So, after seeing Chris Gabrieli’s new Cape Wind position, I assumed he no longer had questions about the leasing of the land. Likewise, I assumed that he felt that the state has gotten a good deal. I had to assume these things because there was no further explanation from the candidate.
There’s only one problem: nothing has changed about the Cape Wind proposal other than Gabrieli’s new, unqualified position on the matter. No new leasing conditions. No “good deal.”
Which leads to the $64,000 question: Why did Chris Gabrieli abandon his qualified support for Cape Wind in favor of his new position?
Well, it’s possible that he hasn’t. Perhaps he opted for a simplified version in his TV commercial, which makes sense from a presentation perspective. Simple is generally better. However, if this is the case, it also has the effect of misleading voters who are otherwise unaware of the remaining qualifications.
Another possibility is that recent developments in the Cape Wind project have placed Chris Gabrieli’s mind at ease. The only problem is that, to my knowledge, there have been no recent developments in the Cape Wind project. Everything is status quo. . .except Gabrieli’s new position.
There is a third possibility: polling. A recently reported poll showed strong support for Cape Wind. Additionally, at least one politico thought Chris Gabrieli’s sudden support for casino gambling was poll-driven, so perhaps Gabrieli has followed the prevailing winds in this intance too.
Of course, all of this could be easily explained, if Chris Gabrieli took the time to discuss his new position. But, as I suggested in a post last week, Chris Gabrieli isn’t exactly investing much time and energy into policy positions this campaign seasons.
Absent a better explanation from the Gabrieli camp, the possibilities are not very flattering. Whatever the reason for Gabrieli’s Cape Wind shift or non-shift, the voters at least deserve an explanation to accompany the commercial.
You have tried to paint a picture where, no matter what decision (including none) he made he is wrong. Nice try.
<
p>
How about he did more digging into the proposal and got his questions answered.
<
p>
FYI – no inside information or affiliation to Gabrieli, just the same common sense reasoning most voters will use when the see the commericial (if they even remember previous stance)
I clearly stated that Gabrieli may have answered his concerns. But given the lack of recent developments in the project and his lack of an explanation, we can’t say with certainly that they were addressed. Given that those concerns were quite specific, I’m interested in how the leasing/”good deal” were achieved in time for the commercial.
Sorry Mav, I don’t see a shift here. I think most thoughtful candidates that are for something should always consider the implications for the tax-payer (i.e. cost side of the equation).
<
p>
Gabrieli has consistently been for this project unless the costs were prohibitive and that position significantly pre-dates the poll that you referenced. That he happens to be on the more popular side of this one is potentially good for him and possibly a problem for Reilly – who happens to be against the Cape Wind project. Best, SSG
But how have Gabrieli’s lease concerns and pledge to get a good deal for the state been addressed? That’s my question.
the $60,000 question.
<
p>
Thought you might want to update your post….
<
p>
The $64,000 Question is becoming how much longer can the Reilly Campaign continue before it implodes?
I was four grand short. And I’ve seen the movie “Quiz Show” at least three times.
<
p>
Today’s big story aside, I’m still interested in how Gabrieli got from his qualified support to his unqualified support.
I think MaverickDem’s basic point is in this instance right. And I think everyone here pretty much knows it. Is the disparity between the web text and the TV ad momentous or scandalous? No. Is it likely to affect the election? Hardly. But MD is noting two things that have distinguished Gabrieli’s campaign. First, G. has repeatedly tried to position himself in between Patrick and Reilly. Second, he’s taken calculatedly fuzzy or evasive positions on a few hot-button issues. (Case in point, beyond Cape Wind: Does the legislature owe us a vote on Gay Marriage?)
<
p>
I don’t intend this as a big slam. I think Chris is a decent and very smart man who would be an (at least) pretty good Governor. If my guy loses, I will regret the missed opportunity, but I’ll work energetically for Chris’s election, knowing that the difference with Healy is one worth fighting for (something I’m considerably lesss sure of in the case of MavDem’s preferred guy, Reilly.) But even while continuing to have that view, I can recognize the patterns MavDem is talking about. Surely the rest of you can, too.
Mav…Read the quote you pasted into your post again…Gabrieli said :”….I believe I can”…so while you are making assumptions based on his quote, I think it is safe to assume he meant he could get a good deal for taxpayers when he was Governor…(as he has nothing to do with such dealmaking responsibilities as a private citizen)…
<
p>
As for following the poll numbers, every legitimate poll since last January that asked statewide voters the Cape Wind question has shown a very decided favorable for the project..even on the Cape itself, poll numbers favored the project. Most Mass politicians who liked the project were reticent about saying so publically because our US Senator was carrying the flag to stop it…DSC Chair Johnston even sent out an email to the State Committee urging Democrats to back Sen. Kennedy’s opposition effort (“We owe Sen. Kennedy our support. He has done so much for Massachusetts. This is very important to him.”…to which one contrary Democrat had the audacity to respond: “I am very grateful to Sen. Kennedy but, do we owe him all of Nantucket Sound?”) So if Gabrieli, as you want us to believe, is supporting Cape Wind because of poll numbers, he would have done so with public support back in February…it is a very safe issue to be for…
to address the position shift. (Or, if Gabrieli’s position remains the same, to explain his remaining concerns.)
<
p>
“My questions about the leasing of the land have been addressed because. . .”
<
p>
“The taxpayers have received a good deal because. . .”
<
p>
It’s that simple. If it couldn’t be addressed in a 30-second ad spot, then the campaign could easily release a statement.