That campaign has been sorry and distasteful. Reilly began this race assuming he’d be the nominee for Governor–his slogan could have been, “It’s My Turn, Now”– and that no person or event was going to stop him. He seems never to have quite gotten over that sense of entitlement, or to have recovered from watching a grassroots campaign pass him in the polls, and this has fueled an ugly politics of resentment. His performances have been marked by repeated, hostile, yet ultimately empty attacks on Deval Patrick, attacks that involve expressly articulated resentment about his wealth. All of this is distilled in his repeated use of “Taj Deval.” (And anyone who wants to defend that line of attack, please first explain how you’ve always found Kennedy and Kerry undeseving of office, due to their wealth, and how you want to see the same line of attack on Chris Gabrieli.) But the campaign’s collusion with Ray Rogers takes all this to a new level.
Ironically, in the same issue of the Globe in which the Reilly camp digs in its heels, you can read a long report by Brian Mooney on the history of Deval Patrick’s work in corporate America. It’s not a puff piece: Mooney interviews people who worked with or fought against Deval as he did his corporate legal work, and the story doesn’t suggest that everything Deval has ever done is utterly beyond any criticism. But it does make clear to all what people who know Deval have said all along: it’s time for people looking for some kind of scandal or red flag about his candidacy to concede that there’s no there there. Reilly needs to find something more substantive to campaign on. Meanwhile, I’m curious to see if another news cycle will force him to rethink his sense that campaigns go better with Killer Coke.
It’s possible that Reilly’s campaign was somehow involved- but I’m not going to accept charges like that without hard evidence, especially when the ‘reporter’ is Joan Vennochi, the same psycho newspaper troll that made a slew of childish attacks in the Globe against John Kerry in 2004. I expect anything she says to be a butchered, doctored, heavily biased version of the truth.
There are quotes from Guarino that leave no doubt about the the Reilly campaign’s desire to assist in the Swift Boating of another candidate (but only “at arms length” of course).
<
p>
I don’t think there’s any way to “varnish the truth” with what was printed in her piece. Names, dates and detailed plans for the operation in an email are skeptic proof.
<
p>
As to what she did or didn’t do to Kerry, well there was a lot to make fun of in that fiasco as well. I congratulate journalists who dig for information (or have good sources) as long as what they write is accurate. In this instance, Joan Vennochi earned herself some serious journalistic points.
(if any are false, I’m sure we’ll know that soon) but I am worried about the context she presents them in. Joan’s shown herself to be terribly biased, so I have a hard time reading anything by her without a (large) grain of salt.
She’s supposed to be biased. But, for that matter, she’s still a good journalist and CERTAINLY isn’t afraid to chastise democrats or speak honestly about Republicans (heck, she even defended Kerry Healey in yesterday’s Sunday Globe).
your attack on Joan Vennochi is undeserved. She is a quality columnist and reporter. I don’t always agree with her point of view but she works hard to understand an issue and get the facts – especially about what is happening just below the surface.
BlueMassGroup already has a Vennochi groupie. Thank you very much
She wrote childish smears of John Kerry (http://www.boston.co…)
and then wrote childish smears (http://www.bostonpho…) about Dan Kennedy and Joe Conason when they ripped her apart for it (http://www.salon.com… & http://www.bostonpho…)
Links to dead articles? Conveniently stored links? Me thinks we’ve got the PR staff on line. Poor thing. Someone has to stand up to those big bad journalists who do their job. Have you figured out who jumped ship or identified the mole? How are things going there — late night meetings to determine how to come out of this? Who’s been called in to assist? Or, are they just telling you to do whatever you can to save the day?
PR staff? Wow. I knew you were wacky, lolorb, but I didn’t know you were a goddamned lunatic. I had the links ready because I just went over this bullshit on hubpolitics. IF the links are broken, just google it. This shit isn’t exactly hard to find.
<
p>
you WISH you were important enough to have a gubernatorial campaign pr team waste their time with a delusional blogger like you.
personal attacks can come in handy (as long as it’s at arms length though). They can sometimes serve to refocus, can’t they? What else have you got? I’m thoroughly amused, as apparently Bob is too. What’s the next option?
…the truth is that Joan Venocchi spends most of her time wagging her fingers on the op-ed pages of the Globe, telling Democrats how bad they’re f*cking up, both on the local and national level.
<
p>
Joan Venocchi’s latest op-ed, crack-reporter “scoop” was handed to her by somebody who got ahold of Guarino’s e-mails, and faxed them to her. All she did was type it all up.
<
p>
She’s a typical example of the useless, establishment-liberal, “good-guy” pundits that Bob Somerby shoots down on a daily basis over at DailyHowler.com.
Joan should have ignored Guarino’s emails? Hmmm. All she did was type it up. Hmmm. Four posts all beginning on August 13th? Hmmm. Typical establishment liberal? Hmmm.
<
p>
I think I get the campaign drift. Good to know. Anything else you can give us? We’re all anxiously awaiting that announcement about ethics, morals and legalities. When will we get to hear the statement? Have you sent anything out to the media yet? Can we get an advance on the press release? Is anyone getting fired? Who? Come on, give us a little.
…Joan “My-Job-is-to-write-op-eds-telling-Democrats everything-they’re-doing-wrong” Venocchi’s “crack reporting” skillz.
<
p>
Just because Joan Venocchi wrote a column that got you rubbing your thighs with glee. Whatta “crack” reporter Venocchi is! She sat back while somebody fed her Guarino’s ill-gotten e-mails, and dutifully typed up the story that SOMEBODY wanted told.
<
p>
You have a short memory. Why don’t you go read back through Joan “I-sell-out-the-Democrats-every-chance-I-get” Venocchi’s “good-guy” columns from the ’04 Presidential race, and then get back to me?
<
p>
You are a Democrat, aren’t you?
See response above. Good one. Rhetorical question disguising personal attack. OK. What else you got? I’m woefully unskilled in campaign tactics (other than encouraging those who have checked out to check back in — you know, talking nicely to people about issues and concerns). BTW, the double teaming is great. Almost doesn’t seem so transparent. Good job.
I enjoy you subject line, like you are trying to annoy everyone. Check out the Salon link it works.
<
p>
Nice response, “your link is broken” so it didn’t happen.
<
p>
She is what she is….period.
Team in trouble, johnk to the rescue! ROFLMAO. Are you running low on staff? Is it because they were fired? What’s next after discrediting the journalist?
<
p>
To recap (for those who want to learn MA politics and bidness as usual), so far we have:
<
p>
1. Keep the meme alive by planting posters.
2. Personal attacks on those who figure it out.
3. Attack journalistic credentials and trustworthiness.
4. Question Dem credentials (you must be a terrerrist if you don’t support us).
5. Deny, deny, deny.
6. Use the word liberal to discredit.
<
p>
Have I missed any?
They had the wiretap story pre-2006 election AND DIDN’T SAY A WORD ABOUT IT!
<
p>
Joan Vennochi did her job as a reporter AND DUG DEEP for facts. Did she have a great contact? Sure, but that’s what SHE’S SUPPOSED TO DO. That’s why I’m writing blogs for free and she’s getting paid to write. If I had fantastic contacts and a great career, I’d be a newspaper columnist too lol.
If I was a candidate, and I knew of a person who was outspoken about a particular issue concerning my opponent, and, if, (BIG IF) I believed it to be true and relevant to campaign, yet strategically it is not to my political benefit to be the messenger, is there anything wrong with encouraging and helping said person get his message out?
strategically, no, Reilly should absolutely be encouraging people who want to go after Patrick. It would be stupid of him not to.
<
p>
However (and this is a big however), if there are already legal questions about the financing of said “people” and said “people” are going to be engaging in an independent expenditure of any kind, then coordination is a big no-no.
<
p>
It’s not a question of the tactic, just how it’s executed.
<
p>
And finally, if supporters of Patrick want to defend their candidate, they’d be stupid not to look at how he’s being attacked and discredit the attacker and the opponent at the same time if possible.
If it’s a question about legal issues, then it’ll be settled in court or by the electoral commission. Until they say something, there is no legal issue.
Guy revs his engine aiming for little old lady crossing the intersection in front of him, nails the gas peddle and runs her over in front of a million witnesses or thereabouts. No legal issue until settled in court? Can’t come up with something better than that? Tricky Dick lies to millions of people on a television screen, shouldn’t resign because it’s not settled in court or by the electoral commission (well, you wouldn’t be alone in believing that one, but look at the company you would have to be in to hold that belief)?
the law is clear and widely available. We know that it is against the law to run down old ladies. Nixon knew his activities were likewise illegal because he knew the law. In this case, the campaign law, while often vague, is fairly clear and available to those who are interested. Certainly people who are either running for office or working for or against candidates and issue-related campaigns ought to know this law inside and out. There is no conceivable way that Reilly can claim either his campaign or Killer Coke are not guilty of violating campaign law in both spirit and the letter.
Reilly IS A LAWYER. You’d think he’d have a more than vague understanding that there were severe legal questions here involved.
<
p>
2. if you’re either up front about it, or do it quietly and don’t get caught.
<
p>
Reilly HQ appears to have screwed up on both of those.
Obviously it’s in the interest of the Reilly campaign to promote an attacker of Patrick. However, it’s essential that the attacker have his own identity, otherwise he loses the credibility of the independent voice. Reilly & Co. have completely removed that credibility from Killer Coke. For an example of how to support these types of messages, look to the original Swift Boat team. First, there were no fingerprints (like, duh, emails) linking them to the Bush campaign. That, imho, is one of the truest examples of how good Karl Rove is. Second, look at how Bush did support Swift Boats: he was constantly asked if he would condemn the SBVT ads. He answered, “I believe all 527 ads should be condemned.” (Of course, most 527’s were/are left-wing.) When reporters tried to follow up, ‘but will you specifically call for the Swift Boats ad should be pulled’, he stonewalled: “I think all 527 ad’s should be pulled.” Which, aside from being perceived as a “strong” answer, also sent SBVT the green light: go ahead guys, as long as there’s a single moveon.org video out there, you guys are all clear. Keep it up.
<
p>
When you contrast that with the foolishness, clumsiness, and leakiness of the Reilly move, it looks like a two year old trying to dance the tango.
Picking a surrogate who is attacking on very uncredible terms, using more smear than legitimate lines of questioning, and runs a shoddy operation is stupid – especially if said campaign gets caught talking to said shoddy attacker.
<
p>
If you’re going to get surrogates, they should be good credible ones. THinking that swiftboat-lying tactics would work is a risky one – Reilly does not employ Karl Rove. He (obviously) can’t pull it off.
…is a tempest in a teapot, interesting only to political junkies like yours-truly.
<
p>
Most voters expect candidates to play dirty tricks on each other. And, as far as the “Reilly-gate” e-mails, which merely detail communications among campaign advisors on how to leverage the “Killer Coke” campaign to Reilly’s benefit by putting Rogers in touch with P.R. hacks aligned with Reilly, go, it isn’t really anything Earth-shaking. It certainly isn’t analogous to Corsi’s and O’Neil’s ugly slanders aimed at John Kerry during the ’04 “Swift-Boat” smear-campaign. Guarino’s e-mails certainly don’t constitute a firing offense, in my opinion, so the Dukakis-Sasso comparison isn’t really relevant.
<
p>
What is worrying, to somebody like me who supports Reilly, is that these campaign advisors were sending e-mails all over the place, discussing sensitive campaign strategy. After the California AG used corporate e-mails to build his case against Enron for gaming California’s electricity supply during the “rolling blackout” crisis of 2001, and after the New York AG used corporate e-mails to pursue his case against Wall Street investment advisors who touted stocks to clients that they privately knew were junk, you’d think that Reilly’s campaign staff would be savvy enough to realize that e-mail is not a secure means of communication for sensitive subjects. These discussions should have been conducted face-to-face, or over the telephone. I hope that Reilly’s campaign has learned some lessons from this minor kerfluffle about when and when not to use e-mail.
<
p>
Bottom line, Reilly
Bottom line, Reilly has a few new scrapes, thanks to the Killer Coke “Reillygate” snafu, but it’s not anything that’s going to resonate with Democratic primary voters who already aren’t die-hard Deval supporters.
So was a break-in in a Washington hotel in the summer of ’72…
<
p>
Further, I have to disagree with Most voters expect candidates to play dirty tricks on each other. I think it’s clear that, when dirty tricks are played, both the “tricker” and the “trickee” suffer in opinion polls. The goal of the “tricker” is to make the “trickee” suffer more.
<
p>
This phenomenon, I think, illustrates that voters are disappointed when dirty tricks happen. And I happen to think it’s worth pointing out whenever these things happen. Why should we expect or tolerate dirty politics? What happened to electing our leaders based on the merits of their ideas?
So now we know: Reilly claims, at least, not to have not known anything about this before getting Joan Vennochi’s call over the weekend. He seems untroubled by what his staff are up to, but then he won’t really comment on it, either. He’s says it’s legit…but evidently not so legit that he wants to be closely associated with it. He wants some distance…but without acknowledging that–or why–there’s good reason not to be identified as authorizing such actions.
<
p>
I know that some thoughtful Reilly backers were disappointed when this sordid little story broke, and believe it’s not really representative of the broader pattern of the man’s character or conduct. They may be right, but that would be easier to accept if Reilly would show some recognition that this kind of sleaze is neither honorable nor, for that matter, any way to run a Democratic primary.