[A quick digression about process. While other MA lefty blogs have gone about endorsing (and volunteering for) their chosen candidates, we have so far stayed on the sidelines. Why? We want to encourage a wide range of discourse. We are proud of the fact that supporters of all three candidates hold forth here. They make major contributions to our community. We will continue to recommend and promote substantive posts, regardless of which candidate is favored. And we acknowledge and respect the views of those who would prefer us to remain publicly neutral. But as each of our views has crystallized, the time has now come when it’s only honest to lay our cards on the table and state our consensus position as the proprietors of the site. We do not purport to speak for any of you, but you need to know where we stand. Now back to our regularly scheduled editorializing].
When we started BMG, there was only one responsible candidate for governor: Tom Reilly. With no malice, but some skepticism, and with misgivings about coronations, we hoped for competition. When former Justice Department prosecutor and corporate lawyer Deval Patrick started making noises about a gubernatorial run in early 2005, we were intrigued: Who is this guy? What are his beliefs? Why is he going around asking people what
they think? When we heard him speak at ward meetings and the 2005 convention, we were impressed by his charisma and his determination to offer an alternative to conventional wisdom.
Still, we had doubts. Where’s the beef? Was it just a bunch of platitudes, however inspiring; or could he jump into policy,
take some bold stands, and get into the nitty gritty? Patrick answered that starting last fall (months before any other candidate), by making a slew of specific, well-researched and well-argued policy positions:
- He endorsed Cape Wind, going against the most powerful politicians in the state: Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney, and Tom Reilly. It was and is the right decision.
- He came out in support of the health care ballot initiative that became the basis of the more ambitious House proposal, which eventually became the core of the new health care law — the grandstanding of Governor Romney notwithstanding.
- He expressed unequivocal support for marriage — including same-sex unions — drawing on his exerience enforcing civil rights.
- He made a constructive proposal on merit pay in schools and skillfully navigated tricky political waters to do it.
- He proposed $735 million of possible savings in the state budget. He drew on his Fortune 50 corporate experience to suggest better enforcement of rules, leveraging the state’s buying power, and controlling earmarks, among other improvements.
- He has endorsed an independent investigation for the Big Dig.
In addition to being long on substance, Patrick is an electrifying speaker. In the tradition of JFK and FDR, he makes demands on his listeners: he asks that voters engage in civic life, cast off cynicism, and cultivate their best instincts for the community. People may like other candidates, or tolerate them, or hold their nose and vote for them anyway; but Patrick’s supporters love their guy. Those who downplay the importance of this candidate’s charisma — which comes through well on TV — ignore one of the most important aspects of a political winner.
It’s the “How”, not the “What” of the Patrick campaign, however, that most makes it stand out among the current gubernatorial campaigns. In early 2005, before he finally made the decision to run, Patrick went on a “listening tour” of the state (the term was coined, or at least made famous, by Hillary Clinton in her successful 2000 Senate race). The insiders and the consultant class were baffled:
“To send out letters asking five-year-old kids what they think about you running for governor? Its stupid!” complains one Democrat. “You dont know why youre going to run? Dont run.” “If you want to run for governor,” adds Scott Ferson, a political consultant with the Liberty Square Group, “its nice to know why you want to run, instead of saying youre going to figure it out.”
Baffled, because they didn’t get it. Patrick wasn’t out on some Romneyesque search for the positions that will win him the most votes. He was out to see whether the message he already knew he wanted to deliver was one that would resonate with actual voters. As he told the Phoenix in early 2005, “what Im trying to find is whether what I offer is what people need.” After spending a lot of time talking and — more importantly — listening to people around the state, he concluded that his message would indeed resonate. Turns out he was right. People 1, Consultants and Insiders 0.
Once up and running, the Patrick campaign stuck with that people-based approach, adopting a strategy that relies heavily on word-of-mouth, one-to-one contact, and personal persuasion. The approach has worked, as seen in Patrick’s performance at the 2005 Lowell convention, the caucus victories in February, and his endorsement at the state Democratic Convention in Worcester a couple of months ago. No other Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate has pursued this strategy with the commitment and skill of the Patrick team.
This emphasis on ordinary people — as opposed to an almost exclusive reliance on consultant-commissioned multi-million dollar electronic air barrages — is a gamble, but it is intriguing and exciting to see a campaign that actually seems to believe in it wholeheartedly, to the point of deferring major Big Media investments until the end of the voting cycle. The savvy folks who run Patrick’s campaign believe in the persuasive power of their volunteers and supporters, as well as their candidate. They believe that the same community-based, one-on-one approach that wins city council races can win the Governor’s office. The campaign is not romantic or delusional; they are carrying out this strategy in a crisp, professional manner and getting results. Patrick has led in several recent polls, despite significant media buys by his opponents. And the strategy is more than just an effective tool for a campaign: it’s profoundly reinvigorating to the political culture as a whole.
A people-powered political base carries real policy implications. The money chase, and the consultants who feed on it, have crippled the Democratic Party, and by extension the effectiveness of Massachusetts governme
nt, for years. Private profit can, even should, come from public good — think of the benefits from public education, and the drag from our inefficient health care system — but public servants cannot effectively serve the public good and private profit at the same time. The more popular enthusiasm a candidate musters, the more independent he will be from the Big Dig culture of Beacon Hill — and the better able to challenge it.
None of this, by the way, means that we think Patrick is right about everything — we don’t. For example, Bob thinks he’s wrong on the income tax rollback, and David thinks he’s wrong on whether the legislature should vote on the anti-marriage amendment. But we do agree with him on most of the “issues.” Furthermore, we all agree on bigger-picture factors that transcend individual disagreements (which will of course exist with any candidate). If Patrick wins, he will walk into the corner office with a people-powered mandate the likes of which has not been seen on Beacon Hill in a long time. That’s the best way to start curing what ails our government.
For all these reasons, we three have decided to back Deval Patrick. We hope the Democratic voters of Massachusetts agree with us on Tuesday, September 19. If they do, we are confident that Deval Patrick and the winner of the Lieutenant Governor primary will handily defeat Kerry Healey and Reed Hillman on November 7.
Break out the Kool-Aid!!
<
p>
Deee-lish!
<
p>
one of us, one of us, one of us….
Nice write-up. I didn’t think it was possible for me to like Deval even more than I already do… but I guess it is! lol
Maybe you can help convince others that you’ve done your homework, read the issues and believe Deval is the best candidate for Governor. The positive approach to endorsements!
Bold, daring, and spectacularly spot-on. You’ve done an outstanding job articulating the reasons for your support, and your thinking and reasoning are certainly in sync with all the rest of us who see Patrick as the individual in this race who brings something refreshing and compelling to the table.
<
p>
Thanks, too, for swimming against the tide at this site. Not many people agreed (with me–lol) that you should be bold and endorse, so I feel a little validated by your decision to go ahead anyway.
<
p>
Now I eagerly await the 3s that will undoubtedly come my way. 😉
Did I miss something? Didn’t BMG ask this audience what their opinion was about having this blog endorse or not endorse in the statewide races? I seem to remember that the consensus was that it would be better to remain an open forum with all points of view on the blog…without giving a public endorsement that would add blantant bias to the blog.
<
p>
You should not have asked for opinions that you did not care to hear. I don’t think any frequent visitors to this blog could miss the preferences of most posters, including the blogmasters..that’s part of the entertainment value of it…all good sport…but to have the blog itself endorse diminishes it somehow. BMG endorsing Deval has the news value of dog bites man…who would expect otherwise?…it doesn’t advance Deval but it does setback this site.
<
p>
Just wish you had kept this site an open shop…it was more interesting.
That poll had a majority supporting a endorment, and a plurality supporting Deval. Though I doubt the poll decided the candidate to be endorsed, but I think consensus was clearly that hte blogmasters should endorse the candidate they think is best for the job. Bob had already endorsed Andrea, so it was unprecidented.
GGW answers your points. I’ll just say this: this IS an open shop – always has been, always will be. You just know a little more than you did about which way we are voting in September. And as we explained in the post, we’re not saying and could not possibly say that we speak for everyone who frequents this place. We just thought that, among other things, you need to know where we stand. Transparency being a virtue, and all.
. . . but i urge you to resist the calls from some camps to turn bmg into an advocacy blog.
<
p>
your general impartiality is what has brought you the credibility that you have today. and credibility is a rare commodity in this age and this medium.
<
p>
good endorsement. but i hope that you were compelled into making it official by cries of the drum bangers.
because there’s plenty of blogs where they can do their thing already.
<
p>
to those who complain, it’s not like you wrote “BMG endorses.” after all, folks can post their own endorsements….i’m still waiting for Ernie Boch III to endorse.
<
p>
2. also agree with comment above that there is tension, however, between the site’s perception as an advocacy blog versus a “fair exchange of ideas” blog – just to keep an eye on.
<
p>
3. i didn’t quite follow all your rationale, though.
<
p>
a. “Most thoughtful, substantive, and consistent of the candidates on the issues”
<
p>
ok. while some might disagree, seems a very reasonable judgment for you to make.
<
p>
b. “Most inspiring leader and speaker in Massachusetts in a generation”
<
p>
ok. while some might disagree, again, a very reasonable and plausible judgment.
<
p>
c. “Most likely to beat Kerry Healey and Reed Hillman in November.”
<
p>
borderline plausible. since the last polls on BMG show gabrieli with the lead there, and b/c we know that healey desperately wants DP in the general as her only possible path to victory with mihos in the picture, it’s a weird claim to make. i suppose you could say “Gabs would do poorly in debates; his $$$ advantage over DP in the general wouldn’t really matter; only DP would inspire Dem turnout; healey’s advisors are simply wrong.” but it’s a stretch.
<
p>
d. “Most independent of the moneyed interests and hackocracy that make our party far less than it could be”
<
p>
how can Deval, who has openly changed positions to get teachers union $ and endorsement, be more independent than Gabs….who seems to have zero backing from any moneyed interests or hacks? what am i missing here? it would seem that it’s theoretically impossible for anyone to trump gabs on independence….does he have a single political debt?
<
p>
i’d keep it to “a” and “b.”
just put your endorsement on the herald page.
he wouldn’t be in the race if it weren’t for Sal DiMasi (in particular) shifting delegates his way at the convention. And I don’t know whether Gabrieli’s incredibly painful unwillingness to take anything resembling a position on whether the leg. should vote on the anti-marriage amendment, or on the Ruane bill, are related to his debt to DiMasi, but whatever led to his no-decisions in those instances, it scared me.
you said it better than i did 🙂
Don’t take my word for it. Read what In Weekly wrote about him:
<
p>
http://www.innewswee…
<
p>
Here’s an excerpt:
<
p>
“For starters Gabrieli is quick to note as early as 2002 he favored marriage equality, then as a candidate for lieutenant governor. Gabrieli’s running mate Shannon O’Brien, on the other hand, stopped short, backing civil unions.
<
p>
More recently, Gabrieli and his wife Hilary opened their home on Louisburg Square to a fund raiser for MassEquality, the umbrella organization of coalition groups fighting to preserve gay marriage in the only state with legal gay wedlock. The event was wildly successful, raking in big bucks for the cause. It is believed to be the one of the first, if not the first, major gay marriage fund raiser ever hosted by a straight couple in the state.
<
p>
STEADFAST STILL FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY
<
p>
Take the enormously significant issue of gay marriage. For many people, Gabrieli explained, “marriage connotes cake and church,” among other things, he said.
<
p>
“It’s a linguistic thing,” he added. “But that is not what is on the table. What’s at issue,” he said, “is the state’s allowing contractual rights between two people,” along with all the associated ‘rights and obligations.'”
<
p>
Explained Gabrieli, “Why would that not be welcome here?” adding, “Who gets the veil is left for [various religious denominations] to decide. I don’t think anyone’s beginning to argue that ought to be different.”
is he so scared to say what he thinks the legislature should do? “Because it’s a matter for the legislature”?? That’s so unbelievably lame. For one thing, if he’s Governor, he has to decide whether to call them back into session if they adjourn without acting on the amendment.
<
p>
I’m not particularly worried about Gabrieli on “the issues.” I’m more worried about whether he’s the guy to change politics on Beacon Hill. That’s just as important.
Romney IS Governor until Jan. of 2007, you know, no matter WHO is elected. So really, his stance is not actually lame but….REALITY BASED!
What if they vote this time, manage the 50 votes, and then the issue comes up again in even more heated form – as it undoubtedly would – in 2008? He’ll get his chance.
But as a gay voter, I feel a lot more comfortable having Deval Patrick at the helm. Not only has Deval stood strong on the issue since day 1, he’s also made far more the rhetoric and actually shows up at big glbt events like the Pride Rally in Boston. Where was Gabs? Whether or not people agree with Deval’s position on the con con, his was the strongest in support of gay people.
<
p>
2. anyway, if your definition of “debt” includes any POL who helps you, as you cite with gabs/dimasi, then wouldn’t DP’s long roster of endorsements and convention supporters still render your claim that DP is “most independent” invalid?
<
p>
in work to date, is your contention that dimasi has done more for gabs than the combined efforts of many pols for DP? hmmm.
<
p>
3. if we gave you a shot of truth serum along with the jack daniels that kevin millar used to power his home run yesterday, c’mon, would you really believe your own assertion that DP is more independent than Gabs?
<
p>
2. Has DiMasi done more for Gabs than endorsers did for DP? Absolutely. Without DiMasi’s moving votes around, Gabs was done. DP’s various endorsements all add incrementally to his candidacy. What DiMasi did for Gabs was make-or-break, all-or -nothing. DP doesn’t owe that kind of debt to anyone – he won the caucuses because he worked his ass off to do it, and that’s what got him the convention, and that’s why he’s ahead in the polls.
<
p>
3. Yup. (Unless I pass out first – sounds like quite the combo!)
After all we made him Governor, so he’s in a position to run for President. Yes, Mitt Romney owes his whole political future, thanks to the people of Massachusetts.
And he’s really indebted to us for that, he’ll never forgot what the state did for him, you can count on it…
<
p>
That’s the same logic you used to show how much Gabrieli owes everyone that voted for him, all 702 people.
<
p>
Let me get this straight.
<
p>
Gabrieli owes DiMasi
Patrick owes No One.
What about Reilly, who does he owe for his convention vote?
No one in politics ever does favors for anyone else – there’s no such thing as “I scratch your back, you scratch mine.” Thank goodness we’ve cleared that up.
Interpret all facts in Deval’s favor and use all facts against his opponents.
<
p>
I think that is the Fourth Commandment of the Deval Church Ten Commandments.
What does Deval Patrick owe you (BMG) for the timely endorsement by the “Editors of BMG?” Kind of threw a little oil on the water with all those unanswered questions floating around BMG the last week?
<
p>
Or is only Deval exempt from the I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine? Trading favors that is? Please tell us again how this is a different campaign.
<
p>
For instance, any phone calls or e-mails between the campaign, a cut out, and the BMG editors on the substance or the timing of the endorsment or did you use?
<
p>
Please remember before you go on the record on this, some of these campaigns are leaking like sieves.
<
p>
I believe Political Favors are done all the time in any campaign, but you twist the political favor out to be some evil that everybody but Deval uses?
<
p>
Ah, I get it when Deval does it it’s savvy, but when anybody else does it, it’s corruption in politics, painted with your broad brush and innuendo about “favors owed”.
Love the bolding. Awesome.
<
p>
What unanswered questions are you talking about? And your third sentence is complete gibberish to me. What’s a “cut out”? You mean, like a life-size cardboard cut-out? Please explain.
<
p>
I’d say that Deval Patrick’s campaign has not done one blessed thing for us from day one other than to be available, in contact and interested in what we did. Those were things that the Reilly campaign could have done; to this day they don’t even return our calls, although I do get their press releases. (Talk about a one-way street.) Gabrieli was very kind to talk to us for 90 minutes, and we all gave him nice write-ups. From talking to him, he came way, way up in my estimation. (If Patrick weren’t in the race, I’d vote Chris in a heartbeat.) But his campaign didn’t pursue it any further, since they’re doing a big media buy strategy. I’m not even on their email list. I don’t blame them for that — that’s how they think they can win. Good luck to them.
<
p>
If the Deval Patrick campaign feels indebted to three guys with a website … well, that’s better than being indebted to someone writing big checks, or to entrenched power-players. And yes, if Patrick had had to rely on DiMasi or Trav to get his delegates, that would indeed change the dynamic quite a bit.
I meant to delete
<
p>
“or did you use” from the third sentence.
<
p>
<
p>
cut out
<
p>
explained here.
<
p>
“Cut out” as in had the Reilly campaign used a “cut out” the e-mails would never have been discovered…
<
p>
The unanswered question then is:
<
p>
BMG in no way communicated with DP regarding the substance or the timing of the endorsement?
This is a fair question. We have indeed talked with folks from the Patrick campaign. Yes, they asked to be considered if we were to endorse someone. I can tell you that
<
p>
1. Before the post went up, we never told them we would endorse Patrick. We’d been considering it for a while, but that decision was made by us three, collectively, after a lot of thought and discussion between us.
<
p>
2. The substance came from us, and us alone. We drafted it starting last Wednesday, and revised it through the weekend. It’s our language, and our sentiment, completely sui generis.
<
p>
3. We three felt the timing of an endorsement should be in time to make an impact — whatever it might be — on the primary. Again, that was our decision, and we made it on our own schedule.
<
p>
So yeah, we’ve been in contact with them. The “substance and timing”, as you say, was ours and ours alone. And if you read the site going back a year and a half, why would you be surprised?
And you you guys obviously have every right to endorse who you feel will make the best Governor. It does seem that poll was kind of a red herring I guess the with the poll and all out there, and those results kindof reflecting the reality we knew in our guts, I was curious to know what went on behind the scenes.
<
p>
But I do have to be honest with you. I see a double standard in how candidates are treated here and it isn’t just me.
<
p>
For instance take the analogy of a bully pushing someone down a flight of stairs and then complaining when the party at the bottom of the stairs asks for some help.
<
p>
The stairs are the convention 15% rule, Patrick does EVERYTHING possible to push GABRIELI below 15% and when GABRIELI is forced to seek help wherever he can find it, he is roundly disparaged for owing political favors to try to get on the ballot? AND that reasoning has been a major complaint (stategy) from what I can see from the Patrick side.
<
p>
My point being who pushed Gabrieli down the stairs in the first place? And please don’t try to tell me Patrick didn’t try to push him down the stairs. That’s all politics and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is after Chris is all bloody at the bottom of the stairs, is the righteous complaining that when he found a helping hand… well you get the idea it think.
but honestly, it’s really an argument for scrapping the 15% rule (and, as you know, I’m 100% with you on that one). I hate the damn thing – not least because it creates situations like this. Patrick was up-front at the convention: he said “I want every vote on every ballot.” Fair enough – that’s what candidates are supposed to do. Gabrieli, for his part, did what he had to do – he accepted assistance from insider power brokers, with whom he may or may not have been in direct contact (I have no idea). Again, he did what he had to do, given the existence of a shitty rule. But that doesn’t change the fact that he does owe DiMasi something for being on the ballot. It’s not really his fault. But that doesn’t mean it’s not so.
<
p>
Frankly, I wouldn’t see this as such a big deal if Gabs hadn’t been such a wimp on the Ruane and gay marriage vote issues. Frankly, I was shocked that he wouldn’t take a position – he’s the only candidate in the entire race who didn’t, if I’m not mistaken. He wants to be Governor. Being Governor is about taking stands. You can’t “get results” – the theme of his whole campaign – if you just go along to get along.
if I keep replying, do the responses eventually approach zero in width?
this might be the smallest it gets
Renaissance Man,
<
p>
Thou dost wrong thy name, man.
<
p>
You cite logic but the argue by analogy. Come come, man, do we really have to review Philosophy of Logic here? Argument by analogy is the weakest form of reason–if it can even be considered reason and not a fallacy of reason.
<
p>
Surely as a Renaissance Man you have this in the toolbox.
<
p>
Well, the big one is that Sal DiMasi had enough of his delegates support Gabrieli in order to put him on the ballot: this along with Gabrieli’s consistent reluctance to criticise the legislature is his biggest political liability.
and saddened!
<
p>
OK, OK, I am neither shocked nor saddened. 😉
<
p>
Let me begin by saying, Bob, Charley, David – this is your forum. You created it and you are entitled to do with it as you wish. I honestly mean that. It takes time and effort to produce what you guys have accomplished.
<
p>
However, personally, I think it would have been far, far better – for the health, quality, and credibility of this forum – for BMG’s editors to have remained neutral in this, and every, Democratic primary. This decision gives the site a less welcoming feel for those 65% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters who, like myself, are not currently supporting Deval Patrick.
<
p>
As a Reilly supporter and frequent BMG contributor, I seriously wonder what value there is in continuing an effort to provide some semblance of balance to the primary debate. I would estimate that 75-80% of BMG’s commentors are Patrick supporters and now its editors are officially backing his campaign. I wouldn’t waste my time going to a Patrick event to convert his supporters, so why should I do it here?
<
p>
IMHO, the best forums for politics and commentary are based around ideas, not individual candidates. I understand the temptation to “get involved” more directly, and perhaps this decisions advances your vision for this site, but I strongly sense it will detract from my experience.
<
p>
Honestly, as I type this, I am only now realizing my profound sense of regret. . .Sorry, guys, but this is what I feel.
Well, I’m sincerely sorry you feel regret. You should know that the paragraph about process was directed most especially at you, FrankSkeffington (who I think is a Gabs supporter?), and other non-Patrick people who contribute a lot to the site. And we all three really meant that, and this issue indeed made us think hard about doing an endorsement at all.
<
p>
Again, it becomes a matter of being honest and transparent. It’s a blog, an opinion site. We started it that way, not as a neutral “institution” or arm of the Dem party … and well, we have opinions, and on this issue we had the same one.
<
p>
So in any event, this is just more grist for the mill; I can’t imagine that the opinionated denizens of the site will turn off their critical thinking and view the endorsement as wisdom handed down from On High.
<
p>
And as for us three, we’ll continue to call it like we see it. This is how we see it.
the great thing about what Senator Ted Stevens calls this “series of tubes” (trust me, you want to click this)] is that barriers to entry are very low.
<
p>
my sense of BDC is that they ARE interested in ideas, and only overstate their case and ignore exculpatory evidence perhaps 20% of the time, which to me is sort of the “normal level” of political discourse….we all do at least that much.
<
p>
it’s true that they ended endorsing a guy who HAPPENS to ALSO have the support of some wack jobs, those who trample the facts perhaps 80% of the time to fit their knee-jerk approach.
<
p>
current BMG feel: 60% reasonable people of varying political stripes who ENJOY rational give and take, who love disagreement as a way to pursue clarity; and 40% annoying people who do NOT enjoy debate but only kool aid….best defined by those who give “high ratings” to stupid comments which happen to agree with their point of view, and “low ratings” to well-reasoned comments which don’t jibe with their point of view.
<
p>
so long as BDC individually denigrate the 40% from time to time, BMG will stay pretty healthy, even with the occasional endorsement.
First, as Charley said above, the value that you and other non-Patrick supporters bring to this site is no different today than it was yesterday. And you in particular have written some of the best user posts we’ve had – I still think your explanation of the tax rollback is the best I’ve seen anywhere, from anyone – and I hope and expect that you’ll keep writing them, and that we’ll keep front-paging them.
<
p>
Second, don’t make the mistake of thinking that only Deval Patrick supporters read this site, and that your efforts are therefore a waste of time. We have literally thousands of unique visitors here every day. How many active commenters are there here? Maybe 50? You may be in the minority of the people who talk a lot, but neither you nor I know who actually reads this stuff while lurking in the background.
<
p>
Third, as we’ve said a couple of times, it’s just a matter of basic honesty to you and the rest of BMG’s readers that you all know where we stand. This is not a newspaper where there’s a wall (however artificial) between the editorial staff and the reporters. It’s just us. Like you said, it’s no big surprise that we’ve decided to back Patrick – we’ve been interested in him for a long, long time. So now you know, and you are better equipped than you were before to evaluate what we write. How can that be a bad thing?
<
p>
So let me reiterate: you and the other non-Patrick backers make this site a better place. You force us to defend our viewpoints, which strengthens them; you bring valuable perspective and insights that we may miss (again, think of the rollback); and you prevent the site from becoming an echo chamber. Furthermore, we will of course strongly back the winner of the Democratic primary, whoever it is, and we assume you’ll do the same. We really are all in this together. I hope you still see it that way – again, the only thing different now is that you know who I’m voting for on Sept. 19. Hey, I’ve known who you’re voting for all along!
So why not blogs?
<
p>
Hell, the Lowell Sun endorsed Bush – TWICE! In a hometown that was very much against him. (They have a grudge against Kerry, plus they are seriously out of touch with most of politics in MA anyway.)
<
p>
And yet, people still read them for local news.
<
p>
Blogs aren’t still like newspapers, either. They often mix advocacy and opinion with some breaking news stories. I mean, did you seriously think Charley was unbiased about the health care initiatives and bills that have come down the pipe?
<
p>
Yeesh. Start your own blog if you’re so annoyed.
Rather than keeping the blog as an objective arena for us to to vent from both the right and left, you unfortunately appear on TV , let the 5 minutes of fame get to your heads, and now show us the shallow side of the blog. Do you know how to say Hari Kari?
I, for one, will keep on reading, and looking for, all the different opinions –
For one who has only been an insignificant foot soldier in political campaigns, what all of you write is educational and fascinating. Please – honest opinions and dialogue, vigorously expressed!
was never intended to be an “objective arena.” I spend way too much time on it for that. ‘Nuff said.
Shoe, meet other foot.
<
p>
Would you be so outraged if they endorsed a candidate you supported? My guess is no. Same goes for MaverickDem.
Just doin’ my job! ;>)
I will endorse one of the three after labor day. I still have an open mind. Deval has a chance, believe it or not.
<
p>
But you guys. WOW. As for your first set of bullet points, those assertions can be said of either three candidates. But it is reasonable for you to point them out. As for the issues – nothing in there that is gonna cause a revolution. And the other two have their own spiels sounding just as good. (not sure about wind power)Still, good points are made.
<
p>
But then to go on about his pilgrimage across the state resulting in
<
p>
“people-powered mandate the likes of which has not been seen on Beacon Hill in a long time.”
<
p>
Jesus Christ. I’m not cursing. I’m asking. Is Deval Jesus Christ?
<
p>
If he is, he is preaching to the converted. You say so yourself,
<
p>
“Patrick campaign stuck with that people-based approach, adopting a strategy that relies heavily on word-of-mouth, one-to-one contact, and personal persuasion. The approach has worked, as seen in Patrick’s performance at the 2005 Lowell convention.”
<
p>
It is scary that these people, if they are successful in pulling off the nomination and then the election over Muffy are considered a “people-powered mandate”
<
p>
“This emphasis on ordinary people…”
You mean ordinary people exactly like you?
<
p>
“In addition to being long on substance, Patrick is an electrifying speaker.”
Is there anything wrong with the guy?
<
p>
Why yes, funny you should ask.
<
p>
“None of this, by the way, means that we think Patrick is right about everything — we don’t. For example, Bob thinks he’s wrong on the income tax rollback, and David thinks he’s wrong on whether the legislature should vote on the anti-marriage amendment.”
And Charlie thinks Deval should where more double breasted suits.
<
p>
Your argument, in my opinion, is ‘isn’t it obvious that Deval is by far the most independent, expereinced, and caring candidate’.
<
p>
No, no it is not obvious. Because it is not true. The others can all make the same claim you make for Deval.
<
p>
You also say that Deval’s campaign is not “romantic or delusional”.
I agree. Deval’s problem is that his local base is. (not his Washington and business buddies) If he doesn’t win it will be because of his local base. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
For the record although I saw the merits in voting for endorsing nobody I did end up instead supporting the Deval endorsement, but the way you guys handled it “The EDITORS of BMG”, and also a Democratic sampling of its readership population was the correct way to hangle endorsements and I think should be used as a model in the future. That said I do hope readership doesnt slip off or that supporters of other campaigns get upset, remember BMG didnt endorse anyone, its editors did, and you can always make your own just as flowry and eloquent endorsement threads and if enough people like it it too can get on the main page.
<
p>
Also DO NOT use this site as a fundraising tool which IMO enabled Kos to become power hungary and corrupt with his newfound status to send money off to his minions and build a power base. BMG should not go that route, instead it should remain a forum for MA based political discussion.
Ernie’s PAC.
I will use BMG to solicit $$$.
Who’s with me?
I think it’s very unlikely that what Kos has been doing would work here. Kos has a large national audience, and he can route money to local candidates that his readers otherwise never would have heard of. That model doesn’t apply here – everyone who reads this site knows who’s running for Governor. Having said that we’re backing Patrick, it doesn’t seem odd to me to put up a fundraising link to his site; obviously, folks who aren’t interested will ignore it. We’ll do the same for the Democratic nominee, whoever he is.
A thousand reasons why it won’t work.
Short guys should not go double-breasted. Strictly for tall guys like Letterman.
<
p>
You’ll notice that David’s and Bob’s stated differences with Patrick are on procedural, not substantive grounds; David thinks that the legislature should vote on the anti-marriage amendment; Bob thinks the Gov and lege should follow the stated will of the people in instituting the tax break.
<
p>
OK, so here’s where I stand on that: Basically I’m bored silly by “politics of politics” stuff — you know, 15% at the convention, that kind of thing. I really hate it. So I usually avoid it, as far as I can. I’m pro-marriage and anti-rollback.
<
p>
I suppose if you put a gun to my head, I’d say that David and Bob are both right on procedure, and it’s up to “progressives” — or whomever — to do a better job at convincing people of their case. But as regards the rollback especially: If you voted for the rollback in 2000 but vote for the same legislators and Patrick in 2006 — aren’t you sending a mixed signal as a voter? And that’s where we are. We should have Clean Elections, but we also elected enough people to cover Finneran’s ass in scotching the whole deal. I mean, who’s unresponsive in that case?
<
p>
And so, I leave you with my signature —
Gentlemen Editors – is a ‘Contribute’ button which redirects you to the Patrick Credit Card page an in-kind donation?
<
p>
As I understand the editorial exception for bloggers, you must behave like a newspaper – and even the Globular Ones don’t put a footnote on their endorsemnts saying SEND MONEY NOW!
<
p>
A link to a page – which eventually hits you up for money – is commonplace. But a direct ‘contribute’ button on a third-party site? I haven’t seen that before. Even the Mass GOP web site only has donations for the PARTY, not the candidates.
<
p>
It MAY be perfectly kosher. But maybe check?
<
p>
Link
<
p>
It’s a fair question, though. I may check in to see whether they’ve updated their views in light of changing technology.
seriously.
Reason for fund raisers and get to togethers.
Chicks man, chicks.
Why, Michael? Why, Why!
Why do you mock me?
He didn’t give you a 3 for your comment. He gave you a 3 for your life.
that was pretty funny when I typed it, but I could see where it would be construed as mean spirited. So, before I’m admonished, I apologize.
Because I would have retorted “Fuck You! You Asshole, Kool Aid Drinkin’, unable to think for yourself, pretentious, mother fucker.”
<
p>
But you apologized. So I did not.
Try not to hurt yourself over there, okay buddy?
I find your language to be offensive and crude. It is out of place on a political blog and completely out of step with nearly all the other posters on this site, who may disagree with each other, but for the most part are civilized and respectful.
<
p>
Your reference to “chicks” is offensive and sexist, imho.
<
p>
Just my opinion, Ernie. Don’t get too bent out of shape by one person’s opinion.
<
p>
While I’m at it, let me explain why I gave you a “0” for another comment here. Foul language. Utterly offensive. To me. Maybe funny to others. But not to me. Just one person’s opinion.
<
p>
Now, maybe you can explain to me what you found “worthless” about my comment downstream.
Why do you sound like you have a stick up your ass?
<
p>
Your blog is more like one a stalker posts. It is seriously strange, dude. Deval, deval, deval, deval,deval, deval.
Actions are what matter.
<
p>
What’s your opinion of this action my sanctamonious friend?
David, you can take the case right up the ladder to the Supreme Court.
You will become a blog cult figure.
<
p>
Do it!
David – the Blogosphere’s newest citizen:
<
p>
http://www.ahmadinej…
<
p>
The President of Iran! Click on the Canadian flag icon if it comes up in Arabic.
<
p>
Hey, Ernie! He got polls, just like you!
While we’re giving out accolades and endorsements, I would like to mention that EB3 has earned the Rollbiz’s Most Improved Poster Award.
<
p>
We had a rough start, Ernie…But you have quickly moved from my least favorite posters to one of my Top 5. You’re a riot, and there’s usually a nugget of truth hidden within your constantly critical approach. Huzzah!!!
Don’t go Muskie on me , Ernie
I pay for it. I registered the domain names. How could it not be “personal”? What else would it be?
<
p>
Anyway, to set your mind at rest, I talked with OCPF today, and they gave me the green light. Woohoo!
<
p>
I think we’re in the clear on this one.
Meeting.Tonight. Charley’s House. I’ll bring a lasagna.
the original post I’ll weigh in on that to say: “good for you, guys!”. Hopefully BMG readers and posters will make up their own minds even with an endorsement out there. Maybe it’s easier for me to feel this way ‘cuz I’ve been leaning toward Deval Patrick and signed up for his campaign e-alerts many months ago. I enjoyed talking with Deval at a couple health reform events over the past year and was impressed by his understanding of the interrelated issues inherent in achieving fundamental health system reform (which is what we need).
<
p>
To expand on the health reform topic brought up in this BMG original post: “He came out in support of the [ACT!] health care ballot initiative that became the basis of the more ambitious House proposal, which eventually became the core of the new health care law”.
<
p>
Folks should know that the new health care law (“Chapter 58”) is not as positive as it is made out to be, and it actually has more potentially harmful black holes than swiss cheese. (not that the holes in swiss cheese are harmful…I don’t want the dairy industry coming after me! The cheese reference is from a quote of mine in a recent State House News Service article on MA health reform.
<
p>
The new law could actually do a lot of harm which is why reading the various critiques on Chapter 58 is important if you want to think and/or talk intelligently about the new law and its ongoing implementation.
<
p>
When I spoke with Deval he did acknowledge that the ACT! petition and similar reform plans in the legislature at the time (e.g. the House plan) fell far short of needed health system reforms. I asked if he was familiar with the Health Care Constitutional Amendment and its role and value related to fundamental health system reform work in the state. Deval said yes, and that he could get behind the Health Care Amendment because of its merits in establishing a shared commitment to each other as a Commonwealth to ensure comprehensive affordable health care to all. I was psyched to hear it at the time and asked him to consider talking about it publicly…maybe he will after winning the Primary on Sept. 19.
<
p>
Wow! I turn my back for a coupla days, and look what happens!
<
p>
I’m now back from the beach and ready to work nonstop (ADAT) for the next 5 weeks.
<
p>
I love the way you guys did this. A very well-reasoned and articulate (and, of course accurate) rationale for endorsing. As you know, I urged this course of action, and I think the quality of the debate on BMG will be the better for it.
<
p>
For those who are interested in an early (now somewhat dated but still quite relevant) endorsement that I helped work on, see the PDM website or this document.
Then why was he king of the hill during the convention?
Because of encouraging thousands of people, including myself, to check in to the caucus process. It’s very simple, and has little to do with the ‘establishment’.
It’s been so quiet here over the last few days, I’d almost forgotten you guys had endorsed!
<
p>
😉