Once thought to be the clear front-runner, Reilly now finds himself in a close race. We’re not surprised. His challengers – Deval L. Patrick and Christopher F. Gabrieli – have much to offer voters. Each is capable and thoughtful.
Reilly is our choice because his positions on major issues such as fiscal responsibility, public education, public safety and others are representative of the broadest cross-section of Massachusetts voters.
We disagree with Reilly on some key issues, such as his plan to lower the state’s income tax from 5.3 percent to 5 percent. At the moment, the state’s budget cannot accommodate the loss of revenues from a cut in the income tax.
Yet, we were pleased to see a bit of the prosecutor in Reilly during the three-way debate Thursday night at the John F. Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics, when he forcefully went to bat for the University of Massachusetts on the need for investments to promote stem cell research.
He has pledged to make the University of Massachusetts at Amherst a world-class university, making it a conduit for high-paying jobs in the region.
All three Democratic candidates for governor see education as a lifeline to the state’s economy. Reilly has the strongest plan to improve the state’s public schools, with an emphasis on science and math. That will better position the Bay State’s students to compete in a global economy.
As attorney general, he defended the Massachusetts “buffer-zone law” that protects women entering health centers from being harassed or intimidated by protesters; he led a coalition of cities, states and environmental groups with a lawsuit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act; he battled with the Catholic Church on cases involving the alleged sexual abuse of minors by priests, and he led the fight for the largest reduction in automobile insurance rates in more than two decades.
When Reilly says he is the only candidate with experience in office, he has a record to stand behind.
We endorse Reilly for another reason that hits a little closer to home: he was born and raised in Springfield. A candidate’s hometown is not a qualification for office, but we have heard many gubernatorial candidates over the years promise not to forget Western Massachusetts once they are in office.
Voters can take Reilly at his word.
“This city has been good to me,” he said during a meeting with The Republican editorial board. “When I say that, I mean the people of the city. They educated me and gave me a chance. I owe this city a lot.”
For 36 years, Reilly and his wife, Ruth, a retired public school teacher, have lived in rented apartment in Watertown, a neighborhood not unlike the Springfield neighborhood where he lived as a boy.
Both Patrick and Gabrieli are millionaires. Wealth does not disqualify a candidate for office, but Reilly’s neighborhood looks very much like the neighborhoods of most Massachusetts voters.
There are also three candidates for lieutenant governor on the Democratic primary ballot – Timothy P. Murray, mayor of Worcester; Deborah B. Goldberg, former chairwoman of the Brookline selectmen and Andrea C. Silbert, former chief executive of the Center for Women and Enterprise in Boston.
Murray is our choice.
As a three-term mayor, Murray would be a powerful voice for small cities. Mayors in Chicopee, Holyoke, Easthampton and Northampton all support him.
Again, while his address is no qualification for elective office, Murray is the only candidate who lives west of Route 128.
He’s our choice.
They write (at the very bottom), “As a three-term mayor, Murray would be a powerful voice for small cities. Mayors in Chicopee, Holyoke, Easthampton and Northampton all support him.
<
p>
Again, while his address is no qualification for elective office, Murray is the only candidate who lives west of Route 128.
<
p>
He’s our choice.”
<
p>
Boy, that is giving me some pause. Based on that endorsement, I really have to rethink this whole LG race…not.
I particularly enjoy the Springfield Republican’s assessment of last week’s debate performance as a plus for Tom. He went to bat for regular people since it all can’t be about Harvard…
The Republican editorial board is schizophrenic. I question their independence from their publisher (David Starr, local political meddler).
<
p>
For example, in the last city council election, the Republican endorsed every incumbent city councilor. Here is what they said:
<
p>
<
p>
They then proceeded to endorse every incumbent councilor.
<
p>
Yet in a subsequent editorial six months later, they have this to say:
<
p>
<
p>
How can the Republican editorial board endorse a group of people with an “abysmal track record”? Easy. When it comes to political endorsments, it is clear that the ed-board is not exactly calling the shots. Their publisher, connected to the Springfield political machine, is.
You’d think, with the city flat on its back, that they’d want to back a winner for a change.
<
p>
Reilly, with all his so-called “home town” advantage, couldn’t even win the majority of the Springfield delegation at the Convention, that showpiece of political machinery.
<
p>
I’ve spent a lot of time in Springfield over the past few months, and from what I’ve seen, support for Deval Patrick has been growing by leaps and bounds. From the debate in Agawam to the PVP Meeting to the opening of the campaign office, the excitement and grassroots support has been exploding.
<
p>
I can’t wait to see the results of all the hard work being done there by my good friends and fellow campaign workers. I sincerely hope that in a week’s time the Republican will have lots of egg on its front page.
The Globe’s donations page shows that Reilly has a heavy advantage in Springfield, but given that a lot of Springfield doesn’t have an extra $100 to feed to a political candidate, hopefully people will do the next best thing and get out and vote.
<
p>
Springfield’s voting record has, however, been abysmal in the past. It isn’t unusual to see a 25% turnout or lower.
<
p>
In the 2002 final gubernatorial election, Springfield provided just 32,390 votes in the game, with a registered voter base of somewhere near 100,000. No wonder we’re ignored. However, its possible that Deval Patrick can speak to and motivate the people of Springfield more effectively than Shannon O’Brien.
<
p>
What amazes me is the number of Patrick lawn signs in Longmeadow, the area’s most upscale and wealthy community. They went 58% for Romney in 2002. Sure, lawn signs don’t vote, but I have to figure that the people sporting them represent at least one vote apiece in the primary.
The Springfield Republican endorsement comes after a year of fluff pieces on Reilly and virtual silence on the Patrick candidacy. Reilly could be indicted for fraud, rape and murder, and the Republican would still glowingly endorse him. Anyone who has spent any time reading the Republican should immediately lather and rinse repeatedly. Ever wonder how Springfield got into the trouble it’s in? A big part of the problem was the lack of reporting on corruption, insider political deals, etc. A major sport in Springfield is watching the news for the daily indictments (being sought by the feds, not the AG). Very sad and in need of change.
there would be high-fives and backslaps all around.
<
p>
Seriously, folks, we can play this game all day. Patrick got the Globe endorsment because he’s liberal. Tom Reilly got the Herald, Republican, and Cape Cod Times endorsements because he’s X, Y, and Z. Yada yada yada. The problem is that all of these arguments over-simplify matters and ignore the truth.
<
p>
The truth, you ask? Getting an endorsement is always better than not getting an endorsement. Period. That’s why campaigns compete for them.
See Segel ’02.
Unless you are suggesting that Segel lost because of the endorsements.
<
p>
Nobody, least of all me, suggested that endorsements guarantee victory. However, endorsments do obviously help. That is the point.
<
p>
The Globe’s last 4 gubernatorial endorsements have lost. Does that mean a Democrat can’t win in November? Of course not.
I’ll tout the endorsements my candidates get as much as the next guy, but in the end, they don’t mean anything more than a free press hit with a little extra juice and maybe some help with fundraising.
<
p>
Other than that, especially in downballot races, they mean nothing, just as political endorsements mean very little as well, save for those endorsers who actuall have organizations that can be put to work (which are becoming fewer and farther between).
I’d appreciate the help of BMG in telling me what’s wrong with me. O’ve supported Reilly pretty much since the get go (after some flirtation with Gabrieli for a while). I’ve met Deval twice and seen him speak in person four times.
<
p>
Obviously, nobody could actually believe that he’s the best candidate, so it must be something else. Am I schizophrenic? Do I have an ulterior motive? Am I a Republican in disguise? Maybe I just hate the planet. No wait — it’s because my mother didn’t hug me enough as a child. Since so many people around here enjoy analyzing people they don’t know, I figured you could take a crack at me.
<
p>
[/sarcasm]