Why Liberal Biz Dems Will Make MA Better

Looking up at the statement that lies beneath my blog's name, I thought I'd discuss a bit why I think Democrats in the Governor and Lieutenant Governor's offices will make this state better - if we have the right Democrats there.

In today's Globe, Scot Lehigh asks why, in this state full of the best universities, research facilities and companies, don't we have the best and most capable leaders?

My answer? Because we have a general presumption that holding elected office equals competence. But it does not, and Scot's piece clearly points that out.

Another piece in today's Globe also stands out to me: in this article, Romney gets generally high marks for his handling of the Big Dig crisis, just as he did for handling the 2002 Olympics. While I disagree with most, if not all of his policies, Romney's performance over the past two weeks has convinced me of this: we need to elect Democrats who have the private sector experience like Romney, but we should also make sure they have a conscience and, ideally, have operated in sectors outside of the private/business world.

Some good examples? Mark Warner, John Edwards, Maria Cantwell. They were all private sector actors who also believe, for the most part, what many of us Democrats believe. If we get more of these kinds of people into our ranks, and get less of the career-politician-types, we can rule for decades and fundamentally change this country, just as the Republicans have done over the past 30 years by making "government" a dirty word.

So, how do we start here in Massachusetts? It's very easy: elect either Chris Gabrieli or Deval Patrick, and make sure Andrea Silbert is their running mate.

Let's speak truth here: most of us spend our daily lives working in the private sector, receiving direct or indirect benefit from both the social service/non-profit sector, and relying on the public/government sector. These three candidates have thrived in that sector, and they are the ones we ought to be putting out there to the voters.

Succeeding in getting elected does not make you an expert in making people's lives better, and it ought not to be a ticket to higher office. Unfortunately in Massachusetts, that's not the case. We are so enamored with elected officials (or we used to be, and that impression has been perpetuated by the media) that we automatically assume that they are the "best" candidates for the job. Granted, being elected does prove something more than your campaigning skills, and getting re-elected does not happen, for the most part, unless you've delivered something for your constituents, either tangibly or by standing for something 50.1% of them believe in. The most recent evidence of this presumption occurred in 2004 when the only prominent names listed as possible successors to Sen. Kerry were Bay State congressmen.

But let's look again at Scot's column: he notes, correctly I think, that someone like Matt Amorello had no business being appointed to the Turnpike chairman's position, save for his being a failed congressional candidate and former Republican state senator who needed a job. Same goes for the Blutes and Buckinghams of the world, as Scot points out. Scot further notes that in the Dukakis administration, expertise usually trumped politics. (Note: is Scot right? I was in elementary school then, and wasn't even living in this state...)

Now, some may say that my comments here are a slight on Tom Reilly's and Tim Murray's qualifications for the offices they're running for. You're right. I have no doubt they are accomplished, effective politicians, and they are both clearly smart because they are admitted to the bar (despite the bad lawyer jokes, you do have to be more than a good test-taker to become a lawyer). Tom Reilly, in fact, is an excellent prosecutor. But does he have the ability to understand what a food pantry in Greenfield is going through when its federal grant dries up or its source of donations shrinks as fewer people choose to live there and instead migrate to the cities? And when I say "understand", I mean does he really KNOW, as opposed to have compassion for the situation. Maybe, but it may in large part be due to the fact that he has the ability to pull together people who can advise him on such a situation; he has no direct experience in meeting a bottom line, save for working within a budget prescribed to him by the Legislature - a concept that is approached differently than when a small bodega owner needs to figure out how to buy supplies and price the goods.

My concerns here also relate to the promises politicians make, and how they are able to keep them. While the candidates for Governor are necessarily talking about a whole host of issues, the candidates for Lt. Gov. are speaking to a much narrower scope of issues. Let's look at each:

1. Tim Murray: wants to be an advocate at the state level for cities and towns, wants to expand commuter rail. He has released plans on both.

2. Andrea Silbert: wants to lead the state's economic development efforts so that we create jobs, and has released an action plan thereon; wants to bring more federal dollars back to Mass. and use it to expand regional rail; and wants to be the advocate for those without a voice, especially homeless families, and she wants to end family homelessness (note: ending homelessness through innovative strategies is a hot issue these days, and NPR is doing a series on it. Mike Bloomberg in New York is launching an effort to end homelessness, but appears to want to do it in a more compassionate way than the Guiliani efforts were.)

3. Deb Goldberg: wants to use her family's experience starting and running Stop and Shop, as well as her experience as a Brookline Selectman and in life in general, to help get Massachusetts moving again.

Of these three, Andrea Silbert is the one who fits best into the mold I have deemed the most helpful for our state. She's run a successful business that had a direct impact on thousands of lives, and she has worked in and with the private and public sectors. It's just my opinion, but I want someone like her and like Deval or Chris.

Admittedly, there are drawbacks to having a non-governmental Governor. They can get frustrated with the bureaucracy, or have unreasonable illusions about how things work and how much harder it is to get things done. This could be particularly true this year if Deval or Chris wins, because they will be coming in with such high expectations of cleaning house that they will invariably not be able to live up to them and there will undoubtedly be stories at the 100 day mark of just how many things have NOT been accomplished. But that's not enough of an argument to have a career politician in there, not at this point in our history. Massachusetts needs people who will attract the best and brightest into government again. That means someone who will be able to get lawyers to leave cushy law firm jobs, executives to leave their posts, young college and master's degree grads to go into government before going to work on Wall Street. Do you really think that Tom Reilly is going to be able to do that and attract that kind of new talent? Please. There are career hacks salivating all over the place because they've been waiting for 16 years for a Democrat to get into office so they could reach their jackpot position. Tom Reilly is not going to shake the trees of Boston's best institutions to attract new people. It's going to be more of the same. Contrast that with what a Deval governorship will do: bring in new, fresh faces from all over the region, perhaps the country. (Incidentally, I think if he wins, he's immediately in the mix for 2008 discussion as a Presidential candidate. Patrick/Obama 08, baby!) Gabrieli might do so as well, but he isn't the inspirational guy that will draw in young, smart, excited people like Deval will.

Career politicians are needed in some sectors, particularly the legislative leadership area. I am a big opponent of term limits and believe strongly that old oaks weather the storms. Legislatures are bizarre places (I've worked in one, I know), and it takes a while to get ones bearings. So term-limiting isn't the solution. (Although I also favor Parties term-limiting chairmanships in Congress, as that lets good people serve.)

So, enough rambling.

You want real innovation and leadership? Andrea Silbert, Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli should be top on your radar screen.

Think It's Hot Here?

At least our ROADS AREN'T MELTING!

From the BBC:

Roads have been melting in parts of England as the heatwave across most of the country continues.

Gritting lorries have been sent out to spread crushed rock dust on melting tar to create non-stick road surfaces.

Monday was the year's hottest day so far with a reading of 32.7C (90.9F) at Heathrow. Forecasters say temperatures could be 37C (99F) later in the week.

The average maximum temperature in England for this week in July is only 21-23C (70-73F).

Romney Seeking to Take Control of Investigation

I actually posted this over at BMG first, but wanted you loyal readers of this site to be able to see it as well (ha ha). According to this article from Boston.com, Romney plan to file emergency legislation wresting control of the BigDig investigation from the Turnpike Authority and placing it under the auspices of the Executive Office of Transportation.

Interesting political move here, because it has the potential to have the following impacts (among others I'm sure): 1. Allows Romney to weaken the Pike, which he has wanted to do for a long time. 2. Puts the "buck" more squarely in the Executive Branch. This could cut both ways. On the one hand, if things aren't fixed soon, we all know where to point blame. If things go well, Romney can claim to be the savior. Or if things continue to be as muddled (blame-wise), it won't make a lick of difference in the public will still be mad as hell at everybody. But on the other hand, if Dems win in November, this baby is in their lap, and they can be held accountable. But if Romney gets this bill through, the blame for a slow fix will surely be focused on Healey by her opponent(s) this fall. 3. If the Legislature doesn't pass it, allows Romney and Healey to blame them and lump them in w/ the Pike in terms of being who we should blame for the problem. This would jibe well with Healey's political strategy. I think if this bill gets introduced, it passes. This could, and probably should, be the beginning of the end for the separate Turnpike Authority. That being said, I must say that in terms of road quality, the Pike is simply one of the best roads to drive on in the Northeast. It's always well paved with what appears to be better pavement than other roads. I actually love driving out west on the Pike - it's scenic and fast. Yes, the Pike "extension" from Weston to Boston has its periodic challenges, and the traffic is bad. But compared to, say, Route 1 Southbound coming into the Tobin bridge, it's a great ride. (I think that curvy stretch coming into Chelsea has been improved recently, though, right? But isn't the Bridge still a bumpy nightmare?) I remember as a kid driving back to southern NE from skiing in Vermont with my parents and when we'd cross into Mass. from VT, the roads (usually I-91) would always get drastically better. My parents would always say "Yup, you can thank Tip O'Neill for these roads! Too bad Tip's legacy is going through rough times now - after all, he's the one who got the Feds committed to the point of no return on the Big Dig.

Polls Coming Fast and Furious

Another day, another poll in the Governor's race.

And again, Patrick is ahead, getting 37% to Gabrieli's 27% and Reilly's 26%.

This could begin to be a battle for 2nd place, although if I'm Gabrieli, I'm focusing on bringing Reilly down for the next month, then take aim at Deval for the stretch run.

Patrick Has Huge Lead

OK, so the latest Statehouse News poll is out and it has Deval Patrick with a big lead.

Now, I know it's early, and I know we can't rely fully on polls yet. However, I think this lead is similar to building up a lot of speed going downhill so that you can safely make it uphill. It's also like stockpiling a large campaign warchest so that you can a) fend of potential challengers and b) have enough to spend at the end. (Wait, that didn't work for Reilly, so scratch that analogy...)

But I think this lead is going to hold. Here's why:

In a couple of weeks, the TV ads are going to start flying. We've already seen the effect a large TV ad buy can have on a race. (Don't believe me? In addition to Chris's ads this year, check out this chart showing the impact Gabrieli's big ad buy in 2002 had.)

However, ad buys have less of an impact when they are countered with other ad buys. This year, Gabrieli's going to have a ton of ads (probably $5-6 million worth, I'd guess). Reilly's going to have $3-4 million worth of them. Patrick's going to have $2-3 million too (I predict he raises a ton in July-Sept. - like $2 million or so - plus chips in perhaps a million of his own).

With all those ads flying, it will be impossible for any of them to so solidly stamp out the others' messages that the status quo will hold. Sure, the race will tighten, but in a contested media battle, no one can make up more than 10 points. In my book, Patrick should keep doing what he's doing, and perhaps even spend a little now to get 5 or so more points ahead. Then, he'll have a cushion for the inevitable tightening of the race.

LG June Money

Interesting note from this month: in a June 27th article in the T&G, the Murray camp announced it had "raised about $100,000" in June. Unless they are holding checks until next month (which would be stupid), the numbers below show that the campaign was making promises its fundraising team couldn't keep. They were spinning the press a tale they couldn't live up to. Good for them for getting that story in the paper, (it's what campaigns are supposed to do, after all), but that won't breed a lot of trust amongst the media as we head into endorsement and coverage season.

That all being said, it is still quite surprising that even with all his endorsements and political support, Murray still hasn't been able to catch up to Silbert in the one race that really matters: money. (I'm leaving Goldberg out of this analysis for obvious reasons.) Silbert looks to have spent some real dough, for the first time really, on her convention effort - and she still didn't spend that much last month. Also, she must have been focused in May on ensuring she got on the ballot since, as we all know, raising money takes advance work, and by working delegates to get her surprising 2nd place finish at the Convention, she appears to have sacrificed a bit of cash in June. That strategy paid off with the convention results. Also, Silbert's early chase of the money looks like an even smarter move now: she is the story of the Convention in the LG's race (unless Goldberg's embarassing performance in the story), and still maintains a healthy fundraising advantage over her main opponent.

Finally, it's really too bad that Goldberg's millions are all she's bringing to the table here. This race would be so much more interesting if it were between Tim and Andrea....

With that, let's check the numbers. As always, listed in order of cash on hand.

1. Deb Goldberg

Starting Balance: $1,087,491.74
Receipts: $17,763.75
Expenditures: $48,130.65
Ending Balance: $1,057,124.84

2. Andrea Silbert

Starting Balance: $476,548.08
Receipts: $52,991.00
Expenditures: $54,021.76
Ending Balance: $475.517.32

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $353,917.53
Receipts: $80,936.89
Expenditures: $48,688.16
Ending Balance: $386,166.26