Republican private equity investor Gabriel Gomez announced today that he is refusing to sign the People’s Pledge, the proposed agreement among candidates essentially to keep out third-party paid advertisements and mailers, requiring the candidates to do their own paid advertising, both positively and negatively.
However, Gomez didn’t just reject the Pledge. He also offered some rather twisted logic in attempting to justify his rejection of the Pledge:
“Let’s be honest – politicians always make pledges because nobody trusts them.”
So there’s Gomez’s solution to what Republican Jon Huntsman would call the “trust deficit” – because some politicians don’t fully live up to the promises they make, Gomez won’t even bother making the promise in the first place! Perhaps because Republican former Senator Scott Brown twice paid penalties for violations of the People’s Pledge, Gomez is basically saying “to heck with Pledges.” That’s a particularly cynical message with which to kick off his campaign.
He seems to be saying “you and I both know I have no intention of playing fair, so why even pretend I would?”
The thing we are discussing, the People’s Pledge, worked surprisingly well for what it was. How can he take issue with it on that basis?
Well sure — I think so. But I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of Republicans think just the opposite. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that Scott Brown, in particular, thinks it was a big mistake.
The pledge did what it said it would. Both sides abided by it.
Did it work out well politically for Brown? Perhaps not. However, the reason it didn’t work out well was that he had to own the things he was saying. So did Warren. I didn’t consider that a bad thing. Does Gomez think that’s a bad thing?
No meat. It would be one thing if he said that every group has a right to free speech and that he didn’t think it should be restricted. Instead he says, “Pledges are bad, mmmmkay?”
I hope that Winslow and Sullivan reconsider. I truly do not believe they need the type of outside ads that Gomez most certainly would.
In the Globe’s updated version of the story (at the same link – I hate when they do that…), this comment from Michael Sullivan’s campaign manager has me scratching my head:
It’s worth noting that Republican Scott Brown began his 2012 re-election cycle with $7 million in the bank, more than twice Congressman Markey’s $3 million campaign account (an even greater advantage for Brown when you account for the fact that Markey’s existing fundraising will be thinned out by his competitive primary campaign). That didn’t stop Democrat Elizabeth Warren from working with Brown to develop and agree to the People’s Pledge. Regardless of Brown’s mammoth fundraising head start, the principle mattered to her.
I can appreciate that Sullivan’s team doesn’t want to cede any measure of political advantage, but shouldn’t the principle matter more to him? Perhaps, but it doesn’t seem to.
Tisei also did not sign onto any pledge. Would you say that helped, hurt, or had no effect?
but I do admire him for the fact that not only did he agree to the People’s Pledge, but he paid up when he broke it, without whining or protesting.
That his Republican colleagues won’t even consider discussing such a pledge is disappointing.
The issue and policy statements from the Gabriel Gomez have seemed pretty vacuous to me, but his one theme is that he is not a politician. He likes that angle so much that he’ll use it to explain everything he says, does, or decides.
Maybe it’s not just a theme.
The only way to be disappointed in this is to start with higher expectations. All three are Massachusetts Republicans. All three, in my view, exemplify the win-at-all-costs philosophy that drives EVERY modern Republican, both here in Massachusetts and nationally. The GOP continues to expel EVERY candidate who dares to challenge this value system.
No disappointment from this observer — just typical Republican behavior.
Here are just a few reasons why outside money in the MA Senate election will be bad for voters, click here.
TAKE ACTION: Tell the Republican candidates to say no to Super PACs by signing a Peoples’ Pledge.
From the Globe article:
The pledge has nothing to do with contributions to the campaigns, Dan. Go do your homework and try again.
the pledge. It’s as simple as not accepting personal responsibility. Winslow is a weak candidate. He’s a blowhard that has posted on BMG, so I see where people want to engage. But he has always been some kind of sideshow. I don’t see him as credible.
Of course, Dan knows full well what the pledge is about and is fully aware that his comment is a diversion, not an explanation. He is just casting about for some faintly plausible position explaining he shouldn’t sign it, regardless of whether it bears any relationship to reality, and is hoping that nobody in the media will call him out on it (so far, so good on that score). What is in fact going on, IMHO, is that Dan doesn’t think he can raise enough money on his own to compete, so he is banking on Karl Rove et al. to get heavily involved.
Markey and Lynch have raised “outside money” because they’ve received donations from “outside Massachusetts.” See, “outside” and “outside.”
By this logic I might be guilty of traveling “outside” the United States without my passport. This morning I stepped “outside” my car at the local Tedeschi.
Take it outside!
🙂
For Gomez, I think “bad outside money” means anything outside the candidate’s personal bank account.
…we can count on Gomez to not sign on to Grover Norquist’s pledge either, right?