Another piece in today’s Globe also stands out to me: in this article, Romney gets generally high marks for his handling of the Big Dig crisis, just as he did for handling the 2002 Olympics. While I disagree with most, if not all of his policies, Romney’s performance over the past two weeks has convinced me of this: we need to elect Democrats who have the private sector experience like Romney, but we should also make sure they have a conscience and, ideally, have operated in sectors outside of the private/business world.
Some good examples? Mark Warner, John Edwards, Maria Cantwell. They were all private sector actors who also believe, for the most part, what many of us Democrats believe. If we get more of these kinds of people into our ranks, and get less of the career-politician-types, we can rule for decades and fundamentally change this country, just as the Republicans have done over the past 30 years by making “government” a dirty word.
So, how do we start here in Massachusetts? It’s very easy: elect either Chris Gabrieli or Deval Patrick, and make sure Andrea Silbert is their running mate.
Let’s speak truth here: most of us spend our daily lives working in the private sector, receiving direct or indirect benefit from both the social service/non-profit sector, and relying on the public/government sector. These three candidates have thrived in that sector, and they are the ones we ought to be putting out there to the voters.
Succeeding in getting elected does not make you an expert in making people’s lives better, and it ought not to be a ticket to higher office. Unfortunately in Massachusetts, that’s not the case. We are so enamored with elected officials (or we used to be, and that impression has been perpetuated by the media) that we automatically assume that they are the “best” candidates for the job. Granted, being elected does prove something more than your campaigning skills, and getting re-elected does not happen, for the most part, unless you’ve delivered something for your constituents, either tangibly or by standing for something 50.1% of them believe in. The most recent evidence of this presumption occurred in 2004 when the only prominent names listed as possible successors to Sen. Kerry were Bay State congressmen.
But let’s look again at Scot’s column: he notes, correctly I think, that someone like Matt Amorello had no business being appointed to the Turnpike chairman’s position, save for his being a failed congressional candidate and former Republican state senator who needed a job. Same goes for the Blutes and Buckinghams of the world, as Scot points out. Scot further notes that in the Dukakis administration, expertise usually trumped politics. (Note: is Scot right? I was in elementary school then, and wasn’t even living in this state…)
Now, some may say that my comments here are a slight on Tom Reilly’s and Tim Murray’s qualifications for the offices they’re running for. You’re right. I have no doubt they are accomplished, effective politicians, and they are both clearly smart because they are admitted to the bar (despite the bad lawyer jokes, you do have to be more than a good test-taker to become a lawyer). Tom Reilly, in fact, is an excellent prosecutor. But does he have the ability to understand what a food pantry in Greenfield is going through when its federal grant dries up or its source of donations shrinks as fewer people choose to live there and instead migrate to the cities? And when I say “understand”, I mean does he really KNOW, as opposed to have compassion for the situation. Maybe, but it may in large part be due to the fact that he has the ability to pull together people who can advise him on such a situation; he has no direct experience in meeting a bottom line, save for working within a budget prescribed to him by the Legislature – a concept that is approached differently than when a small bodega owner needs to figure out how to buy supplies and price the goods.
My concerns here also relate to the promises politicians make, and how they are able to keep them. While the candidates for Governor are necessarily talking about a whole host of issues, the candidates for Lt. Gov. are speaking to a much narrower scope of issues. Let’s look at each:
1. Tim Murray: wants to be an advocate at the state level for cities and towns, wants to expand commuter rail. He has released plans on both.
2. Andrea Silbert: wants to lead the state’s economic development efforts so that we create jobs, and has released an action plan thereon; wants to bring more federal dollars back to Mass. and use it to expand regional rail; and wants to be the advocate for those without a voice, especially homeless families, and she wants to end family homelessness (note: ending homelessness through innovative strategies is a hot issue these days, and NPR is doing a series on it. Mike Bloomberg in New York is launching an effort to end homelessness, but appears to want to do it in a more compassionate way than the Guiliani efforts were.)
3. Deb Goldberg: wants to use her family’s experience starting and running Stop and Shop, as well as her experience as a Brookline Selectman and in life in general, to help get Massachusetts moving again.
Of these three, Andrea Silbert is the one who fits best into the mold I have deemed the most helpful for our state. She’s run a successful business that had a direct impact on thousands of lives, and she has worked in and with the private and public sectors. It’s just my opinion, but I want someone like her and like Deval or Chris.
Admittedly, there are drawbacks to having a non-governmental Governor. They can get frustrated with the bureaucracy, or have unreasonable illusions about how things work and how much harder it is to get things done. This could be particularly true this year if Deval or Chris wins, because they will be coming in with such high expectations of cleaning house that they will invariably not be able to live up to them and there will undoubtedly be stories at the 100 day mark of just how many things have NOT been accomplished. But that’s not enough of an argument to have a career politician in there, not at this point in our history. Massachusetts needs people who will attract the best and brightest into government again. That means someone who will be able to get lawyers to leave cushy law firm jobs, executives to leave their posts, young college and master’s degree grads to go into government before going to work on Wall Street. Do you really think that Tom Reilly is going to be able to do that and attract that kind of new talent? Please. There are career hacks salivating all over the place because they’ve been waiting for 16 years for a Democrat to get into office so they could reach their jackpot position. Tom Reilly is not going to shake the trees of Boston’s best institutions to attract new people. It’s going to be more of the same. Contrast that with what a Deval governorship will do: bring in new, fresh faces from all over the region, perhaps the country. (Incidentally, I think if he wins, he’s immediately in the mix for 2008 discussion as a Presidential candidate. Patrick/Obama 08, baby!) Gabrieli might do so as well, but he isn’t the inspirational guy that will draw in young, smart, excited people like Deval will.
Career politicians are needed in some sectors, particularly the legislative leadership area. I am a big opponent of term limits and believe strongly that
old oaks weather the storms. Legislatures are bizarre places (I’ve worked in one, I know), and it takes a while to get ones bearings. So term-limiting isn’t the solution. (Although I also favor Parties term-limiting chairmanships in Congress, as that lets good people serve.)
So, enough rambling.
You want real innovation and leadership? Andrea Silbert, Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli should be top on your radar screen.
You are absolutely right that business or private-sector experience can be a plus, depending on the experience such a person brings to the table in terms of running an organization, coming up with innovative ideas, etc. But I don’t think you make a convincing argument that somehow the dreaded “career polititian” is incapable of also doing such things and governing in a proactive way.
<
p>
I suppose I don’t see your connection between Romney’s recent actions and his business experience. What specifically has he brought to the table from his private sector experience that is really that special? I would argue very little. He (like George W. Bush) are examples of private-sector personalities getting into politics and frankly doing little more than bumbling around.
<
p>
Certainly there are examples of “career politicians”, such as Clinton and FDR, who managed to bring a number of innovative ideas to the table. The key was being open to new ideas, bring in people who actually know what they’re talking about, and listening closely to them. That’s the true genius of leadership, whether in the private-sector or government.
<
p>
If you want to argue that somehow private-sector individuals are more likely to have these critical characteristics, well, I haven’t been convinced of that by your post. I am especially left unconvinced by the suggestion that Patrick would bring in “the best and brightest” whereas Reilly would bring in mere “career hacks” into his team. If true, that would be a major plus for Patrick (BTW, I really am undecided in the Gov. primary race, believe it or not), but I just don’t see where you are getting this from.
I fully appreciate your points.
<
p>
Re. the last point: in my opinion, Patrick is the only one who is “inspiring” in this race, and that quality is what I think attracts people to work in government who might not otherwise do so because it’s against their economic self interest – be they young or old. Romney tried to attract people, but only got a couple high profile ones (Foy, Pozen).
<
p>
Patrick could get more, because so many of the upper echelons of talent in this area are Democrats.
I still think that no matter who wins the primary, if a Dem is elected Gov., that alone will get a lot of people involved because it’s been so long since we had a Democratic executive here. I really think all three of them would put together a good team. I think some people (not you, since you in fact brought it up!) underestimate the importance of creating a solid executive team. History will show that this was indeed the crucial difference between (for a great example) the Clinton and Bush II administrations.
<
p>
The thing I like about Patrick is that he has such a wide range of experiences, including the general counsel stint, the work in the Clinton Administration, amd even some time spent with the United Nations, I believe? I like Gabs because I consider him a FDR-style technocrat (yep, I’m probably the only one to consider “technocrat” as a badge of honor), and I like Reilly because of the work he’s already done for the Commonwealth.
<
p>
Am I the only one here at BMG that hasn’t made a decision who to support in the Gov. primary? đŸ˜‰
I agree with much of your post. People are looking for somebody who’s going to be capable of managing the vast organizations that are the state and federal governments, people who are simply interested in actually governing- not personal self-aggrandizement.
<
p>
That’s why I’m an ardent supporter of Chris Gabrieli and Mark Warner.
<
p>
Gabrieli, a self-made man and son of immigrants, may not be the flashiest politician, nor does he fill his speeches with liberal red meat, but he does know how to build and run successful organizations (like Massachusetts 2020 and his family’s business, as examples). Gabrieli has a down-to-earth, roll-up-his-sleeves, results-oriented attitude that will attract like-minded individuals.
<
p>
Mark Warner is cut from the same middle-class cloth, having a hand in founding Nextel and turning Virginia’s faltering state government around. Being term-limited, he left the Governor’s office with an astounding 74 percent approval rating. He got results by working with and sometimes dragging along GOP support (the Republicans had a 2/3 majority in the legislature), and added Democratic seats in the process.
<
p>
Other candidates may be inspiring orators or have served in government for decades, but neither speaking ability nor years in the public sector necessarily endow those candidates to be the most effective potential governor or president.
if you think you’re helping Patrick by making noises about him running for President in 2008! The last thing MA needs is a Governor who cannot be counted on to finish the term to which he or she is elected. If that rumor starts gaining any currency, he will not win in 2006.
I’ve had a couple people mention it to me already. I think I’m also providing “reality-based commentary” when I say that should he win, there would undoubtedly be such chatter.
Although I am sure it was not his intent, (given that he is a recognized stalwart poster at all blogs for Ms. Silbert) Hoss has finally convinced me that the best choice for Lt. Governor is either Deb Goldberg or Tim Murray. He argues that Massachusetts would do better with a “non-governmental”and “Biz” oriented Governor and only Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli fit that bill. I agree that either Deval or Chris would be Democrats’ best shot not only to win in November but to bring some fresh ideas to the State House with them.
<
p>
But, if either Deval or Chris become the Democratic nominee and ultimately Governor, they will need a running mate who can expand their political bases and, once elected, who can supply some political skill to help them marshal support for their new ideas and proposals on a broad range of issues. And I think that is where Goldberg or Murray become the best choice for Lt. Governor. Although neither are State House insiders, as elected local officials they have both had to deal with the legislature on any number of issues and both understand the ins and outs of the State budget process. Both also bring a network of municipal contacts and alliances (perhaps Murray more so having been Mayor of Worcester and active in MMA, but Goldberg’s Brookline Selectman service is also credible) across the state which may be critical for generating support for a new Democratic Governor’s agenda.
<
p>
All candidates for LG are liberal, smart, innovative, progressives…aren’t we lucky!…So it comes down to depth, experience, political skills, issue range and even geography…who can help our ticket get elected and more importantly who can help a new Democratic Governor succeed in office.
<
p>
Silbert can bring little to Patrick or Gabrieli that they don’t already have. However,if Reilly becomes the Democratic nominee and ultimately Governor, he may benefit most from Andrea Silbert’s excellent job running a non-profit organization and her ideas for helping low-income women get jobs. He will not need a Lt. Governor with political skills and understanding of so many critical issues facing municipalities as much as Deval or Chris would.
<
p>
Reilly would benefit from Andrea’s links to the most liberal elements in the party and that may help smooth over any hard feelings should Reilly defeat Deval and Chris in the Primary.
<
p>
(Although, Goldberg or Murray could perform a similar assistance for party unity…because they are also more “people friendly” than Tom.)
I went to a Silbert event this week, made a donation. Really liked her. I found it interesting that you talked about her appeal to “the most liberal elements” of the Party; I’m an independent.
<
p>
1. On the merits –
<
p>
She probably would stack up best against Reed H. in the Lt. G debate. The goal there is to help the ticket appeal to independents.
<
p>
She cares about jobs; she’s pro-charter school; she went to Harvard business school; she gets it as a non-millionaire mom of 3 and has sparkling personal appeal. She cares about the poor (right values), but instead of exclusively promoting Bigger Gov’t (on schools, on housing, on health care, on everything), her main theme is making sure they have jobs (right approach).
<
p>
Murray would come across as a biz-as-usual Dem hack, playing right into Healey’s playbook. From the sounds of the Dem Convention, Goldberg would come across as out-of-touch. I can’t imagine any undecided voter watching either of them against Reed H and not voting Republican.
<
p>
If LG might move Gov’s election 1 or 2 points either way, Silbert is the best bet.
<
p>
And if we take 2002 Romney-O’Brien differential of 10 points, subtract 8 for Mihos, 1 or 2 points could matter.
<
p>
2. On the reality –
<
p>
Unclear how much airtime Goldberg will buy in last 2 weeks. This is key question, since name recognition is what wins (I bet less than 10% of those who voted “Tim For Treasurer” had a clue about any of his policy positions).
<
p>
Murray has no cash but a machine AND a geographic base; to a less extent, Goldberg has Brookline. Silbert? Harwich. Tough sledding.
Gee, this was the third comment you’ve posted on BMG. The first two heaped praise onto Tim Murray. So how much convincing did you need?
<
p>
Given the “sincerity” of your comment, it should be rated as a “0” and eventually be deleted. But I’m rating it a “3” so that other people can see how transparently phony some posters are.
<
p>
Yes, I am a Silbert supporter.
<
p>
(BTW, how is the summer internship going at the campaign?)
I could be wrong, but it appears you shot the wrong poster with your 3. Please be more careful. đŸ™‚
<
p>
You’re so quick to doubt the sincerity of others, you launch shockingly inaccurate assertions. It may be time to go back on the meds.
<
p>
The egg on your face is sometimes more easily removed if you use No-Stick Pam.
<
p>
2. The funny thing is: if someone HAD supported one candidate, then met another and switched his vote, wouldn’t that be cool? I.e., someone who was persuaded to change his mind? Isn’t that point of BMG?
…note that the comment of yours that I incorrectly rated was posted while I was writing and researching links for mine. (They were time stamped 4 minutes apart) So after I posted and I went up to make my rating to the comment directly above mine–which I assumed was HL’s but it was your new post.
<
p>
Have a few snarks on me.
I think I probably agree with the other comment in this thread that the LG nominee may affect 1-2% of the outcome. I’d argue it will be less if that person is competent and uncontroversial. But I think the “story” being told by the ticket could be more effective if the G and LG candidates are complementary. I.e. a Gabrieli/Silbert ticket would undoubtedly be an “economic development” ticket that would be hard to attack on something like “lack of experience in government” because the attackers would be the Healey/Hillman team that is, I think, generally regarded as not being in touch with communities and local issues.
<
p>
I won’t go through all the combinations we could end up with (except to say that a Reilly/Murray ticket would be the one with the biggest “insider” target on its back), but you get my point.
<
p>
In sum, I read your comment as being one way of reading my thoughts.
<
p>
Thanks.
<
p>
p.s. – you say Reilly won’t need an LG w/ political skills. But I thought he said he wasn’t a good politician? Ha ha.
2,074,000 voted in the ’02 general election. We Dems lost by 105,000 votes. So we need to move less than 55,000 votes from the R column to the D column. If the LG candidate can impact 1-2%, that means 20,000 to 40,000 votes. That’s alot of impact.
<
p>
Hoss, while I agree with your “economic” angle regarding Silbert–I have a feeling that you’d also agree that her exburbian roots (Harwich) will have a huge appeal to the key swing voter in the election. That being suburban unenrolled women voters–particularly those living between 128 and 495. I would submit that this appeal is more helpful than the econic/jibs angle. (Although they intermingle in a voters thought process.)
FrankS… I have been reading the discussion threads at BMG since it started at the suggestion of a friend who said it was a blog that had reasonable discussions on issues without the usual flames and nonsense that invades many other blogs. I have posted at BMG a grand total of 3 (THREE) times…in comparison to Hoss’s over 140 posts and your own over 420 posts since Feb 1st…so I think you have surely gotten your chance to express your opinions and biases…I would have responded more to both of you, however, I am in the unenviable position of having to work 50 hours a week in the private sector and just do not have that kind of time to invest here…what I find most interesting is that you attack and try to discredit those who disagree with you. Why not just disagree with their position and back it up with facts….that’s called debate.
<
p>
Goldstein and I do not agree on who would be the best running mate for Deval or Chris or Tom…but I respect her right to reach her own conclusions. My only disagreement would be with her characterization of Andrea as a non-millionaire Cape mom as a slap to Deb Golberg…when in fact they both by middle class standards had very privileged upbringings in Brookline and educational opportunities most middle class students could never afford. That Andrea lives on the Cape now has more to do with her husband’s artist pursuits. Deb and Andrea draw from similar bases (gender/ethnic/geography/support) but I think Deb trumps her on experience relative to the job they are contending for…in that same regard, I think Murray trumps both Golberg and Silbert on experience,too. And anyone who knows Murray’s record and background could never accurately describe him as a hack pol…just doesn’t wash…Is Jim McGovern a hack pol?
<
p>
I always say that men do not keep women from getting ahead, other women do…As a business woman who has worked a life time for equity I wish the Andrea-Deb crews would stick to the positives about their prefered candidate rather than backhandedly denigrating the other.
<
p>
I have seen Andrea and Deb presentations on three occasions when they came to the North Shore for forums. I have seen Tim Murray at 2 North Shore forums. All three were present at the Harvard College forum. They are all smart. Deb Goldberg and Tim Murray had a broader and deeper understanding of the issues that people at the local forums asked about…Andrea was excellent on the jobs for low income issue, but her responses were a little too lacking in substance on other questions…that is just my opinion…but it was reinforced at subsequent forums that had similar questions asked.
<
p>
I will definitely vote for Deval or Chris for Governor and am weighing that decision hard. I will definitely vote for Goldberg or Murray to be their running mate because the combination makes most political sense to me. If I were with Tom I would consider Andrea for the reasons I have already posted above.
<
p>
And by the way Frank…my campaign intern days were over 30 years ago…I have to leave that stuff up to you guys who have the time to be on line all day. I hope you are working for a campaign, because if not, your real employer is getting stiffed.
Your third posting suggests that you had an open mind about the LG race and that Hoss “convinced” you that you had narrowed it down to Goldberg and Murray. Yet the only other posts you’ve made at BMG were wildly pro-Murray cheers.
<
p>
Therefore, I submit you long-ago made up your mind and your mudding the waters pretending this third post was some kind of “objective” analysis of the race.
<
p>
That’s all I have to say and I’ll let the readers decide who’s trying to pull the wool over their eyes…me or you.
Frank:
I stated that the opinions expressed in my post were “just my opinions”…I made no claim to objective analysis..the race is what it is…I have a different opinion that you do…nothing objective about it…it’s my opinion based on my “wildly” determined desire to have a Democratic victory this year…if it’s Patrick/Goldberg, Patrick/Murray, Gabrieli/Murray, Gabrieli/Goldberg…it’s fine with me, if it helps us win…I praised Murray for what I think he brings to the ticket or when he takes an action worth praising, I praise and acknowledge Deb Goldberg and Andrea Silbert for their strengths as well…To tell the truth there has not been much about Goldberg actions on this blog or in the press to talk about since June and Andrea’s action to buy comcast posting of her campaign video did not seem worth commenting on…I’m more interested in issues rather than the inside baseball of running campaigns…
<
p>
This week the Governor will have to face the Minimum Wage legislation…I will praise all Democratic candidates who lead the chorus this week to push for enactment of a long overdue increase. So we will see…
Let me give another reason for bad state government.
<
p>
We have 160 State Reps. There are 53 Republican candidates, 12 running with no Democratic opponent. (There’s also one Libertarian and one Green running). That means there are contested elections in only 41 races. In more than 70% of State Rep races, this November voters will have as much choice as voters did in the old Soviet Union. That’s a recipe for cronyism, inbreeding, corruption and incompetence.
<
p>
How do we fix this? Step one is making it easier for people to get on the ballot and run for office. Many states have far lower signature requirements on nominating papers than Massachusetts does. Others allow party conventions and committees to fill vacancies by nominating candidates. Still others allow people to run for office by paying a filing fee, often a modest fee.
<
p>
George Phillies
I wish we did have more republican candidates. I actually think it will take a Dem governor to bring this about.
is needed to run a total unknown. Get rid of our ridiculous campaign funding laws. Let anyone who wants raise as much as they require from contributors who should be allowed to donate as much as they like.
<
p>
If it takes $50,000 or $100,000 to run a campaign from zero to competitive, let that money be raised. Wothout restriction.