This Campaign is about trust. And you can trust Bill Keating to stand up for Wall Street reform, to provide loans for small businesses so they can create jobs again, to protect our Social Security from Republicans, like Jeff Perry, who want to raise the retirement age for Social Security.
When it comes to the issues, his character, and record, Bill is by far the best candidate in this race.
But we need your help, and on 10/10/10 we ask that you please donate $10 to help us get Bill’s message out to the voters.
There’s a lot at stake in this election, and with your help we’ll be successful.
Please share widely!
Tell him to stop slinging mud at his opponent (how’d that work out for Joe Malone?), and instead come up with some kind of vision and platform to give people a reason to vote for him. What’s the point of donating money to a campaign that has NO message? You people are being snookered into giving your hard-earned money to someone who has demonstrated that he is too LAZY (or too scared) to come up with a platform.
<
p>I guess I can understand why Keating might not want to talk about his platform. The voters of MA-10 overwhelmingly supported Scott Brown in January, and like Jeff Perry, Scott campaigned AGAINST ObamaCare and runaway government spending.
<
p>Bill Keating has not denied that he SUPPORTS ObamaCare and he will support Nancy Pelosi, and he SUPPORTS CAPE WIND (ignoring the fact that many Cape voters, including Sen O’Leary, oppose it) – THAT’s why he’s not going to win this November, THAT’s why this district supports the one major candidate who actually resides here and understands what voters care about– Jeff Perry.
MiracleGirl, there talking about ten whole dollars here. Why I can see $50/$60 here in no time. We need to let this play out as it can certainly tilt the election. Who says liberals are cheap?
Righto. Good enough for me.
because the MA-10 voters disagree with him and you on ALL of these issues and many more such as benefits for illegals. Give Keating all the $ you want, it won’t translate into votes for him.
Honestly, where do you people get this stuff? Do you think that if you keep saying something that’s false enough times, it becomes true?
<
p>Your tone is getting a bit shrill, MG. Getting worried? I would be, if I were you. Charlie Baker is proving to be the worst campaigner MA has seen since, well, Kerry Healey, and Jeff Perry is … Jeff Perry. đŸ˜‰
Charlie’s been talking about the pocketbook issues for a year now, he rolled out serious and detailed proposals on government reforms (while neither of his opponents has offered anything like the Baker’s Dozen in scope and depth), he testified to the Board of Ed against the Common Core national standards while neither of his opponents defended their (still unclear) positions on standards (and charter schools), he has raised more money, made steady gains in the polls, and has made it a point to pack his days full of townhalls, festivals, fairs, bbqs, all kinds of events so that he can reach as many people as possible. He has clearly done his homework in prep. for debates, and imho, he has mopped the floor with BOTH (Democrat) opponents in every single debate so far, especially the last one. I really don’t see how you can argue that Charlie Baker has campaigned poorly. The guy has worked harder for this job than any of his opponents.
Seriously? I really don’t see how you can argue that he hasn’t. His campaign has been one cock-up after another. Here’s just one example of Baker’s stupid, self-inflicted political wounds – and believe me, I’ve got plenty more where that came from. I think Bernstein’s recent summation is pretty good.
<
p>
<
p>The man is plenty smart. He just happens to be an awful politician. That certainly doesn’t make him a bad person – some would argue just the opposite. But it does make it difficult for him to win an election.
I had not read the Bernstein piece which I think is a little too negative, but does raise some good points. Sorry for rambling but here’s my response, for what it is worth (as I am just a lowly volunteer). I think it’s not so much Baker’s personal flaws that are the issue – winning the race for Governor is never an easy task for a Republican – and no Republican has won it without appealing to Indies or Dems. Cahill has probably been the biggest factor explaining why Baker is not ahead in the polls yet. Here goes:
<
p>This is an exaggeration (bold mine)–
<
p>Baker himself has said from the beginning that he has the disadvantage of not being a politician, never having run for higher office, let alone statewide. Anyone who thought it would be a cakewalk was delusional – that’s their problem, not Baker’s.
<
p>And “nothing has gone right”? A virtual no-name back in March, he still managed to get 16,000 people to sign his nomination papers, he locked up the nomination without having to go through a primary, he outraised his opponents almost every month, and many have credited him with winning most if not all of the debates so far – I think this comment dismisses all of these successes and also doesn’t acknowledge how much worse things could be for him. (Though, Bernstein alludes to this, noting that Baker is scandal-free (just ask Jeff Perry or John Tierney how envious they must be about this) and Baker has managed to retain support among both socially liberal AND conservative voters- this was my biggest worry on his behalf, that he’d lose either camp depending on what he emphasized on the trail, but he’s managed it incredibly well.)
<
p>I agree with this assessment:
<
p>Jon Keller blogged about this, noting the glaring difference between Patrick’s landslide support 4 years ago, and where he is, holding on by a thread, today. Maybe Bernstein will do a piece on why that is???
<
p>The point about “Working a room” – as Charlie granted, it’s a valid criticism. But not even all politicians have this one down – Karyn Polito is probably the best I’ve seen at this skill, among the current contenders, and some are not even as good as Charlie at it. I think Charlie’s by nature a bit more reserved and uncomfortable throwing himself out there – people might mistake it for aloofness. But I’ve watched him both become more comfortable at this over the past few months, and also appear at smaller events where his personality really shines through. He gets fired up during the Q&A at townhall events or rallies, recounting real stories people have told him about their frustrating experiences with state government bureaucracy – and he gets an awesome reaction because he’s very sarcastic and theatrical – and when people see him in that light, they love him.
<
p>This brings me to “Had Enough”– I disagree that he “misses the public mood” with this slogan, I really think it depends on who you ask – I cannot tell you how many people have ASKED for that bumper sticker instead of the smaller white one or asked to hold that sign – “Had Enough” resonates with the same crowd that was slapping “Tax it all, Deval” bumper stickers on their cars even before Charlie decided to run!
<
p>I also think Bernstein dismisses as “oddly cold” responses that are specifically meant to answer the question, “what can I do as governor to help alleviate your problem” – Charlie is not pretending he can solve everyone’s personal problems, as Bill Clinton did. He cannot, and he is not trying to make anyone think that he can. But he truly believes that if we can get the budget under control and make some major reforms, we can lift a burden off taxpayers’ backs. That’s not just words, that’s a core conviction of his
<
p>I know that this means there is a perception that he cannot connect with people. But I disagree with the unstated premise that THIS is the only way he will attract votes. there are a lot of people out there who are like me, and don’t care so much about the personal connection but DO care about what I will call the “Howie Carr issues” – government corruption and waste. Charlie speaks to us, loud and clear. And in the midst of a recession, when I haven’t had a raise in two years while the auditor is giving out 5% raises on his way out the door, yeah, I get ticked off – and Charlie speaks to me, and he speaks for me. When he says “the people of Massachusetts are sick of being taken for chumps” – I can relate because that is how I feel every time I read about this one or that one double-dipping, this or that family member of a politician getting a six-figure salaried state job and pension – there are soooo many abuses!
<
p>And what’s truly sad about it is that there was a sense of promise when Patrick got elected that he might tackle the big problems – like gang violence and helping inner city kids get a good education so they could escape poverty as he himself did – so many serious issues to tackle but he fumbled almost from the beginning. We have a huge administrative bureaucracy that he expanded, giving high-paying jobs to political supporters instead of focusing on how to deliver direct services in a more efficient way. Patrick failed his own constituents.
<
p>One last, minor point. This is just an error–
<
p>He has 2 sons, 1 daughter. Not a big deal, but just figured I’d point out Bernstein doesn’t always get facts right…
<
p>Read more: http://thephoenix.com/boston/n…
I don’t agree with quite a bit of that comment, obviously. But I do appreciate your taking the time to write it.
<
p>I’m not going to respond point by point. But I am going to push back on your first argument – that the “hailed as a perfect candidate” and the “nothing has gone right” thing is an exaggeration. It’s not. If you had worked in state government at the same time as Charlie Baker, as I did, you would have a better sense of how confused and puzzled people are about Baker’s painful shortcomings as a candidate. There really are a lot of influential folks in MA who have been salivating over the prospect of a Baker candidacy for over a decade; they’re probably the ones who convinced Baker that all he needed to do to win was show up. And Bernstein is not the only one to have noticed that Baker seems very annoyed that he has to convince people to vote for him, as though it should be perfectly obvious to anyone with any sense that of course he’s the best candidate! Those early admirers are now scratching their heads as they watch the guy they found so impressive appear unable to take two steps on the campaign trail without tripping himself up. I saw Baker in action years ago, as they did. That’s why I’m frankly amazed that his campaign has gone so badly wrong now. Don’t get me wrong – I’m fine with it, since it helps my candidate. But I am surprised.
<
p>I diagnosed part of the problem six months ago, and I think he’s still struggling to solve that same problem. And there are others. And there’s not a hell of a lot of time left to fix them.
I want to acknowledge that I do understand what you are saying about the perception that he doesn’t feel the need to convince anyone to vote for him – but I think you ignore Baker’s use in ads and on the campaign trail of his work for Harvard Pilgrim, which he brings up in order to show people that he has the management skills to make the cuts and close gaps, etc. You also ignore the fact that he rolled out the Baker’s dozen, which is a detailed plan for reforms – neither of his main opponents felt the need to do anything like that to convince people to vote for them, from what I can tell. So criticizing Baker on this point while letting the other candidates off the hook (when they seem even more deserving of it) strikes me as unfair.
<
p>But I think Baker probably does wonder – as I do – why Patrick is even as high as he is in the polls given the frustration level so many people feel toward him. Just by coincidence, I started collecting ballot signatures for Charlie on the week that the RMV began charging fees for customers who go to the counter in-person rather than conducting transactions online, and all I had to say to people was, “Want to help elect a new governor?” and they didn’t even know who Charlie was, but people were literally scrambling to sign the paper – so many of them said, “Anybody but this clown.”
<
p>I think the challenge for Charlie has been to move people beyond “Anybody but” so that they are solidly in his camp and not just against Deval. But this brings me back to my original point, that Cahill’s presence in this race, as an alternative for people who plan to vote for “Anybody but” is probably the biggest hurdle the Baker team has faced, and I believe this is more of a factor than specific shortcomings of Baker’s personality or campaign that analysts point to.
that Charlie has failed to close the sale – that many people who tell pollsters they’ll vote for him do so not because they’re particularly high on Charlie, but because they don’t want to vote for Deval. (In an economic downturn, the low approval ratings are predictable, since incumbents get blamed for current economic conditions, fairly or not – in this case, not.) That goes back to a lot of what I’ve been saying – the surprising (to me, anyway) failure of his campaign to come up with a coherent message that resonates with people. Ten-point (or 13-point) plans are great, but anyone who knows anything about politics will tell you that they’re not enough. And as for touting his experience as the head of a big health insurance company that steadily hiked both premiums and his own salary under his leadership, well, the PR problem there should be pretty obvious. I’m not “ignoring” any of that stuff – I just think it’s not working, and I think the numbers bear me out.
<
p>As for Cahill, I think initially he was probably taking more votes from Baker than from Patrick. But, according to recent polling, Cahill voters list Patrick as their second choice about as often as they list Baker. So you can’t blame Baker’s trouble in the polls on Cahill anymore.
between Bump and Tierney, I think YOU guys are the ones who should be worried!
Duh
$20 for Keating!
as by association 1010global.org and their exploding of kids does not go over big.
then both Keating and Perry have shown that they cannot be trusted.
Keating was asked at the debate that was held last Thursday in Plymouth, Would you support Pelosi. He could not answer the question; it was a Yes or No question. Instead he answered; he has to get to know her more. Wow!! What more do you have to know about Pelosi. She has to GO!!!!!
Why is it OK for Perry to be indecisive about his vote for Boehner as he has been in the past, but not OK for Keating? How do you decide who to vote for before you know the candidates?
Jeff Perry answered the question YES, he could support Boehner. He was not indecisive in his response.
<
p>Mr. Keating still has to answer some questions he has raised in the debates. He says he supports Veterans but yet, he never served, why? What was his draft status in 1970 when he entered BC?
He stated he would cut of the funding in Afghanistan, which is a real morale booster for our troops there. His answer raised more questions on his past.
<
p>He was endorsed by the Anti Viet Nam war group called CPPAX. Was he a member of the Anti Viet Nam War group? How much money did he take from the Group?
<
p>He also made the dumb statement he would close all our bases in Europe because we have no enemies there. I guess Russia and the Ukraine still having thousands if ICBM’s with nuclear war heads is not a threat to Europe and the United States.
<
p>This man has No Clue!!!