Some context -- Mitt Romney may or may not run for re-election, and if he doesn't the front-runner would be Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey. Reilly has raised a lot of money and has some visibility as the state attorney general for at least eight years. Patrick has some very strong activist supporters but doesn't seem to be taken too seriously yet by the media or by most pols. Someone here said he has raised $2M with which to set up an organization, including a quite professional web site.
From the appearance today I can see where the excitement comes from. (I was already planning to vote for him -- now I've gone so far as to get a bumper sticker and give some money even though I hate to give money that isn't going to be used against Republicans.) He does not come off as a politician, a sharp contrast from Reilly. He emphasizes listening, being sure to get the name of each questioner, for example. He is very decisive in his positions and in positions he doesn't take -- he highlighted places where he differed with supportive constituencies and was willing to say that he had no position on issues when he hadn't formed one.
Reilly's rationale to primary voters is that he can appeal to independents by convincing them that he is a responsible fiscal manager. Patrick stated his rationale at the end of his speech (paraphrase): "If you vote tactics, and money, and traditional politics, I will not win and Mitt Romney or Kerry Healey will probably win. If you vote your aspirations, I will win and we will win."
The case that Patrick is a better contender in the general than Reilly is an interesting one. On the traditional spectrum, Patrick is further left -- pro-government, pro-gay marriage, more pro-choice, identified with civil rights law -- and hence might appeal less to the centrists and independents who form the decisive voting bloc. But if he can get himself noticed, the contrast in style between him and Reilly could really help him -- Reilly is a long-time office-holder with an Irish name and fits into the "traditional politician" stereotype even though he is a career prosecutor who has never been in the legislature. Patrick has never run for anything before -- he's been a corporate lawyer and a federal government lawyer (in charge of the church-burning investigation for the Clinton DoJ, if I understood him correctly).
You have to wonder whether a black man can win in what is a very white and in some ways rather racist state. But like Obama, he doesn't strike the white viewer as "threateningly black", rather as someone who has obviously succeeded in the establishment on his own merits.
More on the speech and q&a after the jump:
Opening: MA suffers from bad leadership. We are the only state losing population, and this is because young people move out in the face of limited job prospects and expensive housing. We can build the economy by investing in education and high-tech infrastructure. Like businessmen, politicians are too often forced to have short-term horizons. Public higher ed spending in MA less than in Mississippi (47th).
Wants major initiative selling bonds to fund stem-cell research at public universities. (His relatives have diseases that could benefit.)
Supports Health Care for All plan now in MA legislature, moves toward universal coverage though he thinks single-payer is the eventual solution.
Need to argue for positive vision of government to solve people's problems. Contrast with GoP anti-government vision.
Applause line: "The people on the rooftops in NO were abandoned long before the storm".
Favors Nantucket wind farm because of need for non-oil energy, wants more wind development in WMass. Stressed willingness to take a position on this when many others do not -- "went to Nantucket to hear both sides, found out there were at least five sides".
Conclusion as above -- "Vote for tactics, money, traditional politics (i.e,, Reilly) and get Romney or Healey, vote for your aspirations and I wins and we all win".
Q&A:
On the Iraq War and the current petition drive to defederalize the MA National Guard and pull it out of Iraq: Opposes war, calls for immediate withdrawal, but opposes petition because federal control of Guard was right in Arkansas in 1957, doesn't want to overturn precedent of that. Would use position as governor to oppose war. At the end of the q&a some 40 anti-war activists arrived from a march and confronted him about the petition -- he repeated this position. A mother of a dead Marine made a moving statement about the crisis of damaged returned soldiers, Patrick empathized and agreed that the state needed to make up for federal neglect, e.g., by improving homeless services.
Several questions on energy and global warming -- he answered with some apparent technical expertise, with a strong environmental, energy-independence position. Pushed development of green technologies, e.g., biomass (ethanol not just from corn) as a way to develop jobs that would stay in MA. Agreed with Romney's rhetoric on anti-sprawl planning and transportation, faulted performance, said that better transport could help housing costs, e.g. by allowing someone to live in cheap New Bedford and work in Boston, tax credits for initial cost of solar units on houses, etc.
Higher ed: Wouldn't comment on many UMass specifics but promised to boost system, stress accessibility. Higher ed should not be just employment training. Agreed trustees should not be all businessmen.
K-12 ed: Favors merit pay and charter schools on website, but backed off somewhat, saying merit pay had to preserve collegiality, charter schools should have independent funding. Stressed that K-12 funding should move off property tax. Praised innovative public school in Roxbury. Stressed need for art and culture in schools.
Health: Would form single statewide pool for catastrophic care.
General tone: Listen to everyone, respect all opinions, but make decisions and be willing to defend them against friends and enemies. I don't know if I've gotten across enough the impression that this is a really smart guy. He also stressed values in the same way as John Edwards -- "We need to be less concerned with the difference between right and left and more with the difference between right and wrong".
|
|
|
Permalink :: 2 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
