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?

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.

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.

Hometown Advantage

There was a strange article in Yesterday's Globe comparing the amount of money that Attorney General Tom Reilly and Deval Patrick have raised from their hometowns (second item). According to campaign finance records, Patrick has raised more money from his town of Milton than Reilly has from here in Watertown. Here's what the article had to say:

Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly continues to maintain his big fund-raising lead over Deval Patrick in the three-way Democratic race for governor, but in their hometowns, at least, Patrick has been much more successful in attracting checks from friends and neighbors. In a 16-month period, Patrick raised $113,200 from residents of Milton, while Reilly, over more than three years, has taken in $56,170 from the folks in Watertown, which is more populous but less affluent than Milton.

If you know anything about Watertown or Milton, this should not be surprising. It's also largely meaningless because the two towns are so different. Watertown is indeed "less affluent" than Milton, and the median household income here is about $19,000 less a year than there ($78,985 for Milton, $59,764 for Watertown). Watertown also has a greater percentage of people living below the poverty line than does Milton. It may just be that the people of Milton have more money to spend on political campaigns than do the people of Watertown.

To control for these factors, we can look at net dollars raised -- that is, the amount of money a town has given to their hometown candidate minus the amount they gave to the opposition. OCPF statistics indicate that over the past sixteen months, Milton donors have given $47,685 to Reilly, giving Patrick a net gain over Reilly of $87,138 in Milton. Watertown donors have given $18,129.50 to Patrick, giving Reilly a net gain of $38,040.50. Using this measure, you can see that both candidates have done better than their opponents in their hometowns, though Patrick still maintains over a 2-to-1 margin. Still, I think this is exaggerated given the difference between Milton and Watertown. If we take the shares over the past 16 months (so we're comparing identical timeframes for each town) we find that Deval Patrick has roughly 70% of the the money raised by the two candidates in Milton, while Tom Reilly has just under 64% of the money from Watertown if you count the $31,870 he's raised since December 2004. Patrick is still in the lead using these measures, but it's a more modest lead than the Globe article indicates.

Watching the Candidates Debate

I finally got a chance to sit down and watch the Democratic gubernatorial debate that aired this morning on Channel 4. For those night owls that missed it, it will be rebroadcast tonight at midnight. All in all, I think the candidates handled themselves well, and any one of them would be an improvement over the corner office's current occupant by a country mile. I think that despite some of the contentiousness, what you saw during that debate was more agreement than disagreement. All of the candidates want to grow the economy and all think that taxes are high, though each have different plans on how to reduce them: Chris Gabrieli says wait until we've replenished the rainy day fund, Deval Patrick says restore local aid to lower the property tax, and Tom Reilly says cut the income tax ASAP. There's a case to be made for all three, though personally, it's the property tax that I'm the most concerned about.

In any case, I think Chris Gabrieli came off very well during the debate, but he did seem like a third wheel at times as Patrick and Reilly went back and forth. Gabrieli did manage to get off some good lines, and I did notice that the other candidates said "I agree with Chris" at least once each. I did bristle when Tom Reilly went off on a tangent questioning Deval Patrick's association with Ameriquest, but Patrick did a bit of political ju jitsu on the issue by discussing his role in correcting Ameriquest's predatory lending practices.

The debate had some improvements over the usual format. In the interest of time, candidates did not give an opening statement, which I think was a good move. I've never thought that opening or closing statements added much. In addition, I liked the free time for rebuttal after answering where the candidates could actually interact. Too often, the rules of the debate are so restrictive that the candidates might as well just be giving parallel speeches, and there's no opportunity for the participants to talk to each other.

Here's what I didn't like, though. The debate was taped on Friday and not aired until Sunday morning. That's fine, things are pre-taped in television all the time, but what was odd was that the press was invited to the taping, and they published articles before any member of the public had seen the debate. That meant that the Globe, CBS4, etc. could tell us what the debate was about before we were able to find out for ourselves. I would much prefer that people be able to make up their own minds about the debate without having to live in a media blackout before it's shown.

Globe: Ignore Our Reporting

On today's editorial page, the Boston Globe editors caution voters not to judge candidates by their bank accounts. Here's the beginning of the editorial:

One plot summary for the 2006 gubernatorial campaign is that it's a race pitting Attorney General Tom Reilly against the millionaires: Chris Gabrieli, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, Christy Mihos, and Deval Patrick. The underlying theme is that the politician standing closest to poverty is the purest. And since Reilly is the only one who rents his home, sends his children to public schools, and lives on a government salary (Healey returns hers to the state), he must be the one who can best sympathize with the little guy.

It's appealing. But voters need to know more. The size of a candidate's bank account can reveal useful information. But measuring a candidate with a calculator can also generate stereotypes that obscure key issues.

I find this very ironic coming from the paper that ran a whole story on Deval Patrick's house, followed it up with a story on how every candidate but Tom Reilly lives in a swanky pad, complains that the "millionaires" won't release their tax returns, and tells us exactly how many of them send their kids to expensive private schools. Now they're cautioning us that voters should be looking for a fuller picture of the candidates? The Globe has been the primary source of the "plot summary" of Tom Reilly vs. the Millionaires, and it seems to me that it's disingenuous for them to now tell us on the editorial page that none of that really matters while their news pages continue to frame the election that way.

Who Raised More From Out of State?

Letter writer Dan Clawson from Northampton corrects the Globe's assertion that Deval Patrick has raised the most out-of-state money in the campaign so far, using the Globe's own numbers:

A little math, combined with your own graphic, shows that out-of-state contributors have given Thomas Reilly $630,000 and Deval Patrick $561,000.

While it's true that a greater percentage of Patrick's funds have come from beyond Massachusetts' borders, in terms of actual dollar amounts, it seems that Tom Reilly has actually raised more from out of state. To be sure, I don't think that out-of-state money really matters. It is, unfortunately, often used as a scare tactic or to indicate that the recipient of those funds has no local support, or would be beholden to nebulous far away interests. Neither of these things are true for either Tom Reilly or Deval Patrick, and it would be nice if the Globe spent more time writing about what the candidates want to do once in office than how they plan to win.

Friday Miscellany

This Friday post gives me a chance to clear out the clutter before I go on vacation. More on that below. Here's a couple of things I noticed this week:

• Deval vs. Grover: The Phoenix's Adam Reilly has the text of Deval Patrick's ProJo op-ed where he takes on Gover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform and Republican golden boy for inserting himself in the Massachusetts Health care debate. This is not the first time that Norquist has inserted himself in Massachusetts politics. Last year, he stopped Gov. Romney from tightening up tax loopholes.


• Return of No-Show Angelo: Longtime readers of this blog (both of them) may remember posts last year on "No Show" Angelo Buonopane, the GOP fundraiser who Governor Romney made head of the state Labor Department -- a job with no official responsibilities and unlimited vacation. Globe reporters tailed him and found him working an average of less than three hours a day for a six-figure salary. This week, Buonopane paid $28,000 to the State Ethics Commission in restitution, the largest fine ever given out by that board.


• Ruthie's Story: Globe columnist Ellen Goodman talks about her family's experience with gay adoption.


• Invisible? No wonder we never see him in Massachusetts: ABC News has their 2008 Presidential Invisible Primary Ratings and Gov. Mitt Romney comes in third among Republicans -- ahead of Rudy Giuliani, but behind Sens. John McCain and George Allen. The "invisible primary," in case you were wondering, is what the ABC News Political Unit calls the jockeying for position that candidates do before the first campaign button is made or first caucus vote is taken.


• He's less high maintenance than Celine Dion: The Smoking Gun has acquired Vice President Dick Cheney's list of suite demands for when he's traveling. Some highlights: all TVs must be preset to Fox News, and he must have four cans of Diet Sprite and a pot decaf coffee ready for him on arrival. Also, don't worry about the microwave, those pacemaker warning signs are mostly unnecessary. (via Metafilter, and elsewhere)


• Barrios in Watertown Next Week: State Senator and Middlesex County DA Jarrett Barrios will be speaking at the Watertown Democratic Town Committee meeting, Thursday, March 30th, 8pm at the Town Hall. In other Middsex County DA News, candidate Gerry Leone has been endorsed by Martha Coakley, who currently holds that job.

Just so you're all aware, I'm going to be out of town for most of next week. I'll likely be posting on a more limited schedule than usual until I get back on Thursday. Try not to make too much of a mess while I'm away.

Timeline of a Fiasco

The good news is that with Rep. Marie St. Fleur's withdrawal from the Lieutenant Governor's race is that this is now a short-term story. Had she stayed in the race, her financial troubles would have become a campaign issue and would almost certainly have harmed Reilly. Yes, the whole thing was a horrible fiasco (Fleurasco?) but it was over relatively quickly and it will likely be a footnote come September and November. After all, who remembers Harriet Miers anymore?

Even if the news itself has a short shelf life, that's not to say it doesn't have implications for the Reilly campaign and whether we can expect them to manage important events like this. Let's remember, while this was a four-day story, it had been in the works for months -- it just happened to fall apart in the past couple of days. Here's a timeline of what we know about Reilly's quest for a Lieutenant, cribbed heavily from DFA Cambridge:

Mid-October: Aides to Tom Reilly leak that he plans to pick his Lieutenant Governor.
Early-December: Rumors begin that Tom Reilly is intends to name Chris Gabrieli as his running mate.
Last Thursday: Rumors intensify that Reilly is going to tap Gabrieli as his running mate.
Friday: The Globe reports on those rumors. Marie St. Fleur's name is also mentioned, but she denies it, saying she supports LG candidate Deb Goldberg.
Sunday: The Globe reports a 10 AM Monday press conference where Reilly will announce the Gabrieli pick.
Monday morning: Gabrieli announces he's not running for LG and that reports on an offer in the media were overblown.
Monday evening: Reilly announces that he's picked Rep. Marie St. Fleur (D-Dorchester) as his running mate.
Wednesday morning: Boston Globe reports on St. Fleur's various tax and other financial difficulties.
Wednesday afternoon: Marie St. Fleur pulls out.

Today's Boston Globe has more, including the claim that Reilly didn't consult some of his key advisors before making the switch to St. Fleur.

How in the world Reilly could bungle something so badly that he's been working on since October? I said this yesterday, echoing what Brian McGrory wrote in his Tuesday column. I really want to like Tom Reilly. He's practically a neighbor. A lot of people I respect are enamored of him. At the same time, he's making it really hard for me to have a lot of confidence in his ability to manage a campaign, let alone an entire state.

The Importance of Vetting

The problem with picking your running mate at the last minute is that you might not have time to do the background check. From the Globe:

State Representative Marie P. St. Fleur, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly's choice to be his lieutenant governor running mate, has had three delinquent tax debts in the last four years, including an April 2005 federal tax lien of $12,711 against her and her husband, according to records examined yesterday by the Globe.

St. Fleur, in an interview last night, disclosed that she also owes $40,000 in delinquent federally backed student loans.
...
The existence of the tax liabilities in city, state, and federal records immediately raised questions about why Reilly's campaign made no effort to scrutinize St. Fleur's background before Reilly, the leading candidate in polls for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, invited the popular Dorchester legislator to be his running mate.

While I don't think having outstanding debt should exclude someone from public