Only 21 More Months of This to Go!

State Attorney General and potential Democratic challenger Tom Reilly had some comments for Mitt regarding his recent PAC Activity:

"I wish there'd be more attention and more emphasis paid on what's happening in South Boston, where Gillette is headquartered, than what's happening in South Carolina," Reilly said, referring to a key presidential primary state where Romney is scheduled to speak to a local county Republican Party organization later this month. "You can't have your mind in two places."

So it seems that Reilly has focused in on Romney's ambition as a campaign theme. This is a good supplimental theme in so much as if people are willing to believe that Mitt wants to be president, they'll be more likely to believe that he's not really interested in being governor, but rather using that position as a stepping stone, leaving the Commonwealth in the lurch with Acting Governor Kerry Healey. The recent history of GOP Governors bolting Massachusetts as soon as something better comes up certainly has to help whichever Democratic candidate ends up being the nominee.

Reilly also touched on this theme last night on WGBH's Greater Boston. When asked about his recent takeover of Big Dig cost recovery, he contrasted his willingness to "do the work" with the Governor's willingness to duck responsibility for a political football. As Reilly's campaign kicks into full gear we'll probably hear more phrases like "willing to do the work" or "get his hands dirty" or "put in the hours" coming from him. It's probably better for him to position himself as the "serious" candidate because if he tries to be the "exciting" candidate, it will doubtless end up sounding forced. I could be underestimating the Attorney General, but judging from his performance last night and at the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce last month, he's not particularly a bundle of raw charisma.

Also in the Globe article, Mitt's obsequious mouthpiece Eric Fehrnstrom invokes the classic right-wing "but Democrats do it too!" regarding the Commonwealth PAC expenditures by pointing at John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. The difference, which Fehrnstrom of course never mentions, is that Kerry and Kennedy are Federal figures. If they spend money to help Democrats in South Carolina, Iowa or New Hampshire it's with the goal of increasing Democratic membership in the Senate -- in fact Kennedy's PAC is even called the Committee for a Democratic Majority. The more Democrats in the Senate, the more power Kennedy and Kerry have to affect legislation and deliver for Massachusetts. On the other hand, what do we in Massachusetts care about county-level Republican parties in South Carolina? Does a strong Republican party in Kentucky make Mitt a more effective governor? I can't imagine it would, especially since it seems increasingly clear he's got one foot out of the door already.