For once, I agreed with Tufts poli sci prof Jeff Berry, who was on 'BUR this morning expressing skepticism for Tim Cahill's independent play.
Consider: He's got $3 million in his campaign chest already. Good for him. A strong start. But one might expect that this is as good as it gets for Cahill. It's got to be a heck of a lot easier to raise money as a near-permanent incumbent, than as an independent insurgent. He'll have no party organization: That means no bodies or campaign infrastructure, but also no $5,000 backdoor donations.
The Republican party isn't what it used to be — which wasn't all that much. (Even back in 2002, the Republicans were in big trouble before Romney saved their bacon.) But the Republican candidate will have access to the money and some degree of organization.
As far as the rhetorical positioning goes … Cahill's on somewhat stronger ground. Many people will be unhappy with the sales tax increase and the assortment of other revenue devices passed by the Governor and legislature. Between Cahill, Mihos, and Baker, we'll have a lot of Something-For-Nothing rhetoric flying around next year. And that may well get some purchase with the electorate.
In that context, it's going to be important to remember that we've been dealt a holy-crap $5 billion budget gap, and that Gov. Patrick has indeed been forced to make ugly, ugly budget cuts — even cuts that will cost the state money long-term; cuts that affect very vulnerable people. And look around — 48 other states are in deficits this year. We're not doing the worst by any stretch, as awful as it is now.
Framed properly and fairly, the question for Cahill is what he would have done differently under the same circumstances. So what are the real, stated differences between Cahill and Deval Patrick? Well let's see …
Gambling:
- Deval likes resort casinos;
- Tim wants casinos and slots, and more lottery … perhaps cockfighting and bear-baiting are next.
OK … and how about health care?
- Gov. Patrick speaks about health care as a moral necessity. The Patrick administration is busy implementing the health care law– and indeed trying to significantly change the way it's delivered and financed.
- Tim says the health care law is a luxury.
Taxes:
- Gov. Patrick looks for new revenues to blunt the cruel impact of the $5 billion budget gap.
- Maybe Tim thinks we can print money. Or have more slots. Or something. Oh yeah, less health care, that's something. But he hasn't detailed how he'd close the gap differently; only those who actually have to govern are required to do so.
Governor Patrick's not popular right now; I think that might change over the next twelve months, as the governor re-presents his résumé to the public; but we shouldn't sugar-coat the situation of today. Still, I don't see a situation where an independent Cahill somehow knocks out both a strongly progressive Dem incumbent and an establishment Republican in Baker.
Charley’s right. Put it that way, too, and maybe Tim made the right ideological decision…
The reason I ask is that being Governor requires a bigger picture than being Treasurer. As Treasurer his primary, if not sole, responsibility is to see that revenues flow to the state coffers. As such he may only be looking at how much money might come in, whereas as Governor he may want to consider other moral, philosophical, and political implications, such of been discussed quite a bit here.
Even back in ’06, he was #2 on the list in total contributions coming from the industry, falling only behind the then-perceived Governor-in-waiting, AG Reilly. That was three years ago — when he wasn’t nearly as vocal on the issue. He’s almost certainly the #1 on the list of active politicians now. If you’re pragmatic as you’ve said in the past, clearly you must admit Cahill is not going to suddenly change, especially when he’s made such a huge issue out of slots.
I believe in disclosure, but I generally don’t pay nearly as much attention to who gives how much to whom as some people do. I also tend to assume that money follows stated positions rather than the other way around. In other words, given Cahill’s support for casinos, the industry would want to support him. It’s risky to bite the hand that feeds you, but not out of the question. It’s plausible to say I was just trying to make money for the state, but now I also have to consider other sides to this issue.
Yet does this also not suggest that Tim then is ready for a run for Governor if he is not able to start thinking as a governor? Hoping he will change or maybe temper his points of view when and if he makes it into a corner office is a very scary proposition.
<
p>Tim looking at gaming, as a better alternative to revenue over the sales tax is just not logical when you look around the country and you see where the gaming industry is hit the same economic cliff. This demonstrates a real vision and the ability to look at the issue with a balanced eye.
<
p>Deval looked at resorts as a way to revitalize areas of the state that had a slow moving tourist industry and little hope of attracting other major industries because of both a lack of real infrastructure but also the lack of a substantial work force with in a reasonable geographic area. These are real issues in the sparsely populated western part of the state. Lets also not forget that he has obviously dropped the issue from the top ten to do list and rightly so as long as local communities still do not want it.
<
p>And Slot parlors under Tim would be a nightmare can’t you see the move to so away with the Keno counters in the local dairy mart and seven eleven for a row of slots. Go in to pick up a gallon of milk and it winds up costing you the rest of your paycheck!
<
p>No sorry Tim has not come up with any new or for that matter good ideas and that is the reason that as an independent or a democrat he needs to show me more then he has thus far.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
Yes, Deval the Benevolent. Yes, He must avoid “Ugly, ugly cuts.”
<
p>Couple with BMG’s call, and maybe Deval’s, too, for a progressive state income tax, we have a losing political platform from which to run a re-election campaign.
<
p>Deval had an opportunity to make more efficient a chunk of the Commonwealth’s revenue generation — get rid of the Turnpike, get rid of the tolls, get rid of all the Turnpike employees, stop increasing the Turnpike’s unfunded pension and retiree medical insurance liability, and raise the gas tax — but instead, he rearranged the deck chairs.
<
p>At least Cahill doesn’t reflexively call for MORE REVENUES all the time. That may resonate more with the taxpayers come 2010 than we think.
are you trying to imply cuts to education, municipal aid and health care aren’t “ugly, ugly cuts?” How would you describe them?
<
p>I’d describe the cuts as 1.8%.
<
p>1.8% is a ‘eh’. 5% rates as an ‘ugly’; 10% ‘ugly, ugly’.
<
p>YMMV.
Patrick didn’t have that opportunity. You make it sound like he vetoed legislation that would have done all that you suggest, when instead he did lobby for a gas tax and got nowhere with the lege.
All the while making these ugly cuts. Sorry for the reality check potshot.
The Legislature ie. the House and Senate played the key role. Was it worth the governor drawing another line in the sand for those changes you suggest, not likely if he had we would not have gotten the reforms we got. Putting this on the Governor is really telling in two ways one you like so many have no idea how the system works and two you think your idea is the only one worth doing in the commonwealth.
<
p>Governing is not like being a King it is full of compromise and reaching consensus, which he has done masterfully on all of the reforms we did get. Did the governor’s staff have a few pitfalls in this term? Yes they did and we have all read about them here and every where else I have commented several times on it, but putting the existence of the Turnpike on his dance card as all his fault is not true. I suppose you would also like to put the Swaptions that are crooking the Turnpike on Deval as well or maybe the fact that the MBTA and the turnpike are being swallowed by the Big Dig costs. Guess what that is on Romney, Swift and Celluci all Republican business types looking at new and innovated ways to finance something with out telling the residents of the commonwealth how and how much for more then a decade. Deval inherited 16 years of bad decisions and you want them cleaned up in 2 years of work with a legislature that would not take up Ethics reform till the line up at the DA’s office of charges damn near choked them to death.
<
p>No your just plain old wrong!
<
p>Unless you have something to back it up where the governor said hey lets keep it just as it is and continue down the slippery slop. I am willing to admit I may be wrong if you can produce it.
<
p>So if you want to pile on to the Governors faults there are a few but these are not.
<
p>As Usual Just my Opinion
did Romney save the Republicans’ bacon? By running that embarrassing slate of candidates in the election? By ‘checking out’ of his job as governor to run for president? Perhaps, by mocking the state he was governor of to crowds of conservative activists he was courting for votes? Which one of those things made the Republican party in MA better?
<
p>As for Cahill, each stunt he pulls makes me less interested in him. No vote for governor, and none for treasurer should he come to the conclusion he wants to keep that job.
… by actually winning in 2002. As you state, he didn’t do/wasn’t able to do much with the opportunity — although I give him some credit for health care.
What a lot of the comments here are missing is that when your average voter thinks of MA politics he thinks corruption. Whether it be bloated pensions, pay to play schemes, cashed stuffed bras or cronyism, Deval reeks of it in the minds of many voters, not to mention the second thing that comes to mind is Cadillacs and curtains. Cahill has been outspoken on the pension abuse but has been dogged with suspicious ethics investigations. The question should be, does his move to Inde. separate him from the ethical mire of the statehouse in the minds of average voters? P.S. I hate to throw around terms like average Joe, voter, six pack… but you know what I mean.
Yeah right, the public thinks “Deval == corruption”. Right. Huh?
<
p>And Cahill’s so peachy on that score. No, nothing to see here in the casino lobby’s funding of his coffers and his rather silly support for the worst of the worst types of gambling…nothing to see in the lottery he screwed the pooch on…no big cushy contracts or plush surrounds for him…I mean, oops. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.
Did I say Cahill was squeaky clean? I think I linked the same article you did. Just ask the next ten people you see (who aren’t BlueMass groupers) what they think about Deval, if it is not curtains, cadiallacs or Walsh, they will say disappointed or some variation of that. Ask those same people if they know who the Treasurer is, or what they think of Cahill. My point is no one knows Cahill or anyhting about his scandals. So, does running as an Inde help him distance himself from the mess that is our democratically controlled state gov? If so then his move may prove to be a prudent one. That’s all.
Cahill is signing his own political death warrant. Once he forsakes the Democratic Party, he’s done there. He may have a future with the GOP, but the Massachusetts GOP has no future. His candidacy is a long shot, which, if it doesn’t strike home will leave him working full-time for some of his donors. Maybe He should probably resign as treasurer so he doesn’t become a lame duck.
<
p>Politically, Cahill hasn’t shown much more political acumen than our governor, and as Charley says, he won’t have the organization of a party behind him. His only hope is to drain enough votes from both either Baker or Crazy Christy or Patrick to win. He will certainly draw from independents; it’s doubtful that he’ll attract the GOP’s base, which will be happy to run Baker, I think. Democrats may desert Patrick, but it’s a midterm election. Fewer voters means, I think, that there will be more party loyalty. Better for Patrick.
<
p>It’s early. Patrick is unpopular, but I still think he has the edge.
<
p>
General election 3-way:
Patrick-Murray
Cahill-Mihos
Baker-Hillman
Mihos-Grabauskas.
Cahill-Palin
<
p>’cause nothing says “ready to serve” like “I quit.”