Question of the Day

How badly do you have to screw up an election cycle to not get hired as a Washington lobbyist?

I guess if there's hope for Brian Dodge, the now-former director of the Mass GOP who oversaw last year's devestating losses for state Republicans, there's hope for anyone. I wonder if his search for a way out is the reason that so many Democrats have gone unopposed in special elections this year.

Some Republicans Ready to Give Up Already?

Earlier today, GOP News suggested that Kerry Healey should throw the Governor's race and spread her vast fortune around to legislative candidates instead. The idea is that we Democrats will screw things up so badly in four years that a GOP legislative victory would be near assured in 2008, and Republicans could easily reclaim the corner office in 2010. Local blogger John Daley is waiting for someone at Blue Mass. Group to respond, but for now he'll have to settle for a third stringer of Massachusetts progressive blogospheric discourse. Herald Reporter Jay Fitzgerald also also posts his thoughts which are worth reading. The consensus seems to be that this would be a monumentally foolish idea.

As an unrepentant supporter of one of the Democratic gubernatorial candidates, I'm tempted to cry "Don't throw us in the briar patch, Brer Fox!" but I think we've had enough of Uncle Remus for the time being. Look at it this way, without the governor, the highest elected Republican official in 2007 would be State Senator Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield) assuming he succeeds the retiring Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees (R-East Longmeadow). Who will be the advocate for the Republican point of view in the absence of any statewide officeholder? They risk being completely shut out of the public discourse.

Let's forget for a moment that the GOP tried something similar in 2004 and was stingingly rebuked, losing a total of three seats in their effort. Forget even that 2008, the year that the GOP blog expects to make legislative gains, will be a presidential election year and hordes of Massachusetts voters will be coming out to vote for the Democratic candidate. Forget also that this year Massachusetts is poised to have the fewest percentage of contested races this year of any state in the union. If the Democrats were as hopelessly out of power as the Republicans are, I would also call for a renewed focus on the Legislature -- though I would never suggest abandoning the chances of winning an open seat. In fact, there are tales of repentant Nader supporters from 2000 who thought that teaching the Democrats a lesson and casting a protest vote for Ralph would do the same thing that the GOP News folks suggest, namely if Bush ended up winning he'd screw things up so bad (he did) that people would be begging for progressive leadership (how'd that work out in 2004?).

One thing that no one mentions is apart from the wisdom of this strategy, the very idea that Kerry Healey would take a dive for the state GOP is ridiculous. The Massachusetts Republican party is a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of Affiliated Managers Group, and its CEO Sean Healey. Electing Kerry Healey governor is now its sole purpose, just ask Christy Mihos who had to leave the party because he could not count on them being honest brokers. He's not the only one to be frustrated by the Healey takeover, either.

The other thing is the fallacy that it's easier to win an election without media attention. Dan Kennedy noted this as well. In the absence of other information, people are more likely to vote for the party than the candidate. While it's true that voters unenrolled in any party make up the plurality of voters in the Commonwealth, that doesn't really tell the whole story. In January, I took note of a Gallup survey on party identification which found that the majority of voters in Massachusetts lean Democratic (big surprise, right?). While unenrolled Democratic leaners may be swing voters in a gubernatorial election, in the absence of other information, they may be more likely to vote for a Democrat. This jives with the electoral experience of Massachusetts -- low profile races almost always go to the Democrat, unless they're legislative seats in highly Republican areas.

That all said, I think some of our Democratic legislatures could use some competition, if only to remind them that they still have to earn our votes. It's never good for politicians to get too comfortable.

Slow Going for GOP Recruitment

The Globe South had a pair of stories yesterday on the state GOP's trouble recruiting candidates in the region south of Boston. Of the 15 Democrats who faced Republican challenges in 2004 in that area of the State, eleven are currently unopposed. This is especially bad, in my opinion, for the state Republican party because places like Plymouth county could break for Kerry Healey in the gubernatorial election, if the voting patterns from 2002 hold. In those areas, she would have no coattails if there are no Republicans down ballot.

Matt Wylie, the ever-optimistic executive director of the Mass. GOP claims that not only will candidates emerge well before the June deadline, but that the state Republicans will "pick up seats." Well, Matt, it's like the old lottery slogan -- You can't win if you don't play.

The other Globe story reports on what happened to the GOP class of 2004, none of whom were able to win their elections. It's no small wonder, either, since that crop included notable luminaries as disgraced Brockton GOP chair Larry Novak (whose adventures in money laundering we've chronicaled earlier) and Matthew Sisk of Braintree, who was arrested March 1 on a drunken-driving charge. Sisk, by the way, was the first candidate that Governor Mitt Romney stumped for, according to the Globe. I guess he really knows how to pick 'em.

Will Mihos Destroy the State Republican Party?

Will Ash Wednesday, 2006, be known as the day the Massachusetts GOP self-immolated? Now that Christy Mihos is running as an independent, the GOP looks like it may lose the one foothold it has left in state politics -- the governor's office. Without the governorship, and since they do not seem to be running any other credible candidates for statewide offices, the state GOP will be almost entirely without influence on Beacon Hill -- a tiny coalition of legislators. Now, it's a long way until November, and there's plenty of time for scandals, or for the candidates to come down with foot-in-mouth disease, but after yesterday it just got more difficult for Republicans to win back the corner office.

Let me explain, because some people are skeptical. I am not saying that the Democrats are now guaranteed victory in November. It is possible that Christy Mihos might win, and it's still not impossible (though I think it's unlikely) that Kerry Healey could win. Here's what I want to stress. The Republicans have been winning the governorship with a coalition of registered Republicans, anti-tax independents and disaffected Democrats. While Healey is likely to get the vote of the Republicans, there aren't that many of them, when compared with the size of the other two groups combined. Those independents and Democrats are just as likely to vote for Healey as Mihos (assuming he runs a credible campaign, which is not a given either). The point I'm trying to make is that Mihos breaks up the Republican's coalition. To my mind, that means that Healey will have great difficulty winning in November. The question for the Democrats is to what extent does the entry of Mihos break up our coalition? Mihos will, polls show, take votes from the Democratic candidate, but it remains to be seen if he and Healey will end up taking more votes beyond those already predisposed to vote against the Democrat (about one out of four votes in 1998).

The question I have, and that we'll all find out come Novemeber, is whether Mihos will be a Ross Perot (1996) or a Jesse Ventura (1998). If he's a Perot, he'll manage a few percentage points from disaffected voters, but won't end up changing the outcome of the election. If he's a Ventura, he'll end up squeaking by both the Republican and the Democrat, and muddle through four tumultuous years before declining to run for a second term. I can't see him as being successful as a governor, if only because of what Scott Brown said on NECN last night: he has no political base now. Republicans aren't going to want to work with him after this betrayal, and if he really is a Republican by temperament, the Democrats in the legislature can just ignore him.

On another note, the Herald is reporting that five members of his campaign team resigned yesterday. True, they weren't resigning in protest of his running as an independent, they were resigning because he was "unmanageable". Most of those that left are now supporting Kerry Healey. There is a danger that Mihos has, running as an independent, that he will not be seen as a candidate with a realistic chance of winning. If he spends a ton of money, he can help mitigate this, but if people end up thinking that this is a third-party vanity candidacy, he may not be able to break out of Green Party or Libertarian turnout in November.

One Week, Two GOP Scandals

Last week, we in the Commonwealth were treated to two Republican scandals. The first involved none other than our Lieutenant Governor and possible 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey. According to the Globe, Healey's husband benefited to the tune of $1 million from tax credits under a Romney economic development program. That in and of itself would be unremarkable under a Republican administration, but a Department of Revenue report came out last October claiming that the credits were "handed out as favors" to recipients. That report was mysteriously withdrawn five days later and disappeared into the political ether. Here's what the Blue Mass. Group has to say about that:

DOR denies that it withdrew the report because of pressure from higher-ups. Uh huh. And if you believe that, I have some lovely waterfront property in Brooklyn that you might be interested in.

More recently, Massachusetts Republican Party vice-chairman and chair of the Brockton GOP, Larry Novak (seen here relaxing after burning some evidence?) has resigned after being arrested for allegedly laundering over $100,000 of drug money for one of his clients. Novak, who of course was running for Brockton City Council on an anticrime platform, is also under investigation by US Attorney Michael Sullivan for allegedly advising that same client to file false affidavits in court in an effort to get his prior state convictions overturned.

Chimes at Midnight wondered aloud where that drug money was headed -- was it destined to line the state GOP coffers? Indeed, records show that Novak loaned himself over $100,000 for his 2004 race against state Senator Robert Creedon. While Novak is a wealthy attorney, one has to wonder if any of that money came from unseemly sources. No worries, Mass GOP spokesdroid Darrell Crate tells us that the charges against Novak "have absolutely no connection to the Republican Party" and that they are "probably" going to return Novak's political donations. How reassuring.

A lot of people in Massachusetts disagree with Republicans on policy, but vote for them because they think the Democrats are corrupt. The events of last week should remind them that no party has a monopoly on scandal.

Nothing Doing

Clearly feeling heat on the Governor's many trips out of state, Massachusetts Republican party executive director Tim O'Brien has released a statement (sub req) blasting the legislature for, among other things, not being productive enough.

"This absentee Legislature needs to stop neglecting the Commonwealth and get to work on the important legislation filed by Governor Romney and Lieutenant Governor Healey, or it needs to stop taking a paycheck from the taxpayers of Massachusetts," said Tim O'Brien, Executive Director of the MassGOP. "Only on Beacon Hill is an 87 percent decrease in productivity rewarded with a full-time salary. Anybody else would be out of business."
[...]
"It's ironic that the Legislature likes to poke fun at Governor Romney for his out-of-state speaking engagements, when he has easily accomplished more than Democratic lawmakers who appears to spend their time rearranging offices in the State House," O'Brien said.

O'Brien uses as his measure the number of roll call votes taken since the start of the session this year compared to last year. Of course, that fails to take into account a couple of facts. First, the legislature went through a real reorganization this session. They actually reduced the number of standing committees. Of course, we all know how the GOP hates smaller government... Anyway, when a company undergoes a reorganization it is expected that some time will be lost as people settle into their new roles. The legislature is no exception to this.

Even without taking the reorganization into account, voting is not the only way to measure activity in the Legislature. House speaker Sal DiMasi said he is asking committee chairs to hold more oversight hearings this session. And we know how much the GOP hates government oversight. Oh, wait, that one's true.

O'Brien's claim that the governor has "filed several initiatives and pieces of legislation" does not hold up. Recall way back in November when Romney unveiled his Health Care proposal. At the time even he admitted that he had no plans to commit the plan to paper. We all knew that at some point the governor is going to have to come up with something better than an op-ed and a powerpoint presentation, but it was only yesterday that Romney said he would file a bill at some point in the future -- three months into the legislative session and five months after introducing his plan. I'm not sure what O'Brien would list among Romney's actual accomplishments. So far Romney's only impact on the state this year has been a few vetos that were quickly overridden -- some unanimously -- and a few wisecracks to GOP true believers.

Now, let's turn our attention to Mr. Tim O'Brien himself. What would happen if we applied an aribtrary measure of productivity to him? As we've noted before, O'Brien's salary is paid by the Massachusetts Republican State Congressional Committee. The purpose of that committee is, ostensibly, to promote and support Republican candidates for Congress in Massachusetts. Now, whether it's strictly legal for a state level figure like O'Brien to get paid with funds earmarked for federal candidates is a question for election lawyers, so we'll just leave that discussion for another day. What's interesting about the MRSCC, however, is that they managed to spend over 3.6 million dollars in the 2004 election cycle. How much of that do you suppose went to Republican candidates for Congress? A whopping $385. By my math, that means that 99.99% of the MRSCC's expenditures went to overhead (things like rearranging offices, I'm sure) and not towards their stated goal of funding GOP candidates. And O'Brien has the nerve to call the legislature do-nothing? I wonder if he is going to stop taking his paycheck. I'm not going to hold my breath.