Devalâs private sector experience is unique in the field of candidates: a corporate lawyer who has been brought in by large corporations when those companies have major problems to solve. He may not have founded the company, but he brings specific skills to the management of a company that has gotten off track (a good fit for our Commonwealthâs needs, in my opinion). His task is often to bring those companies back to earth; to ensure that basic values of equality and integrity are respected as part of the business culture.
I tried to interest the Globe in a letter to the editor that followed up on Mr. Patrick’s plan for addressing the CA/Tastrophe (“Correcting the Big Dig Culture,” July 19, 2006). As BMG readers surely know, Deval called for an independent special Inspector General, reform of the Turnpike Authority, and for greater public accountability in future decisions and discussions.
The point of my unpublished letter was the strong tradition linking Devalâs plan to the standards set by Harry S Truman when the Truman Committee exposed mismanagement and patronage among government contractors during WWII.
The subsequent Globe op-ed piece by Secretary Salvucci (“Reconstructing a Tragedy,” July 21, 2006) reminds us that the push for privatization and the gutting of professional staff during fifteen years of Republican oversight of state agencies has left us with little ability to protect public funds and public safety on state construction projects.
Feel free to add your own examples of sound fiscal management by Democrats (wasnât there a guy named Bill Clinton who left us with a surplus down in D.C. a few years back?).
Massachusetts needs a Harry Truman Democrat, with an understanding of government as well as the private sector, as well as an innate instinct for competence and a willingness to confront the Beacon Hill culture. Deval Patrick should be our next Governor.
Where is he? No sign of him on the tube..
He’ll appear on Jimmy Tingle’s show, which is being taped tonight at Davis Square.
<
p>
He’s been on NECN quite a bit.
<
p>
But mostly he’s been out meeting the people of Massachusetts in person.
and that is why he is not on TV
I think you’ve hit on the issue that most people care about when they gripe about taxes. It’s not the level or amount of taxes that people care about — it’s whether their tax payments are being put to good use.
<
p>
Obviously, you won’t get any argument from me that Deval Patrick is the candidate best positioned to make the case for responsible fiscal management. His call (more than 2 months ago) for an independent investigation into the Big Dig is emblematic of his style of openness and accountability.
<
p>
More importantly, I agree that we (all of us), as Democrats, can use this argument to win over some of the so-called swing voters, who by now must be tired of all the years of Republican mismanagement that have brought us to this sorry state of affairs.
might be an alternative title for this well constructed post and the ill conceived commentary — just a few more zero’s and we can actually get down to business and discuss Shack’s post. There seems to be a pattern emerging on this site that kind of mirrors how pathetic this campaign season is turning out.
<
p>
I would like to point out that there are a number of Democratic governors who have balanced budgets, solved prior Republican administration problems and provided good government services: Howard Dean, Mark Warner and Bill Clinton (as Governor of Arkansas) are the first three to come to mind. These states benefited from their leadership. I’m sure I’m missing quite a few, and I hope others will help with a few history lessons on how well Democrats manage government.
I does not follow that because we might need a Harry Truman Democrat that Deval Patrick is that Democrat. A supporter for Gabrieli or Reilly just as well could have written that post and “linked” to the US Senate History page of Truman’s Investigation, an investigation that gave Truman entry as Vice President due to his popularity.
<
p>
You can’t complain about the cheerleading for one side and not call it out on the other side.
<
p>
Non Sequitur
Your comment is valid – that one could make the case that any of the candidates could make a good “Truman Democrat” governor, but that doesn’t mean that the argument for Patrick isn’t valid, or is somehow a non-sequitur.
<
p>
Shack made the case that Deval’s private sector experience (and I would add his justice department experience as well) supports the argument that he is a great candidate for a state in need of a buck-stops-here leader.
<
p>
I don’t think anyone has a problem with cheerleading here – we just appreciate a thought-out, well-written argument. (MaverickDem has written some great stuff for Reilly, and you’ve highlighted Gabrielli’s policy points quite well. jdhaverhill on the other hand…)
<
p>
You could have written those exact words about Mitt Romney four years ago.
<
p>
Hey, I appreciate Deval’s people trying to turn a glaring weakness (no elected experience) into some kind of strength. But as I’ve said before, I hope that voters in Massachusetts are tired of electing novices as our governors.
….
We should only elect someone because they’ve already been elected? I thought that’s what got us into the whole Big Dig CA/Tastrophe in the first place. Winning an election is more important than actually doing the job? Running a huge department in the Clinton administration doesn’t count? You’re comparing the Olympics to a presidential administration? Ha ha ha. Hillarious.
As far as anyone can tell, the CA/Tastrophe happened not because it was overseen by elected politicians, but because it was not over seen by elected politicians – people who didn’t do their job. I don’t think somebody is bad just because they’ve been elected — that whole anti-politician trope is a Republican creation that I refuse to swallow.
<
p>
As I keep saying, I don’t want someone building a bridge who hasn’t been trained for it, I don’t want a doctor who hasn’t fulfilled a residency, I don’t want a teacher who skipped student teaching. I guess after the whole Romney/Weld/Cheney eexperience, I’m tired of people with no elected experience deciding that they’ll learn on the job. I want a governor, not a graet politician who gives nice speeches.
Because he’s the only one who has managed a department of any size as an elected official. But every time he screws up, he keeps saying he’s “not a politician”. And therein lies the rub – if you’re going to get anything done as governor of Massachusetts, you have to be a great politician. The job is essentially political and all three candidates have plenty of experience in politics. Just because someone hasn’t held elected office doesn’t make them a political neophyte.
<
p>
While Reilly has spent his entire adult life inside Massachusetts politics, Patrick and Gabrielli have extensive resumes in the private sector to go with their political experience. I don’t understand why that should be seen as a shortcoming instead of an advantage, especially when Reilly keeps saying he didn’t learn anything from his political career.
<
p>
You are right that competence is key. The best commercials in the world aren’t a substitute for getting legislation passed and executed. But I honestly don’t think any of the three gubernatorial candidates can be considered political newbies. Whoever gets elected will have some hurdles to clear, but understanding how the game is played won’t be one of them.
<
p>
I have no idea how to reconcile those two statements. I agree with the first one that you say, and the best example is President Carter’s relations with the Democratic Congress 1977-79.Knowing how to play the game is an important function of getting things done.
<
p>
<
p>
Really? I had no idea that he said that. It sounds more like an attack from a supporter of one of his rivals.
<
p>
<
p>
What political experience? Running a losing campaign for Lt. Governor? Being marginally influential in passing a law through the Mass. Legislature? Holding a job as a higher-up functionary within the federal government?
<
p>
I keep saying elected experience, because that’s an important difference than diddling in a side project, or having a job where you serve on the pleasure of another. Reilly has proven independence and is clearly familiar with accomplishments through government while still maintaining the electorate’s support.
<
p>
I agree that Republicans’ ongoing sales job that experience is a liability has been enormously successful, partially because many Democrat candidates have aped them. That doesn’t make it right — I just can’t see why elected governing should be the only field where experience is a liability.
Reilly says politics ‘not my strong suit’
There is truth in your characterization. There is a difference between being the “the buck stops here” guy and working for “the buck stops here” guy. I’m also willing to stipulate that at some point in the first 100 days there will be a situation where the administration of the next governor of Massachusetts screws up. Your Carter analogy rings true; in fact it came to mind as I read your previous post. There are real problems in the bureaucracy of our state that can only be fixed by a determined and successful Chief Executive (the idea of ‘balance’ is one of the Republican big lies about this race, by the way. Surely no one really expects Kerry Healey to be any sort of counterweight to the Legislature.) Whoever the next governor is, he will have to be able to beat the Legislature in a fair fight.
<
p>
But while I think you and I agree about some of the challenges facing the next governor, I think we ultimately disagree on how well the three candidates will handle them. I won’t argue your assertion that Tom Reilly has the most experience and knows the players and the game. But his evident experience is tempered by his tin ear. I think he got a bad rap in the facts of the Murphy tragedy, but I also think he didn’t handle the criticism very well. As for St. Fleur, what can you say? It was a failure of due diligence pure and simple. Elective experience is not immunity against mistakes. Conversely, I believe that Patrick’s lack of elective office can be offset, to some degree, by his other qualities. In particular, the man is a commanding speaker who ought to be able to use the bully pulpit more effectively than anyone in recent memory. I think he will be a “formidable opponent” for DiMasi and Travaglini. As for Gabrielli, well let’s just say I’m sure jdhaverill will point out that he can out-commercial anyone who dares disagree with him.
<
p>
In short, I agree that Reilly has earned respect with his history of electoral success. It’s certainly not a liability, but neither is it proof against future political missteps. Further, I don’t think that the lack of a comparable record is sufficient to disqualify his opponents, especially when both have a demonstrated record of success in other endeavors.
A lot of it could indeed apply to Romney. But not the last phrase: “to ensure that basic values of equality and integrity are respected as part of the business culture.” That’s exactly what Romney didn’t do with Ampad, as Ted Kennedy hammered home in 1994.