Well, it’s gotten a little livelier in here lately, especially between Gabrieli and Patrick supporters eager to demonstrate big, big distinctions between the two. It’s like Coke vs. Pepsi: a huge effort to demonstrate a marginal differentiation that’s ever so marginal. And there’s the temptation to take these tiny distinctions and try to make some daylight between the candidates.
But let’s put down the knives and look at the two front-runners:
- Chris Gabrieli supports same-sex marriage, is pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Deval Patrick supports SSM, is pro-choice and anti-death penalty.
- Deval supports Cape Wind. Chris supports Cape Wind.
- Deval thinks we shouldn’t roll back the income tax immediately. Chris thinks we shouldn’t roll back the income tax immediately.
- Chris thinks there should be a longer school day and school year. Deval gamely says got a lot of good ideas from Chris.
etc.
I know I’m glossing over the differences, and more than anyone else on earth, the folks here can cite chapter and verse. And there are bigger differences: For instance, we haven’t heard much of anything on this site about Gabrieli’s support for casinos. But they’re few and far between — and the rest is a matter of emphasis.
Veterans of the Lieutenant Governor wars can probably attest to this tendency. Look at the issues: Gosh… they’re pretty similar. I strongly suspect that the substantive differences between the LG candidates are utterly lost on 95% of the public.
Just something to keep in mind before we hit “send” on that internecine broadside …
This post somewhat touches on something I was thinking about on my way to work this morning (which makes me think that maybe I need to get some hobbies or something). Talking to my friends, most support either Patrick or Gabs and then quickly add that if their guy doesn’t win, they would want the other (so Patrick people have Gabs as a second choice and vice versa). This makes a lot of sense to me given how closely alligned Gabs and Patricks views are (especially compared to Reilly). Reilly doesn’t pop up much as either a first or second choice (surprisingly even amongst my more moderate/conservative friends).
<
p>
So, my question for the folks here is, who is your second choice? I’d especially be interested in hearing from Reilly people.
I was undecided between Gabrieli and Reilly until a week before the convention. On the criteria on which I judge candidates — proven results in elected office, fiscal responsibility, pragmatic ideas on policy rather than showy “reform” rhetoric empty of meaning, and a willingness to take stands out of conviction rather than popularity, Gabrieli stood out for me. Unfortunately for him, Reilly just has more of those qualities.
<
p>
I would be very happy with him as a candidate and am thrilled that he’s on the ballot. I’ve said in the past that I see him as the most policy-oriented, smartest candidate in the race, and he has enough experience in Beacon Hill politics that he won’t become a facade for the Sal-n-Trav show. Gabrieli also shows his smarts by noting that after-school programs and stem-cell are two issues where Democrats clearly win over Republicans. He knows how to alter electoral terrain to areas favorable to Democrats. Granted, the money thing is an issue, but it’s an issue vis-avis Healey as well. Campaign finance needs reform certainly, but reform doesn’t come by penalizing Democrats (and rewarding Republicans) who benefit from a broken system. I will admit that his unclear relationship with the charter school corporate industry does worry me, though.
<
p>
And in an unrelated note, I need to hear more about what Mihos says about scrapping the MCAS. If he goes the extra step and commits to pulling Massachusetts out of No Child Left Behind, then he has a real chance to earn my vote in a Healey-Patrick-Mihos general election.
anywhere what his stance on casinos is? Quite honestly, and I know at least some of you will disagree with this, being for them is for me a point in Gabs’ favor. Lots of MA money going to CT. And Foxwoods is a long drive from the North Shore đŸ˜€
from Democrats differ on casinos (Springfield Republican, April 28):
<
p>
The more states that allow casinos, the less money casinos bring in. Furthermore, there are a lot of negative impacts from casinos and it’s not as if they’re going to bring in hundreds of fantastically fantastic jobs… the jobs they will bring in are very, very low paying and lacking in benefits. I’d rather see us try to do something else with the land that would be a casino.
<
p>
Furthermore – and most importantly – our state has one of the most profitable lottery systems in the country. If we put in a casino, it would tank. Our lottery system tanking would be a very bad thing for local towns, etc. and who knows if a casino or two would be enough to make that money up.
<
p>
Let’s become more economically diverse through well paying jobs that offer blue collar workers some hope, not another dead-end-walmart-esque job that delivers little to the state, except a lot more gambling-related problems and crime.
<
p>
Casinos in Massachusetts? No thanks.
To follow up on Ryepowers point regarding jobs, if you have been to the CT casinos recently, you might have noticed that a lot of the employees, especially the dealers, are brought in from foreign countries (much like cruise ships or amusement parks). They go abroad (it seems like there are a lot of dealers from Poland, but maybe I notice more being Polish) to recruit these employees for stints in the casino (say six to nine months). I am not sure if this is because they cannot find enough people to fill the jobs locally or what, but just an observation.
Six Flags does this too. I personally think it’s a scam to evade wage laws. My theory is this:
<
p>
1) Company recruits in Eastern Europe for talent.
<
p>
2) People must pay to apply or to be hired to these positions. I found evidence of that a few years back for some European “work in the USA” service (not Six Flags). Or maybe they have to “buy travel” through the broker company (that seems to be the case with at least one of the companies, CCI Exchange, which says “All travel arrangements are the responsibility of the participant and need to be booked according to instructions.”
<
p>
3) Employees are encouraged to live in housing that is either company-owned, or is arranged for by the company. I’d bet that money goes from a private owner to the company somehow. I’m sure that the employees are spending their salaries on food in the parks too (at inflated prices).
<
p>
4) Result is that when all is said and done, Euro-employees take home less than the minimum wage (but it’s way more than they can earn in their own country), company pays less than the minimum wage.
<
p>
I also suspect that Six Flags goes for the Eastern Europeans because they are blonde and white, as opposed to the minimum wage labor pool in the Springfield, which tends to be Black or Hispanic.
Whether all this is true or not of Six Flags is irrelevant, because casinos are an entirely different industry.
It’s an illustration of this “overseas industry” which exists to funnel people from Europe into working in the US. I’d bet the same brokers find workers for both Six Flags and the casinos.
is that often casinos hire people from abroad largely to cut down on employee theft. I suppose the thinking is that immigrants would have more to lose if they steal from the casino. Nevertheless, casinos hire plenty of non-immigrants as well, and many of the jobs pay decently (either through wages or tips).
<
p>
As far as casinos in general go, I’m all for them. Clearly there is a market for it, so why have moralistic barriers to this type of industry? And people will still play the lottery, that’s for certain. The impact on lottery sales would be minimal.
<
p>
And it’s ironic that some of the same people who have moral objections to casinos because poor people might spend some of their money at them (horrors!) are the same who will then turn around and worry about the casino’s potential downward impact on lottery sales.
I’m not big brother looking over people spending their money. However, I don’t even have to go out of my extended family to see people who have had their lives ruined by their addiction to gambling, destroying an entire family.
<
p>
However, I’m pragmatic. So that’s not why I don’t support it. I don’t support it because it would be bad for Massachusetts and wouldn’t bring us that much money. Just go to places like Nevada – outside of Las Vegas – to see why casinos aren’t right for us. And then recognize that the market dwindles for casinos when you add more of them in the same area, further complicated by huge pockets of people destroying their families as they fall victim to their prey.
<
p>
No. We don’t need casinos.
but it’s pretty hard for you to claim that you’re not a moralistic “big brother looking over people spending their money” if you support the current ban on casinos in MA.
<
p>
Arguing that casinos won’t bring in the money supporters claim it will is one thing; arguing that casinos absolutely should not be allowed in MA is wholly another.
I don’t have time for an essay, but I just want to say this is one of my pet peeves: When people look at candidates for office merely as collections of positions on issues. Especially candidates for top executive office (mayor, governor, president). It’s a political-wonk thing to do, and a very important piece, sure, but it’s not exclusively how most people vote, and it’s good that that’s not how most people vote.
It’s the way Patrick has conducted his campaign.
What he does is consistent with what he says.
<
p>
<
p>
If Patrick runs the state like he’s run his campaign, I think we will all be better off.
<
p>
Gabrieli? Reilly? Not so much.
<
p>
Disclaimer: I am the Deval Patrick coordinator for my town.
but we should at least acknowledge the vast areas of agreement between the candidates, and address the real differences. Of course, each candidate would make a vastly different governor from the next, even if they address a questionnaire similarly. I’m just saying one should keep it in perspective.
I disagree with this, because I think that when you don’t put the majority of emphasis on issues, you wind up electing a government that disappoints you.
<
p>
There is a race in Springfield between a single-term Democratic rep and an “Independent”. The Independent has made a website, and when you review her positions on issues, you can see that she comes down pretty solidly on the Conservative side of them. In my estimation she’s a lot more conservative than the district.
<
p>
So what are voters talking about between the two candidates? Her position on issues? No, they like the fact that the Independent has a website, and that she is going door-to-door. Her newspaper releases have been standard fare, the old “I promise to bring back more money to the district” — even though she decries “pork spending” on her website.
<
p>
Now maybe it doesn’t matter if she votes opposite than her constituents’ views both because no one pays attention to this kind of stuff, and because her vote will just be lost in a sea of Democrats, but if the votes are ever close, she may not be representing her constituents.
<
p>
This sets up the old “I hate the legislature, but my representative is great” syndrome that is very evident today. Things don’t go the way people want them to go because their government was elected on how nice they smile, how charismatic they are, and how many doors they can knock on. They switch from Democrat to Republican because the Republican has great hair and the Democrat had a tax problem fifteen years ago.
<
p>
Our government is supposed to be a proxy for direct democracy. They are supposed to be more informed of the issues than we are, and they are supposed to represent their constituents — not by holding a finger to the wind, but by their philosophies and ideologies. When voters don’t pay attention to those philosophies and ideologies, we are no better off being ruled by kings.
Originally when it was speculated Gabs would enter (way back when Patrick challenged and big names like Galvin and Capuano backed out) I wouldve ranked my preferential ballot as follows:
<
p>
1)Patrick
2)Gabs
3)Reilly
<
p>
When it became a real race between Patrick and Reilly and Gabrielli came close to endorsing Patrick he then flip flopped and Im quoting Gabs from Jim Braudes broadcast
“I will not run for Governor” then all of a sudden two weeks later he flip flopped on his most important position, whether or not he wanted to be Governor. So I found that callous, cold, and calculating. He has positioned himself right in the middle between Reilly and Patrick and is running a cynical campaign.
<
p>
Then I wouldve ranked it
<
p>
1)Patrick
2)Reilly
3)Gabs
<
p>
But then Reilly broke the law to go after Patrick.
<
p>
So its a do or die proposition for me, though yes Ill vote lockstep for the other two guys when it comes time to vote.
I guess I prefer Gabs as my number two choice, at least he’s running a positive campaign.
On two important fronts Deval is the superior candidate. First, in order to be an outstanding elected official, you have to have not only the vision of policy ideas that will bring progress and a better life to people, but just as importantly you need the “voice” to inspire the people to follow your vision. One without the other will not be nealy as effective. On this count, Deval is universally acknowledged as the most oratorically gifted of the candidates. Anyone who attended the convention or has seen him address an audience would have to agree.
<
p>
Also extremely important for me is that the candidate have the political courage to take positions, that when announced are not safe or politically expedient. It is clear that on both the Cape Wind issue and the income tax rollback, Gabs took the easy, safe and expedient position, while Deval took a chance and did the right thing as he saw it, simply because he thought it was proper–regardless of the political implications.
<
p>
As the President of Clean Power Now, a Cape-based 6,000 member grass roots organization working for the development of the Cape Wind project, I had an opportunity to meet with Deval in June of last year to talk with him about Cape Wind and to convince him of the merits of the project. This was at a time when there wasn’t nearly the support, either on Cape or around the state that there is now. After listening to all the sides, Deval, of course, did make his decision to support the project. He showed himself to be a leader with courage.
<
p>
Gab’s on the other hand waited to just recently, when it was clearly the safe position(even here on the Cape) to finally decide it was politically expedient to be for Cape Wind. I actually spoke with Gabs about the project at the convention and was very disappointed with his lack of candor, and his repetition of the Cape Wind opponents’ talking points.
<
p>
Massachusetts voters desire a governor who has courage, and can also lead and inspire. Of all the candidates, Deval has those characteristics in spades.
Some people try to claim that being a great speaker doesn’t matter – and it’s all in the positions on the issues, etc. Well, those people fail to recognize that Governors are leaders of the state. They have an opening to TV screens and audiences across the state like no other. If they bring with them great charisma to their post, they can get things done by massing popular support and convincing the population of their wisdom. That comes much easier with a charismatic speaker.
<
p>
Furthermore, I loved this point:
<
p>
<
p>
The old play-it-safe, DLC-style Democratic politics has been an utter failure. We need something new, something novel: a politician who takes a stands and offers a clear, decisive choice. Watered down politicians just don’t sell.
You float a “peace posting” and slowly but surely, the nitpicking about the small differences begin to creep in.
<
p>
I may waste far to much time on this blog, but at least I can say I did not spend any real time on this debate.
Well, I think there are differences, and I made my decision based on those differences. They’re not the same guy, after all. I just don’t think they should be overstated. As I said, I think the casino thing is a big deal. We should be talking about that.
<
p>
I’ll tell you where this comes from: I got kind of huffy reading someone imply that Patrick was an “empty suit”; and someone else say he doesn’t have a grasp of the issues. I think those statements are complete hogwash — the result of an over-eagerness to differentiate. “Chris is wicked smaht” does not equal “Deval is not wicked smaht.”
I think this thread is pretty representative of the tenor at BMG. Charley posts a call to tone down the invective and focus on what policy differences we can find. But the comments feature strong pro-Patrick statements that also slam Gabrieli, often in unfair terms. He’s a hypocrite, a flip-flopper, cynical, his motivations are not honest, he represents the politics of “utter failure.” A bit strong, don’t you think?
<
p>
So Charley, your motivation for this post was an unreasonable attack on Deval. Imagine what it’s like being a Gabrieli or Reilly supporter around here and trying to engage in debate. I feel like I’m playing whack-a-mole just responding to the garbage half the time.
I thought I was the tenor at BMG. Wuhahaha I slay me.
<
p>
Yeah, all those things are over the top. I think many of Deval’s people are still bitter that he’s even in the race, but I don’t think they/we have the time or energy to devote to that anymore. There are so many reasons to be optimistic, both as a Dem and as a Deval (or Chris) supporter, it seems kind of sour to be so negative.
<
p>
That being said, the negativity of Reilly’s campaign is why I tend to be negative towards him. If he were hitting his own selling points all the time, I’d like him a lot better.
<
p>
But Chris and Deval have been notably civil towards one another. Deval’s attitude at the convention — “I want every vote” — is winner talk. Bitterness and put-downs are loser talk.