message that Law and his cohorts were renegades and were more interested in saving face than helping the lives of abused children. For example, he could have named Law as an unindicted co-conspirator, or raided the chancellery in the middle of the night and haul away cartons of documents–instead of asking (subpoena) for the documents–to send a message about what he thought about Law and he’s cohorts. (Raid the Chancellery just like a whore house or a betting parlor–becuase that is the level they are at.)
<
p>
No. Reilly used kid gloves with the Catholic Church. Reilly used kid gloves because he did not want to upset his urban Catholic base of voters. Understandable. But let’s call it the way it is and not make excuses like it was the DA’s job or that the case wasn’t strong enough. We put organized crime guys in jail when they fail to testify–no charges, no trial–because people want to publicly embarrass them. That is the very least Reilly should have done with Law–but he did not.
Reilly’s relationship did not impact Baker’s decision to stay put. Rather, a week after Baker said he was thinking about running for governor as a repbulican, Kerry Healey’s husband cashed $13 million in stocks. From what I heard, that was enough to scare him away. Correct me if I am wrong though.
I think all of us, perhaps myself vost visibly in this thread, are fully caught up in the context of a campaign.
<
p>
In reference to Frank’s comment, a mailman is not a hero for delivering the mail, but then again mailmen don’t run for election. In the context of a campaign, suddenly the ordinary and expected acts of a public official are courageous and groundbreaking.
<
p>
Generally I’d be less inclined to this kind of hyperbole, but I think that all parties, at least in the Gubernatorial campaign thus far, are to blame for aggrandizing past accomplishments. The AG suddenly lead the pack on fighting Ameriquest; Deval Patrick was waging a crusade for progressive values when he left the Justice Department to work for Coca Cola; Gabs was working hard to build the party, not feather his own nest.
<
p>
As far as Baker is concerned, I would say that Reilly’s presence in the race made him somewhat leary, it was not a fight he relished (the AG was far and away the frontrunner at this time). And the decision you mentioned about the Healeys, I am sure that made him see how impractical it would be to start from neutral and beat that kind of money. In my mind, further evidence of the folly of the $500 annual limit.
<
p>
At least in my experience, it is rarely any one thing in politics, it’s the combination of things. I hope my post can be seen in that light, that is the light of getting caught up in things, and having woken up twenty minutes before.
Your post is the first I heard of that and conventional wisdom said it was Healey’s money.
<
p>
What was the time-line of Barker coming on broad at Harvard vs the Bankurpcy…Barker was brought in to clean it up. He may have forced the bankrupcy (sp), but if Reilly took aim at Charlie’s management skills–I think the press would not have bought it and it could have backfired.
<
p>
And back to the mailmen for a second–I’ve lived in two towns where the mailmen have won election as Selectman. So I will accept your point that if mailmen ran for office they would tout their accomplishments for delivering the mail. And my history proves they will win.
Baker went to Harvard Pilgrim sometime in the late spring of 1999 I think. I don’t know how/when that fits into the bankruptcy timeline. A recent Globe article had this to say, “…health care executive Charles Baker decided against running for governor, in part out of concern about an expensive, divisive battle with Healey for the Republican nomination” (June 3, 2006, I have no idea how to link correctly). Certainly supports your hypothesis. I was certain that there was press commentary at the height of talk about Baker that he thought Reilly was a good guy, had helped him at Harvard Pilgrim, and didn’t relish a fight against him. But alas, my rudimentary internet searching skills and a desire to watch Family Guy at 9 have cut my research short.
<
p>
I didn’t mean to imply Baker was afraid of Reilly. I think his thinking was as follows: Healey has a head start, in organization and money; I’ve never run for anything before; Tom Reilly will be the Dems. nominee; Reilly was good to me when I came into a mess at Harvard Pilgrim; why get into a primary I might not win, only to run against a decent guy. Whether that was his real thinking, I imagine it is what Reilly thought Baker was thinking.
<
p>
To be honest with you, however, I don’t even remember what this thread started out about. Frank, if I am wrong, so be it, I stand corrected. I am very willing to be corrected by any character from my favorite novel.
<
p>
Just out of curiousity, do you support anyone for Governor? I started out strong for Reilly, then cooled off, and am just sort of hemming and hawing now. I’ll probably end up voting for him, but I just don’t know. Where do you stand?
I voted for Gabrieli and if the Primary was today I’d vote for him. Second choice is Deval–who any Democratic has to love, but I have concerns about him winning the general. Reilly…I’d support wholeheartily over Healey. But I do have to many concerns about him. Dispite his protest otherwise, I think he plays way to much politics and yes, he plays it poorly. Whether it was his early zig zags on the death penalty (which I’m still not sure were he stands) or gay marriage to his complete embrace for the tax roll back (although I am grudgingly moving in that direction for poliitical reasons–Reilly is way to in favor of it), never mind his bland presentation and his proven ineptitude in making big decisions.
<
p>
When it was Reilly/Patrick I was looking for my Goldilocks candidate–and SO FAR Chris was run an aggressive issues orientated campaign that I can believe in and also win in November.
It wasn’t a fight against Reilly or any other Dem that kept him out. It was the prospect of a primary against a candidate who both has limitless resources AND is currently an incumbent.
In order for any candidate to garner my support, he must have a vision for the future of the Commonwealth, and equally important, he must have the “voice” sufficient to rally the people to that vision. In Reilly’s case, he has neither.
<
p>
Reilly lost me when he came down to the Cape and in the most ignornace based, politically motivated act I’ve seen in some time, and announced his opposition to the vital Nantucket Sound wind farm project. The future for Massachusetts, and this country, lies in developing renewable energy resouces to reduce our reliance on middle east oil for national security, health, and environmental reasons that should by now be self-evident, even to the most uninformed.
<
p>
In 2003, while I was in the last of my 3 terms as a Barnstable town councilor, Reilly came to Barnstable to stand with the not-in-my-backyard crowd and annouce his unprincipled opposition to the Cape Wind project. I say unprincipled, because when he spoke it was clear that he knew nothing about the project’s specifics. That same lack of knowledge was still present in a recent debate where he inaccurately said that the developer was attempting to build the wind farm without any payment to the state or to the locally impacted communities. Thankfully, he was corrected by both Patrick and Gabrieli.
<
p>
As far as I’m concerned, it’s ok to be oposed to the project, but you damn well better have one credible fact-based reason to be opposed. Such was not, and is not the case with Reilly. It was obvious that the only reason he opposed the project was because Sen. Kennedy, and the majority of elected officials down here opposed it. There’s no courage or wisdom there, and certainly no vision for the future.
<
p>
Patrick, on the other hand, after talking with all sides, and learning all about the project, concluded, even though he knew it would ruffle the feathers of the politically connected down here, that the project should proceed.
<
p>
By way of further background and perspective, I’ve am a 25 year ferry boat captain on Nantucket Sound.
<
p>
And by the way, a solid “Majority” of Massachusetts voters do understand the need to develop renewable energy resources, and support the Cape Wind project.