Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Why you must *not* vote for Deval Patrick.

By

Due to the arguments made here and elsewhere, I’d like to make an accounting of the reasons not to vote for Deval Patrick.

Comments

  1. “Psssst… he’s not actually Irish. He’s African-American — you know, black. Can’t have that, can we?”

    <

    p>
    When was the last time an Irish American occupied the governor’s office on Beacon Hill?  You guys at BMG seem to avoid the race issues like the plague unless it involves bashing Irish Americans.  I don’t understand it.  The Irish have been persecuted for close to a millennia; only the Jews have been persecuted for longer.  Millions of them starved to death in the late 1840’s.  They were denied work here in Boston and elsewhere as recently as the early 1900’s.  They fought through it all and assimilated.  Ultimately, they gained a toehold, then a foothold and ultimately got inside the corner office.

    <

    p>
    Psst . . .  Massachusetts has elected an African American to stateswide office before.  This was during the 60’s so you carpetbaggers might not remember.  His name was Ed Brooke and there is a courthouse named after him on New Chardon Street.

    <

    p>
    Psst . . .back in 1883, while Irish women were cleaning the houses of the Brahmins and Irish men were being denied a place at the American table, an African American, George L. Ruffin, was appointed as the presiding judge of Charlestown Court. 

    <

    p>
    Psst . . . there was a time, BMG, when the Irish occupied the lowest rung on America’s ladder.  They climbed the ladder and passed the African Americans.  For this crime they are now indicted by people of your ilk.  I cannot believe that the Irish bashing that I see on this blog on a regular basis is tolerated.  As Gomer Pyle would say, “shame, shame, shame.”

    • For god’s sake, take a deep breath. It might just be a joke based on, say, PATICK’S LAST NAME and the fact he’s not really Irish but some people will look at his name on the ballot and THINK he is.

      <

      p>
      Get a grip.

    • Pssst:  maybe one of the reasons that the entire liberal activist corps from MA flocked instantly to Deval, erstwhile Coke exec and Clintonista, is precisely because he is black.

      <

      p>
      Woah did I just say that?

      • Lots of cynicism this morning!
        When the machine of the party establishment derails, there’s bound to be a lot of noise. Don’t expect the chatter about “electability,” “out of the mainstream candidate,” and “angry left” to subside anytime soon. This has been a campaign about hope and accountability, and neither of the other two can touch Deval Patrick on that.

        • Deval, gearing up in his shining white armor (provided by his sponsor, Texaco), ready to knock down the windmills of the establishment.

          <

          p>
          I remember when everyone recognized ‘new democrats’ for what they were: another pro-business vanguard of the establishment.

      • Deval has been playing people like these since his first visit to a prep school chum’s home. Probably in CT.
        He can’t believe how easy people like the”entire liberal activist corps from MA” really are.
        Deval is like Boston College. It’s not the school we hate. It’s the alumni.

    • I just went back through your postings because for the life of me, I cannot understand a single point you make.  From your postings, it seems that you are an extremely conservative Dem.  I see the contrarianism, but I don’t get it.  There are so many things that we all care about, conservative or not. Deval Patrick has a mixed bag of opinions that don’t necessarily fit left or right labels.  A good portion of those supporting Deval have Irish surnames.  The ones who most frequently joke about the Irish are themselves Irish.  There is almost zero racism, sexism or another other ism that occurs on this blog.  What’s up with your replies?  Oh, and as for killing Canadian Geese — there are effective methods for keeping them away from your property.  Shooting them because they are messy doesn’t seem quite fair, unless you believe strongly in the right to use firearams at will.

    • Psst . . . there was a time, BMG, when the Irish occupied the lowest rung on America’s ladder.  They climbed the ladder and passed the African Americans.

      <

      p>
      Really?  When?  I’d love to know what time in America involved  Irish men, women, and children being captured in their homeland, shackled, beaten, and brought to America where they were forced to work for no compensation short of just enough to eat.  Of course, that’s in addition to the rapes, beatings, and other abuses.

      <

      p>
      If nothing else, an Irishman was counted as a man in America; a black man was counted as 3/5ths.

      <

      p>
      After the civil war, the Irish didn’t have to contend with Jim Crow (in fact, the Scotch-Irish helped to write Jim Crow, as the heritage of many white Southerners is indeed Scotch-Irish).  Irishmen got to vote, got to speak their minds politically without being hung from a tree, and even got to ride in the front of the bus.

      <

      p>
      I’m not saying the Irish have had it good throughout American history.  But, to claim that they had lower stature than black men in America is simply rewriting the history I’ve learned both in my educational years in America and Ireland.

      • stomv, Scotch Irish were Scottish settlers in Ireland who emigrated in the mid to late 18th century to the Southern US and Appalachia, and are primarily Protestant. Their experience is entirely different than that of the native, Roman Catholic Irish who were oppressed by British rule and flocked to America’s cities a century after the Scotch Irish. Your attempt to depict Irish Americans as culpable for Jim Crow is misleading. Furthermore, the status of the Irish in areas like Boston was similar to that of blacks in the south. Given the fact that Massachusetts lacked a large black minority the Irish Catholic’s large numbers was used a bogeyman for the Protestant Yankee Class.

      • That says it all.  You really know nothing about the history of the Irish.  The real Irish, that is. 

      • Slavery was a horrible thing and the Middle Passage was as well.  So was the Irish famine during which the British sanctioned the intentional starvation of Catholic Irish. 

    • The Irish were oppressed in the 19th Century, but they turned the situation around thoroughly in the 20th. The one thing the Irish never had to deal with, though, was legal slavery or the Jim Crow laws followed the abolition of slavery and made blacks second-class citizens (or more like noncitizens) in most of the country. In the 1960s and 70s, the South Boston Irish reacted to the prospect of integrated schools in much the same manner as southern rednecks.

  2. How about a truthiness Colbert style companion blog to BMG called something like demsforhealey.com. This would be a great first post.

        • I don’t think anyone’s actually dissapointed by the joke. Some of us are dissapointed because some of our fellow democrats actually do have a predisposition against Irish politicians and flock to Deval because he’s black. I don’t mind racist jokes- just racist behaviour.

  4. …how this poll demonstrates that Patrick can beat Healey.

    <

    p>
    I mean, I hope he does — but this poll shows only that 40% of likely Democratic primary voters — 46% of whom support Patrick — think he’s the most electable.  It says nothing about his overall electability.

    <

    p>
    If the numbers said anything else, now that would be a story — can you imagine?

    <

    p>
    In the meantime shouldn’t we be puzzling over that 6%?

    <

    p>
    And what about the 63% of likely Democratic primary voters that favor either an immediate or gradual rollback of the income tax rate?  How does that bode for the general election?

    • First of all, just because I vote for Candidate A does not mean that I think s/he’s most electable.  Maybe I just like that person the best.  Conversely, it does not mean that I think they’re the only one electable.

      <

      p>
      In this case, I’m voting for Reilly.  But I think that Gabrieli would certainly beat Healey.  Deval Patrick, in my opinion, will not.  However, nobody knows what will really happen.  So we have this spectacle of Democrats trying to imagine who disenchanted voters who split their ticket and elect GOP governors will vote.  That type of political mind-reading rarely succeeds and often depends on unreliable snapshot polling.  John Kerry in 2004 is a case in point.

      <

      p>
      As for your other issue — the “63% of likely Democratic primary voters” who prefer a tax rollback?  That’s a question Deval Patrick will have to answer as long as he’s running.

      • …but what I’m saying is that the contention that this poll says anything about Patrick’s electability is wrong; the poll says no such thing.

        <

        p>
        All it says is that most of the people who prefer Patrick also think he’s the most electable.

        <

        p>
        Like it or not, Patrick’s electability is now the question, and wishing won’t make it so.  After Tuesday he’s going to start getting hit like nothing you could ever imagine — or maybe you could — and being right on the issues may not be enough to overcome the onslaught.  John Kerry in 2004 is a case in point.

        • After King George II was appointed P-Resident of the White House by the most laughable decision of the Supreme Court since Dred Scott, there has been a little too much fatalism by Democrats that Democratic candidates cannot stand up to the “onslaught” of scare tactics, dirty tricks, and mantras that the Republicans run on. 

          <

          p>
          Kerry Healy has NO accomplishments to her name. NONE, get it?  THAT’S one of the important issues of this election.  How few accomplishments does this woman have?  Compare post-convention speeches by all the candidates:

          <

          p>
          Reilly: People should vote for me because I’m the candidate with the most experience in Mass State Government.

          <

          p>
          Gabs: People should vote for me because I’m the candidate who can get this state’s economy rolling again with Plan X, Y, and Z.

          <

          p>
          Patrick:  People should vote for me because I have experience in Government, in business, in non-profits, and in community groups and no one in either party can say that.

          <

          p>
          Healy:  People should vote for me as a check on the Democratic legislature.

          <

          p>
          She can’t even toot her own horn!!!!!  She has NADA on her resume. NADA.

          <

          p>
          Oh, sorry, big ommission from the list:

          <

          p>
          Mihos:  People should vote for me because if they do,  I’m offering 15% off on all slushies (winter time only, further restrictions may apply, cannot be combined with any other offer. Some stores may not participate. Slushies is a registered trademark.  No animal testing is done on Slushies–except for the food dies).

          <

          p>
          One footnote to history.  After the Dukakis debacle of 1988, the media could not wait to frame the election of 1992.  Race, the pundits were saying, Race is going to hamstring the Democrats once again.  Once again, they told us, Jesse Jackson and those pesky black people are going to be the millstone that sinks the Democratic Party once again. 

          <

          p>
          Then, Cuomo, in the worst career choice of his life, decided not to run.  The media labeled the Democratic field “The Six Dwarves”. 

          <

          p>
          The party ran a formal introductory event and called the press out to cover it.  That was something like 6 months before New Hampshire–back then a lifetime. 

          <

          p>
          Nobody came but C-SPAN.  Some guy from Arkansas got up and gave his 4 minute speech.  During that speech, the hayseed says, “Now, the Republicans are going to try divide us once again over the issue of race.  I’m from Arkansas, though,  and we in Arkansas know that when people do that, they’re just trying to pit poor and working class black people against poor and working class white people.  We’re not going to let them get away with it.”

          <

          p>
          Translation to America:  If people in Arkansas are NOT dumb enough to fall for this, why are you?

          <

          p>
          That night race the TRUMP card that was going to define the 92 election died. 

          <

          p>
          Gee, guess who the guy from Arkansas was.

          <

          p>
          Those who cower to the dirty tactics lose.  Those who confront them win.

          • …Mihos is proposing a wish-list of tax and fee reductions, an enormous increase in spending for local aid, is pro-choice, can say he’s pro gay marriage, favors indexing the mimimum wage to inflation and doubling the spending on affordable housing, and opposes the wind farms.

            <

            p>
            Healey “signed the ‘No New Taxes’ pledge and will push for an immediate rollback of the state income tax to 5 percent” and her running mate is a 25-year state police veteran.

            <

            p>
            You think neither of these candidates and their positions will attract voters?

            • I’m not saying anything of the kind. My entire posting is not a candidate’s ability to attract candidates.  It’s all about a candidate’s bag of tricks to defeat their opponent–which is the opposite thing.

    • Yet that opinion was not reflected in the last presidential election.  See, what we need to learn is that going for the candidate whose positions reflect the average constituent as much as possible is NOT the correct way to ensure electability.  Of course issues matter to voters, but so do personal traits like honesty, strong leadership, and vision.  People don’t look for candidates who are carbon copies of themselves; they look for candidates who are candid with them and have strength of character.

      • …who’s saying we need to go “for the candidate whose positions reflect the average constituent as much as possible” or are “carbon copies” of the voters. I’m certainly not saying that.

        <

        p>
        Personally I’m worried that the GOP will spend several million dollars convincing Massachusetts voters that Patrick will raise their taxes — and succeed.  Because not cutting taxes is a tax hike to them. 

        <

        p>
        This is not a new problem.  Being fiscally responsible opens a candidate to demagoguery on taxes.  The problem is, it works.  More often than not.  And having suffered through term after term of gadly Republican hack governors, I would have preferred we nominatied someone who was less of a risk with the general electrorate to get the office back then worried about being more progressive in the following terms, with the incumbancy to back up the effort.

        <

        p>
        I’ve been a little puzzled by the hostility towards this pragmatism; apparently we’re soul-less, uncommitted, “finger-in-the-wind” party lifers who don’t understand the value of vision and integrity.  Or we’re racists.

        <

        p>
        Not very nice, or fair.  Pragmatism in elections is hardly something new.  In fact, it’s more often the case than not — and for good reason.

        <

        p>
        As I’ve said, I hope Patrick wins and I hope he makes the state a beacon of progressive values.  But if he loses I’ll expect a mea culpa from the chorus, and not just bitter recriminations that “the voters are idiots.” 

        <

        p>
        Because if you’re going to stand on progressive principle and denigrate party pragmatists and you lose, you have to stand up and take your lumps.

        <

        p>
        As it stands, we will have our work cut out for us defining and defending his stance on the tax hike.  A lot of work.

        <

        p>
        Maybe he should just run ads with Healey’s face next to Bush’s.  That might be enough.

        • Actually, I think what tends to sink Democrats when taxes come up is that they try to run away from their beliefs precisely because they think it will destroy them.  It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: the Republican asks voters to look out for their wallets, and the voters do so when they see the Democrat jumping through hoops to explain or soften his position.  That kind of waffling is exactly what makes people suspicious and validates what the Republican is saying.

          <

          p>
          Now you’re certainly free to disagree with that analysis, but in no way is this hostility towards pragmatism.  Instead, what I’m saying is that the pragmatic (and more to the point, election-winning) approach is to stay on message and frame the debate in your own terms, rather than letting the opposition set the tone.  As I pointed out before, this is precisely how Bush won the 2004 election.  He had a simple message and he stuck to it, while Kerry spent a ton of time on the defensive.  People want honesty, even when you’re not telling them what they want to hear.

          <

          p>
          Speaking of putting words into people’s mouths:

          <

          p>

          I’ve been a little puzzled by the hostility towards this pragmatism; apparently we’re soul-less, uncommitted, “finger-in-the-wind” party lifers who don’t understand the value of vision and integrity.  Or we’re racists.

          <

          p>
          I attack positions, not people.  I don’t know anything about you apart from what you write on BMG, and I certainly would never claim that you’re any of those things.  Contrary to what Howie Carr thinks, Patrick supporters are not a monolithic group of cult members.  There are hundreds of thousands of us, and if any one person were to say such ridiculous things, that person would be very much in the minority based on what I’ve seen.

          <

          p>

          As I’ve said, I hope Patrick wins and I hope he makes the state a beacon of progressive values.  But if he loses I’ll expect a mea culpa from the chorus, and not just bitter recriminations that “the voters are idiots.”

          <

          p>
          You’ll get neither of those things from me.  I believe Patrick has a winning strategy, and on the chance that it doesn’t work in this particular case, that won’t go very far to disprove its viability.  There are about a billion factors that influence any given election, and there’s no single set of rules you can follow to guarantee victory every time.  Furthermore, I have absolutely never suggested that voters are idiots.  As I’ve been explaining, voters have many different motivations that go far beyond the actual issues.

          <

          p>

          Maybe he should just run ads with Healey’s face next to Bush’s.  That might be enough.

          <

          p>
          You might have been joking, but here is one place where we agree.  I am not a fan of negative ads, but associating Healey with Bush and the national GOP is indeed a great idea in Massachusetts this year.  If you have any suggestions as to how to do that effectively (short of unethical swiftboating tactics), please share with the class.

          • You’re confident that “[p}eople want honesty, even when you’re not telling them what they want to hear” and have “motivations that go far beyond the actual issues” — but if Patrick loses it’ll be due to some reason we couldn’t possibly fathom and not because his appeal wasn’t wide enough?

            <

            p>
            That just hasn’t been my experience.  More often it’s that we get swift-boated or pummeled on tax issues. Which worries me.  Heck, only 30% of the “likely Democratic primary voters” were in favor of leaving the tax rate what it is.

            <

            p>
            I’m not joking about using Bush — or any other dirty trick.  I’m a pragmatist, remember?  Run ads showing unclothed kids crying and choking from school bus exhaust because of a lack of local aid, with headlines that say, “Kerry Healey: She Wants To Kill Your Children”.

            <

            p>
            Show kids dressed like Oliver Twist begging in the streets with pictures of her driving by in a limo.  Whatever it takes.  Because she’s going to say “DEVAL PATRICK IS GOING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES AND SPEND THE BILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS THAT’S YOUR MONEY” over and over and over again.  Then the national media will say it.

            <

            p>
            Also: no debates moderated by Russert.  He sunk Shannon O’Brien with a trap that Romney somehow knew was coming.

            • but if Patrick loses it’ll be due to some reason we couldn’t possibly fathom and not because his appeal wasn’t wide enough?

              <

              p>
              Please, again, don’t put words into my mouth.  I didn’t say that a Patrick loss would be for “some reason we couldn’t possibly fathom,” just that there are many different variables that need to be analyzed.  Almost by definition someone who loses has appeal that wasn’t wide enough, but a weakness in appeal isn’t necessarily attributable to the general campaign strategy.  Maybe a last-minute news event changes electoral priorities.  Perhaps there is some sort of scandal revealed.  Turnout could be skewed by a storm localized to a certain part of the state.  Really, elections are unpredictable things, and the pundits who tell you they know what’s going to happen are really just making (somewhat educated) guesses.

              <

              p>
              When Democrats get pummeled on tax issues, it’s because (as you say yourself) the opposition shouts from the rooftops and they allow the issue to dominate the news.  Well, why should Republicans have a monopoly on staying on message?  Get on your own rooftop and keep communicating your own ideas, stopping only occasionally to discredit what the other guy’s saying (e.g. there is no surplus, or you have a choice between paying $500/year to repair your car due to pot hole damage or paying $200/year to fix the pot holes).

  6. There’s an error in the HTML where you load Kennedy’s photo, that’s causing a problem in some browsers and RSS readers, though most ignore it:

    <

    p>
    <img src=”http://content.answe… …

    <

    p>
    See that non-breaking space right after the quotation mark?  That’s not valid HTML.  Could you fix it?

  7. When I have spoken with Friends and co-workers about Deval, it has been people of color who do not believe he is electable.  From their perspective, they beleve that Massachusetts is not ready for a Black Governor.  18 months ago, very few people even heard of Deval.  He won the covention handily, now here we are 2 days from the primary, and the nay sayers are ready to count him out in the general election.  Look back and then forward, and see that Deval is quite capable of winning.  This race, like most political contests, will not be won on the issues. If issues drove elections, George Bush would not be president.  The reality is that Kerry Healey comes across as a Barbie doll to Mitt Romney’s Ken.  She lost two elections for state rep in her own community.  Deval is seen as a can do man, and he has done all of his life.  I believe it is on that basis alone that Deval Patrick will be our next Governor.

    • Is about how Deval is this national hero that struggled from the streets from the south side of Chicago to battle this gigantic entrenched Irish politiburo.

      <

      p>
      It’s kind of scaring me that you guys actually buy your own rhetoric.

  8. “Psssst… he’s not actually Irish. He’s African-American — you know, black. Can’t have that, can we?”

    <

    p>
    Yes we can have that. By why does it have to be a Black guy that hit the freakin’ lottery?

    <

    p>
    Why can’t it be a Black kid who had average grades, no sports scholarships, or prep school scolarships. A kid who wasn’t on the far end of the curve? Like most sucessful white people.
    If I was a poor Black kid Deval would be a symbol of hopelessness, not hope.

  9. I have no thoughts about Irish politicians.  I am not sure I understand your comment in the least.  Deval inspires people.  That is a simple fact.  How he makes black kids feel hopeless,  I don’t get either.  I guess you see what I am saying as “rhetoric,”  but the difference is I truly believe it as do many other people.  I guess you are in the know and we are all gullible fools who have been taken in.  The 7000 plus of us who spend their free time calling and canvassing  Deval is not a national hero, but he is someone who came from no where in Massachusetts politics in a year and a half and is poised to be the democratic nominee for Governor.  That’s impressive all on its own.

    • Because Deval’s path to success is unrealistic for the average poor Black kid. He is another example of a successful black guy who had either a highly developed  skill or an oppotunity that is not available to the average poor black kid.
      Full boat to Milton Academy or another prestigious prep school is an unrealistic dream for most average black kids.
      But for that start, where would Deval have ended up?

      <

      p>
      This doesn’t make Deval a bad guy, just my honest assessment.

  10. If what you are saying is in fact reality you would not see so many kids of color trying to be the next Michael Jordan or some infamous rapper, and believing those were the only career paths to success open to them.  Have you ever heard a kid say I am not going to try to be a basketball player because Michael Jorrdan is so good I will never be as good as him.  We all benefit from luck.  haven’t you, Ernie?  Some of us have had more hard work and persevarance than luck.  I would like to see some kids study hard and aspire to be like Deval Patrick.  Isn’t that more likely to happen than being the next Michael Jordan?

    • Poor black kids probably use Deval as a role model all the time. “Hey kids, if you find a niche in corporate America and assimilate, you can own multiple summer homes, too!”

      <

      p>
      A wonderful, hope-inspiring message.

Archives