Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

“All talk and no action”

By

Well, maybe this isn’t the kitchen sink, but Patrick’s definitely taking the fight to Healey now. Quotes from today:

“She is up to the same old Republican playbook, which is change the subject, look elsewhere than their own record of failure — not just on criminal justice, but on the state of the economy,” Patrick said.

…”They veto funds to support the sex offender registry and fail to appoint the staffing for that registry to do its job. All talk from Kerry Healey and no action,” Patrick said.

… [Regarding Healey’s negative ads:] “I’m not going to crawl around in the same gutter,” Patrick said.

Not bad, eh? “Failure … all talk … gutter …” Feels like a scrap now, huh? Doesn’t exactly make Healey any easier to take, though. If it’s back and forth like this for the next 4 1/2 weeks, I like our chances.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I guess getting in the gutter for just a little bit may have felt good in the short term, but I like Deval’s response better.

    <

    p>
    And BTW Keller – I should have been Panic in the Netroots Disco.

  2. I understand that reporters and pundits may be looking for something “interesting” to say about a race where the #2 candidate was recently closer in the polls to the no-chance-of-winning independent than she is to the leader. But does the average voter really care about this?

    <

    p>
    No convicted felon was let out of prison to commit another crime. An attorney concerned that a man may have been wrongly convicted – who was hardly alone in that concern – tried to take some steps to make sure that the conviction wasn’t mistaken. NOTHING HAPPENED.

    <

    p>
    Is this really the most important thing going on right now in Massachusetts? Is this the biggest issue people care about? WHY is this taking so much media attention?

    <

    p>
    In the world I live in, there are people making less money now than they were 4 years ago. I don’t mean adjusted for inflation, I mean actual dollars. Many two-income families can no longer afford to buy decent homes within reasonable commuting distance of their jobs. People are leaving this state because they just can’t see struggling to pay the enormous housing premium vs. other parts of the country that it costs in order to live here.

    <

    p>
    Public transit (especially commuter rail) is deteriorating. Billions of dollars were spent on a massive public works project that was not only shoddily constructed and obscenely over budget, but actually killed a woman.

    <

    p>
    Public universities are underfunded compared to much of the nation, while top-tier private universities are prohibitively expensive for many families. The education system in all but the wealthiest towns seems to be turning into a public funded test preparation service. Our public parks are in sorry shape. Infrastructure is deteriorating in many communities.

    <

    p>
    I guess I find it difficult to imagine that everyone is going to push all that in the background so they can concentrate on a couple of letters that may or may not have been written, and some money that may or may not have been contributed for a test, none of which changed anything.

    <

    p>
    My major concern about this whole incident is that it will discourage other good and talented people from running for office and going into public service. How many people would relish going through something like this in order to get a job?

    • I can say with relative certainty, “yes, people care.”  I don’t really understand why either, but they do.  If you saw the comments posted by Boston.com readers in response to their “what do you think?” blurb, you’d see what I mean.  I also did some canvassing for Deval today, and one of the voters I spoke to, a registered Democrat, said he was undecided.  When I asked if he had any questions, he specifically asked whether it was true that Deval had supported reduced sentences for convicted criminals.

  3. …I particularly liked his closing at the last (Springfield) debate.  Major elections like this are decided by debates and the paid media–with campaign events such as news conferences a long third.  (OK scandals always trump all three.)

    <

    p>
    So far it’s three-against-one in the debates.  Frankly I think Deval would waste Kerry one-on-one, but I’ll take the three-on-one format.

    <

    p>
    Its the paid media part that I’m worried about.  With Healey not breaking out in the debates, maybe the nasty ads she’ll be putting up won’t get the full traction they need to eat into the lead.  Maybe. 

    <

    p>
    But why the tough rhetoric from the candidate himself at press conference and campaign events–which actually have less audience impact compared to TV ads–yet the campaign runs “soft” ads.  Usually it is the other way around. 

    <

    p>
    Hey, I’m happy to play “chicken little” around here, screaming that the 20 point lead is falling–only to be scoffed at when Deval wins.  It’s the “I told you so” role I will deeply regret playing.

  4. a bit of concern in the past couple weeks that Patrick was a little too concilatory, and needed to get a more aggressive to help put away the opposition for good. These comments are going in the right direction, and shows me that he’ll be quite capable in shaking off all of the mud that Healey will throw for the rest of the campaign.

    <

    p>
    I’m actually watching the Springfield debate repeat right now on CSPAN during my Friday night channel surfing. (Yes, I promise I’ll actually not do political nerdy stuff the rest of the long weekend…)

  5. Deval is right on target.  The campaign is on the right track, pushing the crime-safety-budget issues.

    <

    p>

    Patrick staged his own event yesterday with a number of suburban mayors. They praised his plan to add 1,000 police officers across the state. The mayors — from Salem, Cambridge, Medford, Somerville, Taunton, Newton, and Melrose — said state budget cuts have raised local taxes and forced cuts in police staffing.

    The story continues.

    is city has lost $3.2 million in local aid, roughly the same amount as the budgets for the police and fire departments. Simultaneously, he said, he has seen an increase in OxyContin and heroin use, as well as death among younger people.
    “The city of Melrose, on any given night, could have three fire stations open or one,” Dolan said.
    Mayor Kimberly Driscoll, who is serving her first term in Salem, said her city has lost 18 police officers, roughly 20 percent of her force, due to budget cuts. There are no officers trained in domestic violence cases.
    “We can do this job in running from crime to crime, but the real job is in prevention,” Driscoll said.
    Patrick expects his public safety initiative, which would be included in a local aid package, to cost about $80 million a year, with 1,000 police officers added each year. Patrick also called for better prison detoxification programs and programs that supervise the release of inmates, so that they do not return to illegal behavior.

    <

    p>
    Perfect.  Taxes have value, local aid cuts have consequences.  And the Mayor of Melrose is on board — give the man his Democratic convention credentials next year.

    • Earlier in the story…

      <

      p>

      “I’m not going to crawl around in the same gutter,” Patrick said. Asked by a reporter if that meant he would not air negative television advertisements, he said yes.

      <

      p>
      So Deval will attack Healey at campaign events like this and in debates, but not with paid TV ads?  An interesting approach.

      <

      p>
      I have a feeling that in the last 10 days of the campaign (and maybe earlier) the Patrick campaign will be airing what they will be defining as “comparative” ads examining Healey’s record.  It all depends on what the definition of “is” is.

      • Frank’s right – it’s all about how you define things.  I do think there’s a difference between negative smear campaign ads and critical campaign ads, but it’s certainly a fine line and one that’s hard to define.  Still, compare:

        <

        p>
        “My opponent is part of the Big Dig culture on Beacon Hill.  Under her leadership, we have seen our property taxes rise, jobs leave the state, and our schools lose funding.  I plan to bring people together and offer real solutions and a fresh start for Massachusetts.”

        <

        p>
        and

        <

        p>
        “Liberal Democrat Deval Patrick defended a violent criminal and helped him get a reduced sentence.  It’s okay for a lawyer to defend violent criminals, but do you want one as your governor?”

        <

        p>
        Differences:

        <

        p>
        1) Deval’s approach, while critical of Healey, also talks about himself and his plans for the state.  (Not specific, perhaps, but at least he’s mentioned.)

        <

        p>
        2) Kerry Healey’s ad uses deceptive wording to make it sound like Deval is the violent criminal.

        <

        p>
        3) Deval’s ads and comments criticize Healey’s politics and results.  Healey’s ads and comments criticize Patrick’s morals.

        <

        p>
        Again, you can argue that they’re both negative in their own way, but there’s still a difference.  I think Deval should be strongly critical, but try to keep within the context of “here’s why I will be a better governor than Healey” instead of “Healey is the devil.”

        • …Deval is the one doing the talking as opposed to a voice over.  At least he has the guts to say it on camera.

        • I agree with your points, but why is it “so-and-so is the devil” gets everyone’s attention?  How do you say “I am not the devil,” without sounding like a whiner?  Maybe it is time to get indignant and show a little outrage–at the personal attack (questioning his motives while he was just doing his job as a lawyer representing his client)–but then fall back on GWB’s “that’s just politics.”  Sort of dismissive, but without letting it go unchallenged.  Then following up with the sorts of substantive arguments you are talking about.

    • with facts about hiring more law enforcement, and the Romney/Healy failure to live up to their rhetoric,  is the direction to go in response to Healey’s “cop killer” ad.  I think this feels right.  Real solid argument emerging, and talking specifics makes the Kerry Healey montage look a silly and unfocused, which it is.

      <

      p>
      This feels right. 

      • Given that the first 527 expenditures of the general election are coming from the Republican Governors’ Association, how can Muffy complain if a left leaning 527 comes in and hammers her?

        <

        p>
        Deval won’t air negative ads, but I would cheer if a third party hammers her and hammers her and hammers her.

        • How long until there’s an ad about the flap over the special treatment her husband’s business got?  And the stat someone posted that the tax rollback would give her an extra $54K?  Especially if you could pin her down on not supporting Clean Elections, which would expose her “will of the people” mantra as selective.

          <

          p>  – Dan

Archives