Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Quick hits from the debate

By

Just a few thoughts from the debate:

  • A good response from Deval regarding the rape-n’-murder fearmongering from Healey: “Come down from your high horse… I’ll show you around.” Nice. The problem with running nasty ads like that is that you give your opponent plenty of time to develop a zinger for the debate… You take a big cut, and you’ll leave yourself open.
  • None of the candidates come off particularly well on anything dealing with finance. Gosh, Kerry — if Deval can’t afford his property tax cut and other programs, how the hell do you afford your income tax cut? As she says, “it’s not rocket science” — no indeed, it’s arithmetic. And Mihos was in “head for the hills!!!” mode wondering how he was going to make up for the lost toll revenue. Oh well.
  • Hey, how’d that “no new taxes” pledge work out for the most famous fellow who took it? Hrm, we all read his lips, he had to raise taxes, and got his ass kicked in ’92. Why is this still considered a sine qua non political stance for conservatives — or anyone? Indeed, haven’t Romney and Healey gotten pretty beat up over cutting services and raising fees, which were necessitated by their no-new-taxes gimmick? Damn arithmetic, again.
  • Healey’s aggressive — give her credit for acting like it counts. No credit for talking over people, though. I criticized Mihos for talking over her the first debate — she learned the wrong lesson.
  • Bottom line: Patrick remains the most, uh, governorish. Healey’s still failing the living-room-coziness test.
Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I am not sure that anyone is actually “winning” any of these debates in the conventional sense (ie. convincing previously undecided or committed candidates to commit to them).

    <

    p>
    This is obviously bad news for Healey considering that she is down by so many points.  And yes, Patrick is definitely coming across as the most “governorish”.  Couldn’t agree with you more. 

    <

    p>
    Major problem for Healey is that there are three candidates lined up against the status quo.  She will say one thing and then the other three get a chance to rip it apart.  She is getting buried by this four way debate format. 

    • as she did, by asking for a one on one debate with Deval, came across as arrogant and dismissive towards the other candidates.  Or maybe it just WAS arrogant and dismissive.

      <

      p>
      My favorite part was when Healey was given the opportunity to distance herself from Mitt, who is currently galavanting around the nation making fun of us here in Massachusetts.  In response to the question, “Should he cease & desist in this behavior?” pressed over and over, she finally shot back something like, “I think he just heard you loud and clear.”  She really blew it there.  That question was a gift and an opportunity.

      <

      p>
      She should have defended the state by saying her loyalties are here and always will be.  It would have helped her achieve a little distance and wouldn’t have hurt Mitt any if she had ribbed him a little.  Besides, he would have deserved it after throwing her under the bus the other night while being interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer.  Instead her defensive flipant answer tied her a little tighter to the politically sinking ship of the Romney/Healey administration.

      <

      p>
      glub, glub. 

      • She might have lost a few points by not stepping up to the plate on that issue, but she really can’t afford to piss off the Republican power base.

            • So loyal that she couldn’t take this absolute gift of a question to separate herself from Mitt? Bizarre.

              <

              p>
              I’ll tell you where the Republican power base is: It’s folks like Mihos and Jim Rappaport who are too ornery and independent to be shut up by the likes of Cellucci, Swift, and Romney. Getting guys like that under the Republican tent again, as well as picking off conservative Dems, is going to be the GOP’s challenge going forward. But in the short term, if Patrick wins, it’s Siberia.

    • with almost all of the comments except that it was three against Healy.  Grace Ross appeared to go after all of the candidates in my opinion….She actually went after Deval in that I thought she was trying to lump him with Healy.

        • Deval Patrick supporters grossly outnumbered Healey’s from the reports I’m hearing from my friends down there…

          • yeah i live in the North End and walked by on my way home from work, and its was 75-25% in favor of Patrick supporter wise.  and half the Healey supporters seemed to be kids of their parents holding signs! hahahaha

        • This happened in the first debate as well.  TheBostonChannel’s  poll had a large Patrick lead last time I checked.

    • If you clear your cookies in between, you can vote multiple times, FYI.

      <

      p>
      He went from 43% to 45.5% while I was on a few minutes ago.

      <

      p>
      Together We Can!

        • I’m confused…if it did matter, it would be cheating.  If it warrants accusing me of cheating, it must matter very much.  Which is it?  As you point out, it’s just a game, so why bust my ass?  Do you care that much?

          • I cared enough to ask you a one-sentence question.  I’m still not sure why you spent so much time and energy urging peopel to scam a poll, and now going through the mental gymnastics in your message above.

            • In the time and energy sweepstakes, you got me beat, by obsessing over this entirely gratuitous part of the thread, and speaking entirely in paradox.  We could go over this until each letter appears on its own line (if you display comments as nested, I mean), or you could let it go.  But if not, I’ll answer your question when you answer mine.

              <

              p>
              And it’s not really mental gymnastics; more like squeezing one of those little rubber balls four or five times after you get out of bed in the morning.

              • I actually posted the initial comment in response to what you’d said and ignored it for several days.  Then I happened to be looking over my comments page, saw that there was a reply, read it, and wrote another sentence.  And I’m doing the same tonight.  If that counts as obsessing, then hi, kettle.  I’m pot.  We’re both black.

      • Politics and integrity don’t often go hand in hand, huh.

        <

        p>
        Great showing from Deval supporters. I was there and was pretty impressed. Thought Deval was planning on talking outside afterwards, but he just rushed out- anyway know what happened?

  3. The reporters brought up the ads. Overall I thought Ross was great, Mihos was good, Patrick was good and Healey showed her true colors. In the current climate that makes it a big win for Patrick.

    <

    p>
    I loved the Patrick zinger that you reiterated in the post, but also the slam he gave her in the closing. She pulls the desperation move by challenging Patrick to a one on one and exclude Mihos and Ross while Patrick says that he respects the process and wants more inclusion. Nowhere to go on that one, Muffy. I wonder how a knife in the ribs actually feels. Only Healey knows for sure.

  4. Christy had the best zinger, but it wasn’t hard: “Then you don’t love Massachusetts.”

    <

    p>
    Healey’s ridiculous refusal to call on Governor Dickless to stop bashing our state should forever keep her under 35%.

  5. the way Patrick handled the first question, about whether there was a subtext of race in Healey’s ad.

    <

    p>
    He was handed the opportunity to “play the race card” but he went right to the actual crime issue instead.

    <

    p>
    Imagine if it had gone another way–other candidates might have gone there. 

  6. She’s too angry, and her call to get rid of all of our public schools was bizarre.  I thought Deval was great, though I think he should agree to a one-on-one with Healey.  Grace Helps Deval make the case that he is not too liberal.  Mihos was Mihos.  I like him.

    • What is this about a call to eliminate public schools? Please do elaborate, because that is beyond her usual level of ridiculous.

      • in a misguided off-handed comment declared “All schools should be charter schools!” and was roundly booed. 

      • She commented on how many students are waiting in line to go to charter schools and why is that?  Deval’s answer: we should take the lessons from the best charter schools and apply them to all public schools.  Healey’s answer: let’s make them all charter schools.

        <

        p>
        I think what she really meant was: make them all as good as the charter schools we want to emulate.  At least, I assum that’s what she meant.  But it was a pretty bizarre suggestion.

        <

        p>
        She did keep making the point that charters schools ARE public schools when people were (as done above) contrasting public vs. charter schools.

        • to wit: replace the system of universally available public education with private charter schools that will operate according to market forces.

          <

          p>
          It’s a rare display of candor, but completely consistent with the Republican agenda.

          • Thats the big secret – the GOP is so extreme they are hostile to the concept of public schools.  They’ll create a ridiculously large deficit – but they oppose anything that does people real good.

            • It’s not a stance against public schooling- it’s a stance against uniform universal schooling. And, though I hate Healey, I think it’s a good stance. Everyone who thinks school days and years should be longer and that we should pump more money into schools should read DUMBING US DOWN: THE HIDDEN CURRICULUM OF COMPULSORY SCHOOLING by John Taylor Gatto. He throws out a pretty good, nonpolitical stance. You can find a lengthy but great review here> http://www.johntaylo… with some nice excerpts.

              • There are so many problems with that, I don’t even know where to start.

                <

                p>
                First of all, most charter schools are for profit. I have a big problem with that.

                <

                p>
                Secondly, there are risks to teachers and seeing how meagerly they’re paid now, I don’t see how adding more charters is going to increase the desire for people to become teachers.

                <

                p>
                Third, charter schools currently take away money from public schools – so a few benefit to the detriment of the many. I have a problem with that.

                <

                p>
                I’m not inherently against what charter schools bring to the educational system, but I think Pilot Schools can take the place of that – and do it in a way that what we learn from the success from thsoe schools can be brought to all schools. Furthermore, there is a place in society for charters, but they can’t hurt the system as a whole and they shouldn’t be for profit – where money is taken away from the system to pay the Pioneer Institute and others.

                • They shouldn’t be for profit. The charter school I attended in middleschool (Parker Charter Essential in Devens) wasn’t and was a great place.

                  <

                  p>
                  Teachers are screwed when it comes to income, and I do think they should be paid more so that they don’t have to worry about just making by, but I don’t thinkthe economics of incentives works here. I would never want teachers who are in it for the money.

                  <

                  p>
                  “charter schools currently take away money from public schools – so a few benefit to the detriment of the many. I have a problem with that.”

                  <

                  p>
                  I don’t see that. Charter schools take smaller amounts of money from the state for larger amounts of kids (at least, the ones I know do).

                • Not true. Money is transferred from municipal budgets to the charter schools. Check this link:

                  <

                  p>
                  http://finance1.doe….

                  <

                  p>
                  The way I read it, for example, is that Springfield is responsible for $12 million to be paid to charter schools. There is some reimbursement by the state, and I don’t know how that fits in, but those are real dollars.

                  <

                  p>
                  That comes to about $7k per student. The biggest problem I see is that the students who decide to go to charters are less likely to be problematic students. Their parents care enough to complete the charter school process. That means the population left behind is ‘distilled’ into being harder to educate. The dollars don’t take that into account.

                • Here’s the way I’m reading it:
                  Charter schools can’t take more than 9% of the district’s total school spending and can’t school more than 4% of the public school population. Although this does seem tilted I think it’s important to remember the particular situation charter schools are in-they have to do all sorts of things, sometimes with no public help, such as renting or otherwise acquiring their own property to teach on.

                  <

                  p>
                  Unfortunately, I haven’t installed excell yet so I can’t check out the files you’re talking about, but I’m drawing from http://www.mass.gov/…

                  <

                  p>
                  On your point about the demographics-
                  Of course that can be a problem, but there’s certainly solutions to those problems outside of the complete removal of charter schools. There are a hanful of laws in place that require a certain portion of charter schools to be established in less well-off regions and whatnot, and that charter school I attended definitely found ways to scoop up the ‘problematic students-‘ that was visible. I think it should also be said that greater activity on the part of the parents doesn’t guarantee an outcome of a student that is ‘easier to educate.’ I’d argue, likely alongside the author I mentioned earlier, that children who are raised to value real education and learning are the ones that are more difficult to indoctrinate and subjugate, which is exactly what the school system is meant to do IMHO.

                • mromanov said

                  Charter schools can’t take more than 9% of the district’s total school spending and can’t school more than 4% of the public school population.

                  Now subtract.  Under the formula and the current cap, the public schools are left with 96% of the population and 91% of the funding.  And you think that’s sound public policy?

                  <

                  p>
                  Yes, charter schools have found ways to scoop up problematic students.  If a problematic student shows up at the charter school, they scoop him up and counsel him.  “Perhaps this isn’t the right school for you.  You might find the services you need back at the public schools.”

                • “the public schools are left with 96% of the population and 91% of the funding.”
                  But, like I said, charter schools also have to pay for other things- they have to pay for a building. That’s a pretty big expense that other public schools don’t have to worry about. The funding numbers don’t show the entire picture.

                  <

                  p>
                  The charter school I attended never did anything like that. The impression I got was that there were a lot more of these ‘problematic students’ than in the public schools in the area.

                  <

                  p>
                  There may be charter schools that apply methods like that, but that doesn’t mean all charter schools are bad. The problems you’re talking about aren’t impossible to solve and there’s much the state can do about them since charter schools ARE public schools.

                • You’re wrong about the funding formula.  This has already been dealt with above but Deval is right to want to rework it.

                  <

                  p>
                  As for not wanting teachers who are in it for the money, well, that is a little overboard.  Nobody is saying that we should pay teachers 6 figures to recruit people who just want to make 6 figures.  No, the problem is that teachers are so underpaid that intelligent, talented people do not go into the profession because they have invested in their education and do not want to be pinching pennies for the rest of their lives.  There is a difference between being in it for the money and wanting make a comfortable, middle class living.

                • Maybe your perception of what that means is a little skewed. National median income was 23.5K in 2003> (http://pubdb3.census…). That means 50% of the country earned less than 23.5K per year. The national average starting teacher’s salary is just over 31K, while the average teacher makes just over 42K per year. That may not be a great paycheck, but it’s definitely in the realm of ‘comftorable, middle class living,’ if you believe such a thing exists.

                • Furthermore, many charter schools fail, either because of financial problems or because they just don’t cut it academically.  “Charter” does not necessarily mean “good”.

                • Three of 60 charter public schools in MA have been closed.  “Many”? 

                  <

                  p>
                  In each case, they performed even with or BETTER than the nearest traditional public school.  So in each of those 3 schools, parents sent their kid to a WORSE school, but one which never gets shut down b/c there is no accountability. 

                  <

                  p>
                  I agree very much with your statement that charter does not = good. 

                  <

                  p>
                  But MA charters overall consistently outperform MA sending districts – MA Charters are considered among the best in the nation. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Black and Hispanic kids in charters do MUCH better than in traditional district schools.  They benefit most. 

                • My source is the biggest ever comparison of Massachusetts charters public schools and district public schools.

                  <

                  p>
                  Five-year study.  Done by outside, independent evaluator. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Black and Hispanic kids in charters did better than black and Hispanic kids in district schools – in 155 out of 160 comparisons over 5 years, both in math and English.  Margin: wide.

                  1. Ryan, I know that facts can get in the way, but 2 of 57 Massachusetts charter schools are affiliated in any way with for-profit management companies. 

                  <

                  p>
                  So you’re wrong. 

                  <

                  p>
                  2. Ironically, your support of pilots undermines your opposition to charters.  When a kid leaves a regular BPS school to attend a BPS pilot school, about $11,000 follows that kid to the pilot school. 

                  <

                  p>
                  When a kid leaves a regular BPS school to attend a Boston charter public school, about $11,000 follows that kid to the charter – but then the district gets reimbursed about $3,000.  So the net cost to the district is $8,000. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Bottom line: regular schools lose MORE per student from a pilot than a charter. 

          • It’s VERY consistent with the Republican agenda, which is one of the reasons that I’m a democrat.  I hope that everyone watching it caught it, and got caught up with the implications of exactly what it would mean to live in a country with no public schools, only a sting of losely-regulated, for-profit charter (which many of them are) schools.

        • she totally meant exactly what she said. you needn’t look further than who comprises the Massachusetts Board of Education to know that the Republicans would LOVE to make all schools charter schools.

    • While I agree that it would be interesting to hear Patrick and Healey debate one-on-one, does it really make any political sense (and is it fair to the other two candidates?). Clearly having them there helps Deval, no question about that. While Ross and Mihos got a couple superficial digs in on Deval, they were basically attacking Romney/Healey the whole time.

      <

      p>
      I like Mihos too, mainly because he’s kinda funny (“sweet nothings”) and he points out major problems with Romney/Healey. My wife (who is a teacher) really liked his responses on the education issue. She said that she might even vote for him (I think maybe she’s kidding, but I’ll work on convincing her that Patrick is definitely better anyway…).

      • I love Mihos.

        <

        p>
        Wouldn’t vote for him, but there’s a part of me that would want to, just as a big “FU” to politicians everywhere.

        <

        p>
        Deval’s my man, but he’s also a smooth talking politician with the best of them.  This isn’t a bad thing — contrary to Tom “Politics aren’t my strong point” Reilly.  But still I find Mihos’ frank plain guyness really appealing.

        <

        p>
        Too bad he’s a nut.  🙂

        • Mihos may be frank.  But plain guyness?  Remember, this is a millioinaire convenience store magnate we’re talking about who knows his way quite well around corridors of power.

          • but what I mean is, he talks and looks and walks and sounds like the kind of people that fill my neighborhoods.  He may not BE that kind of guy, but that’s what he presents.

            • I hear ya–the presentation definitely makes a huge difference.  Just ask our president, who made Kerry look too patrician even though Bush is from just as powerful a background, if not moreso.

              • He was born and raised in Brockton. Some of that must have rubbed off on him. Just because you’re rich doesn’t mean you can’t be like the regular folk.

    • was completely bizarre.  Especially since the NAEP scores show that we have the best public schools in the United States – hands down. 

  7. Actually, I think Deval’s response to the LaGuer was absolutely perfect, not just good. It got right to the heart of the issue (the legal system is supposed to be about justice), and frankly made me proud to be a lawyer.

    <

    p>
    That alone won the debate for Deval, IMO. Also, I said months upon months ago that Healey, unlike the previous GOP Governors, is simply not ready for prime time. I think that showed through tonight, as Charley states. Deval looked calm, in control, and like the leader of one of the nation’s greatest states, and Healey looked a bit unsure of herself, even when on the attack. Her best moment, I thought, came when she argued that Deval could not simply pay for all of his priorities (this was not because it is true, but because Deval didn’t really bat away this line of attack like he did the LaGuer attack).

    <

    p>
    Healey whiffed on a great opportunity when she was faced with the question about Romney’s making fun of the state as he tours the country. Why didn’t she disavow Romney’s comments? I think the best response on her part, which would have made her seem like she was being bold but not actually risked anything at all, would be to say: “I know he’s my boss, but he’s dead wrong on this. I would indeed call on him to disavow those comments, because Massachusetts is a great state, I’m proud of it, and I will work to make it even better.”

    <

    p>
    Anyway, all in all I thought Deval actually WON this debate (as opposed to the others, where he simply “won” because he didn’t lose).

  8. I thought it was a pretty interesting debate, threatening to get out of control, but that’s okay.  Gergen handled it pretty well.

    <

    p>
    Grace Ross did well.  I don’t know why I’m always surprised by her consistently solid performance. 

    <

    p>
    Mihos is a little nutty.  That was the first time I’d ever heard the “are you doing this for revenge” question, which was interesting.  His answer was not all that convincing:  NO, absolutely not.  Funniest line was when he admitted his own ad was offensive.  EEeeyah.

    <

    p>
    Kerry Healy’s response to the question about the butt of Mitt’s jokes was painful.

    <

    p>
    Deval did well, stayed cool, seemed reasonable.  Did not get dragged into anything.  Held his own.  Great to see the Douglass bust behind this left shoulder. 

    <

    p>
    From the best line of the night: Come down off your high horse, Kerry Healy.

  9. I think you can make an argument that Deval, Mihos or even Ross won the debate.  I think the clear loser was Healey.  When she said we should make all public schools charter schools, when she called for 1on1 debates, and when she refused to criticize Romney, she assured herself 4th place in this debate.

    • The call for 1 on 1 debates in that forum was a mistake on her part.  She got more booed on that one than anything else.

  10. Driving up and down Congress street (slowly): Two full-size 18-wheeler flatbed tractor trailers IN THE DEAD BANG MIDDLE OF RUSH HOUR covered in Muffy-Hilly signs with balloons.

    <

    p>
    OMG!  The environmental highlight of the campaign!!!!!  Hurry along dear election day, I can’t bear the thought of another day of Sherry Muffy Healey and her Mormon Leadership consulting partner.  They’re scary.

    <

    p>
    I was pleasantly surprised to see a lot of Deval sign holders and a few “Healy/Hilly – Anti-Union/Anti-Family”

    <

    p>
    Go Big D.

    • HAHAHHAA i saw them.  they look like really nice rational people too, the ones driving the trucks

  11. Mihos was his usual entertaining self and had the distinct honor of lobbing the live grenade at Healey when she refused to condemn Romney’s out-of-state behavior.

    <

    p>
    Ross was tougher and more articulate tonight than she has been.  I think some of her ideas are a bit loopy, but she is certainly well intentioned and brings a much-needed perspective to the discourse.  She did wander off in the weeds when pressed on the particulars on the costs of her proposals.

    <

    p>
    Patrick was his usual self-assured self.  When he turned to Healey and told her to get off her high horse, there was a palpable wrinkle in time.  Even Mihos was at a loss for words.  That single moment showed that Patrick can fight back, get pugnacious when he has to, and still be able to do it respectfully.  Huge moment for his image, imho.

    <

    p>
    And Healey was a train wreck.  When she wasn’t simply discomfort personified while being peppered by questions about the rape ads (Emily Rooney–are you telling women they should be afraid of a black Governor?), she came off as shrill and overbearing.  She refused to answer the most pointed questions she needed to answer, especially the question about Romney’s fear and loathing of Massachusetts. She even let a sneer appear on her face when she let her guard down a few times.  Bad day for Healey.  Bad. 

    • When he turned to Healey and told her to get off her high horse, there was a palpable wrinkle in time.  Even Mihos was at a loss for words.  That single moment showed that Patrick can fight back, get pugnacious when he has to, and still be able to do it respectfully.  Huge moment for his image, imho.

      <

      p>
      lightiris, I absolutely agree with you on this.

      <

      p>
      Maybe I’m reading too much into this (though I don’t think so), but that perfect response felt to me at the time and still now like a “turning point” moment, as in that is when people will look back after the election and say “that really was when Healey’s campaign strategies came back to bite her”.

      <

      p>
      My guess is that Deval’s response here is what is largely reported on by the press directly under the by-line. Deval, Healey, and the others said a lot of other stuff, but I think this response was the key moment of the debate, and I think the media and pundits will pick up on that.

    • Healey was a train wreck.  Especially because she didn’t have the courage to ask Mitt Romney to stop criticizing the state.

      <

      p>
      Also, I think that Grace Ross and Christy Mihos have been great additions to these debates.  I may not agree with some of their positions, but Grace Ross has been extremely articulate (Mihos too on occasion), and Mihos has been absolutely hilarious.  Not that their entertainment value should determine whether or not they get to participate – but James Stockdale they are not. 

      <

      p>
      Mihos delivered the best line of the night when he said “Then you don’t love Massachusetts.”  It was the most spontaneous and heartfelt thing any of the candidates said.  And it was an absolutely devastating indictment of Kerry Healey’s candidacy. 

      <

      p>
      Mitt Romney’s approval rating is in the tank – in no small measure because he has been bashing the state on the road.  She had a chance to set the record straight on this – and she whiffed.  Hard. 

      <

      p>
      That one moment will help cement into the minds of voters exactly why it is they don’t like or trust Kerry Healey.

      <

      p>
      It ain’t over yet, but as one poster said here prior to the primaries (sorry, but can’t remember who):  “The corpulent woman is warming up.”

  13. I was at the debate, here are my impressions.

    <

    p>
    1.  Gergen never had control of the crowd.  His mealey-mouthed plea to hold applause 5 minutes before was forgotten by the first time the questions began.  He never got back into a groove and the debate suffered for it (at least that was my impression inside; who knows how it played on TV).

    <

    p>
    2.  Healey needed a grand slam and she only hit a couple of singles.  She needed tonight to change the tide and she didn’t do it.  She actually seemed pretty laid back tonight.  Sure, she had some zingers, and sure, she took some swipes at Deval.  But for someone on the ropes, she could and should have been sharper.  Now, she has a lackadasical intonation in her voice anyway – it’s a bit (ok a lot) of a waspy lock-jaw thing.  That doesn’t help her come off as everywoman, and it undoutedly has hurt her in this campaign (as it did John Kerry and as it did Deb Goldberg — they, along with Healey, just LOOK rich and that doesn’t help).  But she could have been more fired up.  Maybe doing some jumping jacks before or something.

    <

    p>
    3.  Interesting note: after the candidates arrived on stage about 10 minutes before the debate, no one was talking with Healey.  Deval, Christy and Grace made some small talk and then wrote some notes, then chatted some more.  No one talked to Kerry.  I don’t think they’ll be friends after this is over.  (Speaking of which, if Patrick wins, what will Healey do?  Well, I guess I can think of about 80 million things…)

    <

    p>
    4.  Inmates for Deval.  I noted them in my pre-debate post.  No Healey supporters were in the “pen” that was set up for them…except for these “inmates”, thus making it look like they were out for their exercise walk while doing time.  Amusing, but ultimately pointless.

    <

    p>
    5.  The scene outside: I’ve been around these for a long time, and something has changed.  I remember 10 years ago there being thousands (literally) of supporters for John Kerry and Bill Weld at these debates.  Today, the numbers are in the hundreds.  Yes, there were an overwhelming amount of Deval people there.  But the crowd didn’t “extend as far as the eye can see” like it used to at these things.  Perhaps it’s because Deval’s people were phonebanking, or doing other stuff, but I think it’s just a sign of the times – people aren’t as interested in this stuff as they used to be and they don’t think there’s as much at stake as there used to be.  Nothing right or wrong about that, and I’m not lamenting the change in turnout over the years, I’m just noting it.  It’s interesting.

    <

    p>
    That’s about it…

    • I don’t think you can blame the interest level.  For one, this race is seen as big as any since the Weld or Romney Senate attempts.  The focus is intense.  Secondly, nationwide interest in politics is higher than its been since at least ’94.  If there are crowd differences I’d say it has more to do with campaign strategy and perhaps union involvement than a lack of interest.

      <

      p>
      Did the crowd see Healey’s three gaffes (the refusal to criticize Mitt, the make them all charter schools response and the snubbing of Mihos/Ross at the end) as big as they seemed?  What about the “high horse” or “you don’t love Massachusetts” comments?

      • Good point on unions.  In 94 and 96, the unions were furious with Romney and Weld and came out in droves.  This year, as is the case nationwide, they’re not as powerful and not as pissed off – particularly the Carmen’s union that was going to be privatized.

        <

        p>
        As for the gaffe’s, they were all recognized.  But the predominantly pro-Deval crowd also got uncomfortable when Christy and Grace launched some barbs at Deval.  It’s hard to take it, easier to dish out, especially with a double-digit lead.

        <

        p>
        The end remark about debates spurred applause.

        <

        p>
        My take was that in the hall, we got caught up in moments so much that it was hard to remember what had just happened, so by the end of it, we’d forgotten what happened at the beginning.

    • Just take a look at David Gergen’s performance tonight.  I like Gergen and respect him, but his performance tonight left much to be desired.  Even when the camera was still pulled away during the opening shot and I couldn’t see who was moderating – you could already sense the hesitation and lack of focus in his voice. 

      <

      p>
      He looked and acted exactly like a new teacher or a substitute teacher who is on the ropes.  The “kids” took control of the “classroom” immediately and never gave it back to him. 

      <

      p>

      1. Yes, I could sort of tell that too.  Someone on here comments that he’s like the new substitute teacher who’s sort of trying, but just doesn’t have control.  Still, I think it was a good debate.

      <

      p>
      2. Also yes, there’s something very “rich” about her that rubs me the wrong way.  Is it weird that it annoys me how she thanks everyone, constantly?  It’s how she starts every question, and it doesn’t sound like she means it it sounds like her cottilion governess told her to.  I know it’s a little ironic, but every time she says “thank you” it really sounds like she means the opposite.

      <

      p>
      3. See #2.

      <

      p>
      4. I saw a picture of them rioting before the debate.  They looked like those anti-WTO protesters that always get arrested.  It was a sort of weird display from Healey supporters: not very Junior League.

      <

      p>
      5. I wish I could have been there, but I had to get home!  I think that a lot of people are interested… maybe you were just shorter back then so it seemed like more people? 😉

  14. I thought it was telling that her closing statement consisted of her most shop worn compare and contrast positions with Patrick.  Her campaign boils down to “this guy would be worse than me” – hardly inspiring.  This lady’s got no soul, no core and offers no good reason to vote for her, only reasons to vote against Deval and she will lose, she’s going to lose big.

    • I was chatting with a co-worker of mine, fellow political junky, republican flavored.  (He and I are the only ones in the office who talk politics so even though we are of different stripes, we gravitate toward each other)

      <

      p>
      I said “Man, it must really suck to be a republican this year”.  He nodded and looked sad.  “Healey…” I started to say and he just shook his head to say “I don’t want to talk about it”.

  15. …I actually felt sorry for Healey…3 against 1, getting slapped around by the press and the other candidates about negative ads, standing there with a shield of arrogance that masks her superficial intellect and obvious insecurities.

    <

    p>
    Just a nanosecond…then back to reality

    • If Healey were running a positive, hopeful, let’s-make-Massachusetts-great kind of campaign — even if it were chockful of the usual Republican ideology — I’d feel bad for her.

      <

      p>
      No way. I want that 39-point lead back. I want to defeat her politics and her tactics, decisively. That’s what she and O’Brien and the whole gang richly deserve.

  16. just the usual from each of them.  Disappointing.  I had high hopes with Gergen but he blew it early.  I agree with Hoss, he never got control of the crowd of the candidates.  He seemed to vacillate between “should I let them talk over each other or should I try to get them to answer a question?”  He reserved the right to do follow-up questions when he felt it necessary but I don’t remember one.  The panelists asked some fairly lame and routine questions that engendered very little new ground.  About the only bright spot was the few follow-ups by Rooney and King.
    Healey needed to look human and compassionate and failed miserably.  I felt sorry for her.
    Ross is getting condescending and irritating.  What’s she talking about by intimating that Patrick is partly responsible for the negative ads?  Christy is saying the same thing which leads the lapdog media to write about the negative tone the race has taken without really ascribing responsibility to the primary culprit.
    Deval could have walked off the stage after his first comment about the negative ads and the high horse statement.  Actually, he should have.

    <

    p>
    Frankly, I would love a one-on-one DEBATE.  The state deserves it.  Of course if I were advising Deval, why go there.  No need to disrupt the apple cart now.  Healey doesn’t deserve a one-on-one because she hasn’t made out a credible case that she wants to talk about issues. 
    But we should get one.

    • The problem with watching the race as closely as I have been — including all the speeches, interviews, etc — is that I’ve heard everything the candidates have said already.  Really each new forum is just word for word bits out of the latest speech.

      <

      p>
      This is especially true of Patrick.  I’m guessing this is the right thing to do politically.  once you’ve honed to message to a razor edge, you want to repeat it continually because new people tune in each time and you want to make sure everyone hears it.  But for a political junky like me it means I’m pratically mouthing the words along with him.

      <

      p>
      I would love to have a debate where the candidates were forced to abandoned their well-practiced rhetoric and wander into uncharted, unscripted territory.  Wouldn’t that be novel.

  17. He seemed to vacillate between “should I let them talk over each other or should I try to get them to answer a question?”  He reserved the right to do follow-up questions when he felt it necessary but I don’t remember one.

    <

    p>
    Because there simply isn’t enough time for four people in a one hour debate to go enough into depth on 10 different topics that any follow-up questions would help.

    <

    p>
    They talked for a decent amount of time about the first few questions, and then everything else had to be rushed.

    <

    p>
    Each debate should focus on a few questions from a single topic.  What’s the point of repeating all the same stuff four debates in a row?

    • issue debates are fantastic.  Won’t win the ratings war but who cares.  Remember the Kerry-Weld debates?  Now those were fun.

      • Healy had a chance to defend Massachusetts against Romney and that she didn’t.  ” She came into the debate in second place and she left in second place”. It was said with some conviction too! They highlighted Patrick telling her to get off of her high horse!

  19. David Gergen was woefully unprepared. Almost everybody was off kilter by a step and a half directly as a result of his unpreparedness.

    <

    p>
    I think that Grace Ross should drop out of the race right now and be given the title and duties of moderator-for-life. Further she ought to be well compensated for this.  She should moderate all future debates between any and all candidates. She has a gift for re-focusing on the issues,is lightning quick on her feet and possesses (sp?) a candor far removed from desperation and heading towards utter fearlessness. She’s exactly what I had expected out of Gergen.

    <

    p>
    Mihos got some good lines in, mostly at the expense of Healey but even some at Patrick: He seems thankful to be the id here, saying what most were thinking. He was even slightly smug; he’s on minute 14 of his 15 minutes of fame and loving it all.

    <

    p>
    Kerry Healey does this thing with her neck that makes me squirm… every few seconds she takes a nanoseconds sharp intake of breath and tenses all the muscles, cords and tendons on her neck. It’s very unnerving.  Besides that, she lost BIG TIME.  When the NECN reporter (forgot her name) threw her campaign a lifeline (all but pleading for her to kick Romney in the balls) she promptly fashioned a noose with it and hung herself.  It was make or break and the right answer would have turned alot around for her.  She knows it too: If you get a chance to see the debate again, turn the sound off when she gives her closing remarks and you’ll get the full force of her body language;  defeated and deflated.

    <

    p>
    Deval Patrick won big.  His body language was respectful but defiant and his answers were cogent and even passionate. His timing was off a little, but I think that everybodies was, and this the fault of Gergen.  I had not a minutes worth of doubts whatsoever on either his abilities as a prosecutor or the righteousness of his support for ‘unsavory defendants’ so I can’t judge if he changed any minds, not understanding how it is that some don’t get it.  I’ll tell you what,though, it sure felt good to hear him say it and forcefully, too!  I actually think that Ross went after him more than she went after Healey… but where Healey just tensed into scornful disdain Patrick actually answered the questions well: no dodges, deflections or avoidance.

    <

    p>
    I can’t help feeling a sly and subtle subterfuge in the architecture and placement: Fanuil Hall is a grand place, but whomsoever thought it fit to place Kerry Healey directly beneath a bust of Fredrick Douglass is an ironist of the most delightful and nimble genius. Bravo. 

    <

    p>

    “To make a contented slave it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken the moral and mental vision and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason.”     Fredrick Douglass

    <

    p>
    Which is all you need to know about the Karl Rove playbook from which Healey reads…

    <

    p>
    The other slice of historical feng shui was the placement of Deval Patrick directly in front of the bust of, I believe, either John Adams or John Quincy Adams. How delicious is that?!

    • I thought Healey looked angry at times – I’ve not seen that from her in debates before, I don’t think it helped her any.  I too noticed something weird going on with her neck.  I also thought she looked stunned and majorly pissed off after Deval got finished with her with his winning “high horse” line.

      <

      p>
      One small criticism I have of Deval’s body language, when he was going at Healey (who was standing next to him on his left) he would glare up at her (unavoidable I guess as she is taller, particularly in those high heels) but would lean away from her – this, in the body language world, can convey that she intimidates him (which I don’t is really the case) – It would be better for him if he leans at all to lean toward her as he delivers the blows it would convey greater confidence he would only need to make sure his body didn’t enter the zone of her personal space (ala Rick Lazio’s disasterous debate with Hilary Clinton where he was rightly perceived as a schoolyard bully).

      <

      p>
      One final note, my mom called me this morning and I asked her what she thought, one of the things she was stuck on was she thought the makeup people did a bad job on Deval, she thought they made him look like he was wearing lipstick – I dunno, maybe its her tv set, I didn’t notice that.

  20. I missed the first half of the debate last night, but caught the rest of it this morning online: from last night, I thought Deval was the clear winner, though I see why there are questions considering the first half…

    <

    p>
    First debate was Christy’s. Second one was Grace’s. This one was Deval’s. I doubt Kerry can do any better Nov 1 than she’s been doing, so maybe she wins if everyone else completely go insane or something….

    <

    p>
    How many full “boo”s did Healey get? Her demand for 1-on-1 got big boos at the end, I know the attack on public schools got big boos, and I think there was another moment…

  21. Muffy was stiff, defensive, and uninspiring.
    Patrick was a smooth talking empty suit.
    Mihos was the clown.
    Ross, at least, talked about some real things that matter. (though I still think she’s a nut-cake)

Archives