Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

New Healey ad out: Melanie’s Law

By

Kerry Healey has a new ad out featuring Ron Bersani, the grandfather of drunk-driving victim Melanie Powell, the namesake of Melanie’s Law.

It’s a good spot. Bersani, who has been visible with the campaign since the beginning, speaks simply and with dignity in support of Kerry Healey with regard to Melanie’s Bill, which was indeed obstructed by some serious legislative clowning by certain members of the legislature who shall remain namel — Ah, what the hell, it was O’Flaherty. Eugene O’Flaherty of Chelsea, if you must know. Then he hid in Portugal with some other reps. But I digress …

So anyhoo, there’s a Healey-vs.-lege narrative going on in the ad. For this case especially, that’s not bad strategy, but the problem is that although she did indeed speak up, I’ll bet no one remembers Kerry Healey from the whole contretemps. I’ll bet that this is the first that most people have heard that Kerry Healey had a significant role in passing that or any other law. It feels a little like Forrest Gump: Wow, she was there, too? (And at the Big Dig when Mitt was wielding the mighty magic marker! And at the health care signing! And with Nixon in China! etc.)

Furthermore, there’s no contrast with the Dem gov. candidates. Tom Reilly, after all, chastised the lege for weakening the bill; and since as far as I know, Patrick and Gabrieli don’t have any public record on the issue, they can feel free to take the correct side post-hoc. Why not? Can Healey really argue that Gabrieli (e.g.) would be milder with the legislature on this issue? (Note to Chris: If she does, take the opportunity to bash the lege.)

Kerry Healey’s big problem is that she doesn’t have (or has been denied by Romney) a portfolio of accomplishment that has stuck in the public’s mind. The “cities and towns liaison” bit is a double-edged sword at best — and merely dull in any event: no stardust in that title. She’s a PhD criminologist, but seems to have nothing to show for it but a few white papers — excuse me: “books” — and as far as I know, nothing of note in that field in this administration.

I am not saying Healey’s a weak candidate by any stretch: She can print money and will club any and all Dem candidates with the anti-tax stick. That’s why the ad seems a little strange, trying to weave a new narrative in the public’s mind. It’s a nice ad coming from someone with emotional clout, but I’m not sure it’ll stick.

Oh, and by the way, ask Reed Hillman about the whole drunk-driving thing.

Thanks to Hub Politics.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I recall there being comments in the KHOoT blog post about Hillman that rebutted the whole thing.  Guess they were moderated out of existence.

    • She may have Vetoed the bill as acting Gov. I am not Sure but Mitt has been out of town so often that it is a posibility.  I think her adds have done a good job.  Lets hope we make it though the 19 without destroying each other.

        • From a google search I got the Hub Politics entry on the situation which quotes a larger portion of the Herald article:
          http://www.hubpoliti…

          <

          p>

          Mitchell’s OUI arrests were in 1972, 1977 and 1982. The 1972 charge was dismissed, the 1977 charge was continued for six months and later dismissed, and he was found guilty on the 1982 charge and fined $100.

          “He had one conviction. If he had three convictions, I would have never done this,” Hillman said. “One conviction, 20 years old. He was an elderly guy who essentially wanted to go to his grave with a clean record.”

          <

          p>
          And as a commenter says about the assault charge:

          <

          p>

          But, as the Globe points out, that charge is almost 50 years old. The Herald might want to mention that.

          <

          p>

  3. Maybe that is closer to the mark than the F. Gump citation, although that too has a certain resonance, I admit. How old was Healey when she went to China with Nixon?

    • For Healey:

      <

      p>
      If she is associated with a Romney action that sounds positive, she’s Bubba Gump, trying to horn in on credit. 

      <

      p>
      If she is associated with a Romney action that sounds negative, it’s Romney-Healey as equals. 

      <

      p>
      For LG candidates Murray and Goldberg:

      <

      p>
      If they are associated with decisions of a Town Manager, they’re not Gump.  They’re key decision-makers. 

      <

      p>
      For Patrick:

      <

      p>
      If he is associated with negative actions of his corporations, not only is he not responsible, he’s actually the guy who tried to fix things, but just didn’t have the juice, though not having the juice was not his fault. 

      <

      p>
      So far as we can tell, there are no positive actions of Coke, Ameriquest, et al, for which he wants to take credit. 

      <

      p>
      Sounds reality-based to me! 

        • high ratings from ebiii and peter p! 

          <

          p>
          time to trumpet my leftist credentials on social issues….

      • She spoke up; Credit where credit is due. I’m not really sure the public was really tuned into that, though, since Mitt has generally given her so little oxygen on which to run her own campaign.

        <

        p>
        Do people see that ad and say, “Oh yeah, Kerry Healey vs. Drunk Driving — I remember now!” Or is it news to them? The latter isn’t bad, necessarily, but it would be more powerful had she been able/allowed to put together a public portfolio that she could point to. So far, I imagine her public image is still pretty Gumpy.

        <

        p>
        Anyway, I said it’s a good spot. Any love from PP or EBIII? Ha.

  4. I don’t know.  From my own bizarre experience with drunk drivers and law enforcement, I can honestly say that I think that, as a whole, “drunk driving” is a BS issue.  It’s a completely cycnically motivated attempt to get the soccer mom and safety dad vote.  The nervous, evening news watching parents of 16 year old sons and daughters everywhere.

    <

    p>
    You want REAL drunk driving legislation reform?  Stop lowering the legal limit.  Forget longer sentences as a deterent.  The real problem lies in the collection of evidence of drunk driving at the scene.

    <

    p>
    One classic test of whether a person is intoxicated is their ability (or lack thereof) to perform the Nystagmus test.  If a suspect can’t follow an object, typically a pen, with their eyes as an officer brings it left to right, it tends to suggest their intoxicated. 

    <

    p>
    Defense attorneys have convinced courts that police officers aren’t skilled enough to administer the tests, or that failing the test could suggest some other medical ailment, as opposed to simply being intoxicated.  Hence, police offers can’t offer into evidence the results of the Nystagmus test.  Breathalyzers can be refused.  And as I found out the hard way, if there has been an accident, the offending drunk driver will not be asked to perform a field sobriety test. Why?  Officers are afraid they’ll be sued by a driver who will later claim he “accidently” rear-ended another driver, was himself hurt, and then forced to walk around while injured!

    <

    p>
    So, if the legislature is ready to discuss these tough issues, and legislatively address the prosecution of drunk driving offenses, and crack down on officers who are lax in prosecuting these offenses out of convenience, then we can talk.

    <

    p>
    Otherwise, save it.

    • Ed, isn’t Melanie’s law about stiffer penalties for repeat offenders — that is, the folks who are convicted in spite of all the obstacles you cite?

      <

      p>
      Are you against that?

      • That’s fine, but consider what you mean by “repeats.”  You’re talking about people who were caught once.  Not people who repeatedly get away with because they know the tricks.  Ask around.  Any cop will tell you the real repeaters know the loopholes.

Archives