Somehow Kim Atkins managed to find Tom Reilly’s new TV ads on his website. I’ve looked a couple of times for the link to them from the Reilly homepage and still can’t find them. Tip to Reilly campaign central: if you want people to watch the ads on the internet, post a link to them on the homepage somewhere!
Anyway, there are two of them. Here’s ad #1:
Pleasant-sounding man’s voice: His fights have been our fights. The first Attorney General to call for the importation of affordable prescription drugs? Tom Reilly. A national leader in targeting handgun safety: Reilly. Standing up to the tobacco industry. Fighting to protect the victims of abuse. Both Reilly. And helping to save the state’s largest HMO from collapse, which protected the health coverage of a million residents: Tom Reilly.
The experience to move Massachusetts in the right direction. Tom Reilly. Fighting for us.
And behind curtain #2:
That same pleasant-sounding young man: One Democrat for Governor has already stood up to the Republicans: Tom Reilly. Reilly’s taken on the Bush administration when they’ve tried to weaken our environmental laws. He stood up to Mitt Romney over auto insurance rates. Fought against utility rate increases. And supports raising the minimum wage. And Tom Reilly has joined with other AG’s protesting George Bush’s oil policies.
The experience to move Massachusetts in the right direction. Tom Reilly. Fighting for us.
I thought these were both pretty good. More or less exactly what you’d expect for a first ad buy: nothing negative, other than a couple of mild digs at mean ol’ Republicans; lots of footage of Reilly alterately smiling and looking like he likes talking to people, and looking tough and determined; and a series of Reilly’s accomplishments as Attorney General. All of which plays into Reilly’s basic message: “I’ve been a tough Attorney General, fighting for regular folks just like you, and I’ll keep doing it as Governor.” The tag lines – “experience” and “fighting for us” – all seem consistent with the basic message of the ad, and with the message that he delivered quite effectively at the convention. Nothing about the Issue Of The Day, but that’s not all that surprising.
What the ads don’t do is give us much of a sense of what Reilly wants to do as Governor. Maybe that’s OK given where we are in the cycle – CW is probably that voters need to be introduced to the candidates and learn about their backgrounds and accomplishments before they start hearing about ten-point plans. Still, IMHO one of Reilly’s problems so far has been articulating exactly why he wants this job. These ads could just as easily be ads urging Reilly’s reelection as Attorney General. At some point we’ll want Reilly to start looking forward instead of backward, but presumably there’s time for that.
So overall, a respectable if not spectacular first foray into the TV market for Reilly, contrasted with a rather peculiar and I think not terribly effective one for Healey. And I realized another thing about Healey’s ad: it doesn’t say anywhere that she’s a Republican. I mean, it’s fine trying to distance yourself from Mitt Romney and George W. Bush, but good grief! If you didn’t know already, there’s no way to figure out her party affiliation in that ad.
frankskeffington says
when you write, ” respectable if not spectacular first foray into the TV market ” I do like this better.
<
p>
Both have Reilly the fighter. Dems want a fighter, becuase we’re mad we keep losing to them! And the one I liked better even has Reilly fight Bush, along with Romney and Healey.
<
p>
As for you point about Healey not mentioning she’s a Republican–won’t that be their whole strategy through November?
michael-forbes-wilcox says
I DON’T like the image of a “fighter.” Haven’t we had enough of that in Iraq? Our Warp Resident and all that…
<
p>
I like the image of a healer, such as Deval, who has a history of going into troubled situations and coming out with a solution.
leftyloosy says
Anybody else notice that the tag line at the end of the ad: “Fighting for us” is the same as Al Gore’s slogan during the 2000 primaries?
hoss says
Just saw the second of the two ads David described during Sox post-game. It preceded that damn Taylor Hicks ad. That’s about all I remember. It was pretty vanilla, nothing hugely persuasive, but not bad at all. Good colorful ad, lots of smiling people. Reilly looked pretty good too – smiling, etc…
<
p>
5 out of 10.
lolorb says
was that I’ve never been to an event where Reilly attracted a crowd. EVER. He kind of slinks in and slinks out of events. He does not have followers outside of hired folks.
<
p>
I’m sorry to offend anyone who is a Reilly supporter, but it’s really true. He just doesn’t relate well to crowds of people. I’ve been an observer for quite a number of years. It just doesn’t happen.
afertig says
Not stellar, not horrible, a solid first ad buy. Not much else to say, other than to opine the cheesy music that every politician has playing in the background of their ads.
metrowest-dem says
My understanding is that the first ad buy is often a softer sell — “Hi, I’m Jane Jones, vote for me because I’ve done nice things for you” or “Hi, I’m Tom Smith, vote for me because I’ll make you feel good about stuff.” Nothing too hard hitting — you’re trying to create a good impression about yourself first before you work on making the other guy look bad. Reilly’s ad could use a little more energy and pizzaz, perhaps, but it’s appropriate for him — particularly in light of the clearly unexpected spotlight he just got thrust into last week.
<
p>
I’m a little suprised that Healey didn’t pull her ad and rework it in light of the exponentially expanding cost of repairs. Her ad says that we can cut taxes because of a $1B surplus. WBUR’s coverage of Romney’s press conference late yesterday concerning the newest Big Dig developments had him saying point-blank that this kind of emergency is why we have a rainy day fund. He’s already forecast drawing at least $50M from the rainy day fund to address Big Dig repairs, and left the door open for more spending from that account if needed. Since we have no possible idea what these repairs are REALLY going to cost, she should have found another way to talk about tax cuts if that’s the platform she wants to run on.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
I believe Patrick (my candidate) has pointed out that the cost of any Big Dig repairs should not be borne by the taxpayers, but by those who were paid to do the job in the first place.
david says
metrowest-dem says
MFW — you’re absolutely right that the taxpayers shouldn’t bear the cost of the repairs. However, Bechtel et al are not exactly going to VOLUNTEER to do the repairs, because doing so can be interpreted as admitting liability. The only way the repairs are going to happen in a timely manner are to make them at taxpayer expense while pursuing Bechtel and the various subcontractors involved in the courts for reimbursement and damages. Law suits of this magnitude are going to take YEARS — claims, counterclaims, discovery, special masters to oversee discovery, zillions of motions, you name it.
lynne says
It also depends on who was to blame for the problems in the first place. It was shown in the concrete leaks to be the subcontractor (who actually committed fraud and used REJECTED concrete). It can also be the client (the state/fed government) who refused to sign on to do something way back when which would have alleviated the problem.
<
p>
I am SO SICK of people automatically blaming the management company. Can we wait until we have conclusions to the investigations, please?
<
p>
And yes, I support independent investigations. I just think it’s far more complicated (and should be expected to be) than everyone keeps thinking.
<
p>
BTW not neccessarily talking to you Metrowest this was just the best place to respond to this whole thing.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
You mention Healey’s not-so-subtle attempts to distance herself from the national GOP. I think she’s not the only candidate with such a problem. According to your transcript, the AG’s ad says
Well, maybe, but not on the one issue that could be the most important to Massachusetts voters: the occupation of Iraq.
<
p>
Reilly has come out foursquare in favor of “winning” in Iraq. I hope he’s changed his mind on this issue (does anyone know?) because if he’s the nominee that’s going to be a hard one to shake, it seems to me.
david says
as borderline irrelevant in a state race. Governors have virtually no control over what the state National Guard is used for, as Mike Dukakis found out the hard way. Sure, I’d rather have a guy who agrees with me on everything, but the Govs just don’t have a role in this stuff.
<
p>
Anyway, if he’s the nominee, it’s a wash, right? Presumably he and Healey would feel the same, so no one will talk about it. Seems to me it could only possibly be an issue in the primary.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
This is an election, not reality.
<
p>
The issue is not whether the Guv has a say in national defense issues (and I agree with you here) but over voter perception.
<
p>
I was trying to say that both Healey and Reilly might have problems distancing themselves from the misadministration in DC, though admittedly for very different reasons.
<
p>
And as to whether it will be an issue in the Primary, who knows? I would actually hope not, because, as you mention, it has very little bearing on what the Guv’s job is here in MA, but I was just trying to point out the irony of Reilly’s trying to portray himself as “fighting” against the Bush jihadists when he has come out in favor of one of the most offensive (to me, and I hope to most Mass voters) parts of their program; to wit, imposing “freedom” on the rest of the world at the end of a gun barrel.
david says
but I don’t see how it’s going to come up as an election issue. No moderator in a debate is going to ask the candidates about their views on Iraq. No opposing candidate is going to try to score points against Reilly by talking about Iraq – certainly not Healey, and probably not Patrick or Gabrieli either, since they understand that it’s irrelevant and that they’d look silly for raising it. So how does it become an issue?
michael-forbes-wilcox says
It’s less likely to come up now that the National Guard amendment has gone away, but one never knows. The other day at a campaign event, a questioner asked Deval what he was going to do about the fact that the Bushies were responsible for bringing down the Twin Towers.
<
p>
On the other hand, after the Primary, I think it’s a legitimate issue to bring up, and that the Dems should be trying to link the Mass GOP to the mess in DC as much as possible. But maybe we won’t even need to go there. The CA/Tastrophe may be enough to remind voters that it does matter who is appointing people into positions of power.
david says
Oh, my God.
frankskeffington says
He is way down on my list, but I will support Reilly. Will you?