Well, this is Massachusetts, where it's never, ever, ever too late to stick the shiv in … Tom Reilly endorses Baker.
We need a change and to have that change we need new leadership,” said Reilly. He said Baker was not the best politician, but added, “I believe in him.”
Not the best politician … he would know.
“Working together we got the job done in the end,” said Reilly.
… without Harvard Pilgrim getting any government assistance, of course.
Amazing: Reilly's still a sore loser. You know … let's just remember 2006, when Tom Reilly was bitter about losing the nomination to Deval Patrick before he had actually even lost it. Reilly's nutball, goofy explosion in the final pre-primary debate was one for the ages.
You can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can't always pick your enemies. (Or your enemies' noses.) Sometimes you just get lucky.
There were several issues that came to mind as I read the above announcement above by DINO Tom Reilly to endorse (choke) Charlie “big dig” Baker but I’ll share just two below.
<
p>1. Why is there no official DINO party in Massachusetts? Tom?
<
p>2. Why don’t the Unenrolled get to vote for whomever legally makes the ballot in primaries? Why are they forced to become a Republican or a Democrat?
<
p>Primaries are a waste of precious tax funds under the current archaic system.
<
p>How are those two points related you ask? I dunno know….maybe it’s something to do with effed-up political systems and politicians in this state?
the primaries are intended to select which member of the party will represent them in the final election. If you want to be part of that choice, you have to be a member of the party. Otherwise, you only get to complain about who’s running and choose from them in the final election. You may think you are doing something admirable by choosing to register unaffiliated (note: not independent), but in fact, what you have done is prevented yourself from being able to make that choice. Also, in spite of an alleged “independence”, most voters only have an illusion of independence and vote for one party or the other pretty faithfully.
I asked a question that was not well qualified with the fact that more voters and by reasonable extension, more taxpayers are unenrolled in the Commonwealth, and deserved a pair of 4’s above.
<
p>My point is that the primaries are archaic tools that only serve the larger and smaller political party in Massachusetts; the Democrat and Republican parties….not the majority of voters. The majority of voters choose to be unenrolled.
<
p>I am seeking reform to what appears to be unfair/inequitable public and fiscal policy.
<
p>People are unenrolled because they choose to not be a Democrat, Republican or other party member and must override that choice if they are to going to exercise their right to vote. It is a catch-22 and not one person that I know who is unenrolled has registered as such because they thought it was “something admirable”. They don’t want to identify themselves as Democrat or Republican and I respect that decision. I do not believe that they should be forced to do so to exercise their right to vote in a primary that is paid by all taxpayers regardless of their political affiliation or lack thereof.
I agree, it is a little unprincipled to select the nominees of a political organization to which you do not belong.
<
p>I suppose people who want to be “admirable” about it could nobly refrain from doing that. Or even put a little elbow grease into their own political organization.
<
p>Nahh, what am I, nuts? That would be work. Better to redefine “admirable” to embrace doing the least and griping the most.
because there’s no downside. As long as we have semi-open primaries, the only advantage to be registered is to be eligible to vote in caucuses or to be a delegate. Since that doesn’t appeal to 99% of voters, the surprise is that as many folks are registered D or R.*
<
p>Change the primary system to closed and watch as more people convert from U to D or R.
<
p>
<
p> * registering for a minor party to help ensure that they get the numbers needed to gain automatic ballot access is as good a reason as any to be GRP or L or whatevs.
was probably an irritated choice of words, but from my own history as an unaffiliated (no longer) voter, I did it because I felt it gave me a sense of independence, not beholden to any particular party. I came to realize after the political tensions of the past 30 years that my votes were becoming more and more supportive of one party’s candidates, and that my “independence” was in name only, so I changed and registered in a party. That may only apply to me, but it’s where my response came from.
<
p>I’m not sure what the solution is, but if the whole thing is thrown open, then what is the point of having party candidates, at all? Although, in my case, I want to know their party because it’s the best indicator I know for what general beliefs a candidate may have. Otherwise they would hide their positions behind fog and campaign spin to a greater degree than they already do today.
<
p>At one time, I understand the parties’ candidates were chosen solely through the machinations of the nominating convention, and the “smoke filled” back room. I think the primaries grew out of an effort to allow the public some say in choosing a candidate. Today, it has devolved into a mish mash where the conventions are little more than an attempted coronation by party regulars, and the primaries exist to either confirm or override that coronation. Reform is warranted there. The only thing I’m reluctant about is fully opening the primary and expose the election to monkey business by letting opposing party members vote in the opposition’s primary as a way of affecting the race before it begins. Any thoughts?
The monkey business you reference is happening currently. I remember one of my rightest winged friends voting for Patrick in the Primary in 2006 thinking Healey would skunk him (bwaaaah!).
I am looking at it from the perspective of the current reality that a very small number of people participate and therefore it seems like an ineffective and inefficient system. Maybe a combination of targeted increasing of voter turnout at primaries (education, local “marketing”, improved “advertising” is needed by the Clerk’s offices with resources developed by Secretary of State?
it makes sense. Reilly and Baker have a lot in common. Consider:
<
p>(1) They both hate Deval.
<
p>(2) They both have the personality of a dead fish.
<
p>(3) They both have run inept campaigns for Governor, punctuated with impressive bursts of unintentional hilarity.
<
p>Sounds like a match made in heaven.
Wait a minute. Who is the raving radical? Patrick who has kept us a superb bond rating during the worst recession since the 30s and who has made the business climate in MA good enough so that we are growing faster than any state except the center of the oil industry. Patrick who has had such radical ideas as that it is essential to preserve education and local aid. Or Baker who ran us into a massive debt that will take a generation to work off.
<
p>I used to think that the Republicans were the party of responsibility, even if they did not care much about the working people. Reagan ruined that Republican Party and we are left with Charlie Baker.
Or the Patrick who expects hard-working folks to foot the bill for illegal immigrants’ college tuition?
<
p>Or the Patrick who plans to impose a progressive income tax on the working people of the Commonwealth in the middle of the worst recession in many people’s lifetime?
<
p>Or the Patrick who won’t support Secure Communities?
<
p>Or the Patrick who sold out our top-notch education standards to adopt weaker national standards?
Next you’ll be telling us Patrick is against unicorns.
to impose a progressive income tax. That would take a constitutional amendment, which you’d know if you were paying attention. It’s been mentioned in at least four different threads.
<
p>Republican talking points get really tiresome after the first few repetitions.
Tom Reilly is a law-and-order Democrat, not some radical socialist. A lot of Massachusetts voters are Catholic, conservative Democrats like Reilly, who often feel like their party, the party of John F. Kennedy, is walking off the deep end. Reilly was endorsed in the 2006 primary by another conservative Democrat, Congressman Stephen Lynch (who has since taken some heat for opposing ObamaCare). I’d love to see more Democrats like Reilly jump on board the Baker bus!
<
p>Reilly’s endorsement of Baker is a signal to conservative Dems that it’s safe to reject the radical wing of the party whose leadership is clearly inept, and instead support a proven leader, Charlie Baker, who has demonstrated that he can work with both parties to get control of the budget and spending, and focus on the right priorities.
Endorsements are just fun and games for political junkies, and signals between insiders about expected future patronage payoffs, turf realignments, etc. All of the research I have seen (newspaper endorsements, and celebrity endorsements) suggests they have an infinitesimal effect on voter behavior: probably not even measurable. Stephen King’s rally cap probably has more effect on the Red Sox. If anyone knows otherwise, please chip in in the comments.
but not the way they’re played in the media. My next door neighbor’s endorsement of a candidate has a far greater impact on my vote than does Tom Reily’s.
<
p>Endorsements matter when they’re from people you trust, people like you, people who know you.
Tom Reilly has neighbors as well.
I grew up in Watertown and my family (except for myself) voted for Reilly in ’06. While I liked him and thought well of most of his work as AG he has the same arrogance and Baker and probably Cahill that the governor position was somehow owed to them. This election business got in the way of their coronation.
<
p>The opinion of those Reilly voters for ’06, sour grapes. No one is crossing over to Baker. It’s dumb things like this that people will remember Reilly for. Kind of disappointing.
One of Reilly’s biggest supporters in town threw a very successful backyard fundraiser for Deval and a number of Team Reilly folks showed up and donated. I took that to mean that 2006 was water under the bridge, but I guess Tom is still nursing a grudge.
Tom was a nice and personable guy and did a great job as AG. I was really wishing he had run in 2002 and I am confident he could have beaten Romney. Then in late 2005 I was at an event where he gave a speech and he just stunk up the place, ironically Coakley was very personable, glad handling and the like, and very passionate in her remarks. I guess being in the power bubble of AG makes you arrogant and entitled. At another event I heard Deval Patrick speak for the first time and was blown away. To this day I think he is one of the best orators in politics, maybe even better than Obama who has great writers but doesn’t have the raw passion and wit of Patrick. I am glad to see he got his grove back, but saddened to see that Reilly hasn’t changed since that last debate. Your typical sad image of the failed Irish pol blaming everyone else for his failures and retreating to a nostalgia for the good ole days when you ‘earned your way’.
Or do you get paid to post delusions like that?
The ‘proven leadership’ bit re Baker is laugh-worthy. Massachusetts has a higher bond rating under the Patrick administration, AA, than it had at any point under Charles Duane Baker IV’s reign at Administration and Finance. Baker’s idea of leadership seems to be to create divisions – surburbanites against teachers, cultural conservatives against transgendered people, taxpayers against state workers – and try to win votes based on shared dislikes or fears in the process. Baker’s idea of fiscal management is on display in the Big Dig financing scheme – he kicked the costs down the road to future administrations the tune of more than $800M. We’ll still be paying a decade down the road.
So why didn’t Charlie show up for the event? Seems a tad disrespectful.
I’m getting the Baker Twitter-gate heeby, jeebies all over again. I hope you have the good sense, assuming you’re posting this in Baker HQ, to at least alter your IP address…
<
p>As for your comments…
<
p>The factor is 8 out of 10 Massachusetts citizens probably don’t even remember who Tom Reilly is anymore.
And maybe it is inconceivable that Deval Patrick has supporters who DON’T already work for him in government or on the campaign, but Charlie Baker’s supporters by and large come from the private sector employees who are SICK of footing the bill for all this rampant government waste and abuse and union silliness that we’re seeing, between welfare EBT cards being used for alcohol, lottery and booze expenses, the Bridgewater-Raynham teachers union trying to block parent volunteers from keeping the library open… And it’s not just diehard Republicans who have had enough anymore. Thank you, Tom Reilly, and thank you to the State Police for backing the most reform-oriented candidate in this race.
<
p>Prove it. Find me a name-recognition poll from the last 6 months re: Tom Reilly. Forget money, I’d stake my life that no more than 2 or 3 out of 10 would recognize the name. Right in the heat of the ’06 primary, I wouldn’t be surprised if upwards of 2-3 out of 10 didn’t know who he was. There’s a sizable chunk of the population who never pay attention, and a much larger chunk (almost all of us) who suffer under the constraints of the human mind, which very much prioritizes memory.
<
p>The fact of the matter is people forget almost everything about politics, people, stances, titles, etc. Polls were done a year or two after George Bush was first elected and the majority of the respondents couldn’t remember that he ran under tax cuts, for heaven’s sake. When people are reading about politics, they remember how they feel about things, even if they don’t remember about those things. People aren’t going to really remember Tom Reilly at this point, though they’ll probably remember how they felt about him if they actually read about this. Reilly just didn’t do anything memorable enough to be remembered by the rank-and-file Massachusetts public, especially in press-release terms — and I don’t say that to offend him. It’s just a fact.
<
p>—-
<
p>While we’re at it —
<
p>
<
p>Prove that, too.
<
p>You can’t just come on here and make s!@$ up. The fact of the matter is you have NO IDEA where Deval or Charlie’s supporters come from, just where you think they come from. I don’t think you’re going to find private/public sector divide as something that’s really informative in terms of ideology, though, because — simply put — even if public employees were much more solidly democratic than the public at large, it’s a relatively small group of people in this state.
<
p>No Democrat would ever be elected if all they could depend on to vote for them were public employees. None. Deval Patrick is going to win this thing (and he is going to win this) by having a broad coalition of supporters that Charlie Baker could never hope to have — because not only does he not speak to them, he despises them as human beings. When you go around this state talking about how you want to drown government, you’re really talking about how you want to destroy public education — why would a young mother with kids want to vote for Charlie Baker? When you go to Fall River and New Bedford and tell them that you want to destroy any future potential for opportunity and job growth by denying them the train that they’ve long deserved, or by promising to crush the nearby Cape Wind project, why would anyone from that region want to vote for him?
<
p>The fact of the matter is Charlie Baker is his own worst enemy, because he’s completely out of touch with Massachusetts citizens across the state outside of his small bubble of insiders and the wealthy elite. That’s where he’s from, who he speaks to and who he cares about. He doesn’t understand our problems and he doesn’t want to solve them. I don’t even really think it’s his fault — bubbles are pervasive and dangerous things; if you don’t burst them, you’re going to suffer under the delusion that most people live like you.
<
p>—
<
p>Finally, the irony here is just too rich:
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>You do realize that the only reason why the State Police are supporting Charlie Baker is because Deval Patrick took them on, trying to save money in very reasonable ways for the state government that required some (minimal) sacrifice by the State Police. So, in other words, the reason why the unions are going for Charlie is exactly the same kind of “union silliness” that you just railed against a few lines prior. Dude, your hypocrisy is showing.
<
p>
Our bond rating is high, businesses love investing in our state, our education system is stellar, we have one of the few local climates in this economy creating jobs. And there is a long tradition of fiscal conservatism on both sides of the aisle that keep the state well managed. Regions of the state are not locked in a permanent contest for resources. And our taxes are actually lower than the national average, including sales and property taxes. You want to see a mess see California, or closer to my home Illinois. Those are places where entrenched special interests in both wings consistently thwart change. Whats nice about our Commonwealth is how small and easy to manage it really is, and how we have a tradition of Yankee spendthrifts on both sides of the aisle. Is there corruption? Is there hackery? Yes but it is on a small laughable scale. Chicago and the Northern Illinois-Indiana corridor in general is like a third world kleptocracy, bribery is not only out in the open and well known its been the way business has been done for over a century. Nobody is really seeking to change it and those that do run for retirement or the White House before the taint can get stuck on them for too long. You think Turner is bad at least he had the sense not to admit to any of his crimes on the floor of the City Council, at Chicago City hall the aldermen openly brag about their clout. Blago’s father in law has been in office for almost 40 years and openly brags about how smart he is since a wire has never caught what his ward does. Ed Burke got his wife a cushy job as a judge, who are all unqualified hacks btw that the machine ‘elects’ every first tuesday. To paraphrase Churchill, MA is not the best state, but its certainly one of the least bad.
BAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Boy, that is comedy gold, right there. The State Police’s backing of Charlie Baker has exactly nothing to do with “reform,” as has already been noted on this thread. Let’s see if Charlie pushes a real Republican “reform” on details: instead of cops on construction sites, flaggers who can be paid, let’s say, minimum wage instead of prevailing wage. I double-dog dare him. He won’t do it.
A die-hard relic of the Massachusetts Democratic machine announces that his true interest lies with the former Secretary of Administration and Finance: a man who knows in excruciating detail how money moves on Beacon Hill and how favors get done and backs scratched — as amply demonstrated by his extensive work on Big Dig financing. What’s in this for Reilly beyond spite, one wonders.
<
p>Maybe it’s just one last turn in the limelight — attentionitis, a condition that afflicts some past politicians. If that is the case, one wonders what might be next for Reilly. The condition typically is permanent and results in progressively more extreme actions in an ever-more desperate effort to attract attention. Reilly at a teabagger rally. Reilly in a Jolly Joker mask outside a presidential event. LaRouche offers an example of where this can end.
A little known fact of the Weld years is that he got along famously with criminal hacks like Tommy Taxes Finneran and Whitey’s little brother, the Midget. Real progressives like Roosevelt and Harshbarger were thwarted by the tactical hack-Yankee alliance of the Weld-Cellucci years. Reilly’s endorsement is merely a recent symptom of an old disease.
I think the former Attorney General was wielding a toothpick…;-)
<
p>This endorsement of Baker by Reilly gets Deval votes…If only Baker can pin down John Silber’s endorsement, we can lock this up.
No, not really. I do not equate the two.
<
p>But Tom has chosen to stick his foot right in this steaming pile of turncoat opportunism. It does not look pretty.
<
p>Considering that the purpose of this endorsement is to steer conservadem voters deserting Cahill to Baker, thus allowing Mr. Big Dig to eke out a narrow victory–it looks like the second phase of Baker’s plan.
<
p>Tom’s timing is just astonishing. Why rush in where angels fear to tread? Reilly must really like Charlie B., to so thoroughly and carelessly trash his own reputation. Not pretty.
he didn’t have much of any reputation left after his meltdown of a campaign.
Tom who?
<
p>Does he really imagine that voters remember who he is, let alone care about who he endorses?
Still in shock that the electorate didn’t just coronate him four years ago, I imagine Reilly just stewing ever since September, 2006, saying to himself… “I can’t believe I lost to that guy.” At least I hope he used the word ‘guy’. He never endorsed the Governor in 2006, and didn’t show up at any unity events for the party.
<
p>You’d think the endorsement of a former Democratic AG would be enough for Baker to attend. “Scheduling conflict” is classic, as if Tom Reilly is such a busy busy man, this was the only time on the calendar he could squeeze this in. Baker will probably schedule 3 impromptu press conferences in front of the statehouse in the next week, but no time to stand with another turncoat endorser.
<
p>At least we know he learned one lesson from the last couple of weeks.
than to perpetuate Loscogogate, but Baker’s handlers do.
<
p>Not so smart to stand next to a second
turncoatsurprise endorser so soon after the first one backfires so badly.<
p>Side effect of L’Affaire L’Oscoco: Endorsements become liabilities. Ouch!
I remember seeing Chris Gabrieli at a unity rally right after the primary and if I remember correctly, he opened up his HQ for phone banking in the general.
<
p>He earned my gratitude for that.
From the minute the Primary Election was over, Chris Gabrieli did everything he could to support the Patrick campaign. He was extremely gracious on Primary night, standing with us on the stage and pledging his support. He backed that up with hard work during the General election, and has been very helpful on issues like education and economic development over the past 4 years. He showed what a stand-up person he is, and I for one will always be grateful.
A great what if is how much better off we might be if Gabrielli had won instead, and I say this as someone who was not a big fan in 2006. But I think a Bloomberg-style of liberalism would serve the state well and I think Chris has always had his heart in the right place as well, a rarity among businessman turned politico’s. Hopefully there is room for him in the future though I am afraid he has become the Howard Stassen of state politics.
Where’s Reilly? http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d…
<
p>He’s standing
withup for the Republican candidate. Who’d a thunk it?WTF Tom?
<
p>One less door to knock on, I guess.
… and it looks like Tom grabbed it!
<
p>Charlie, if you throw too many lifelines, it’ll look like you’re the one sinking!
Anyone remember Reilly’s campaign trying to smear candidate Patrick with a murder in Columbia?
<
p>David wrote about it here:
<
p>Bob did his own investigative work.
<
p>I never liked Tom Reilly, and he was a complete d-bag during and after the campaign. I’m glad the days are over that the last Irishman standing was the heir apparent. Maybe they were over before Reilly ran, but the difference, cowboy, was he didn’t know it. (And yeah, I do have significant Irish heritage).
<
p>
Well, we did still end up with a Patrick/Murray ticket.
I was campaigning in North Cambridge with fellow BMGer joelpatterson for Deval and some construction workers asked us who we were campaigning for and we said Patrick for Governor and the man said “ah a fine Irishman for Governor, sounds okay with me” and took a flier. Not sure if he realized the error but as an actual Irish American I feel there is always room for those that are Irish at heart and spirit even if they are not by blood.
heritage is 100% Canadian French likes to think that–based on the phrase “Bail o’Dhia”–his family may have been Irish originally. My brother-in-law is equally French Canadian American. He and my sister named their daughter Brenna Maureen.
<
p>The McCools, MacConsidines, and Daleys on my mother’s side, however, have no problem wearing the green.
<
p>You’re right, jconway, Irish is a state of mind.
Reading the announcement of the endorsement it sounds as if Reilly and Baker struck up a good relationship during the period Harvard Pilgrim was under state receivership.
<
p>Otherwise, this endorsement makes no sense. For example, if someone is going to try and implement policies one doesn’t agree with — and Reilly seems to admit Baker will do just that — then being a “good leader” would make him even more effective at doing ungood.
And I said as much when it first came out.
<
p>Then again, the seething bitterness and whining shows that Tom Reilly isn’t the only one who hasn’t put the Reilly-Patrick primary behind them. As someone said, he’s pretty much a non-entity.