Brett Arends in the Herald reports that Deval Patrick gave back a little to Tom Reilly and Chris Gabrieli yesterday morning:
The Democratic race for governor erupted for the first time yesterday as the three contenders took off the gloves with just two weeks remaining before the make-or-break primary vote.
Deval Patrick chose the annual Labor Day breakfast in downtown Boston to throw jabs at his opponents, mocking Attorney General Tom Reilly as little more than a bureaucrat . . . with insider connections and dismissing venture capitalist Chris Gabrieli as a technocrat whose campaign is based on money.
We dont need a bureaucrat or a technocrat, with money or insider connections, he pointedly told the 400 or so labor activists present. We need a Democrat with the right convictions.
… Chris is not a technocrat, the Gabrieli team added.
And Reilly continued the “For It All Deval” nursery rhyme.
Now, this is still pretty tame stuff from Patrick — I’m not sure I’d call it “taking off the gloves” just yet. And I have some problems with these particular lines of attack: Wasn’t Patrick a government lawyer, too? Does that make him a “bureaucrat”? And what’s wrong with being a “technocrat”, i.e. someone who tries to improve things by doing good policy without an ideological axe to grind? Gabrieli is plainly a technocrat — a technocrat’s technocrat, even. Nothing wrong with that in my book. His campaign should wear that title proudly, not reject it.
But most remarkable is Patrick’s embrace of a — Reaganesque? — “politics of conviction”. In their zeal to find those elusive moderate voters, I wonder if Reilly and Gabrieli have muddled their messages. Patrick is the only one really running on his temperament, not just his résumé. And since no one can be an expert on everything, folks may well be attracted to a fellow whose TV ad says Massachusetts ought to be a moral leader.
It kills me to say it, but this is what worked politically for George W. Bush: “You may not agree with me, but you know where I stand.” That’s what won him the election. I detest his policies; I knew where he stood, and it was neck deep in the mire. But politically, that’s what works. Reverse the parties, and I don’t see why what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander.
The truth is somewhere in between in my estimation. I’m not sure that this was a public enough forum to take a little jab, although it certainly did make the papers and such, but this jab is OK by me.
<
p>
On one hand I do see the issues with the politics of hope becoming mired in the very cynicism it is supposed to combat. I do see the issue with calling out your opponents as technocrats and especially buraucrats, especially when you could fall into the latter definition on a stretch. I do want Deval to win positively and not by trying to cut off his opposition at the knees. I think it’s generally the wrong technique on the basis of my personal morality, and I frankly don’t think it’s DP’s strong point.
<
p>
However, I know the party wants the candidates to play it nice and perhaps you do too, but seriously Charley… have they? Did Gabs not take his mini-jab on the tax issue? It was OK with me, but it happened. And let’s not even get started on Reilly, who’s been jabbing and poking and low-blowing all the live long day…
<
p>
It’s politics. We’re two weeks from the primary, and all in all I think we’ve had a very congenial race. I’d love to see it stay that way. I’d love to truly have a contest of ideas, I’d love to think that nothing nasty will be pulled out in the debates or any other forum pre 9/19. If anything I would ask the candidates to be required to back up any slam on others with an independant citation of fact. But let’s be real…That’s not politics, and it ain’t going to happen.
<
p>
Sorry, Charley.