Quick Thoughts on Tonight's Debate

Reilly did better than he did on Thursday, but expectations for him were so low that he'd have to. He asked the strongest question of the other two, but Gabrieli punted and Patrick gave an answer Reilly wasn't expecting and sounded completely lost.

Gabrieli did not seem to get the irony in bashing Patrick for wanting to re-think the 1993 compromise on charter school funding and in the next breath talking about how we needed to do-over the health insurance compromise that passed just last year.

Patrick really missed an opportunity by asking his opponents an open-ended question about their negative ads. That was tantamount to flat-out asking them to bash him for five minutes. He's a lawyer. He should know to never ask a question he can't control the answer to.

The hands-down winner of the debate: EdPrisby.

Notes From our Debate Party

First, I want to apologize for the light blogging over the past month or so. This is, of course, the worst time to reduce my posting output if I want to attract readers, but I made a decision. The work I'm doing here in Watertown for Deval Patrick's campaign is more likely to make a difference in the election than anything I write in the blog. I only have so many free hours in the day, and I've been spending them lately trying to help the campaign here in Watertown. Chances are, if you've seen a Deval Patrick sign here in town, I put it there. (As an aside, while Tom Reilly's street is littered with signs for him, the next street over is a haven for Deval signs -- funny how that worked out). Expect light posting until the primary.

Anyway, last night we had a debate watching party here in town, about a mile from Tom Reilly's home. We had a great turnout -- standing room only -- and generated a lot of momentum going into the final week of the campaign. Thanks to everyone who came!

Obviously, everyone in the room was a partisan, so any report of our debate experience will be hopelessly biased. We all thought that Patrick came off the best, of course, though a few came away with a better opinion of Gabrieli than they had previously held (not enough to sway the vote, sorry Chris). The biggest surprise of the night, though, was how nasty Tom Reilly came across. I don't know if Chris Gabrieli's campaign had anything to do with yesterday's story that Reilly knew about Marie St. Fleur's tax problems, but I'm not sure it was such a great idea to attack Gabrieli right out of the gate. First, it was a complete non sequitur to the question he was asked (always a pet peeve of mine) and second, it keeps the St. Fleurasco in the news for another couple of days. If you could pinpoint the moment Tom Reilly's campaign imploded, it was the day he announced Marie St. Fleur as his running mate and I have no idea why Reilly wants people to be reminded of that. Not only that, but Reilly spent half of the debate talking about how private these tax records are, at the same time he's airing an ad talking about how Gabrieli and Patrick should release their tax returns. It seems like he's trying to have it both ways on this.

Other notes: Janet Wu came out guns-ablazin'; we gasped at how good some of her questions were. Gabrieli had the most laugh lines, but Patrick had some good quips in there, too. When Reilly talked about his street in Watertown being just like anyone else's and his neighbors are just like everyone else, we all rolled our eyes; someone remarked, "We're your neighbors" and we're rooting for the other guy. The stem cell business went on way too long, and Gabrieli turned what should have been his strong point into "I love Harvard!" which may not play the same outside 128 as it does at the Kenndedy School. The other thing that bothered me about Gabrieli -- he said that we're not going to fix the health care system in the next few months. That may be technically true, but we are going to have to implement the health care reforms that were voted in this year. There's a lot for the next administration to fill in, and it will all have to be done in a few short months. He might not be able to 'fix' it, but he is going to have to act quickly.

Tuesday Morning Catchup

Patrick Private Sector Profile: There was a very fair profile of Deval Patrick's private sector experience in Sunday's Globe. If you haven't gotten a chance to read it, it supports Patrick's contention that he was someone inside these big companies trying to make them better places.

Republican on Reilly: The Springfield Republican had a article on Tom Reilly on Sunday. Nothing new there if you've been following the race, but if you haven't it's a good introduction to Reilly the candidate.

Gabrieli Spending Freely: The Herald reported yesterday that Chris Gabrieli has broken the record for spending on any campaign before August of an election year. He's also poised to exceed the current record for most personal funds spent, currently held by Governor Mitt Romney with $6.3 million for the 2002 election.

Patrick on TV this Week: The Globe reported today that Deval Patrick will begin airing ads at the end of this week. Ads aired by the other gubernatorial candidates earlier this month have not moved the polls dramatically, so perhaps keeping his powder dry until close to the election was a good move.

Lege Pondering Special Session: The Legislature is likely to be called into a special formal session next month so they can act on a bond bill that must be passed before January. I wonder if this would also be a good time to ratchet up pressure to consider Senator Marion Walsh's Big Dig Review Board proposal.

Question of the Week: Do you think that Governor Romney cancelled his trip to Wisconsin last week because he could no longer bring his hair gel?

Sad News for Gabrieli Family

The Associated Press is reporting that gubernatorial candidate Chris Gabrieli's mother, Lilla Gabrieli, passed away this afternoon.

It's never easy when a loved one dies, and I can't imagine what it would be like while you're under the microscope of a campaign. My condolences go out to the entire Gabrieli family.

Notes From Tonight's Debate

Tonight NECN aired their second gubernatorial debate, this one with the three Democratic candidates and a particular focus on education and health care. The AP has a report from the debate and Globe Columnist Scot Lehigh has already shared his thoughts. You can see portions of the debate on the NECN website. Charley from Blue Mass. Group liveblogged it.

One thing I did want to mention first is that the subject matter here are things that people trust Democrats to handle more than Republicans. These are Democratic bread and butter issues and Democratic candidates should be able to hit these questions out of the park. For the most part, all three candidates did well, but would have liked to see them stronger.

There were some good moments. I thought the exchange about the rollback was particularly good, and let viewers see the different viewpoints of the candidates. Chris Gabrieli made a good point noting that if you're going to lower the rate you at least need a plan to do it, more than just saying "of course the money's there." Patrick also made the important point that we need to invest in our infrastructure if we want to attract businesses. It's impossible to grow the economy and make the investments that businesses want.

Tom Reilly also did well when asked about the reimportation of drugs from Canada. Frank Phillips of the Globe asked him whether our own biotech industry, which is against that, can afford to have us pay lower prices. Reilly basically told him that he didn't care, and that the seniors who couldn't pay for their medicines were more important to him.

Here's what I didn't like. R. D. Sahl started off the second half by asking the candidates to say something bad about their opponent. No one really took the bait, which I appreciated, but Sahl seemed frustrated that he couldn't get them to badmouth each other. Gabrieli finally managed to change the subject by saying that he'd rather throw his gauntlet at Romney and Healey, and he noted their lack of results for the state.

I'm also not sure why Reilly continues to lead off with how he almost dropped out of school and how people told him he wasn't college material. I agree that it's a nice success story, and I really liked how he used it in his answer to the question about the MCAS. Still, I thought it was weird to bring it up in his closing.

Nobody's Laughing

Last week, gubernatorial candidate Chris Gabrieli set the cap on campaign spending for the Democratic primary at $15.36 million, the same number as the percentage he got at the Democratic Convention in Worcester that got him on the primary ballot. Gabrieli got to set the spending limit because he declined to participate in the state's public financing -- which would have set the cap at $1.5 million -- so the cap becomes the highest amount that any non-participating candidate declares they will spend. Recently, both of his Democratic competitors, Attorney General Tom Reilly and Deval Patrick, had already agreed to accept the public financing and released statements reacting to Gabreili's choice of cap. Patrick went so far as to record a video on the role of money in politics. He sent the following to his email list a few days ago:

[B]y choosing not to participate in the public financing, Chris gets to determine the spending cap for all of the campaigns. He set that cap at $15.36 million.

$15.36 million.

This is an unheard of amount for a gubernatorial primary in Massachusetts, and I feel it is an amount that sends a cynical message about our government and our political process. It reinforces the idea that politics is all about money and that elections can be bought.

In addition, today, I received the following email from the Reilly Campaign:

At the same time, my opponent has now declared that he is going to spend up to $15.36 million dollars in the three months between now and the September primary. That is in addition to the $3 million that he has already spent. That is an obscene amount of money by any standard. Worse still, he joked about the figure, as if spending limits and the amount of money in politics is some sort of punch line.

I believe it sends exactly the wrong message -- that the only people who can run for office are people of vast personal wealth.

Reilly goes on in his email to remind his supporters that he's the only candidate in the governor's race who's not a millionaire.

Conventional wisdom was that Gabrieli would set a high cap, one that neither of the other Democratic candidates would likely be able to reach. Still, my first thought was that it was bad form to treat the campaign finance as a joke, at the same time tweaking the delegates who put him on the ballot even though they were supporting other candidates (my second thought was to wonder if he's hiring a campaign blogger -- all that money's got to go somewhere, after all). The odd thing about it, is that by picking $15.36 million, Gabrieli made a news story out of it. If he had picked $8 or even $10 million, no one would have commented and he still would have plenty of leeway to outspend Reilly and Patrick. Clearly, he does not plan to spend the full amount -- the record for primary campaigns in Massachusetts is a modest-in-comparison $4.7 million. Instead, Gabrieli was forced to explain and defend the cap, and ended up pleading "C'mon, somebody, laugh!". I saw him on the news at one point saying "I hope you thought it was at least slightly humorous that I picked 15.36," (also quoted here). He kind of sounded like a bad stand-up comic whose joke just bombed imploring the audience for pity applause. I'm sure that's not the image that his campaign wanted to project.

I Love The Sound of Robocalls in the Afternoon

Being a delegate to the state party's nominating convention really makes a person feel appreciated. Or stalked, depending on your point of view. Rare is the day that I come home and there isn't some message from a candidate on my answering machine. Today was no exception. I got two calls, the first was from Martha Coakley who urged me to vote for Tom Reilly on the first and only ballot. The second was from DSC member Roberta Goldman who urged me to vote for Chris Gabrieli on the first ballot (of course, not mentioning that there might not be a second). The fact that the Reilly campaign is worried that he might lose votes on the first ballot tells me that he's close enough to 15% that he can't afford to make a deal to get Gabrieli on the ballot and split the 'lefty' vote.

Not to read too much into this, but there are some other differences between the two calls. First, I have no idea who Roberta Goldman is. Maybe I should, being a delegate and all, but if that's the best Chris Gabrieli can do three days before the convention, he's got his work cut out for him. Martha Coakley, I've heard of, and I imagine every other delegate has, too. Also, the Coakley message had a clear disclaimer at the end telling me that it was paid for by the Reilly campaign. Goldman's message did not. Maybe it wasn't -- I suppose she could be reading from her own script. I have no way of knowing because she didn't say.

Gabrieli's Boomerang Poll

The Gabrieli campaign this week gave us a textbook example of how to leak a poll to the media. They conducted an internal poll that showed Chris Gabrieli taking the lead in the Democratic primary against Attorney General Tom Reilly and Deval Patrick. Now, since this is an internal poll, it means we the public do not get to see what questions were asked, what types of people responded, or if the sample was at all biased. This was a poll not meant to measure opinion, but meant to convince people that Chris Gabrieli deserves to be on the ballot. So, with that in mind, the campaign leaked the poll to the media, and CBS4's Jon Keller and the Globe's Frank Phillips write about it as if it were news. The campaign then blasts an email out to delegates -- how they got all of the delegates private emails is another question -- trumpeting the news stories about the poll that they conducted. This way, rather than sending the poll results directly to delegates, they get the added bonus of being about to quote not from their campaign, but from an actual journalist. He sends the poll out, it comes back to him as free media, and he sends it out again.

Keller notes that Reilly and Patrick have not done any media to counter Gabrieli's TV ad blitz. I would argue that they would be fools to spend a dime on television until after the Democratic convention next Saturday. If Gabrieli does not make the ballot -- and he needs 15% of the delegates to vote for him to do so -- then it none of this will matter. The primary is not going to be lost in the last two weeks in May. It's much cheaper for Reilly and Patrick to try to keep Gabrieli off the ballot than it would be for them to put out television ads. The Globe comments briefly on that effort in today's article about yesterday's debate:

Gabrieli's campaign says it is confident that its efforts to get on the ballot will get the candidate over the threshold, but aides are devoting all their resources to it.

All of their resources? No kidding. I got four Gabrieli-related phone calls in one day last week. One robo-call, two calls from his campaign, and one survey.

As an aside, the internal Gabrieli poll was conducted by long-time Massachusetts pollster Tubby Harrison, who Keller says "has a good reputation". That may be true, but I can't help think of the words of Elias Nugator who, in February, reminded us of this nugget:

[Harrison's] imperial high noon goes bck to 1986 and the race to succeed Tip O'Neill in the fabled Eight Congressional District. late in the primary tubby pimped a poll for the Boston Globe claiming that George Bachrach had pulled ahead of Joe Kennedy amongst "those most likely to vote". So the Boston Globe had a merry few days second guessing a Kennedy whilst Joe's campaign went into crisis mode.

Two weeks later, Kennedy took Harrison, Bachrach, A scion of the Roosevelt family and the Boston Globe out into the back yard and beat them all about the face and neck with a big electoral shovel.

That is why you don't pay much attention to internal polls. The ones you hear about are not intended to measure, they're intended to convince. The ones you never hear about are the ones that the campaign is taking seriously.

Best and Worst Moments From the Debate

I've had some time for the debate to sink in, I've read over my notes and perused the AP Article from the Globe. If you missed the debate, NECN now has links to the video from their political web page. Here's what I thought were the best and worst moments for each candidate:

• Chris Gabrieli.
  Best Moment: Asking what happened to the dam inspectors after what happened last year in Taunton. He then went off on how the administration is proud when it fights the legislature, but thanks to those fights places like Peabody don't get the funds they need.
  Worst Moment: He was stuck on stem cells. Yes, it's important, but he couldn't answer as to how investment in life sciences would help places where the industry is unlikely to go.


• Christy Mihos.
  Best Moment: When he talked about seeing the effect that the high gas prices have on people firsthand. I think people can relate to that.
  Worst Moment: So many to choose from. I'd say it's a three way tie between when he suggested that Massachusetts break up the oil companies, when he failed to coherently defend his property tax proposal, and when he blanked after being told he only had time for one more sentence.


• Deval Patrick.
  Best Moment: Talking about his experience at Coke, and the countries that held your hand during the permitting process. That's something I hadn't heard from him yet and an easy way to improve the business climate in Massachusetts.
  Worst Moment: I think he failed to make a clear enough distinction between not intending to raise taxes and promising not to raise taxes under any circumstance. He needs a better 60 second answer to that and he needs it soon.


• Tom Reilly.
  Best Moment: Talking about saving Harvard Pilgrim. That's a real example of something he achieved in public service that everyone either knows about or can related to.
  Worst Moment: When he was asked where he would site an LNG terminal, he said somewhere not "in close proximity" to population centers. That's fine, but then he went one step further and said it didn't have to be in Massachusetts at all, but could be anywhere in New England. The audience laughed. It sounded like NIMBYism at its worst.


• Kerry Healey.
  Best Moment: Can you have a best moment at a debate you didn't attend? I guess her best moment was not having to be there to defend Mitt Romney's failed policies (such as he has policies at all).
  Worst Moment: Not showing up at all. Some disagree, but this debate left Christy Mihos as the defender of Republican ideals. The more publicity he gets without Healey to counter him, the more likely it is that he's going to steal votes from her.

What did you think were some of the best and worst moments from this debate? I'm sure many of you will disagree.

Notes From Tonight's Debate

Here are my notes from tonight's gubernatorial debate. I had thought about liveblogging, but perhaps my blog-foo is not quite up to that level yet. Here's the next best thing, looking at my notes!

Before that, though, here are some of my general impressions. Chris Gabrieli came off pretty well, he mostly answered the questions asked instead of the questions he wished were asked, and he got in a couple good shots at Healey in absentia. Deval Patrick also did well, though it's harder for me to judge how he did because I've heard a lot of what he had to say before. I understand he's still introducing himself to the state, so what I think is less important than what people who don't follow him obsessively think. Tom Reilly started off weak but finished stronger. I thought he dodged some of the questions he was asked, which is a pet peeve of mine. He would not say what he would cut, but kept insisting that the money was there already for everything, and implied that it would be forever. Still, he talked about his public sector experience, which is what sets him apart from the other candidates on the stage. Christy Mihos did the worst, I thought, though he did stick pretty well to his talking point about taxes being too high yet cities and towns need more money. He may yet appeal to people who don't see the inherent contradiction in that and who like their politicians a little unpolished, but I wasn't impressed. Also, he seemed to think that Massachusetts has the power to break up oil companies, which I found perplexing.

Anyhow, here are the notes I wrote while watching. They're pretty raw, but I tried to be as comprehensive as I could. Also, check out the Harvard Dems liveblog of the debate for more reactions.

UPDATE: On second thought, who needs my notes when the Globe has the transcript? Here's Part I and Part II. My stuff is still below the fold.

Full Debate Notes Inside...

RD Sahl: There are 800 people in the live audience. There will be two rounds: 1st journalists, then moderated discussion.

Alison King: 1st question to Chris Gabrieli. Mass ranked 45th in job growth, what do you know about creating jobs? What specific proposals do you have?

CG: I started my own company from scratch. Those companies have created jobs. I feel pretty confident. We have to invest in jobs. I propose we put money into stem cell research, renewable energy, jobs of the future.

Q: Do you believe the gov has control over job creation?

CG: There is an opp. for state govt to invest.

Ken Cooper to Christy Mihos: State cannot meet transportation budget w/out raising tolls. What would you do?

CM: I'm going to take the tolls on the pike down. The money is there on Beacon Hill. We've had a budget surplus for three years. The rainy day fund is great. The state has all the money it needs. What it doesn't need is all the special interests to rally around that pot of money. The money needs to go to cities and towns. I don't believe them.

Q: You would use the entire surplus for transportation?

CM: No, the surplus has to go back into local aid. The Rom/Heal admin has starved cities and towns. At the same time they've raised fees, fines and taxes. That's why people are leaving the state.

Robert Keough to Deval Patrick. Smart growth. No cities and towns have adopted it.

DP: Issue of real urgency. We've lost population. High cost of housing is the #1 reason they're leaving. Developers find it hard to get going, to make it through the approval process. The lege just took steps to streamline. We need to increase local aid to help cities/towns with burden of extra families. #2 need public transportation -- reach out to cheaper housing markets.

Q: Should additional aid be conditioned on housing?

DP: Should be conditioned on planning. In terms of housing, transportation, etc. We don't do a good enough job on planning.

Bob Oakes to Tom Reilly: You've switched position on the tax rollback. It'll cost us. Can you tell us what you're willing to short-fund for that $4 a week savings?

TR: First of all, it's terrible that Kerry Healey is not here. I believe that taxes are too high. I'm not just talking about property taxes. People are hurting. We don't have a deficit. We have extra revenues. I believe there are savings to be had in government. But the best way and most solid way.

Q: You've said voters made it clear they want their taxes rolled back. This was in 2000, but you only recently changed your position?

TR: We were in a period with terrible deficits. We're not in that period now. This is the right time.

Scot Hellman to Gabreili: Population loss would be greater if not for immigrants. What would you do to prepare them for the workforce?

CG: We have a large legal immigrant population. We've been the most dependent state in the nation on legal immigration. Why is there a waiting list for ESL classes? It's cheap and easy and pays off. Anything we do in creating jobs is what we do to make those people succeed.

Q: Is it worth the investment?

CG: Absolutely. It's short dollars. When a person has high skills but poor english, they get a job at their English level.

Alison King to Mihos: "call me Christy" Do you favor waiving the gas tax over the summer. You sell gas. Do you support the propsal?

CM: I talked about this last year. I get a worm's eye view of what is happening. People are hurting because they're buying just enough gas to get to work and get home. We're in tough shame. Gas at $3 a gallon is anathema. I would favor relief in the short term.

Q: But are we encouraging people to use more gas?

CM: People have to get to work and they have to get home. What would I do? Carter proposed an energy czar. Nothing has happened to energy policy since them. It's time to break up the oil companies.

Ken Cooper to Patrick: You talked about the permitting approval process. The state also has a rep for protecting open space & environment. How would you balance?

DP: We have wonderful open spaces. We have cultivated a village-like approach. Smart growth is a good idea without good execution. Adequate investment in clustered housing or environmental stewardship is a false choice. We can balance.

Q: What about businesses?

DP: When we were at Coke, we dealt with reg approval all over the world. In many places we were taken by the hand and walked through it. We can do that here and we can do it without sacrificing the enviroment.

Robert Keough to Reilly: Job growth needs to be priority. Everyone else has private sector exp. What about you?

TR: I saved a lot of jobs when I saved Harvard Pilgram. Not one person was denied care. I made a difference. In terms of job growth, we have to do something about the cost of business. We have to cut down the red tape, which is driving businesses out. I'll be a cheerleader. We haven't had that. I'll be fighting to keep businesses here.

Q: How do we keep down health care costs?

TR: I've taken on the tough fights throughout my career. We have to deal with admin costs. 1/3 of costs are paperwork. There are billions of dollars to be saved.

Bob Oakes to Gabrieli: Stem cell plan. You're floating $1 billion bond. Some say it's always a waste of money, throwing it at yesterday's technologies by the time it's implemented.

CG: Stem cell research holds out the highest hope for diabetes cure. Romney was going to make it a felony in MA. It's the wrong thing to do to block it. We create jobs in the process of doing it, building facilities. There's a gap in funding. This is the cutting edge. State gov't needs to step in, because the feds won't.

Q: How do you make sure the money's not wasted? How do you avoid CA problems? The CA plan has been held up in court, there's no oversight, etc.

CG: We have a history of peer review. This is a state that is filled with people who know about the science. I'd have an oversight board. If by the time it comes around, they don't think it's the right thing to do, change it.

Scott Hellman to Mihos: You plan to freeze property taxes at the rate when they bought the house. Wouldn't it reduce the revenue for cities and towns? Isn't it unfair to those who are buying now?

CM: No.

Q: Why not?

CM: I'd increase local aid. Cities and towns can't wait. They can stop firing teachers. No pub. school child should have to pay for extra-curricular activities.

Q: A new resident will be paying very different rates than their neighbor, even if they live in a similar house though? Isn't that unfair?

CM: But it's fair to the elderly. They've chosen to stay. No it isn't unfair.

Alison King to Patrick: You said you have no intention of raising taxes, but you've said you'd consider raising taxes. Which is it?

DP: I won't raise the income tax. 5.3% is what we need to live in to restore local aid. My issue is how we get past gimmicks as a way to govern, and how we pay for the challenges we face. People don't have trust in the government. Look at the big dig, it's small wonder that people are not trusting us with their money. But we need money for the services people want,

Q: Isn't that disingenuous?

DP: I have no plans to raise taxes. I was interested in the cigarette taxes when that was part of the health plan, but that's off the table now.

Ken Cooper to Reilly: You haven an energy plan with a goal to reduce costs of energy. it's hard to see that happening without add. supplies. LNG terminals run in to trouble. Producers have no incentive to build more. How do you meet energy needs?

TR: Wind Farm is a huge ripoff. Sound is going to be given to private developer for nothing. We do need to increase LNG. You don't do it in Fall River. You site it in appropriate places.

Q: Do you have a proper place for an LNG place in mind?

TR: Someplace not in close proximity. Doesn't have to be in Massachusetts, could be anywhere in New England. *Audience laughter*

ROUND 2 -- R. D. Sahl moderating

The flood: We're still cleaning up. No one believes in the federal dollars. What is the proper role of the state?

TR: This is where experience kicks in. I've had experience. First thing is to go there and do an assessment, then access fed. funds. These are our citizens. The state has to help people. Whatever it's going to take to get them back on their feet. We want as much help as we can get from the feds.

Would you tap the rainy day fund?

TR: We have $500 million.

Would you give up the tax rollback to help Haverhill?

TR: There is money to do it already.

DP: Part of it is showing up. I managed the response to attacks on black churches in the south. I understand how to get the most out of govt. There seems to be a responsibility to investigate root causes. There are dams failing that ought not fail. We've been starving cities and towns & infrastructure.

Would you tap the rainy day fund?

DP: If necessary, yes. Must respond to the emergency.

CG: 1st thing I wouldn't do is showboat for national cameras saying they would prevent looting. I agree with Deval. Last year we saw dams weren't being inspected. What happened? there's been knoweldge for a while that we've got a problem in Peabody. There's been a lack of leadership. The admin is proud when they fight the lege.

Where does the money come from?

CG: State money, there's plenty of money for emergency situations. They do it through sup. budget. It doesn't have the scale to be a budget buster. This is a prevention issue -- a lack of leadership issue.

CM: I would do exactly what Romney is doing. He's looking to FEMA, MEMA. I take the Gov. at his word. He's going to work to get fed funds. I'd work to do the same thing.

DP: I think it's a good think the gov has sheltered Katrina victims. But it's a shame he doesn't help out people here.

Job creation is currently focused on Boston. What will you do day one to show that you're gov. of the entire state when it comes to job creation.

TR: I'm going to bring Springfield together, come up with a business plan that makes sure that Springfield makes it. Bankruptcy is not an option. There's tremendous potential in these areas. There's an entrepreneurial spirit.

We know people want to go to work, but we know that the life science industry is not building things in Springfield.

CG: Gov. has created regional boards, they haven't done anything. Proposed to do research at UMass Med in Worcester. Need to stretch the benefits to Worcester. Need to connect up these places better by train, by commuting or by putting things there. We need to increase the use of the old mills in Lawrence.

How do we broaden it? Research isn't beind done in Pittsfield.

DP: Life science is important, but not enough. If you believe in MA you can sell the state. In Springfield, which is crying out for jobs, there is a biomass opportunity, because of its proximity to forest. The next thing is cultivating industry around renewable energy. The whole world becomes our customer. It's one of the reasons to support the wind farm.

CM: Nothing changes until the burden on the homeowners is relieved. CEOs won't move here if workers can't afford to live here. In ME, they can put three cars on the road for the price of one in MA. That's just one example of fees. The state is unaffordable. Beacon Hill is burying the middle class.

Part of that is to pay people more money? Should we raise the minimum wage?

CM: I would rather not have people tell me what wages I have to pay. I'm not going to hold down anyone's wage. The next increase should be an affordable heath care plan that we can give our people.

How do we get people's incomes up?

CG: What drives econ. growth and jobs? The #1 driver is the rate of innovation. The #2 is human capital. The south coast has the lowest college graduate rate. How do we get people to raise their skills? We need to change schools. We need to

DP: I support the increase in the wage, but most people can't live on $8.25 an hour. How do we make the economy better? It's never one thing. We need to fix housing. We do have to be about an innovation economy. Cultivating an energy economy. Consistently excellent public ed system, pre-K through higher ed. Stem cell should be done in Public Universities.

TR: I support min. wage & keying it to inflation. Key to economy is skilled workforce. Support math and science in schools. We have to do it in pub. Universities. We are not going to create jobs until we get rid of red tape that is stopping growth & development. It can take 5 years to get a project approved. More supportive to business economy.

MCAS -- New Bedford opted to give general diplomas.

CG: No. The right thing to do is get those kids those skills. We're not graduating enough kids with those skills. I support the MCAS. Why aren't we getting kids in our poorest communities to proficiency? Why do we live with a school system that's 100 years old? It doesn't work.

DP: The MCAS is not the issue, it's that we take the MCAS and slap it on a school system that's already overstrained. All day kindergarden, typical class size is 11 children. Mandatory after-school. Their MCAS scores are off the charts, but it's not as important because they pay attention to the whole child.

TR: No. These kids need extra help and then they'll pass that bar. Give them help. A lot of kids struggle. One test for everybody. Give them a diploma that means something.

CM: Nothing's sacrosanct. We put billions in ed reform since 1995. At this point, it's coming along, but as long as we don't fund the cities and towns properly, stealing local aid, nothings going to change.

CLOSING:

TR: Thanks to everyone! We're going in the wrong direction, it's time for a change. Previous governors have not gotten the job done. Visit my web site. Ideas are just ideas until they become reality. That's where experience comes it. I've been making change my whole career.

DP: Thanks to everyone! I came to MA in 1970 when I was 14 from a poor community. What we had was a sense of community. The adults treated us like they had a stake in us. When I came to MA, I was prepared for the extraordinary opportunities I've had. I see the potential in the commonwealth. They saw it in me.

CG: Thanks to everyone! Jobs & growth, etc. It's no surprise that Healey is not here. They haven't been here for four years. I want to step forward. Give me the opportunity to invest in our state, grow our economy, etc. MA deserves leadership.

CM: Thanks to everyone! We all love MA! It is time for real change. Taxes are just too high and that's why people are leaving. The prop. tax burden is killing the middle class. My prop 1 will rectify this. The tolls must come down. Beacon Hill is not funding education properly.

Advice Aplenty for Tonight's Gov Debate

Both local papers today feature columns offering advice for the candidates participating in tonight's gubernatorial debate at the Kennedy School. The debate will be the first live televised debate between the three Democratic candidates for Governor (Attorney General Tom Reilly, Deval Patrick and Chris Gabreili) and Independent candidate Christy Mihos.

The Boston Herald's Wayne Woodlief writes (subscription required):

[A] few brief suggestions for tonight.s quartet of candidates:
Reilly: Smile more.

Patrick: Generalize less.

Mihos: Invite the Dems to debate you, Kerry Healey and Grace Ross in the fall. And just sit back and smile if none of them knows who Ross is.

Gabrieli: If moderator R.D. Sahl gets too tough, just show him your tattoo.

Woodlief also suggests that Gabrieli remind voters that he still needs convention votes to get on the ballot; that Patrick should be sure to have a crisp 60-second answer to exactly what he accomplished at Ameriquest; that Reilly should not be too prosecutorial lest he look like a bully; and that Mihos should stay away from jokes about his wife.

At the Boston Globe, media consultant Dan Payne (who split with the Patrick campaign late last year) gave this advice (registration required):

Professor Christopher Gabrieli. ... On way to debate, fill up gas tank on your campaign bus. See how rest of us live.

Rev. Deval Patrick. ... Your personal journey from bunk beds and welfare to boardrooms and power is magnificently told. But no time for it in debate. Don't tell us about your grass-roots campaign. Get Ameriquest off your back by raising death and despair in Boston, urban neglect, and poverty.

Sergeant Thomas Reilly. ... Combat your tendency to come off as joyless drill sergeant. Use self-mocking humor: "I'm the only one in this race whose house is worth less than the gross national product of Bolivia." ... Don't say, "I'm no good at politics." If that's true, quit now.

Private First Class Christy Mihos. Have comic Steve Sweeney, who does your radio commercials, do debate for you. Nobody knows what you look like anyway.

The debate is starts at 7PM. You can watch the debate live on NECN, listen live on WBUR 90.9 FM, or watch it streamed on the web.

Thoughts on 15%

Over at Blue Mass. Group, they're having a discussion about yesterday's Scot Lehigh column predicting doom if Chris Gabrieli does not get the required 15% of the delegates at next weekend's Democratic State Convention to get on the primary ballot. The argument is that Gabrieli has met some standard of viability and should not be kept off the ballot in the interest of giving people choices at the polls. Lehigh quotes heavily from 1990 Gubernatorial candidate John Silber, a longtime foe of the 15% cutoff (more on him later). Still, Lehigh's argument is partly that the cutoff keeps out credible candidates, despite the fact that all the candidates he names did, in fact, end up on the ballot. The only example I could find of a candidate who failed to get 15% despite being subjectively viable is former Lieutenant Governor Tommy O'Neil, who missed the bar in 1982, the first year the rule was in place. I'm not sure that the 15% rule is the best way to weed out marginal candidates, but if the threshold was so difficult, I'd have thought there would be more examples of people who couldn't clear it. Of course, this convention is the first one since the party tightened the requirements even further (forcing candidates to clear the threshold on the first ballot, and reducing the number of delegates elected at caucus).

Personally, I think that any delegate who was elected at the caucuses as part of a slate of delegates who committed themselves to a candidate should vote for the candidate they promised to vote for. I don't care if that candidate is Deval Patrick, Tom Reilly, or Joe Kennedy. To do otherwise would be dishonest. Since Gabrieli did not participate in the caucuses, he will miss out on these votes and I don't see anything wrong with that. If Gabrieli wants to tell uncommitted and ex officio delegates to vote for him because he's doing well in the polls, that's fine. If he's telling committed delegates to vote for him on the first ballot so he can get access, and another candidate on the second ballot, then he's basically telling these delegates that the promises they made at the caucuses are less important than his candidacy. I think that's why some of the delegates are turned off.

For what it's worth, Lehigh wrote the exact same column four years ago, when Robert Reich was the candidate in danger of missing the ballot. John Silber was again Lehigh's go-to-guy for why the rule is no good. Reich did get his 15% at the convention, but not much more. I suspect the same thing will happen to Gabrieli next weekend. As a contrast, though, the Reich people worked the caucuses pretty hard and got his 15% largely from those delegates.

Now, as far as Silber goes, of course he doesn't like the 15% rule. Back in 1990, he entered the gubernatorial race late against Frank Bellotti and Evelyn Murphy. There was a question of whether or not he'd be able to get 15% of the delegates at the convention, so he spent $200,000 on TV ads in April and got his poll numbers up to prove that he deserved a place on the ballot. Sound familiar? Now, I didn't live in Massachusetts in 1990, but from what I've been told, a deal was struck at the Democratic convention that year, and some of Bellotti's delegates voted for Silber to make sure he reached the threshold. Silber ended up beating Bellotti 54 to 44 in the primary, and went on to lose the general election to Bill Weld, which started the succession of "dilettante Republican governors" who have either gotten bored with Massachusetts or gotten elbowed out. I'm not sure what would have happened if that deal had not been made and Silber failed to make the ballot, but Bellotti would likely have won the Democratic primary. Would he have beaten Weld in the general? I'm not sure, but as I said on Blue Mass. Group, he probably wouldn't have cussed out Natalie Jacobsen.

MDF '06 Convention Report

On Saturday, I ventured out into the flood and attended Mass. Democratic Future's annual conference at Harvard's Kennedy School. I went to this same event last year and was looking forward to this one. Turnout this year seemed to be a little lighter than last year, and there were no breakout sessions as there were a year ago, but the event was fun and informative.

Due to the weather, things got off to a little bit of a late start. Rep. Alice Wolf (D-Cambridge) gave a few welcoming remarks and encouraged all the young Democrats in attendance to themselves run for office. She also talked about the importance of retaking the corner office. Rep. Wolf was followed by a 'Running Young and almost Winning' panel that featured three Young Dems who recently ran for office and came up short.

Boston City Councilor Sam Yoon spoke next, and he also spoke to the importance of having a Democratic Governor. He gave the example of Gov. Dukakis, who announced his plan to create the Shattuck homeless shelter in a speech without first talking to anyone in his staff about it. Four days later, the shelter was up and running. Yoon described this as the Governor's ability to "speak progressive policies into existence." He also talked about his experience running for the City Council, and in particular being the first Asian-American to do so.

Next, was the 'Running Young and Winning' panel which featured Rep. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton), Rep. Mark Falzone (D-Saugus) and Somerville Alderman Rebekah Gewirtz. Gewirtz talked in particular about her previous experiences with MDF and with founding the Progressive Democrats of Somerville. She noted that she wanted the Democrats to have better party discipline, and that it was our responsibility to let people know what the difference is between us and Republicans. Rep. Eldridge noted that youth was almost entirely an advantage in his case because people appreciate an enthusiastic new face. That said, the panel noted that sometimes they had to fight the perception that because they were young they didn't know enough about issues. To that end, Eldridge advised that young people looking to run in the future should get involved now with an issue they care about, and prove they are reliable by helping pass an override or get a candidate elected. Falzone and Eldridge also both noted how important it was to earn the trust of the voters by letting them get to know you. This allowed them to be successful even though they are more progressive than their districts. There were some in the audience who tried to steer the conversation toward national politics, but the panelists encouraged everyone to get involved locally where one person can make the biggest difference.

Congressman Michael Capuano was next up. He noted that it is the voters who decide what the Democratic party stands for, and they do it every time they elect Democrats to office. He did not have much use for the party platform, instead saying that what voters actually vote for is more important than a document no one reads. He told the audience that for the Democrats to retake the house, it will be for two reasons. First, the Republicans keep screwing up, which improves the Democrats' chances. Second, the Democrats will win the same way they used to -- on the streets "with bloody knuckles." When asked by an audience member what we could expect if the Democrats took back Congress, he said that the entire agenda would change. Of course, since President Bush would still be in office, he acknowledged that whatever Democrats came up with was unlikely to become law. He did say that he was anxious to ask questions and with subpoena power, they'd finally be able to do their required oversight of the administration.

Gubernatorial candidate Chris Gabrieli spoke next, having the misfortune to be the last speaker before lunch. He first asked if there were any delegates in the audience and his eyes got wide when he saw how many of us raised our hands. He told the audience that Independent voters are the key to winning back the corner office, and the reason they don't vote for Democrats is not that they necessarily disagree with us, but that they doubt our ability to deliver. He proclaimed himself the candidate with ideas that can actually be achieved. He also talked about simple ways to boost the local economy, particularly mandating that public pension funds weight their investments toward Massachusetts-based investments. That's an easy way to put money back into the state with no cost to the taxpayer. He also mentioned his billion dollar stem-cell research proposal, noting that Massachusetts needs to compete with places like California, New Jersey and Connecticut. He also talked about extending the school day, and changing the definition of what school is. As far as taxes go, he said we needed to get to 5.0%, but even Gov. Romney doesn't think we can get there today. Gabrieli wants to first 'grow the pie' before lowering the rate.

The final panel featured Angus McQuilkin of Planned Parenthood, Matthew McTighe of MassEquality and Noah Berger from the Mass. Budget and Policy center. They spent most of their time talking about their issues, but with a particular focus on messaging. Berger spoke first about the need to t