From Charlie Baker’s interview with the Globe:
Baker told the Globe during an interview at his home today that he regretted how he had conducted his campaign against Governor Deval Patrick in 2010, and wanted to spend more time listening during this one.
“I violated all of my own standards and rules for management and leadership,” Baker said of the last race.
Friends approached him after the 2010 contest and told him, “The guy I knew, I didn’t see him,” Baker said.
“I even felt that way,” Baker’s wife, Lauren, said, laughing as she sat next to him in the foyer of their Swampscott home where the interview took place.
Good grief. I mean, it’s great that Baker recognizes that things didn’t really go all that well in 2010. But how remarkable that a candidate who touts his management abilities as his principal qualification for the state’s highest office should have “violated all of his own standards and rules for management and leadership” as soon as he hit the big stage. What I’d really like to know is why he did that. Did he really think that the consultants with whom he surrounded himself were giving him good advice? Or was he not sure, so he did what his consultants told him, thereby apparently rendering himself unrecognizable even to his own wife? Or is there some other explanation for Baker’s dramatic departure from every management and leadership principle he had developed in his professional life up to that point?
Whatever really happened, it’s a rather weird story.
if I am not remembering this correctly, but my computer is busy and I cannot look this up. Wasn’t the Etch-A-Sketch guy on his team last time? If so, has Mr. Etch-A-Sketch guy every been right about anything? Just saying, his team of advisers last time were totally off the deep end.
that Fehrnstrom worked for Baker. He worked for Romney and Brown.
n/t
it’s probably because he’ll be working for a Baker super-pac. More lucrative, after all.
In any event, he certainly at least has his toes dipped in. Emphasis mine.
Charlie is now trying to Etch-A-Sketch the Big Dig. Apparently his most relevant experience in government doesn’t count anymore.
Can’t wait to hear how cutting taxes (and money for education and local aid) is going to become pro-education and local government. It’s all starting to sound very Fehrnstrom: smile and hope cognitive dissonance never kicks in.
Charlie Baker is a train wreck.
Granted, I hope he’s the candidate. It would certainly be great for Democrats.
Well, since Dan clear it up for everyone. The Big Dig was Deval Patrick’s fault I don’t think it should be a campaign issue. You know, Ronald Reagan and all.
But seriously, it’s a stale issue? That’s the best his cronies could come up with.
I can’t help but think this whole thing would go better for Charlie if it could just stop at “Baker concedes.”
It would no doubt avoid a whole lot of grief, pain, anguish and most especially embarrassment for Charlie on election day.
People don’t like his smile, I mean, do you have crooked teeth? Charlie doesn’t walk like a soldier, he wobbles a bit. Then the complaint he uses his hands while speaking (that must mean he is angry or something).
So now Charlie looks back at 2010, realizes that 52% voted against Deval Patrick, and does a self-assessment on his campaign on why he lost, and that’s a bad thing?
And the best thing, Baker’s financing plan for the Big Dig was so bad, it was copied and cloned by Deval and fellow Democrats for their own transportation projects.
and watch him lose again. Repeating the same mistakes over and over and we have a front row view.
with this guy. You all know I’m from the evil-side with libertarian leanings so I traditionally support the more conservative candidates and try to leave emotions out of my decisions regarding political support, but I just can’t warm up to this guy. The word smarmy comes to mind.
Where are the statesman?
I like that you seek a statesman. I think it’s hard to be a young or even young-ish statesman. The cadence, pace, and language of a statesman feels right with a person aged 60+; for a younger person it seems strange.
Thing is, there aren’t a whole lot of chances for a party so far in the minority to develop politicians into their 60s. Too many of them figure out that since they’re not changing policy at the state level, they might as well go make better money elsewhere. This isn’t a GOP issue — it happens in deep red territories to Dems as well.
It’s mentioned here and elsewhere there should be someone besides Baker, but there is no one besides Baker.
This also goes to earlier threads wishing there was a more vibrant opposition because that result in better policy.
Republican statewide candidates in MA have to pretty much pull all their own votes. With 1/3 or more legislative districts probably without any Republican candidate in Nov 2014, and with many of the remainder having a new, weak, or crazy candidate, it doesn’t pull many voters to the top of the ticket.