Is Patrick himself worrying about his ideological positioning? It’s pretty hard to argue otherwise when he chooses to respond to Reilly’s question by retreating from the bill less than 24 hours after the debate.
Patrick seemed legitimately rattled last night. I chalked it up to over-preparation for an all out assault that never materialized. Instead he came across as defensive and over-sensitive. But this move is just weak-kneed. Last night it was enough that he would veto provisions that would impair law enforcement officials. Today, he feels the need to run away from the bill entirely.
Maybe he is thinking what Maryanne Marsh is thinking:
Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic political consultant, said nothing in the debate is likely to prompt voters to switch their allegiances at the polls in next Tuesday’s primary. But, should Patrick win, he could have opened himself up to attack in November with some of his comments, she said.
“Right now, you can see where Kerry Healey and the Republicans are going in the general election, and that will be ‘tough on taxes and tough on crime,’ and they are going to haul out some of those statements and hit Deval Patrick with them like a 2-by-4,” said Marsh.
Patrick’s campaign offered this carefully worded statement:
On Thursday, the Patrick campaign distanced itself from the bill. “They are wrong to include him as a supporter of the act,” said spokesman Richard Chacon. “The president of the organization knows that Deval does not support the measure.”
Read: They are now wrong to include him as a supporter of the act [because we just pulled back]. The president now knows that Deval does not support the measure [because we just called him.]
Hold onto your seats, folks, this ballgame ain’t finished yet. Reilly put in a strong performance last night that has apparently carried into today, while Patrick is showing some latet-inning jitters about his own positions.
I hate to say it but I agree with you Mav. Patrick let Gabs and Reilly back into the race last night. He didn’t seem to have any kind of consistent political philosophy other than not blowing his lead. He could have spoken out about charter schools hurting underfunded public schools but he didn’t. He could have stuck up for teachers unions but he didn’t. He could have made the same eloquent points that Rep Marzilli made on taxes but he didn’t. And he could have shown that being liberal doesn’t mean being soft on crime but he didn’t. I lost a great deal of confidence in him, and then I realized that like Gabs he has NEVER WON a political race in his life. Reilly has won four, including a tough race for DA and a race for AG that the exit polls said he had lost! He is a strong closer and campaigner, and he is the only one that can beat Healey in November.
Gabs has never won a political race in his life? Did you just move to Massachusetts? He was the Dem nominee for LG in 2002. Which means he won the primary.
that he lost badly to Romney/Healey. Hello?
he lost that race…………
that before or after he promised he wouldnt run for one office while still in office? kinda like he’s doing right now
O’brien not Gabrieli lost to Romney. Get it straight
The bidness as usual campaign lost. It was a ticket. I know I checked out on that one. Went to work for a Dem in CT. Same things gonna happen if people buy into the whole bidness as usual thing again. I voted against Romney. I voted against Bush. I will vote FOR Deval and spent a year working with voters to get his message out. You need to inspire people and make them feel part of the process. That’s what checking back in is all about. We win if that happens.
Now I know why we have not won the corner office in decades. You see, there is a general election after the primary that determines the final winner of the election. That is the person that becomes the office holder. Winning the primary is meaningless. Just ask John Silber, another dilletante whose presence in the primary only served to try to drag the party to the right, just like Gabs. And we have been out of the Governor’s office ever since.
Reilly accuses Patrick of supporting a bill that Patrick doesn’t support. Patrick denies supporting all aspects of it. Reilly almost falls back into last weeks Mr Hyde mode and keeps pushing it while Deval repeatedly denies supporting the bill. Patrick makes a statement the next day clarifying that he does not support the bill as it exists? And that’s a flip-flop???
<
p>
Face it. Reilly is grasping at straws trying to stop his freefall into irrelevence.
Wow. Using a baseball, analogy, it’s difficult to pitch in the late innings – especially for rookies. Great day for Gabrieli (thank you Kerry!), pretty good day for Reilly, and a very very bad one for Deval.
<
p>
The money lines are
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
Reilly kept shifting his question from support for CORI reform to support for the entire act. I have not read the entire bill as proposed. However, I am very well aware of how easily asscessable a person’s Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) is. Additionally, the information contained in someone’s CORI is not just convictions; it includes all arraignments (regardless of whether those charges are later defeated, dropped or resolved without a conviction or admission). AND people don’t generally know how to read a CORI. So Deval is right to join with many others to call for a tightening of the CORI laws…and (shut your mouth for a second and listen…or read) nothing in the Act is going to keep an individual’s CORI from cops and judges, nor will it keep information about sex offenders or drug dealers from perspective day care employers, or schools or parks where children frolic. The reform is to keep what should be a confidential information from getting out to the public without cause. I thought Tom Reilly was very sensitive to this subject. But Tom Reilly knows this. He is not confused about Deval’s position at all. He just in last place, standing in line with his deli ticket that says he’s next. He waiting to get a pound of thinly sliced baloney and the Democratic nomination. Isn’t that how it works?
I appreciate your zealous advocacy for your candidate, MavDem. But in fact this whole CORI matter is a minor footnote. Reilly tried to trap him, but since no voter knows what this original bill says anyways, it was left as a “he said, she said.” I agree with Patrick that police should of course have access to criminal records, but I don’t want any guy off the street to be reading my file.
<
p>
I think you would agree that your candidate feels that taxes are a much bigger issue in this campaign. And what did Tom say about an income tax cut just last year?
<
p>
<
p>
This quote is coming from the same candidate who now indignantly tells his opponents that they “just don’t get it” with respect to taxes. Did Reilly “just not get it” last year, and now he has seen the light? I think this one ranks up there with Romney’s pro-choice to pro-life conversion on the flip-flop-o-meter.
<
p>
And you bring up this minor subtlety on CORI? Come on.