First of all, I know the site has endorsed Patrick, which is fine. I know I’m gonna get at least a good response as to why I should vote for Deval. Great. But I’m hoping for the same from someone who is supporting Chris Gabrielli.
Another thing, is I *know* all the negatives. I know about both of their lack of experience, I know about Gabrielli’s wealth, I know about Deval’s corporate years, blah blah blah. If you’re a Patrick supporter, I don’t want you to tell me why *not* to vote for Gabs, I want you to tell me *why* I should be voting for Deval. And vice-versa.
I’m truly undecided, and I have to make a decision in the next few weeks, and I certainly want to do anything I can to prevent yet another Republican governor of the Commonwealth. So, Gabrieli and Patrick supporters, tell me why you’re supporting your candidate.
Thanks in advance.
Why not Reilly?
Too ‘moderate’, too insider.
But, honestly, Reilly’s brand of ‘moderation’ is mostly being wishy-washy. Just on gay marriage, how many different sides of his mouth did he talk out of?
Someone asked me to write down my first impressions when I heard Mr. Patrick speak in Pittsfield in May 2005. Among the thoughts that I recorded at that time:
<
p>
<
p>
Over the past few months, I realized that Deval’s experience in the private sector will also be a tremendous asset on Beacon Hill. The sad story of the Big Dig CA/Tastrophe has demonstrated the lack of fiscal and administrative competence in the corner office over the past twelve years. As an attorney, Deval has specialized in assisting corporations when they have major problems to solve. He brings specific skills to the management of a company that has gotten off track (a good fit for the Commonwealth’s 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.
<
p>
Massachusetts needs this kind of a Harry Truman Democrat, with an understanding of government as well as the private sector, an innate instinct for competence and a willingness to confront the Beacon Hill culture. Deval Patrick should be our next Governor.
If you actually think “Massachusetts needs (a) Harry Truman Democrat, with an understanding of government as well as the private sector…” and that Deval Patrick would fit the bill you don’t know much about Harry Truman … or Deval Patrick.
<
p>
Truman, a former farmer/shirt salesman, may have parlayed his military connections into a legislative career (and became an accidental president who bumped along the path to ignominity until he went against George Marshall’s advise and recognized the state of Israel) but he was more comfortable being in the background than the limelight – see Marshall Plan. His strength was in being able to break away from the platforms that gave him his start – ie Kansas City pols, the US Senate.
<
p>
Patrick is a shameless self-promoter, whose corporate experience shows that he quickly becomes co-opted by the very entities he allegedly reforms (see Coke, United, Texaco.)
<
p>
Deval Patrick does not have the principles to be favorably compared with Harry Truman.
<
p>
Besides, Truman was elected by reaching out to persons of various political beliefs. Patrick only draws support from the left.
Patrick only draws support from the left? Please take a look at this recent poll. Especially study the ideology section. Sure, Patrick does very well in the liberal column, but he’s also very competitive among the moderates. (These two categories comprise 85% of the respondents.) The curious thing is that over half (52%) of that massive conservative legion of respondents (11%) would vote for Mr. Gabrieli. (That big block nets him 6% of the likely primary voters in September, and he will need every one of them to win second place. đŸ˜‰
And you’re likely to see what the Patrick fans are excited about. I’ve been for Patrick since an appearance he did back in November, which I blogged about at the time.
<
p>
He can give a speech, but the more important impression for me was of someone who listens to people, makes decisions, and then respects those on the other side. I can see him working with the legislature to get some good things done. (The idea of a governor from outside the Boston political world is a good one, even if we have a terrible example of it at the moment.)
<
p>
I also think he will run the most effective campaign against Healey. It will be important for the Democratic candidate to differentiate himself from the legislature. Patrick’s opponents have argued that Patrick will have a harder time doing this because of his position on the tax rollback, which is a point worth considering. But I think that to the extent he can present his style and personality to the voters, he will look less like a traditional pol than the other two. (Apparently we can look at ads at devalpatrick.tv soon?)
Gabrieli isn’t too hard to track down, either, so why not see both? Hi style is a real contrast with Deval — he’s a lot more wonkish, and not as charismatic — and it’s interesting to see what each candidate is worth talking about.
<
p>
Also important is getting the feel for an event — you see firsthand the style and competence of the campaign. Does it seem to be a crowd of true believers grooving to their favorite lines, or is the campaign reaching out to the moderate voters who decide elections in this state? Does the campaign seem to be the smooth machine that will be needed to beat Healey, or does it take them 20 minutes to figure out how to get the microphone to work?
<
p>
There will be others here to pitch for Gabrieli far better than me, but of the two candidates you mentioned, I think Gabrieli would be the better governor — though he is not the better politician.
Here’s a pitch I made for Gabrieli a while back. It’s not exactly impassioned, but I can tell you after meeting Chris and volunteering at some events for him that I am very excited about the prospect of a smart, pragmatic progressive leading the Commonwealth. He has the strongest leadership resume of the three candidates. And here’s a recent indication that he is our best hope to reclaim the governorship.
I like Cannoneo have had the pleasure of meeting Chris. I have been a committed volunteer ever since. What a great guy with a dry sense of humor. But more importantly, Chris is a smart man with his priorities straight. I think that this anecdote will tell you about the man. When Chris was in his third year of medical school at Harvard, his father’s business was in danger of failing. Apparently, Chris’dad was a brilliant man but he really wasn’t a good businessman. Consequently, Chris made the tough decision to leave medical school in order to work at his family’s business. Through hard work and wise business decisions, Chris turned around the business making it very successful. When asked recently by an interviewer about this decision to leave medical school and how hard it was for him, Chris said that he thought it was tougher on his parents and has a track record of getting great results.
I just wanted to mention that Patrick’s corporate experience provides him with a working knowledge of the investment-state regulation collision.
<
p>
Patrick brings with him an ability to navigate one of the Commonwealth’s most notorious obstacles to more jobs and economic growth.
Once I read your question, it made sense to me. Can’t wait to see the answer…
I’ve been using this name for years on various political boards and lists and such.
<
p>
It started years ago when I was on an atheist/agnostic board. It was unmoderated, so we’d often have the invasion of the Bible Thumpers trying to ‘convert’ us. As a joke, every time one of them started quoting piles of the bible, I started quoting Springsteen lyrics. Which went to “I don’t need your steenking religion, I’m a proud member of the Church of Bruce.” Which stuck đŸ™‚
I am a HUGE Bruce Springsteen fan. I hope that you will support Chris but even if you do not you’re OK in my book. “Poor men want to be rich, rich men want to be king and the king ain’t satisfied ’til he rules everything.” Bruce Springsteen/Badlands
and I’m glad that you have narrowed your choice down to the 2 you mentioned.
<
p>
So far I would say you are on the right track.
<
p>
I am a Patrick supporter because I agree with him on the issues and because he inspires me to participate in the process. I like his reliance on the grassroots, his belief that re- engaging people in the process can make a difference.
<
p>
I don’t want to say anything negative about the others to make my candidate look “better”.
<
p>
I strongly believe that the major choices all 3 have made in what road they are on to achieve victory says it all:
<
p>
<
p>
For me Patrick’s trust in his grassroots support is important for the process of government. It reaffirms where ultimately power resides – with us the voter.
I guess this is the time to ask what “grassroots” means, exactly. I hear terms like “grassroots” and “people power” all the time on blogs, but I’m not clear what this means.
<
p>
I like Patrick, but is it true that the support for each candidate is so clear, as you suggest? After all, Gabs has a grassroots campaign, as does Reilly. All three draw from “people power” or else nobody would support them. (For example, the SurveyUSA poll and others indicate that Reilly gets more of his support from lower-income persons, who make up a backbone of our party).
<
p>
I’m leaning towards Gabs at this point, though certainly Patrick (or Reilly) would be fine as well. I just don’t know if it’s true that somehow Patrick has cornered the market on “grassroots” support when so many good Dems are working for/supporting all three candidates.
The way I interpret “grassroots” it means back to old-school, power-to-the-people, pavement-pounding, palm-pressing, telephone-toting (ok, that last one’s a stretch) campaigning; it means hoping for the best rather than settling for mediocrity; it means word-of-mouth more than slick media buys; it means from the bottom up rather than from the top down; it means substance over shtick; it means home-grown over store-bought; it means connecting with individuals rather than depending on political machinery, well-heeled special interests, or a big budget to get out the vote.
<
p>
You’re right that every candidate has to rely on grassroots to some extent. I also don’t doubt that any one of Reilly, Gabrieli, or Patrick has a dedicated network of supporters. However, I think Deval has clearly made the grassroots the foundation of his campaign from day he announced that he would run for office.
<
p>
The tagline says, “Together we can.” And the point he makes time and again is this: This campaign is not just about Deval Patrick; this is a people’s campaign; it’s about our problems, our goals, our dreams, our hope and vision for a better Commonwealth.
<
p>
And I think from the way Deval’s message seems to resonate with people, that his people powered politics is the real deal.
Your first paragraph could be the working definition of grassroots.
but I’m just not convinced. “Pavement-pounding, palm-pressing…”? All campaigns do this. And what exactly is “hoping for the best rather than settling for mediocrity” mean? Do most campaigns “settle for mediocrity”? And all the candidates, at least in this campaign, are clearly concerned with “our problems, our goals, etc.” The rest of what you say just sounds much more like florid rhetoric rather than substance.
<
p>
I’m not criticizing you, just challenging a bit. I noticed three people gave you a “6” rating, and statements like yours are stated on blogs all the time. But I really am not seeing a difference between what (for example) Patrick’s campaign is doing versus Gabrieli’s or Reilly’s. Patrick is a good candidate, but stating that Patrick does all of what you claim, while the others do not, is quite a stretch.
<
p>
The fashionable phrase on blogs nowadays is “people powered politics”, but until I get a solid (not rhetorical) answer about how this differs from what people have been doing for decades, then I’m not going to be convinced it’s anything new.
Each supporter, especially Delegate supporters of which I was one, are challenged,urged,cajoled, being asked repeatedly to actively go door to door for Deval.
<
p>
You are thanked for your monetary contribution yes, but honestly I have never seen such emphasis on grassroots politicking by any candidate ever and I have participated as a volunteer in many campaigns.
<
p>
Don’t like door-door? The campaign will direct you to phone banking opportunities or ways to participate in visibilities. The point is- do something. I have given money but I get the sense that it is my grassroots participation that is more valued. This campaign make me feel that participation in the process of democracy is what will effect change. That it makes a fundamental difference and it can balance another candidate’s spending millions of dollars. And that ultimately is empowering to think that individuals’ participation in the process possibly can beat back a juggernaut of spending.
<
p>
The ultimate David v. Goliath –
<
p>
I know which side I’m on in that contest.
<
p>
And in this one.
The preponderance of union endorsements, the ranks of machine politicians backing Patrick, the insider campaign staff. Interesting.
isn’t such a good bet after all. Grassroots campaigns are exciting and inspirational, but they rarely succeed…mainly because you can only reach a relatively small part of the voting population that way. The Lamont campaign was an exceptional case, and it was uncomforably close considering how many democrats are opposed to the war in Iraq.
And the “Kool Aid Gang” (aka volunteers) realize this and have been busting their humps to do the groundwork. No one said it wouldn’t be hard work.
<
p>
The cynicism/defeatism in your post pains me. “Realism” is only real if you’ve already given up.
I’m just saying, in this day and age you have to have a good media campaign. Deval needs to get some good TV spots if he wants to get his message out to people beyond those who see him in person.
The perfect campaign is an insider campaign that feels and looks like grassroots.
<
p>
Take Howard Dean. I would cross hell in an orange hat to ring doorbells for that man, but we had a good touch of establishment. Sure, there was the inside jokes, the cardboard cutouts, the baseball bat gimmick, all fronted by the iconic, delightfully idiosyncratic campaign manager. But also there was Al Gore, there was SEIU and AFSCME, there was Steve Grossman. The end strategy was one of “inevitability” — two quick victories that would unlock the insider money.
<
p>
You mention Lamont, but he had strong union support as well, and Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters are not outsiders. I like them, but they are not outsiders. But he has a great grassroots aura.
<
p>
Same with Deval. He’s got a preponderance of endorsements, and is managed by John Walsh, hardly a wet-behind-the-ears wunderkind (and yes, John, I know you read this and I like you, but you are, well, establishment at this point). But we still get imagies of young kids waving signs, Deval going to little coffee hours (which he doesn’t really do anymore), and bam — grassroots.
<
p>
Most of the time, it’s much more fertilizer, if you get my drift.
Well, we probably crossed paths somewhere. Good observations on the nature (or lack of nature) of grassroots.
<
p>
So where’s Trippi now? Oh yeah……..
I couldn’t remember his name while I was writing the post. How quickly we replace our old gods with new ones…
<
p>
I was in Cedar Rapids and Nashua. You?
I’ve said before on this blog that one of Patrick’s big strengths, in my opinion, is that he doesn’t come across as just another Democratic insider hack, which is why I think Harshbarger and O’Brien lost the last times (which is not to say that they WERE insider hacks, I don’t think they were, but just that they were able to be painted that way). If Democrats are going to win this time, they need to answer the argument that we need a “split government” on Beacon Hill to keep those insider hacks from running away with our tax money. Fallacies of that argument aside, I think it’s a big part of why we lost the O’Brien and Harshbarger races. So there are two ways to answer the question posed by the “split government” argument. The first is to run against the party itself, a la Lieberman and, yes, Reilly, the second is to present yourself and your positions as uniquely your own while still being unequivocally a Democrat, which is what Deval does. Just cruising through his web site, watching his speaches, looking at his grassroots organizing, looking at some of the contrarian positions he’s taken (pro-Cape Wind, anti-tax rollback in favor of more money for cities and towns and property tax relief)makes it abundantly clear that this guy is NOT an insider hack. So I support him because I support his progressive positions, I respect and looove his grassroots focus (I’m a precinct captain), and because I think he can win.
Frankly, on the issues, we’re really talking differences of minutes, not degrees between the candidates.
<
p>
I was on board with Deval long before Gabrieli entered the race, and support DP primarily because I agree with his vision of where Massachusetts can be, and what we need to do collectively in order to get there. From same-sex marriage, to education and economic development, to his strong stance in favor of the Cape Wind project, to his opposition of the income tax rollback, I’ve found Deval to take well-reasoned and principled stands on the issues that matter to Massachusetts citizens.
<
p>
However, the one thing in my mind that really sets Deval apart from any of the other candidates is his leadership quality. As the man says in the convention video (and now the “Leader” TV ad), you can tell Deval is a leader — his integrity, intelligence, passion, and ability to bring people on board are truly palpable. It comes through loud and clear when you hear him speak — not just a boilerplate delivered to a packed room, but particularly one-on-one discussing the issues that matter to individual voters.
<
p>
Charisma seems to be a rare quality among our elected officials, and therefore tends to be given short shrift by the politicos and wonks who think that politics can be reduced to sound-bytes, TV ads, and opinion polling — all things that can be measured and analyzed. But charisma DOES matter. Even if you have all the right ideas, a real leader needs to have that extra quality that gets people to rally around a cause, and get them on board with the vision and the mission. (This probably accounts for the Kool-Aid envy expressed by some here at BMG.)
<
p>
People really do respond to someone who not only has a strong vision but also the ability to share that vision and inspire others. Clearly we see from the phenomenal response Deval has received thus far. And it’s DP supporters are not just a bunch of whacked out left-wing liberals. People from all walks of life are responding to Deval’s “politics of hope” and understand his passion for getting Massachusetts back on the right path, where it belongs. To do that we need more than just an ordinary Governor, and to my mind Deval Patrick has really distinguished himself from the rest of the field.
<
p>
Deval Patrick, as Robert Reich said quite some time ago, really is “no ordinary leader,” and this is why I support him as strongly as I do.
And I thank you all for your answers.
<
p>
Now, I have one big huge issue with Patrick. So I want to see what his supporters think about it.
<
p>
I think being against the tax rollback is going to kill him in the general. I can see tons of voters who might go for someone like Gabrielli that would vote for Healey over Patrick purely because of the tax issue (and my parents are two of them). This is the one big thing that worries me about Deval. It’s not that I disagre with him, mind you, it’s that I know I live in a state where Barbara freakin’ Anderson has a following, and 40% of the voters voted to eliminate the income tax altogether.
<
p>
So, that’s my problem. As someone above said, Patrick and Gabrielli aren’t all that far apart on the issues. Someone brought up charisma, and I agree that Patrick has lots more of it. But will that counter the one issue that might kill him (and the one issue where Gabrieli may have a stance that’s more palatable)?
<
p>
I dunno. I’m still thinking :-).
I realize there is some concern about “electablity,” but I just as soon vote for a guy on principle, electability be damned. I’m tired of fear-based politics — and that includes “I can’t vote for him because he’ll scare people away, because people don’t like taxes.” On the other hand I’ll be happy to vote for someone who I strongly believe is on the right side of the issues themselves. If more people did that, maybe we wouldn’t have to put up with such mediocrity in public office.
<
p>
As for the tax rollback in particular, I think it’s a matter of how well Deval makes his case to the public on the issue. (He’ll have to improve upon the first two TV ads, that’s for sure.) Taxes are a touchy issue, but I think this is where Deval’s charisma comes into play: He strongly believes that the tax rollback is the wrong thing to do and can make a compelling case for why he thinks so. He connects with people; that’s important.
<
p>
Obviously not everyone is going to agree with him — and a lot depends on how well he delivers the message — but it worked with folks on Cape Wind, and there’s no reason it can’t work on the tax rollback, too.
Patrick can neutralize the Tax Rollback issue in two ways:
<
p>
1. Clearly articulating the relative effects of the income tax versus the property tax. Put it all in REAL DOLLARS for the average taxpayer. How many teachers did your school district cut? How many police? How many towns have had 2 1/2 overrides in the last four years, while the average taxpayer would save less than $130 on the rollback? This can and should be done in 30-second ads.
2. His is a principaled position, based on an honest look at the facts and not the prevailing political winds. For far too long we’ve been looking for leaders to tell us what we wanted to hear rather than what we needed to hear, simply over the notion of “electability.”
so I can’t tell you what will happen in the general.
<
p>
(This is about Patrick’s unwillingness to pledge to roll back the income tax, right? If he were running to raise it, I’d agree he was not electable.)
<
p>
What I’d like to see, personally, is for Healey to trot out the old tax stuff (likely) and for Patrick to nail her on property taxes (who knows, but it could happen).
<
p>
(The income tax, after all, has been steady, but the property tax hs been increasing steadily for the past 15 years.)
<
p>
I believe that rolling back the income tax is a proxy for trust and competence in general, issues that Patrick addresses very well.
<
p>
Having done so, he can say, I’m not going to raise the income tax, and I’m not going to waste your money, and that will lower the temperature on the rollback to where it ought to be.
<
p>
To me, this is as likely as the idea that either of the other candidates could prevail against the “we need someone to balance out the legislature” theme that Healey will deploy against them.
<
p>
But, who knows? If you think Patrick has damaged himself beyond the posibility of victory in 2006, then maybe you should back someone else.
that Healey will use the ‘balance out the leg’ meme against whoever the Dem nominee is. And I think that, for people that will vote for Healey primarily for that reason, it won’t matter who the Dem nominee is. Really, if your main concern is ‘balancing out the leg’ then you’ve really already decided on a candidate and it really doesn’t matter if the Dems nominate Bruce Springsteen :-). However, while I think those people exist, I think it’s a pretty small number. I think it’s a fallback for a greater number of people–but those people can be turned.
<
p>
As for your other thing, no, I don’t think Deval has damaged himself beyond the possibility. I wanted to know how people thought he’d handle it. I did get some good answers. Hey, it’s gonna be a huge issue–especially since it’s a double-issue cause Healey can pull out the ‘the people of MA voted for it!’ line.
<
p>
My problem, I’ll admit, is that I tend to be cynical about MA voters. Prop 2 1/2, the tax rollback, the 40% voting for elimination of the income tax, the progressive income tax going down to defeat, and the fact that lots of people in this state care what Barbara freakin’ Anderson thinks about anything…this has made me a cynic.
<
p>
An out-of-state friend of mine was commenting on the overwhelming Democratic tilt to the leg. “Geez, you guys vote for a lot of liberals out there,” she said. I agreed. “OK, but why do you keep voting for Republican governors?” she asked. “To make sure there’s never enough money for all the liberal programs the representatives we voted for like.” Like I said, I’m a cynic :-).
<
p>
So, while I don’t think Deval has damaged himself beyond repair, I do think it’s something he’s definitely going to have to work his way around. You folks did give me some good ideas of how he might go about that.