Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. were formerly United Airlines flight attendants during those turmultuous years at United.  They are very bitter about the way that they were treated.  I agree,that it is time that Deval’s work in the private sector be looked at more closely.  Specifically, I am concerned about his work on behalf of Texaco, Coke, Ameriquest and now United Airlines. More needs to be known about his tenure at each. The voters have a right to know. 

  2. This article is a cheap shot, pitched by the Reilly folks to Bailey because the reporters wouldn’t pick up on it (I’m not saying the reporters were wrong not to pick it up, but we all know they don’t always have the best judgment, and Bailey is a decent columnist, and certainly the most credible business/downtown guy in town). 

    <

    p>
    But I didn’t get the sense there was any there there in this article that would create a groundswell.  But I cold be wrong, and perhaps Reilly (or Gabrieli, I suppose) has found workers who would testify in an ad against Patrick much like those factory employees spoke against Romney in an ad (was that in 02 or 94?  I can’t recall). 

    <

    p>
    Anyway, this smells like the laying of the groundwork for a broader offensive against Patrick.  Such an offensive is probably the right strategy if you’re Reilly because you gotta reel this guy in.  He hasn’t spent a dime on TV yet, but he will.  I’d be interested to see some polling done since Gabs, Healey and Reilly went up on the air.  The last real round of polls we had were mostly pre-CA/Tasrophe, right?

    <

    p>
    Another thought: not sure who this column affects.  Most of Bailey’s readers are NOT lunchbucket democrats who Reilly needs to win; his readers are downtown business, finance and legal types.  An article like this isn’t going to change their minds, they usually just hedge their bets anyway and donate to all three.  I suppose they could help create a meme that Patrick is more pro-employer than he appears, but what would that do? 

    • Deval, pro-employer, how can that be? I thought he was being painted as a leftyloosy LIBERAL.  You are right, hoss, this is a cheap shot.  Alas, it is the way some campaigns do business, but is this the best they’ve got?  If it is, then Deval is our next Governor. 

    • I agree that the article is pretty cheap.  What I am wondering, however, is why a reporter is asking why there isn’t any information on a subject!?  I find that to be a bit of a disgrace.

  3. I agree that the public has a right to know as much as possible about any candidate for public office but at some point we have to get past rumors and insinuations and deal with actual facts.  At point do we get past columns like the one today from Steve Bailey and get to the actual blockbuster investigative piece by Globe (or somebody’s) news staff? 

    <

    p>
    The Massachusetts media has known for more than a year and a half that Deval Patrick was running for governor and they’ve been hinting at corporate malfeasance for nearly as long- so where is the actual evidence?  I think if there actually was something to any of these rumors the Globe (or somebody else) would have tracked it down, researched it thoroughly, published it on the Front Page, and waited for their Pulitzer.

    <

    p>
    It seems to me that the Mass. Media simply doesn’t like Deval Patrick- they resent his candidacy and they resent campaign rhetoric about a “culture of cynicism” that in some ways is directed at them.  They’ve come at him in all sorts of ways over the course of this campaign.

    <

    p>
    -I’m amazed to see someone like Jon Keller derisively refer to “Saint Patrick” and then still pretend to be a neutral observer of the campaign.

    <

    p>
    -I’m amazed to see the Globe write on article on 3/8/06 on Patrick’s mortgages (hinting that he would be unable to pay them on a governors salary) and then an article on 5/31/06 on Deval’s income (hinting that he’s too rich to be governor and he didn’t earn his money).

    <

    p>
    -I’m amazed to see Scot Lehigh preemptively condemn Patrick Campaign alleged hardball tactics at the convention and then offer nary a word about Reilly delegates being thrown last-minute to Gabrieli to get him on the ballot.

    <

    p>
    These are just a few examples I can think of on a Friday morning regarding the media’s tactics over the course of this campaign. 

    <

    p>
    So, another column by a Globe writer feigning concern over Deval Patrick’s corporate activities that’s short on facts and is just short of any actual accusations?  As a Patrick supporter, I’m not going to sweat it. 

    <

    p>
    P.S. sorry about the lack of links to the Globe articles-  I don’t know yet how to post links embedded into the text- anybody care to point me to a how-to guide?

    • You say above,
      “It seems to me that the Mass. Media simply doesn’t like Deval Patrick- they resent his candidacy and they resent campaign rhetoric about a “culture of cynicism” that in some ways is directed at them.  They’ve come at him in all sorts of ways over the course of this campaign.”

      <

      p>
      99% of candidates can usually say the same thing in most high visibility races. Garrett, you’re reaction is rather thin skinned. Every candidate has been made to look silly one way or the other by the media. I suggest Deval has been handled lightly. If he gets nomination, watch out!

      <

      p>
      This guy’s history in the private sector is basically selling his resume and relationships to large powerful companies that use him for their benefit. Window dressing and ability to keep justice department heat off are the wigets Deval barters.
      I haven’t read about many success stories happening when he was with a company. The Ameriquest thing is disgraceful. That company is a first class predator. Large group of prey. Elderly Blacks.

      <

      p>

  4. Hey, it’s great to have a background like Patrick’s:  South Side of chicago kid to Board Member of a Fortune 100 company.  We should all have such a story, but the real issue is what you do with the experience, and Bailey is right to point out that the gubernatorial candidate is coming up a little short.

    <

    p>
    We haven’t yet seen whether or not this politician has grace under pressure, in the true Massachusetts tradition!

    • I just read the column, and I have to agree with those who are wondering just what the problem is.  All it really says is that Patrick was on the UAL board when they were going through hard times post-deregulation.  Bailey seems to be trying to imply some sort of scandal, but where’s the beef?  That he disagreed with his past employer over whether a merger with US Air would be anti-competitive?  That there was a scuffle with a union?  I’m still waiting to hear just what the horrible thing he did is.

      <

      p>
      The reaction to Patrick’s success has certainly been interesting to me.  I grew up in New York, and as liberal as New York Democrats can be, I never saw such hostility to the private sector.  Yet here in Massachusetts, there seems to be a natural aversion to anyone who’s touched the business world among some Democrats (not implying you’re one of them), and I don’t think it’s at all helpful to the cause.  Most of the planet is employed by the private sector.  If we throw up our hands and write off everything corporate as evil, rather than trying to work within the system as Patrick has, we will continue to alienate ourselves from mainstream America — even in the bluest state of them all.

      <

      p>
      This pervasive suspicion needs to stop.  If we’re going to run the executive branch again, we need a leader who is comfortable working with every center of our society, including government, business, and nonprofits.  There’s only one candidate for governor with such a range of experience, and I consider that an asset, not a liability.

      • How can you be a hack if you have not been an employee of the taxpayers for your entire working life?

  5. First, it has no news. The only real point is makes is that Patrick’s time on the United and Ameriquest boards is not mentioned on the English-, Portuguese-, and French-language (French!) versions of his website. So what. There are probably lots of other things are are not mentioned on his website. Has Patrick ever tried to hide his membership on the boards? Second, it does not do a good job tying Patrick himself to the controversial corporate and labor issues it raises. That gives arguable ammunition to the people who claim it is a smear. I’d just call it unimpressive journalism. Finally, and perhaps most significant for the discussion at hand, however, I’d say it helps Patrick politically. This candidate already has the Left. What he needs to win the primary and the general is more support from the Right. The more people are reminded of his top-level private sector experience, the more he becomes a can-do alternative to ineffectual bureaucrat — and Big Dig fumbler — Reilly and plodding low-level Abt Associates analyst Kerry Healey. And, incidentally, I haven’t decided who I’m voting for in the primary — this is just my read of this article.

    • In response to Bob’s two points on Bailey’s column:
      1. “Has Patrick ever tried to hide his membership on the boards?”

      <

      p>
      Has Teddy Kennedy ever denied he ws in the car that went off the bridge? No. He can’t. He woulda if he coulda.

      <

      p>
      2.  “it does not do a good job tying Patrick himself to the controversial corporate and labor issues it raises. That gives arguable ammunition to the people who claim it is a smear. I’d just call it unimpressive journalism.”

      <

      p>
      Perhaps Bob, but it does go into the larger issue. What good has come from Deval’s private sector experience? He sold influence. And perhaps his color. But a man with legitamate business and corporate experience that can be applied to the governor’s office is not what Deval is. Yet hje bosts his private sector resume.
      That is one of the points I get from the coloumn. A legitamate one at that.

      • This sounds exactly like a whisper campaign. I honestly expected much more from Democrats.

        <

        p>
        You say “He sold influence. And perhaps his color.” Care to elaborate on that kind of a smear?

        <

        p>
        This is the kind of stuff that turns people off to politics and voting and lets elections be decided by 10% of the population. Let’s talk issues rather than whisper.

        • If it walks like a duck and quacks like a Deval ks like Deval then it is a Devuck.

      • In my opinion, this post goes pretty far over the line.  You come a little too close to an outright accusation of (i) influence peddling, and (ii) being an affiormative action token.  All this because, this man is (i) black, and (ii) sat on the board of directors of corporations.

        <

        p>
        More than likely, his responsibility as a director lay in the area of his expertise garnered before and during his tenure in the Clinton Administration DOJ.  For this reason, his work with AMC is particulary relevant, because the problems alleged at AMC, especially the redlining, were right in his wheelhouse.

        <

        p>
        But this other stuff is pure unadulterted crap.  He was a director at UAL; UAL had labor issues, therefore simple minded responses like that above:  “I know someone who worked for UAL and was very unhappy with the way they were treated.”  Smear complete.  Never mind that the person worked for a financially unstable company with an unsustainable and inefficient business model.

        <

        p>
        An accusation of infulence peddling, with no support other than the “devuck” nonsense below, is over the line.

        <

        p>

        • You say, “You come a little too close to an outright accusation of (i) influence peddling, and (ii) being an affirmative action token.  All this because, this man is (i) black, and (ii) sat on the board of directors of corporations.”

          <

          p>
          That is exactly what I am saying. I didn’t say anything was wrong with that, but let’s call it what it is.
          The current paradigm of the industry we call Washington.

  6. I am not impressed by it. At all. What positive things can he point to that have resulted from his private sector work?
    Oh, wait, he can’t. Because he signed “keep-your-mouth-shut-and-we’ll-pay-you-alot-of-money-to-leave-contracts”.
    The column today was legitamate. He was just a Washington insider that sold to the highest bidder. Paleeze.

    <

    p> 

    • what has Deval done for the people of Massachusetts?  Has he ever given of his own personal time or his own personal wealth to further any issue that would benefit the people of Massachusetts?  I don’t know of any. I have asked this question before and the silence has always been deafening. That is why I support Chris Gabrieli.  Chris left Harvard medical school to help his family’s failing business which he turned around and made very successful. Gabrieli has a very impressive and well-documented business backround.  Moreover, he has certainly lived by the motto: To whom much is given, much is expected.  Chris has dedicated his own time and money to many worthwhile causes. Conversely, I am not clear about Deval’s business record or his activism for noteworthy causes. 

      • Well, if you really want to know what he did for Massachusetts citizens off the clock, check his bio. He has a ton of pro bon legal work and charity service. Disagreeing with Deval’s well publicized platform and policies is one thing, but smears are another.

    • Deval argues that his private sector experience as a high-level corporate lawyer and VP in several high-profile corporations has helped prepared him to be governor, then it’s only fair that his record in the private sector be scrutinized.

      <

      p>
      The Globe column (not an article!) brings into the spotlight very legitimate questions regarding the practices in which Deval’s employers engaged in and what Deval’s involvement was in those practices.

      <

      p>
      Was the column great? Nah. Was it meant to smear? Doubtful. Is it the beginning of a larger examination by the media of a central selling point of Deval’s candidacy? I certainly hope so. Should Deval be criticized if he stays quiet or avoids shedding real light on his corporate past? Yes.

      <

      p>
      Gabrieli and Reilly have been put through the crucible this summer, and rightfully so. Candidates for the highest office in the Commonwealth must expect that they will be examined publicly, and have the responsibility to be forthright with the public when questioned. Deval is no exception.

      • I am all for thoroughly examining Patrick, he is a candidate for office and should expect that.  I also understand that Patrick as the newest comer to the political scene will get extra scrutiny because the other candidates have at least had some.  But I would like a few links or something showing how Gabrieli in particular and Reilly have been through the crucible.  Where have the questions about Gabrieli’s business dealings been raised?  Why hasn’t a major paper highlighted Reilly’s Big Dig contributions (Kim Atkins did a blog post but that doesn’t have the same effect as an article)?

          1. I thought I read a big Globe story that questioned Gabs’ claims of “job creation” through his VC work. 

          <

          p>
          2. The column on DP seemed similar to the questions raised about Mitt and Bain – in his case, arguing that he was part of a “predatory” investment company that dumped tons of jobs.  Ditto Corzine in NJ, Bloomberg in NYC. 

  7. Deval Patrick’s candidacy has been about his past from the streets of Chicago to Milton Academy, the Clinton Administration and the private pector success. Well, as Steve Bailey say’s in todays Globe: “Campaigns are long for a reason”. Deval, it is time to share all of your past. You can set the record straight or others will do it for you. As someone who is concerned about the environment tell us about Ecuador, as someone who is concerned about housing tell us about Ameriquest, as someone who is a concerned union member tell us about United Airlines.

    <

    p>
    Deval, it is time for you to give us some facts about your corporate past and not just the campaign rhetoric of hope and inspiration. As a voter and liberal, I look forward to hearing your response.

  8. The National Mediation Board’s finding on the union complaint, with an entire (but brief) section called “Deval Patrick meetings.” On the one hand, UAL is exonerated; on the other, the union seems to have felt specifically that Patrick played a key role in trying to mislead them.

    <

    p>
    It doesn’t really clarify the thoroughoing ambiguity I find in Patrick’s high-level corporate work. Was he at some of these companies to make them better corporate citizens? Or to help them get away with doing as little good as possible in their existing disputes? I haven’t seen convincing evidence to tip the scales either way. In this document, though, one gets the sense he was the good cop in a good cop/bad cop approach to workers organizing.

    • The Clinton administration’s National Mediation Board found:

      <

      p>
      “The Board finds that the evidence establishes that the few meetings held by Mancini, Uhl, and other management officials were neither mandatory nor coercive. The meetings held by Patrick were not related to the IFPTE campaign.”

      <

      p>
      IFPTE was the union who brought the complaint (International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers).

    • From your link: “CONCLUSION AND DISMISSAL

      <

      p>

      The Board finds that United’s activities did not taint laboratory conditions. On the basis of the investigation and report of election which establishes that less than a majority of eligible employees cast valid ballots in the election, the National Mediation Board finds no basis for certification and the application is, therefore, dismissed subject to Part 1206.4(b) of the NMB Rules.”

      <

      p>
      Do we have any evidence whatsoever that Deval’s actions have made UAL a better corporate citizen? Not sofar. But do we have any evidence that it helped them “get away with doing as little good as possible…”? Again, not sofar.

      <

      p>
      From the “Deval” section.

      <

      p>
      “According to two employees, Patrick held a meeting with employees to discuss compensation, suggesting that there would be a substantial pay increase.”

      <

      p>

      <

      p>
      On the other hand,

      IFPTE submitted several declarations from employees who state that they were required to attend meetings conducted by Carrier officials to campaign against the union.

      One meeting was held on September 23, 1999. According to the IFPTE declarants, this meeting was mandatory. The meeting was conducted by Mancini, Jim Uhl, Vice President Engineering, and other management officials. Uhl reportedly told the employees “if you do decide to join the union, you should know that is forever.” According to one declarant, “the clear message in the meeting was that if the employees voted for a union, the plan to raise our pay would be delayed significantly by union negotiations.”

      <

      p>
      That would seem to tamper with “labratory conditions,” in my book, if true. But from your link, it doesn’t show that Deval had anything to do with that alleged meeting or covering it up.

      <

      p>
      The only thing I can see, so far, is that Deval Patrick did his job for UAL that he was hired to do – represent the interests of the company and help find a solution to disputes.

      <

      p>
      Seems to me that’s a pretty good quality to have in a governor.

      • The Steve Bailey column in Friday’s Boston Globe once again raises questions about Deval’s business past. The list continues to grow with very little explanation from Deval. First,it was Ameriquest and still no answers. Then it was Ecuador, and no answer, Now it is United Airlines,and no answer. What is next?

      • This union believed workers were being told that they would get a pay raise if they resisted organizing. They said Deval was the one who promised them the pay raise as part of that strategy. The company was exonerated, so end of story.

        <

        p>
        But on the general point of Deval’s private sector experience, a corporate lawyer, while not necessarily a bad thing, is a very different animal from many other kinds of business positions. The job in many cases is to thwart organizing efforts and minimize consumer and regulatory complaints. It is less about leading than providing a service.

        • he’s the one who wanted to set up the investigation into Coke’s bottler in Colombia, and who quit when the new CEO backed out.  How would you describe that?

          <

          p>
          More generally, what is your basis for saying that the job of Vice President/General Counsel is “to thwart organizing efforts and minimize consumer and regulatory complaints”?  I know lots of VP/GCs – that’s not what they think their job is.

          • Deval’s Colombian coke deal. Do you have a link?

            <

            p>
            Employment practices and regulatory compliance/response are together a big part of many a GC’s purview. When an employer faces an organizing drive, the main response, in my experience, is to figure out how to forestall it, with house or outside counsel as lead advisor.

Archives