So Healey will go negative: hard, broadly, unrelentingly. She will throw everything she has against Patrick and hope something sticks. This carries risks for her: I think the data will show that she is not yet a deeply popular figure in this state. She may be liked, although even that is somewhat in question, but she is not well-liked. Going negative when voters don’t yet have a base level of trust frequently backfires.
But she has no choice. She can’t run on her record, or tie herself to Romney, or to — gasp!! — Bush and Cheney. She needs a mud-wrestling contest: it’s her only chance.
So if you’re Patrick, what do you do? CW is that you can’t sit still and let attacks go unanswered, because people will believe the attacks must be true (see Bush I v. Dukakis, 1988; Bush II v. Kerry, 2004). And CW is right in this case.
But how does Patrick defend himself without appearing defensive? And how does Patrick maintain his appeal as “not politics as usual” if he engages with Healey? Does pointing out that she’s the one who’s going negative suffice? Or is it time for Patrick to start making some sharp criticisms of his own — attacks, if you will — including negative TV ads, now that he’s no longer in an intramural contest but a street fight?
lightiris says
1. Healey represents 16 years of status quo.
<
p>
2. He consistently points out that Healey relies on attack ads because she has nothing else to offer except 16 years of warmed-over & repackaged status quo.
<
p>
3. He quickly and tersely steps on her every time she says something inaccurate by responding immediately with the facts.
<
p>
By doing this over and over, he will successfully paint her as vapid, shrill, and desperate.
pablo says
Deval needs to stay positive.
<
p>
Tim Murray heads the truth squad. Bring out the experts on the issues Healey uses. Police and DAs for crime, for example. Clip of Kerry Healey saying, “Soft on crime.” Who are you talking about, Kerry Healey? Your administration cut local aid, and we lost X cops in the Commonwealth. Fewer police. And that’s not soft on crime?
peter-porcupine says
Community Policing money, the only state aid earmarked for police, went up. If cities chose to cut police – that was their choice to make.
<
p>
BEACON HILL DOES NOT CONTROL LOCAL DECISIONS.
howardjp says
So I understand that local aid generally was intended to help communities meet their needs — public safety being one of them.
<
p>
I understand that the community policing account is helpful, but small compared to other funding accounts.
<
p>
I understand that the Bush Administration eliminated funding for the COPS program, that allowed many communities to add staffing and reduce crime.