Thursday, September 14, 2006
The Debate
And now, to the debate. For photos, see below, the post of September 13, 2006.
201k was pleased to have been invited to attend, and before we get started we want to specifically thank Jennifer Bien, Ro Dooley, and Bridget -- whose last name we don't know -- for their kindness and professionalism. We also enjoyed the receptionist at CBS4, who greeted us with a disdain and sarcasm that was impressive for someone of her generation. Perhaps she's younger than she looks.
The debate was reasonably interesting, and we'll get to it shortly, but by far the most fun for us was observing the people who were observing the candidates. 201k has no journalistic training, credentials, or intentions, and last night's experience made us more grateful than ever for that.
The press room itself was very nicely set up, with internet access, a fruit and cheese plate, and plenty of water and soft drinks -- though one member of the fourth estate brought his own 25-gallon drum of Mountain Dew, which he finished before moving on to CBS's Mountain Dew. We were a little afraid to be sitting so close to him.
Filled with occupants, though, the room looked more than anything else like a meeting of "Dorkaholics Anonymous". Imagine the high school audio-visual department having a mixer with the debate team, and you've got the idea. The only difference is that, per capita, this room had more self-importance in it than any other in our collective experience. To get your head around the scope of this, understand that one of us has spent years in the music business and the other is a practicing trial attorney; believe us -- we've seen self-importance. We couldn't have imagined anything like this. Well, maybe backstage at a production of "Rent".
There were exceptions -- David from Blue Mass Group turns out not to be a dink -- but they were like Yankee jerseys in the stands at Fenway Park. The dominating presence in the room was a nationally-known political commentator who grabbed the seat at the head of the table, went out of his way to humiliate -- out loud, for maximum effect in the room -- the young woman the station had put at our disposal, then, throughout the evening muttered what he supposed was "Internet savvy" lingo ("YouTube", "LOL", etc.) under his breath, mocking the bloggers in the room to the very nice reporter who got stuck sitting next to him and who was trying to do her job. Later, at the press questions, he asked each candidate a "funny" question that wasn't "funny" -- when he wasn't trying to scope out Mrs. 201k unseen.
Yes, she saw you. And she thinks you're an idiot. And, frankly, dude, you owe the young woman at CBS4 an apology. You were a jerk.
Other mildly amusing things were the 30-minute effort by two reporters -- who were sitting across the table from each other -- to get their "Instant Messaging" working so they could IM each other before the debate, and the radio reporter who'd obviously stolen her clothes from Tommy Heath
When the candidates arrived -- which we watched on wide-screen TV -- the press reacted differently to each. Gabrielli jumped out of his bus pumping his arms in the air, and the room erupted in laughter. He did look silly.
The camera caught Reilly pausing and looking back while walking towards the studio, and one member of the press said aloud, "This way, Tom", and the room laughed again.
No reaction to Patrick's arrival.
And now,
The Debate
Jon Keller -- very professional, very personable -- began by asking the candidates why they were electable. Gabrielli went first, reciting a long list of specific proposals he'd pursue as governor. At the time we thought this remarkably boring approach was due to a personality disorder, but it was actually the first shot in what, it would become clear, was his strategy of painting Patrick as short on specifics.
Patrick touted his "leadership", which was the first inkling that he would spend the entire night short on specifics.
Reilly promoted his "independence" and his understanding of "working guy" life, then switched to his stance on the tax cut -- which he'd do pretty much the rest of the night.
On the question of the tax cut, Patrick repeated his talking point that the growth in Massachusetts was mostly due to those at the top -- citing himself and Gabrielli as beneficiaries -- and proposed a property tax cut instead of an income tax cut. 201k found this is a little counter-intuitive. Our confusion grew as Patrick added that he wanted to put the money back into local aid -- which we whole-heartedly support -- and repair the state's infrastructure and roads -- which we also support. Exactly how he'd do this was not clear.
It occurred to us that Patrick's pledge to fully fund local aid and repair the roads while cutting property taxes was likely the reason he was short on specifics, and definitely the reason he doesn't support an income tax cut. He did, to his credit, eventually say that the candidates needed to be honest with the voters about the challenges we face. Frankly, 201k supports that. But Patrick's lack of a specific plan -- whether this lack was a matter of political necessity or not -- created an opening for Gabrielli to pound at all night.
Gabrielli, of course, had a specific plan. In fact, it was a "Can-do!" plan. It sounded to us as if the plan involved cutting both income taxes and property taxes. Must be some plan. On the other hand, Patrick, Gabrielli helpfully pointed out, has no plan.
Patrick, who either has no plan or can't say what it is because it doesn't lower taxes, countered that his plan was for the "real world", and not just "theory". This tactic actually worked for a while, throwing Gabrielli off guard. Later, though, Gabrielli would gather himself, circle back, and make the "no plan" charge stick to Patrick. Quite frankly, his skill in doing so was impressive and not lost on the press gang, one of whom emitted a low whistle of approval while another whispered, "Wow -- he's smart." He's also very tall, and it was a drag for Patrick to be stuck standing next to him. When they faced each other directly Patrick looked like Jack staring up the beanstalk.
Reilly had his story on taxes, and he was sticking to it: if the voters want a tax cut the voters get it -- period. As a way for Reilly to answer the tax question all night without actually facing it this response was a godsend -- for him. For every other purpose, however, it was woefully inadequate -- unless Tom Reilly wants the people of the Commonwealth to believe that he will never act to do what's right in the face of popular opposition -- which is somewhat ironic, given that forty seconds earlier he'd touted his "electability" on the basis of his "independence".
Patrick countered that you couldn't cut taxes with local aid short on funds, to which Reilly said the people have spoken, to which Gabrielli said that he had a plan, to which Patrick said the state treasurer thought his approach (which is different from a plan) was best and that Reilly had changed his stance, to which Reilly said the people have spoken.
Then they moved on.
The next question was whether the candidates supported the idea of tax breaks targeted to big-business honchos as a way of sparking job creation. All three were opposed to the idea but whole-heartedly supported "jobs", with Patrick advocating "more robust relations with business" while Reilly opted for "an entirely new relationship between the State and business".
Gabrielli had memorized the best soundbite on this topic, pointing out that such efforts only ever spark a "race to the bottom" -- which is true. He went on, however, to say that he'd spend billions (did he really say billions?) on small business, which will be a good trick after he cuts both income and property taxes.
Reilly, not to be out-spent (while cutting taxes) said he'd spend $500 million on the University of Massachusetts. Sounds like a great idea to us (or, as Reilly says, "idear") though we couldn't help wondering, later, when he bragged about chasing former Senate president William Bulger out of the Umass presidency, if it wouldn't have saved money to have left Bulger -- a monumentally successful fund-raiser -- in the job at the school rather than helping Romney and a bunch of Washington GOP hacks chase him out.
Back on job creation, Gabrielli wanted to encourage Massachusetts' pension funds to invest here, while Patrick wanted the state to be "a global leader in alternative energy". We like both those idears.
The next question was on school tracking. All three candidates oppose tracking. Reilly took the issue personally, acknowledging that he himself rode the short bus to school yet overcame his obstacles to become the candidate for governor that the press corps snickers at most openly. No, no -- in all seriousness, this question was the one on which Reilly was the most genuine all night. He clearly knows what it's like to be the kid who doesn't have the system working for him, and all Democrats should be on board with that.
Of course, we could be personalizing this ourselves, since twice this week we've had to pull our first-grader off crying, scared third graders. If he doesn't make it to Symphony Hall, there's always prize-fighting. Or Attorney General.
Anyway, Patrick agreed, and added his support for "alternative standards", which brought Gabrielli zeroing in, both to oppose the idea of 'alternative standards" and to call Patrick an outsider who "wasn't here" during those battles.
It struck both of us from 201k that all three Democratic candidates support charter schools. How did we get here, folks? This money belongs in the public schools. All three also supported the MCAS tests, which we find a colossal waste of time and money. (See: first grader, crying third graders, pulling off of, above.)
The next question was received by email -- clearly not from a real person, but from an advocate with an agenda -- asking if the candidates would cut state employees' benefits to the same expense level as that of "average workers". Gabrielli said no, but that he'd consider cutting the bennies of municipal workers. There goes those votes.
Patrick said the better path was to lower everyone else's health costs -- ding! -- the obvious right answer which likely had Gabrielli internally slapping his forehead. Patrick also cited the need to cut the paperwork and administrative costs (codeword: profit) from the health-care process.
Reilly also cited the need to cut "administrative costs", but he had a statistic: 33% of health care costs, he said, are "administrative". Clearly, administrators everywhere have good reason to fear Patrick and Reilly, um, administrations.
Gabrielli added that we "ask too little" of businesses. Of course, that could be because he'd promised them "billions" ten minutes earlier.
During a discussion of the CORI system that was evidently being broadcast from Mars on a station that only Tom Reilly was receiving, one of his staff (we presume) entered the press room with a handout on the topic, so we could read along with Reilly's unfathomable contention that Patrick's endorsement of the Public Safety Act of 2006 will "let drug dealers out in the streets".
If the Reilly campaign was hoping the handout would clarify that charge -- well, you can judge for yourself. This is an actual sentence from it:
And so on. Hell, you could just watch the debate yourself. Maybe we'll cover more of it later. In the meantime, we'll skip to the post-debate questions, for which the entire island of misfit toys marched down to the studio to photograph and ask questions of each candidate.
The Questions
Gabrielli, surrounded by recent graduates of the Ivy league School for the Very Tall in Penny Loafers, went first, with most questions being horse-race ones on his decision to attack Patrick on Patrick's lack of specifics. Gabrielli, who, in all honesty, won this debate hands-down, is very tall. So tall that we couldn't hear his answers.
Ok, ok, that's when we were struggling with our camera flash, and weren't listening. And here, now, we can't read Mrs. 201k's notes. We'll check later.
Patrick came out surrounded by seasoned political people with dark circles under their eyes and knowing he'd been wounded on his inability to detail a specific plan. Here, in front of reporters, he made a mistake in trying to deal with it, saying that he "wasn't running for lead policy wonk" -- he was "running to be a leader." His supporters should be glad he didn't say that during the debate, and hope that no one reports it. It goes to the heart of Patrick's problem here; he did, in fact, spend all night speaking in the most general of terms. Having been called on that, the last thing he should do is answer with yet another glib generality -- especially one that boils down to "I don't see myself as someone who has to understand the details enough to explain them to the voters". When an opponent is directly challenging you on a lack of specifics, that's the wrong answer, plain and simple.
Reilly came out surrounded by recent Criminal Justice grads, and spoke in a barely audible whisper, answering all questions by repeating -- at least four times -- that he was the candidate who was ready to be governor while the other two were "politicians" (which will come as a surprise to Chris Gabrielli). The Nationally-known political reporter who asks "funny" questions that aren't "funny" asked Reilly -- who had said he'd been in the fourth rank of kids in school -- if he knew any kids from the fifth rank who'd done as well as he, and we crossed our fingers hoping Reilly would say, "Yes -- they're all political reporters", but he didn't. And probably never will.
Our conclusion? The debate went to Chris Gabrielli, who overwhelming helped his case here tonight. We say this without having looked at any polls. Or knowing in the least what we're doing.
But you knew that.
201k was pleased to have been invited to attend, and before we get started we want to specifically thank Jennifer Bien, Ro Dooley, and Bridget -- whose last name we don't know -- for their kindness and professionalism. We also enjoyed the receptionist at CBS4, who greeted us with a disdain and sarcasm that was impressive for someone of her generation. Perhaps she's younger than she looks.
The debate was reasonably interesting, and we'll get to it shortly, but by far the most fun for us was observing the people who were observing the candidates. 201k has no journalistic training, credentials, or intentions, and last night's experience made us more grateful than ever for that.
The press room itself was very nicely set up, with internet access, a fruit and cheese plate, and plenty of water and soft drinks -- though one member of the fourth estate brought his own 25-gallon drum of Mountain Dew, which he finished before moving on to CBS's Mountain Dew. We were a little afraid to be sitting so close to him.
Filled with occupants, though, the room looked more than anything else like a meeting of "Dorkaholics Anonymous". Imagine the high school audio-visual department having a mixer with the debate team, and you've got the idea. The only difference is that, per capita, this room had more self-importance in it than any other in our collective experience. To get your head around the scope of this, understand that one of us has spent years in the music business and the other is a practicing trial attorney; believe us -- we've seen self-importance. We couldn't have imagined anything like this. Well, maybe backstage at a production of "Rent".
There were exceptions -- David from Blue Mass Group turns out not to be a dink -- but they were like Yankee jerseys in the stands at Fenway Park. The dominating presence in the room was a nationally-known political commentator who grabbed the seat at the head of the table, went out of his way to humiliate -- out loud, for maximum effect in the room -- the young woman the station had put at our disposal, then, throughout the evening muttered what he supposed was "Internet savvy" lingo ("YouTube", "LOL", etc.) under his breath, mocking the bloggers in the room to the very nice reporter who got stuck sitting next to him and who was trying to do her job. Later, at the press questions, he asked each candidate a "funny" question that wasn't "funny" -- when he wasn't trying to scope out Mrs. 201k unseen.
Yes, she saw you. And she thinks you're an idiot. And, frankly, dude, you owe the young woman at CBS4 an apology. You were a jerk.
Other mildly amusing things were the 30-minute effort by two reporters -- who were sitting across the table from each other -- to get their "Instant Messaging" working so they could IM each other before the debate, and the radio reporter who'd obviously stolen her clothes from Tommy Heath
When the candidates arrived -- which we watched on wide-screen TV -- the press reacted differently to each. Gabrielli jumped out of his bus pumping his arms in the air, and the room erupted in laughter. He did look silly.
The camera caught Reilly pausing and looking back while walking towards the studio, and one member of the press said aloud, "This way, Tom", and the room laughed again.
No reaction to Patrick's arrival.
And now,
The Debate
Jon Keller -- very professional, very personable -- began by asking the candidates why they were electable. Gabrielli went first, reciting a long list of specific proposals he'd pursue as governor. At the time we thought this remarkably boring approach was due to a personality disorder, but it was actually the first shot in what, it would become clear, was his strategy of painting Patrick as short on specifics.
Patrick touted his "leadership", which was the first inkling that he would spend the entire night short on specifics.
Reilly promoted his "independence" and his understanding of "working guy" life, then switched to his stance on the tax cut -- which he'd do pretty much the rest of the night.
On the question of the tax cut, Patrick repeated his talking point that the growth in Massachusetts was mostly due to those at the top -- citing himself and Gabrielli as beneficiaries -- and proposed a property tax cut instead of an income tax cut. 201k found this is a little counter-intuitive. Our confusion grew as Patrick added that he wanted to put the money back into local aid -- which we whole-heartedly support -- and repair the state's infrastructure and roads -- which we also support. Exactly how he'd do this was not clear.
It occurred to us that Patrick's pledge to fully fund local aid and repair the roads while cutting property taxes was likely the reason he was short on specifics, and definitely the reason he doesn't support an income tax cut. He did, to his credit, eventually say that the candidates needed to be honest with the voters about the challenges we face. Frankly, 201k supports that. But Patrick's lack of a specific plan -- whether this lack was a matter of political necessity or not -- created an opening for Gabrielli to pound at all night.
Gabrielli, of course, had a specific plan. In fact, it was a "Can-do!" plan. It sounded to us as if the plan involved cutting both income taxes and property taxes. Must be some plan. On the other hand, Patrick, Gabrielli helpfully pointed out, has no plan.
Patrick, who either has no plan or can't say what it is because it doesn't lower taxes, countered that his plan was for the "real world", and not just "theory". This tactic actually worked for a while, throwing Gabrielli off guard. Later, though, Gabrielli would gather himself, circle back, and make the "no plan" charge stick to Patrick. Quite frankly, his skill in doing so was impressive and not lost on the press gang, one of whom emitted a low whistle of approval while another whispered, "Wow -- he's smart." He's also very tall, and it was a drag for Patrick to be stuck standing next to him. When they faced each other directly Patrick looked like Jack staring up the beanstalk.
Reilly had his story on taxes, and he was sticking to it: if the voters want a tax cut the voters get it -- period. As a way for Reilly to answer the tax question all night without actually facing it this response was a godsend -- for him. For every other purpose, however, it was woefully inadequate -- unless Tom Reilly wants the people of the Commonwealth to believe that he will never act to do what's right in the face of popular opposition -- which is somewhat ironic, given that forty seconds earlier he'd touted his "electability" on the basis of his "independence".
Patrick countered that you couldn't cut taxes with local aid short on funds, to which Reilly said the people have spoken, to which Gabrielli said that he had a plan, to which Patrick said the state treasurer thought his approach (which is different from a plan) was best and that Reilly had changed his stance, to which Reilly said the people have spoken.
Then they moved on.
The next question was whether the candidates supported the idea of tax breaks targeted to big-business honchos as a way of sparking job creation. All three were opposed to the idea but whole-heartedly supported "jobs", with Patrick advocating "more robust relations with business" while Reilly opted for "an entirely new relationship between the State and business".
Gabrielli had memorized the best soundbite on this topic, pointing out that such efforts only ever spark a "race to the bottom" -- which is true. He went on, however, to say that he'd spend billions (did he really say billions?) on small business, which will be a good trick after he cuts both income and property taxes.
Reilly, not to be out-spent (while cutting taxes) said he'd spend $500 million on the University of Massachusetts. Sounds like a great idea to us (or, as Reilly says, "idear") though we couldn't help wondering, later, when he bragged about chasing former Senate president William Bulger out of the Umass presidency, if it wouldn't have saved money to have left Bulger -- a monumentally successful fund-raiser -- in the job at the school rather than helping Romney and a bunch of Washington GOP hacks chase him out.
Back on job creation, Gabrielli wanted to encourage Massachusetts' pension funds to invest here, while Patrick wanted the state to be "a global leader in alternative energy". We like both those idears.
The next question was on school tracking. All three candidates oppose tracking. Reilly took the issue personally, acknowledging that he himself rode the short bus to school yet overcame his obstacles to become the candidate for governor that the press corps snickers at most openly. No, no -- in all seriousness, this question was the one on which Reilly was the most genuine all night. He clearly knows what it's like to be the kid who doesn't have the system working for him, and all Democrats should be on board with that.
Of course, we could be personalizing this ourselves, since twice this week we've had to pull our first-grader off crying, scared third graders. If he doesn't make it to Symphony Hall, there's always prize-fighting. Or Attorney General.
Anyway, Patrick agreed, and added his support for "alternative standards", which brought Gabrielli zeroing in, both to oppose the idea of 'alternative standards" and to call Patrick an outsider who "wasn't here" during those battles.
It struck both of us from 201k that all three Democratic candidates support charter schools. How did we get here, folks? This money belongs in the public schools. All three also supported the MCAS tests, which we find a colossal waste of time and money. (See: first grader, crying third graders, pulling off of, above.)
The next question was received by email -- clearly not from a real person, but from an advocate with an agenda -- asking if the candidates would cut state employees' benefits to the same expense level as that of "average workers". Gabrielli said no, but that he'd consider cutting the bennies of municipal workers. There goes those votes.
Patrick said the better path was to lower everyone else's health costs -- ding! -- the obvious right answer which likely had Gabrielli internally slapping his forehead. Patrick also cited the need to cut the paperwork and administrative costs (codeword: profit) from the health-care process.
Reilly also cited the need to cut "administrative costs", but he had a statistic: 33% of health care costs, he said, are "administrative". Clearly, administrators everywhere have good reason to fear Patrick and Reilly, um, administrations.
Gabrielli added that we "ask too little" of businesses. Of course, that could be because he'd promised them "billions" ten minutes earlier.
During a discussion of the CORI system that was evidently being broadcast from Mars on a station that only Tom Reilly was receiving, one of his staff (we presume) entered the press room with a handout on the topic, so we could read along with Reilly's unfathomable contention that Patrick's endorsement of the Public Safety Act of 2006 will "let drug dealers out in the streets".
If the Reilly campaign was hoping the handout would clarify that charge -- well, you can judge for yourself. This is an actual sentence from it:
- Deval Patrick wants to prevent employers fom doing basic criminal background checks and letting drug traffickers out of jail early.
And so on. Hell, you could just watch the debate yourself. Maybe we'll cover more of it later. In the meantime, we'll skip to the post-debate questions, for which the entire island of misfit toys marched down to the studio to photograph and ask questions of each candidate.
The Questions
Gabrielli, surrounded by recent graduates of the Ivy league School for the Very Tall in Penny Loafers, went first, with most questions being horse-race ones on his decision to attack Patrick on Patrick's lack of specifics. Gabrielli, who, in all honesty, won this debate hands-down, is very tall. So tall that we couldn't hear his answers.
Ok, ok, that's when we were struggling with our camera flash, and weren't listening. And here, now, we can't read Mrs. 201k's notes. We'll check later.
Patrick came out surrounded by seasoned political people with dark circles under their eyes and knowing he'd been wounded on his inability to detail a specific plan. Here, in front of reporters, he made a mistake in trying to deal with it, saying that he "wasn't running for lead policy wonk" -- he was "running to be a leader." His supporters should be glad he didn't say that during the debate, and hope that no one reports it. It goes to the heart of Patrick's problem here; he did, in fact, spend all night speaking in the most general of terms. Having been called on that, the last thing he should do is answer with yet another glib generality -- especially one that boils down to "I don't see myself as someone who has to understand the details enough to explain them to the voters". When an opponent is directly challenging you on a lack of specifics, that's the wrong answer, plain and simple.
Reilly came out surrounded by recent Criminal Justice grads, and spoke in a barely audible whisper, answering all questions by repeating -- at least four times -- that he was the candidate who was ready to be governor while the other two were "politicians" (which will come as a surprise to Chris Gabrielli). The Nationally-known political reporter who asks "funny" questions that aren't "funny" asked Reilly -- who had said he'd been in the fourth rank of kids in school -- if he knew any kids from the fifth rank who'd done as well as he, and we crossed our fingers hoping Reilly would say, "Yes -- they're all political reporters", but he didn't. And probably never will.
Our conclusion? The debate went to Chris Gabrielli, who overwhelming helped his case here tonight. We say this without having looked at any polls. Or knowing in the least what we're doing.
But you knew that.
