The sages are right on that one — whatever honeymoon Deval Patrick had with the mainstream media seems to have ended, though query whether you can really call it a “honeymoon” if you didn’t get a little lovin’ first (the Globe, for instance, spent months patiently trying to explain why Patrick couldn’t win the primary, after all). In any event, in the eyes of the “liberal” media, Deval Patrick has committed a cardinal sin of being a candidate: he dissed a reporter that other reporters like by not answering his question. And he is being roundly trashed for it. Keller. McGrory. Adam Reilly‘s getting into the act too, though on a different topic (Patrick’s meeting with Sal & Trav).
To refresh everyone’s recollection (as if you needed it), the AP’s Glen Johnson wanted Patrick to explain what he would have done in 2003, had he been in office, to close the budget gap (which, by the way, was emphatically not $3 billion). Patrick didn’t answer the question, saying that he wanted to talk about now rather than 2003.
Was that a good answer? No — it’s a fair question that Patrick should have expected to be asked, having criticized Romney/Healey’s response to the 2003 budget situation. Moreover, it’s better to avoid pissing off the press if you can avoid it. And, as Charley has already said, the reality is that Patrick probably would have done something similar to what Romney/Healey did: raise some fees, close some “tax loopholes,” and otherwise do what you can to get the budget back into balance. But honest to God, from the reaction this has generated, you’d think this was the first time a candidate had ever ducked a reporter’s question in the history of the republic.
The thing is, though, as Patrick has correctly said over and over again, what he would or would not have done in 2003 isn’t the point of this particular debate (before you jump down my throat: yes, it’s a fair question, but it’s a different question). The point — and it’s a good one — is that Romney/Healey really did seek to hike taxes and fees by $985 million, and succeeded in hiking them by $750-$800 million. Yet they steadfastly claim that they haven’t raised taxes, and Kerry Healey is resolutely promising that she won’t raise taxes if she gets elected. I mean, come ON!
The Boston Herald editorial page, of all places, actually gets the point on this, even as it steadfastly defends the income tax rollback.
Sure, as the governor rightly points out, those were tough times and the state had to make up a $650 million budget shortfall that year. But once it did, were those fees rolled back? Fat chance!
Healey is right to point out that the voters of this state went to the polls in 2000 and voted to give themselves an income tax cut. It is an act of political arrogance to ignore that – as the Legislature has done. But Deval Patrick is right to point out that the Romney administration also found numerous ways to take money out of the pockets of Massachusetts citizens. And that too cannot be ignored.
So fine, MSM guys. Take your shots at Deval for dissing Glen — he didn’t handle the question well, apparently (though I wasn’t there), so he deserves some flak for it. But when you’re done, don’t forget that what the Herald said is right:
