7 pm – here we go! Jon Keller’s introducing the candidates now – after a “buenas noches” shout-out to the Univision viewers (that got a good laugh in the press room). Format: one minute answers, then “open” period.
First question: “what makes you electable?” – goes to Gabs. Not about Dem or Republican – about “getting results.” Running through the list of position papers.
Patrick: “we’ve put out ideas over the last year.” But the edge: government, business, nonprofits, community groups. “I’ve gotten results in all of those contexts.” Also: inviting people to check back in – brings a different “people power,” “grassroots power” to Beacon Hill. [Good answer! -ed.]
Reilly: people are looking for independence. “I’ve been an independent Democrat throughout my career.” Taxes: I’m the only Dem willing to obey the people’s mandate. Proven record of getting things done. On their side.
Rebuttal: Patrick wants to talk taxes. Acknowledges the vote – and why wouldn’t they vote to roll it back, in light of waste like the Big Dig. “But the tax to cut is the property tax – that’s the one that’s squeezing people.”
Reilly: annoyed about “lack of curiosity” comment re Big Dig. Problem with that is series of GOP Govs who tied my hands. No one has a right to ignore the will of the voters – you can’t substitute your will for theirs.
Now Gabs: I have a “can do” plan. Says we can cut the income tax and the property tax! [And everyone gets a pony! -ed.]
Reilly (to Gabs): questions Gabs’ 40% plan. Says you have to be straight with the voters. Your plan doesn’t roll back the income tax, except when you want it to.
Patrick: concept of a gradual rollback is right. Difference is “you love the world of theory, and I live in the real world.” Notes that health care costs are going up much faster than inflation.
Gabs: “A plan is not a concept.” Restates his plan. “A very simple formula to understand.”
Patrick: formula you’ve laid out works on paper, but isn’t going to result in an income tax cut. Now to Reilly: reason property taxes are going up 33% is because communities are starved of state aid.
Reilly: back to the “people have voted.” “A billion dollars sitting there in surplus.” [Not true – the legislature spent it! -ed.]
Gabs: “I don’t agree with tomorrow, I don’t agree with never.” Likes his plan.
Patrick: brings up Cahill – “State Treasurer says my plan is the most fiscally responsible.”
Reilly: we work for the people.
7.10 – Keller: Fidelity is moving execs to RI because of tax break given to top corporate executives. Support it?
Patrick: No, don’t support that particular break. But must be much more robust partners with businesses. Now we have no good partnerships despite a business-oriented Gov who sold himself that way. Talks up Evergreen Solar – says they’re building a new facility in Germany because no one asked them.
Reilly: wouldn’t support the incentive. Need an entirely different relationship between state gov’t and business community. Too many state agencies: streamline economic development process. End over-regulation, permitting delays.
Gabs: wouldn’t give that tax break either. [unanimous on that one. -ed.] Jobs come from small businesses – innovation is good. “Small Business Commission” will start looking at issues on day 1.
Rebuttal time now. Patrick and Gabs generally agree on this.
Reilly: “I don’t just see Cambridge.” Talking up plan to invest $500M in UMass research.
Gabs: “I agree with you.” [everyone’s pretty much on the same page on this one. -ed.]
Keller: education. Question from website: parent concerned about their bright kid being lumped in with those who learn less quickly. “Will you order public schools to restore tracking?”
Reilly: No. I was tracked when I was in high school. Tough time in life; barely graduated; had some problems. Believe in giving opportunities; don’t believe in tracking. I know how hard it was to fight through it.
Gabs: “We do need to do more for kids who are gifted.” We should have “high schools of excellence – amazing that we don’t have a Bronx H.S. of Science.” Wants to push innovation. Says he likes charter schools – “Deval, you’re wrong to be against them.”
Patrick: I reject tracking. Need to create attention and time for gifted and talented kids. Chris, you’re wrong that I don’t support charter schools. My view is that, as important and as helpful as they are, we need to come up with a better funding mechanism before we raise the cap.
Gabs: Dems and GOP came together. Wants more charter schools right now.
Reilly: there was a moratorium proposed to curb growth in charter schools. Sign it?
Patrick: No. We need more charter schools. Problem is that the funding mechanism is bad.
Gabs: “The dollars follow the kids. Everywhere I’ve been in business, that’s how it works.”
Patrick: “And once again, the formula works in theory, and not in real life, there are real tensions between real families. And that is not community building.”
7.23: Keller: do state employees pay enough at 15% of health insurance?
Gabs: 15% is about right. But will focus on municipal employees. [Can’t tell what he’s proposing, exactly … -ed.] Says he won’t take it out of collective bargaining. Will work collaboratively into classrooms.
Patrick: That’s a big part of the right answer. We need to manage down healthcare costs for everybody. Need uniform protocols for reimbursements; need uniformity in records; smarter bulk purchasing strategies. Need to get costs down for everybody.
Reilly: For the past 8 years I’ve been working with health care delivery system. Now onto Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. “I’m the only one with that kind of experience.” Next Gov had better know something about health care. “I know where to start: cutting those administrative costs.” Forms going back and forth … government can drive the change.
Rebuttal: Gabs – “I think we’ve asked too little of employers.” Says $295 isn’t enough. Seeing that numbers don’t add up.
Reilly: “That’s the different between theory and being on the ground.” [Patrick: “he just made my point.”] You haven’t even gotten the job yet, and you’re trying to blow the bill up. Getting things done is entirely different from theory.
Gabs: “This bill is theoretical – it hasn’t been implemented.” About values: is $295 enough?
Now candidates ask questions of each other.
Patrick: in April, we all agreed to support the nominee, and run a positive campaign. Now, in the last few days, there’s been a lot of nasty and negative stuff. What does that say about character and leadership?
Reilly: We’re talking about your refusal to release your tax returns, and to refuse to obey the will of the voters. That’s fair comparison. “You think you can do whatever you want. You can’t – we work for the people.”
Gabs: “I disagree with you on some issues.” Taxes; immigration. “I don’t think it’s a high priority to fund college education for illegal immigrants.” Charter schools.
Patrick: I think we are right to point up the differences in our policies and plans. “But the behavior of both of you in last week’s debate was over that line, and what [Gabs] has been saying over the last few days is over the line.” Says he and Gabs disagree, but only on the margins.
Reilly questio
n for the others: asks whether they support limiting criminal history information?
Gabs: you know more about CORI checks than I do. But my understanding is that some information is not well organized. But it’s important that after-school providers be able to do a CORI check.
Patrick: very important that law enforcement have broad, unlimited access to CORI. Need to deal with inaccuracies. Don’t think it’s necessary for all employers have access to everything. Need access to what’s relevant.
Reilly: talking about a specific bill that apparently allows purging of juvenile records.
Patrick: “There is no way that bill is getting past my desk without law enforcement having appropriate access.”
Reilly: says this bill is “crazy stuff.”
Patrick: “Tom, did you just hear what I said?” I’m not going to accept purging of records.
Gabs: admits that he just peeked over Patrick’s shoulder to read his notes. Nice.
Anyway, here’s his question: where specifically do you disagree with our party?
Patrick: most of the party is against Cape Wind, and I’m for it. Concerned about nurse staffing ratios – hard to imagine legislating it. I’m trying to put out specific ideas, and to bring leadership to those ideas.
Reilly: taxes: I totally disagree with them. I support MCAS graduation requirements. “I got booed at my own convention because I thought Billy Bulger should be fired from UMass.” Proud to be a Democrat, but some of the points I disagree.
Gabs: my three on platform were: support charter schools; disagree with platform. Support MCAS. Oppose single-payer health requirement.
Patrick: support MCAS graduation requirement. Some issues that we can use to make it work better.
7.40. Keller: Patronage. Will any preference be given to job applicants who work for your campaign, who gave to your campaign, or who are recommended by politicos?
Reilly: have a track record of superbly run agencies. Big disappointment of GOP Govs: there’s no talent, no expertise. No one in those agencies had the ability to stand up to Bechtel. Hope to spark a renaissance with new ideas, talent, energy. Know how to create and attract talent.
Gabs: No preference for political allies. In favor of individuals. Would give a chance to people currently in the administration. Also think it’s important to look at Romney-Healey track record. Romney put 3 people on Turnpike Authority – none are engineers. They’re political loyalists.
Patrick: That’s right. Haven’t made any promises, there’s no quid pro quo. I want the best people from any party. I want some people in the administration and in the cabinet who disagree with me.
7.43: Keller: will you commit to specific quotas for women and minorities in executive branch?
Gabs: not a supporter of quotas. Subtlest form of bias is that people don’t have access to networks, so have to make extra efforts. Qualifications come first. But worry about people with disabilities having access. Diversity’s a complicated formula.
Patrick: We will have a diverse cabinet and administration, but not by quotas, because we don’t have to, and we shouldn’t. We’ll look for the best people, and focus on qualifications.
Reilly: I run a diverse operation, but it’s based on merit, talent, results.
Rebuttal: Gabs: I do want to come back to one thing. Back to taxes. As the economy grows, revenue grows – no ambiguity on tax. What are the specifics?
Patrick: couple of points. First: you focus on the wrong revenues. Point I was making earlier is that revenue growth we’ve had is from capital gains. But regular folks’ wages haven’t been going up. So until we get that kind of economic growth, we can’t do it. We need to invest in roads, bridges, schools.
Reilly: neither one of you get it. The debate is over – the people have voted. People in this state are struggling. $200 is important to them. It’s not up to you, Chris, to have a formula, and it’s not up to you, Deval, to ignore it. There’s a billion dollars sitting there, and there’s another billion coming next year. [woohoo! free money! -ed.]
Patrick: leadership is being candid, even when it’s a popular choice.
Reilly: “there’s a billion dollars sitting there.”
Gabs: What I find hard to see is how you can say you’re a leader when you won’t lay out a plan. [Right, just ask President Kerry! -ed.]
Patrick: In fact, we have a plan, called chapter 186. Personal exemptions are going up for the third time in a row – and it’s targeted at low and moderate income range. Income taxes are already being reduced.
Reilly: coming back to education. Likes merit pay. Why shouldn’t we pay our best teachers more?
Patrick: when I first heard about merit pay, I recognized it from private life, it sounded exactly right. Then I talked with teachers and parents, they talked about collaboration. Anything we do to defeat collaboration should worry us. So I changed my thinking: we should reward the team, not the individual.
Gabs: a big part of my proposal is to have a larger fund at state level to support innovation. I don’t think the top-down mandates work. Wants to allow district to do their own merit pay proposals…? [Not quite sure what he meant. -ed.]
Keller: one yes or no question. Will you promise that absent family crisis, you’ll serve out entire term and not even consider higher office?
Patrick: yes.
Reilly: yes.
Gabs: yes.
7.53. Closing statements.
Reilly first: we live in dangerous times. 9/11, etc. This is a time for tested leadership. For the last 20 years, I’ve gotten up every morning, and went to work for you. I’ve gotten the job done every step of the way. As Governor, I will show up every step of the way.
Gabs: we have an important choice. I don’t think it should be who served longest in gov’t, or who’s been running longest, but on who should do the job best. I focus on results. Stem cell, education plans. I’ve laid out detailed, specific plans. (goes through the list of plans) As long as it’s a good idea that gets results.
Patrick: MA is a great state, but yesterday’s greatness does not assure tomorrow’s. Not just choices among good ideas – these gentlemen have some good ideas. The choice we have to make is how to change the culture of inaction on Beacon Hill, and that’s what I’m about. My job as Texaco etc. was to develop a plan, and motivate people to get it done. I’ve managed thousands of people, hundreds of millions of dollars. I understand how important it is to motivate people to seek higher ground.
And that’s it! Press gaggle coming up…
Wow, I didn’t know that Gabrielli was allowed to buy the first question.
I heard Christy Mihos crashed and handed out slurpies, then challenged Jon Keller to arm-wrestle. Can you verify?
Doesn’t work in Firefox. Also, I wish they had used Realplayer so it could be paused.
Lynne’s Husband here (can’t log her out).
<
p>
Patrick looks good… lights and makup are better.
Reily seems to have learned his lesson… seems much more in control…. so far.
He was having trouble logging out, David, he hit the logout link and nothing happened.
<
p>
Anyway, he wouldn’t have been able to post because he would have needed his own username. LOL
Before anyone was prompted, he brought it out front and center. Ballsy. Will it work in his favor?
…but right now it looks like he’s getting hammered on it — he did just bring up Cahill’s endorsement, though, that may help him.
<
p>
Keller seems pretty tired of the question at this point.
Lynne’s Husband here (can’t log her out).
<
p>
In bringing up the income tax… he’s speaking with commanding knowledge of the details that are the basis for his position, and knowledge of how those details make the other candidate’s plans will not work.
The claws are out today. No hesitation to attack each other now. (I’m a Deval supporter so I may be biased but he seems to be at least holding his own)
Lynne’s Husband here (can’t log her out).
<
p>
Surprised… he gave a very good answer in specifying streamlining business’ interaction with the state government
Reilly just talked about “a billion dollars just sitting there” on the tax question, and now he’s mentioned the $500 million for UMass — I presume the first comment refers to the “rainy-day” fund, and from what I’ve understood about his plan for UMass, he wants that $500 million to come from the rainy day fund also. So 1.5 = 1?
Lynne’s Husband here (can’t log her out).
<
p>
Speaking in code indeed…. politics as usual from Gabrielli. Also about charter school position.
…I mean would you Veto the Bill!?!?!
<
p>
Deval: I already said I would.
Or does it seem like every time Patrick answers after Gabrieli, he starts out by praising Gabs’s idea?
Gabs is trying to differentiate their policies – I think Patrick’s charisma wins easily otherwise.
Deval said Gabrieli was right or correct at least four times, maybe five or six times over the course of the hour. I think that might be a little strategic, but I also think Deval is also only simply stating a fact. How that plays at home – especially to the undecided voter – who knows? As a Gabrieli guy, I like it from our pespective.
Lynne’s Husband here (can’t log her out).
<
p>
Great that he helped with Harvard Pilgrim, but I don’t see how his experience there really helps with the implimentation of the universal system. He needs to stop parroting that line in his resume.
Gabs and Reilly are graspy, almost shrill trying to attack Deval. A result of the two new polls?
Bugs me to no end when candidates whine about negative ads.
This horse is so dead there’s no carcass left to beat.
Tedward as an example
looks to be turning back on him. I think people will agree with Reilly’s point on the tax returns.
No one cares about the tax returns.
Lynne’s Husband here (can’t log her out).
<
p>
Bad tactic on Deval’s part bringing up negative campaigning in the debate.
<
p>
Better to address it as it comes up rather than point it out.
Awful question.
the reason i ask is i heard something about how she can’t be logged out.
Doesn’t the “Log off…” link on the menu on the left work? I just tried it and it worked for me. But I’m not Lynne’s husband…
He tried.
<
p>
FYI, be nice, he’s trying to make sure everyone knows it wasn’t me posting.
Lynne’s Husband here (can’t log her out).
<
p>
Gabrielli want’s to know about the paperwork???
Lynne’s Husband here (can’t log her out).
<
p>
I click on the “Log Off Lynne” button on the Menu and nothing happens. Oh well.
“Their loyalty should be to the state of Massachusetts, and not to me.”
Good line by Patrick. Having your ideas challenged by your employees and coworkers always produces better results.
with the fact that Reilly keeps quoting Healey’s $1 billion surplus figure? So far the $1 billion isn’t really there yet.
Lynne’s Husband here (can’t log her out).
<
p>
What a concept… research the problem then come up with a position. Intense desire to come up with the right solution is behind Deval’s research for merit pay and for Cape Wind and, I believe, all the problems facing us.
Lynne’s Husband here (can’t log her out).
<
p>
Where the hell did that come from?
My initial reactions:
<
p>
Gabrieli – C-
Patrick – B+
Reilly – C
<
p>
Gabrieli: I thought it was in poor taste to look over Deval’s shoulder and look at his notes.
<
p>
Patrick: Bad question about negative ads.
<
p>
Reilly: He really doesn’t like to listen ie.CORI question.
I was unimpressed all around. Reilly did better than last time. I thought Patrick has done better. Gabrieli held his own. I’d say pretty average C’s across the board.
<
p>
But I’m still voting for Deval. 🙂
Yes I agree, very unimpressive overall. Someone else posted about viewership – I think that’s a good point since channel 4 I think has a low viewership in comparison to 5 and 7. I was told anecdotally that last week’s debate b/c of the all media outlets sponsoring it brings in a much larger viewership (which of course makes sense). It’s only us wonks that watch them all!
<
p>
Deval still has my vote too 🙂
And this time he looked in to the camera. Phew. 😛 Gotta catch a train home. Laters all. Good luck to everyone in the final week. And see you all on Sept 20th.
How many times did Deval say, “I agree with Chris”? I lost count at 11.
Reilly.
<
p>
Patrick came off as the loser.
Deval asked a terrible question. Why not just say “Please attack me for three minutes”? What happened to the Deval of Thursday’s debate?
<
p>
Reilly did much better. He exceeded his low expectations.
<
p>
Wonder how many people actually watched this.
but if Reilly wins i either will not vote, or vote for Kerry Healey. He is the biggest most incompetent weasel i have ever seen in politics. EVER. i dont care if hes a Democrat, he thinks hes owed the job of governor cause hes been in politics forever, and does nothing but attack and put down everyone else cause his perceived promotion is at risk. he asks Deval what he will do when the Republicans go after him. PLEASE, i cant wait to see how Reilly will react to Healeys attack. urgh.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got more invested in Deval Patrick than any other candidate I’ve ever supported. I am working as hard as I can to get him elected governor.
<
p>
That said, if Tom Reilly wins the primary, I’ll not only vote for him, but I’ll help him as best I can. While I disagree with him on many issues, he at least is a credible voice for working people. Has Kerry Healey ever worked a real-person job in her adult life?
i understand. i am a huge Patrick supporter as well, but could support Gabrieli if he wins. but Reilly, truthfully, scares me, he really does. i really just think he wants this promotion while not understanding what the job means. i have never felt this about a candidate. i may have been off the handle, as i would not vote for Healey, i simply wont vote. i dont vote for incompetence on either side of the aisle.
There was no clear winner or loser. Patrick’s question really backfired on him, but he did well enough otherwise that it probably won’t hurt him.
<
p>
I don’t think any candidate did particularly good or bad in the debate. Plus, I’m not a big fan of Keller – so many of the questions were so typical of him. He asks them everytime (I’ve never seen him fail to mention something about quotas… what a broken record).
I thought the debate went great. Gabs and Reilly seemed scared by the new polls, but also trying to be calm and comparitive instead of attacking, making Reilly seem incredibly creepy (I prefer angry Reilly). I thought bringing up the others negative campaigns was a good idea for Deval but I don’t think it worked the way he delivered it.
<
p>
Reilly’s best moments were when he borrowed from Deval to go after Gabrieli, and I think Deval took control of the debate when neccesary to do a far better job at laying out his specific ideas.
<
p>
Patrick came across the best as projected the confidence of a front-runner, so he didn’t need to bring the others down at all, just boost himself, while Gabrieli was trying to gain on Deval, and Reilly was going after both of them (but nicely).
<
p>
It left me ever so much more sure of my decision for next tuesday, and also showed me the positive sides of the other two, and will most likely consider supporting them if they prevail in the primary. I’m not a Democrat, so I’m not gonna promise, but they do both have good strengths and some good ideas.
Gabs was ok too… Reilly loat again cuz he just can’t help it.
Gabrieli’s answers/defensiveness on charter school funding just made him look obstinate. He looked anti-Democratic Party, too, as he pandered to the unenrolled voter. That question about what aspects of the Democratic Party do you disagree with was just awful. If you don’t want to be a Democrat, Chris, why don’t you just come out and say it? Bad form.
<
p>
Reilly came off as spooky Jekyll/Hyde. Which is it? He can’t seem to settle on a persona. Reilly seemed so desperate to get his talking points out that he apparently wasn’t listening to what was actually being said.
<
p>
As for the question so many people didn’t like about negative campaigning, I think the question actually made Reilly and Gabrieli look like little kids with their hands in the cookie jar. The coy “Who me?” schtick was lame.
<
p>
At any rate, Patrick wins again. Although he fumbled a little bit and could have been more direct on a few things, he recovered nicely most of the time, especially when he was pointing out–repeatedly–that Reilly wasn’t listening. He came across as most sensible.
For a while people have been talking about the importance of a Governor who acts as a check against the legislature. This question, while not actually asking that, gave the candidates the opportunity to talk about being somewhat independent. It wasn’t a great question for Gabs to ask from a strategic point of view, but as a DP supporter, I appreciated the opportunity it afforded my guy and I thought it was one of his best answers of the night.
Got off the phone with two people who will be voting on Tuesday, and this was the only debate they watched. I agree with both of them who felt that nobody really stood out. Too often it seemed that a candidate was close to making a good point, then got bogged down in detail or poor language.
<
p>
All Deval needed was a tie, and that’s what he got.
No one scored a knock-out and no one melted down. On that count, Reilly was much better than last week How could he be worse? Let’s give him a B-. (Last week a generous C-, probably should have been much worse)
<
p>
Deval was solid, but he’s been better. I agree that his question backfired and he should never have complained (whined?) about negative ads. Wrong forum for that. This is “the big leagues” and when you run for governor it’s a full contact sport on occasion. Still, great style and delivery. Grade B- (Last Week A-/B+)
<
p>
Gabrieli was very good, but not quite as good as last week’s great performance. I think he really played very well to the crowd last week. Tonight he demonstrated a nice grasp of the issues although I wish that he did not revisit taxes at near the end. I know that he was really trying to isolate Deval, but that is arguably Reilly’s best issues in terms of popularity relative to the others. I would have preferred another question from Keller to Deval at that point. Chris had the best closing statement hands down and that means something. Gabrieli gets a strong B+ (Last week A/A-)
<
p>
As for the people at the debate, can someone please verify this for me? It’s not overly important, but there was absolutely no way that Deval had the most people there. Reilly had the most – likely about 200 people, many union. Gabs had 150-200, a nice mix of union and “regular folk”. Deval was lucky if there were 20-30 people out there on his behalf. Did I miss something?
I agree with your assessment of the numbers of supporters for each canidate. Patricks group was a fraction f the size of both of the other canidates’ and they showed up quite late.
I thought Gabrieli was the clear winner tonight, and better than last week, because he let no dig go unanswered (“I’ve been in business for years getting things done: how is that theoretical?”). Deval looked on the defensive several times, especially after Chris’ brilliant stab at how Deval chooses to spend his millions. But when I look at these other posts, I realize our reactions are colored by preconceived preferences. According to your preferences, you choose between Deval’s “vision thing” or Chris’ clear track record in Massachusetts.
And southshoreguy is absolutely right about the turnout tonight: Reilly and Gabrieli folks dominated. Why were there so few Patrick supporters there?
If indeed there were less Deval people there, it was because the campaign is putting its emphasis on winning on Tuesday. A crowd outside Ch. 4 won’t do that, but phone banking/lit dropping/canvassing definitely will.
My take as a Patrick supporter…
<
p>
I thought all 3 did well tonight.
<
p>
Gabrieli seemed focused and had an air of gravitas, I thought last week he seemed kind of geeky at times, but not tonight. A few times he really spoke too fast in trying to make too many points, but he had an air of seriousness about him that I think really worked.
<
p>
Reilly was at his best tonight. I’m not a fan of his, but I think he gave the public his best and he had a few really good moments. His answer about tracking students was absolutely brilliant, authentic and effective.
<
p>
Patrick had the hardest job tonight as the guy the other two were obviously going to be gunning for. I agree with other posters that his question to the other two was a disaster for him. That said, he hung in there tonight, didn’t get flustered, and made a lot of great points and had some wonderful moments. He benefited by getting the last closing statement that he delivered really well (though to nitpick I find even quick glancing at notes to be really distracting for an opening or closing statement.)
<
p>
Unlike last week’s debate, I don’t think tonight’s debate will have a big impact on chaning many minds though it might help some undecideds make up their mind.
<
p>
As a final word – I give Keller a lot of credit for the design of the debate – the viewers really had an opportunity to see the three of them get into it on the issues and get a lot of good back and forth but in a way that seemed fair to all 3 candidates. By only having one moderator, it provided a real continuity of format that allowed our focus to be on the candidates.
I was horrified that Keller was moderator, but he did a more creditable job than most I’ve seen. Good fromat too.
<
p>
I’d like to see future presidential contenders have the guts to accept this format.
I thought the previous debate’s format was better – and I thought the questions for that debate were much better. Personally, I prefer several people getting to ask the questions from various establishments. They all asked tough questions, trying to stump the candidates and it lended itself to a really good debate. Last night? Not so much.
Can anyone get the CBS4 website post-debate analysis video stream to work on their computers? Mine just keeps saying loading (15 minutes now) – I think I have all that software?
[Quoting from memory] “Deval both you and I have spent millions of dollars over the last few months. The difference is you spent it on a summer house and I spent it trying to become the governor of Massachusetts. People in glass mansions shouldn’t throw stones.” I’m sure Deval folks will rip it to shreds, but I thought it played well. I was throwing air punches.
<
p>
Lots here will also hate that Chris told everyone Deval had a nasty question lined up if he needed it. I thought it was funny. And he couldn’t help seeing Deval’s notes, he’s tall. Deval pretty much deserved it for questioning their “character.” Last time I heard someone moralize like that was when I got called before the freshman dean for weekend shenanigans. Totally backfired.
<
p>
What about Deval and Reilly trying to paint Chris as some kind of nutty professor removed from the real world? How bogus was that? Plays to the wonk perception but totally misrepresents who he is.
<
p>
What did people think of Reilly saying he’s against tracking because he got put in the remedial classes in school? Touching or pitiful?
<
p>
For strictly entertainment purposes, I love it when Crazy Tom comes out. Something changes in his eyes, his sentences get shorter and more curt. Feels like he’s going to step over and knee someone in the groin.
<
p>
Deval has some kind of mojo in his voice. He sounds so damn reasonable and friendly, you can’t help starting to like him. But then you try to figure out what he’s saying and it’s mostly vague.
As you expected, I’m here to make a defense for Deval on your first point. While Gabs has poured his millions into the race, Deval is building a nice new house. A really freakin’ nice one actually. Gabs pulled a nice soundbyte out of this, I definitely will give him that.
<
p>
Now let’s look at investment from the traditional standpoint to analyze this exchange between two very wealthy candidates. An investment is something you ideally hope to realize a return on. So while DP has been investing in a new home which will realize a return when it is sold at some point, CG is investing much millions in a fight for what is, for him at least, a low paying job…Which of these seems to be the smarter investment to you? Which of these investors do you want in charge of your tax dollars?
(I like Deval tho)
I think this is the wrong way to go with this, Rollbiz, because Chris’s investment acumen and record are major league. So I answer unequivocally “Chris Gabrieli” to your last question.
<
p>
This campaign is precisely not a financial investment for Gabrieli; he genuinely wants the job because he thinks he is the right person for it. He thinks it’s worth putting his own resources into.
I for one think it’s as poor an investment as the other losing campaigns he’s poured his own money into, when put up against real grassoots…
<
p>
Money can’t buy me love.
doesn’t he put his time into people resources, as in getting more volunteers to work for him?
<
p>
I’m sure all three candidates think they’re the right person for the job – otherwise, why run? But Chris has been in three elections and each time his MO is the same. Paid consultants and ground personnel, glossy flyers, saturation advertising.
<
p>
To date, I’ve been called three times by Patrick supporters (real live people, not robocalls), with one caller actually asking me to work as coordinator for my region. (I was a delegate in the gubernatorial contest preceding this one, so I’m on the list, I guess.) I have yet to hear from any live Gabrieli supporters asking for support of any kind, and ads never have the same impact as a personal ask.
<
p>
The surest way to get people to support you with their time or treasure is to convince them to invest in you emotionally. Patrick is a genius at that, and his fundraising results prove the axiom. Gabrieli has spent lots of his own money, because he’s had to – he has very little presence in some areas of the state and he isn’t learning from his own history. Michael Capuano trounced him in the run for Congress because while Chris spent $5 mil on ads, flyers and consultants, Capuano had a top-notch ground organization working for him.
<
p>
My point is, if you get people inspired enough to work for you – or at least to send you dough, they’ll also vote for you, because they’ve invested their time and money in your campaign and want to see that investment pay off. Fund your own campaign, and the only vote you can be sure of is your own.
“Why … doesn’t he put his time into people resources, as in getting more volunteers to work for him?”
<
p>
He’s done and is doing that. His is a multi-pronged strategy. No one doubts Deval has the most volunteers in total, but it’s not a zero-sum game. Chris has support in every town in the state. Plus his media strategy puts him in living rooms and cars everywhere. I submit that Chris’s votes will be spread more evenly across the state than either of the other candidates’.
And a comment in response to another comment is not a lecture. If you don’t want responses, why are you posting?
<
p>
Chill.
Deval spending millions on his house, I could care LESS…because the more important investment Deval’s been making this summer, which Gabs has completely flubbed (by his late entrance into the race among other reasons) is the reubuilding of the state Democratic party. While Gabrieli is using the old millionaire playbook, Deval kept his millions to himself so WE could all own a part of his campaign.
<
p>
Personally, I’ll take Deval’s investment in this race long before I’ll take Gabrieli’s.
<
p>
The part about Patrick was good too.
I think Deval drained most of the value of that quote with his retort (close enough that its awkward for a sound byte to cut away) that it was a nicely rehearsed.
I agree that no one hit a home run. But as a Deval supporter, I have to say that I was glad to see Reilly rehabilitate himself. The conventional wisdom seemed to be that Reilly’s supporters were going to move to Gabs after the last debate, so anything that keeps him in the race can only strengthen Deval.
<
p>
I agree that Deval’s question backfired. However, I think his retort to the glass houses comment was effective. I’m always amused when a politician’s supporters respond to an obviously scripted comment like that by exclaiming how “brilliant” he is. It was a clever remark, but I highly doubt that Gabs had anything to do with writing it.
<
p>
I think it’s smart of Deval to assert how often he agrees with Gabs. Since he’s leading in the polls, he’s defusing any reason someone would have to switch to Gabs. It also makes it easier for Gabs supporters to get behing him when he wins the primary.
Gabs: “We do need to do more for kids who are gifted.” We should have “high schools of excellence – amazing that we don’t have a Bronx H.S. of Science.”
<
p>
That’s nice, Mr. Gabrieli, but have you ever heard of Boston Latin School, the oldest public school in the country? What about Boston’s other two exam schools for “gifted” kids, Boston Latin Accademy and the John D O’Bryant School of Math and Science? You’d think, living in Boston, that you’d be familiar with the public school options – oh wait, your kids don’t go to public school.
Chris is well aware of Boston’s exam schools. He was specifically referring to a high-performing science/tech school.
<
p>
Latin and Latin Academies are not science/tech schools. The O’Bryant does well but it is not in the league of Bronx Science.
(My first comment here at BMG)
<
p>
Chris used his own money to start an organization to expand after school programs in Massachusetts, it’s called Mass 20/20 (www.mass2020.org). They are now working on extending the school day for a number of schools in Mass., which I think is a great idea, especially for kids and their working parents in a very expensive state.
<
p>
So yes, he does know MA schools. He actually knows A LOT about MA schools.
<
p>
I’d just like to respond to some of you I’ve seen posting here about Chris spending his own money on his campaign or having a lot of money.
<
p>
Having made a lot of money, the man has turned around and invested it into making Massachusetts better. Not only that, he invests his time because he is passionate about making other people’s lives better.
<
p>
Although I won’t shy away from Deval, I haven’t seen and don’t know of him put in the same passion and time into this state before the election that Chris or even Reilly has in the last couple of years. He’s been off investing his time and making money off of corporations in trouble, not the people of Mass.
<
p>
That’s why I support Chris over Deval, even with my disclaimer.
<
p>
(Disclaimer: my wife works for Mass 20/20, and I do support Chris although I support democrats in general as long as they’re supporters for the people and not special interests incl. their own)