Adam Reilly’s article in this week’s Phoenix [NOTE: I’ve been able to access the Phoenix’s web site only sporadically for the last two days – your results may vary] is called “The incompetence candidate: Tom Reilly stumbles again.” Don’t hold back now, Adam – tell us how you really feel!
The article is mostly about Ray Rogers and Killer Coke, particularly the Reilly camp’s ham-handed efforts to help Rogers out, which efforts embarrassingly wound up in a Joan Vennochi op-ed column. Adam recognizes that, in the great scheme of things, the Killer Coke story isn’t exactly front-page news (though he has some interesting thoughts on why neither the Globe nor the Herald has been terribly impressive in its coverage of the story). But here’s his bottom line:
Even so – and even if the Killer Coke story peters out – the whole episode bodes poorly for Reilly’s political future. The e-mails Vennochi obtained were apparently sent to a few members of Reilly’s inner circle, including top advisers Will Keyser and John Stefanini. These messages may have leaked out inadvertently. [“Whoops! Accidentally hit the “send to Joan Vennochi” button again!” –ed.] But it’s more likely that they were disclosed intentionally, as part of an internal battle over the course of Reilly’s candidacy. “The sign of a campaign in free fall is when insiders are tagging other people with blame for the failed campaign,” says [a] Democratic insider….
Back in February, after Marie St. Fleur’s one-day stint as Reilly’s running mate came to a close, Reilly held a press conference and stated the obvious. “Politics are not my strong suit,” the AG announced. “I have to work and improve on the politics of this campaign.” Six months on, he doesn’t seem to have succeeded. If Democratic voters give Reilly the nod on primary day, they’ll know exactly what they’re getting.
Oof. Anyway, Tom Reilly obviously knows a lot of this – he knows that he’s been third in recent polling, and that the Killer Coke business, which was supposed to help him, has probably done him more harm than good. And so, not surprisingly, he’s trying to turn up the heat on his rivals. Here’s part of an interview Reilly did with Jon Keller today (it will air this weekend) regarding Killer Coke:
I had no role in it, I was not aware of it until the Globe called the campaign and I was told about it. I wish the campaign had been more forthright about its role. These were discussions; as far as I know thats as far as it went. [“as far as I know”?? Come on Tom – haven’t you nailed this down by now? –ed.] But the real question here is that this gentleman, Ray Rogers, was asking legitimate questions about Deval Patricks record at Coca-Cola, and those are legitimate questions in terms of the severance, his departure from Coca-Cola. Even the Boston Globe described it as murky. No one knows the truth of what happened. Hes not really talking about it, hiding behind confidentiality agreements. But there was a severance agreement. Was he terminated? Was he fired? Did he resign? Its all over the lot…. Those questions deserve to be answered.
Weak. If Reilly had any significant private sector experience, he would know that people in positions as high as Patrick’s at Coke are hardly ever “fired.” They always resign after negotiations that lead to a deal that is acceptable to everyone. (Also, if he had been “fired,” he wouldn’t have severance – the two are mutually exclusive, AFAIK.) Even Matt Amorello wasn’t “fired” – he resigned, and got himself a generous severance in the process. Plus, “hiding behind confidentiality agreements”? They’re called “agreements” for a reason. What would you advise Patrick to do, Mr. Attorney General?
Reilly then launches into a good olde-timey liberal “private sector bad” kind of riff.
This applies to Chris Gabrieli as well…. People know my record, pretty much everything about me. With both of my opponents, we know very little. We know very little about Deval Patricks record for the last ten years, or Chris Gabrieli. They come from the private sector. They tell you what they want to tell you. But we have no idea what were getting…. People are now kicking the tires and saying “wait a minute, who are you, what happened at Coca-Cola, what happened at Texaco? And Chris, what have you been doing for the last ten years. You talk a little bit about education, but what have you been involved with, what are the potential conflicts, and whats been going on in your corporate life?”
Yeah, gosh, we hardly know anything about Patrick’s finances, or about his work in corporate America. Nor is there any way of our finding out a shred of information about what companies Gabrieli has been involved with over the last ten years, or what the conflicts might be.
Keller says that the rest of the interview is “eyebrow-raising.” Based on the excerpt, “hair-raising” might be more like it. Anyway, an edited version airs at 8:45 am Sunday on channel 4, and the whole thing will run Sunday at 10 am and again at 7:30 pm on channel 38.
Reilly apparently thinks that private sector experience should disqualify people from elective office. Only if you’ve spent your life on public payrolls should you be able to run. (Hey — maybe this is why he ditched Gabrieli for St. Fleur….)
<
p>
If this isn’t the in-bred, mediocre culture of Beacon Hill I don’t know what is. This is just what Romney used against O’Brien last time.
<
p>
Public service should be a high calling in our society that is open to everyone, not just career politicians.
Tom,
<
p>
Please start talking about the positive vision you have for this state and why you are the best candidate to achieve it. I’m tired of hearing complaints about the other Democrats in this race (Dukakis commission alert) that have already been answered and answered again.
<
p>
“We don’t really know what you did last summer” is not a winning election strategy. Yes, we are never going to know every last sentence uttered in every corporate meeting attended by Patrick or Gabrieli. This does not mean there is some “haze of uncertainty” that surrounds them; it is simply a fact of life that you never have every detail available. A prosecutor should understand this.
<
p>
This interview appears to be nothing more than righteous indignation that the other candidates haven’t put in their time. Well, maybe that’s not good enough any more (if it ever was).
<
p>
Sound anything like when Dick Cheney was feeding Judy Miller Iraq “secrets” — and then said ‘Look, even the NY Times is printing this!’
<
p>
Um… hello!
<
p>
As I’ve said all along, this is democrats swiftboating democrats. Not convinced? Let’s move along to the next line…
<
p>
<
p>
This is totally out of Karl Rove/Republican Pundit handbooks, ‘some people call Ned Lamont the al Qaeda candidate.’
<
p>
Some people? Who?
<
p>
No one knows the truth – Deval could have flown down to Columbia and killed the Union leader himself, for all we know!
<
p>
Still not convinced Tom Reilly’s a snake?
<
p>
<
p>
Hiding behind a confidentiality agreement? Um… It’s a legal contract Tom. You should know a thing or two about them – but then again, when it comes to politics, it’s okay to break the law. At least, that’s what it seems like according to good ‘ol Tommy after Killer Coke.
<
p>
And, again, he takes one from Bill O’Reilly’s handbook…. He could have been fired! He could have been terminated! We just don’t know, so automatically we should assume the worst!
<
p>
(Nevermind the fact that Deval has been completely open about his role with Coke – but Tom’s been such a friggin good liar that why should he stop now? It seems like that’s what he’s best at doing, so he just has to go with it).
<
p>
This contest is certainly “heating up” isn’t it? Not unexpected, but I’m wondering about the pacing. Is the Reilly campaign shooting its wad too early, or do they have so much bad stuff to put out there that they can keep up a steady stream between now and September 19?
<
p>
In any case, I’m intrigued by the AG’s statement that
“the campaign”?
<
p>
He makes it sound like a disembodied entity that is out there somewhere out of his control. But at least he’s admitting that they were involved.
<
p>
With my candidate on the road so much these days, I suspect that (Campaign Manager) John Walsh and Deval Patrick are not exactly constant officemates, but I’d be willing to bet that there is very little of any substance going on in “the campaign” that Deval doesn’t know about.
<
p>
Tells me a lot about their management styles, and I guess I don’t prefer Tom’s.
This is the response of a potential governor?
<
p>
Geez, I feel badly about this guy. He strikes me a slogger, a hard-worker, a guy who’s paid his dues according to the old world’s rules and is ready to be rewarded, but he seems to lack all the requisite acumen, leadership, and intuition that the reward–and the new world–demands. What to do with him?
He is. Big deal. And an excellent governor.
<
p>
If I could read half as many posts about Deval or Gabs having the chops to be a good governor, rather than a good politician — how they like to shake hands with people all around the state, and give nice speeches — maybe I’d be interested in them.
<
p>
And the attack dogs out here who are savaging Reilly need to make up their minds. How can someone be a bad politician, and at the same time him too much of an insidery-politician guy?
<
p>
And can we stop the deliberate obtuseness about Coke? This isn’t about a sweetheart article in the Globe, but rather death at Coke, kicking people on to the street at Ameriquest, and stalling civil rights at United.
I can get you a good deal at my local wine shop:
The “bad at politics” thing is a problem because you have to be able to rally the public behind you as governor if you want to implement your agenda. You have to be able to out-maneuver your opponents and even your friends. The Clinton presidency was a fascinating case-study in why politics continues to matter after the election. It’s not like you just put your nose to the grindstone, out of the public view — although many critical decisions do get very little notice.
<
p>
Although AG’s do indeed get headlines, it’s not the same level of scrutiny as governor. That’s why political skill matters.
<
p>
re. Obtuseness: If anyone can credibly pin something bad directly on Patrick, rather than relying on insinuation and innuendo, I’ll take notice. So far, I really haven’t seen that. There’s no smoking gun that Patrick was a gay-hater at UAL, that he didn’t help Ameriquest become a different company, or that he acted callously with regard to the South American workers. It’s all he-said she-said, and one guy was there (Patrick), and one guy wasn’t (Reilly).
<
p>
So, where’s the beef, sabutai? What are you seeing that the Kool-Aid drinkers are blind to? Be specific.
‘Bad at politics’ is a con. But it doesn’t mean that he can’t be a good governor. Take Carter- or Dukakis- or Gore. They weren’t great politicians either, but I would’ve voted for each one. Being a good politician doesn’t neccesarily make you a good leader, either. Clinton may have been pretty alright (although, personally, I think he’s been one of the worst ‘Democrat’ presidents we’ve had in the 20th century), but Reagan and Nixon certainly weren’t.
<
p>
Sure, it’s a factor. But it’s not th eonly consideration and I think it definitely plays into elections a lot more than it should.
<
p>
Besides, you can be charismatic and a good leader without being a good politician.
To me, this says it all. Reilly was poised to select Chris Gabrieli as his running mate, and he doesn’t even know what Gabrieli was doing for the past ten years? Doesn’t he remember that Gabrieli was his second choice for Lt. Gov.? Was he going to select a running mate without knowing what that person was up to for the past ten years? Oh, sorry, I guess we know that he already did that.
<
p>
This is the kind of person we Democrats should propose to the citizens of Massachusetts as our candidate for Governor? Please. This is just pathetic. Get ready for Reilly’s negative attacks – he has absolutely nothing to offer the people of the Commonwealth, and he needs to go on the attack to cover up his own shortcomings. “Chris, what have you been doing for the past ten years.” Unbelievable.
<
p>
Three words: Marie St. Fleur.
<
p>
(I burst out laughing when you said that, even though I think you meant it about Gabs… how fitting.)