Wednesday, February 15, 2006

In defense of Gabrieli (and Reilly)

I'm a big fan of Beyond 495's Susan M. Today, though, I totally disagree with her. Susan is--to put it mildly--not pleased that Chris Gabrieli might be jumping into the Democratic governor's race. Here's why:

If Gabrieli wanted to be in the Governor's race, then he damn well should have gotten involved before the caucus and actually done the work. Having this "committee" do the work for him with his blessing, but not his involvement (yeah, right) is damn passive-aggressive and is also an insult to grassroots democratic activists who have been busting their asses to work for the two announced candidates.

What's worse though is the idea that all a person has to do to get into the race this late, is not so much based on support, but the ability to say, "Right. Who do I make the check out to?"

To which I reply: Susan, I'm not sure if Gabrieli is the Democrats' best hope to reclaim the Corner Office. But let's suppose he is. In that case...Who cares how grassroots party activists feel about his prospective candidacy? The top priority for Massachusetts Democrats should be electing a governor for the first time in two decades, not bolstering the collective self-esteem of the grassroots.

I happen to agree that there's passive-aggressive quality to Gabrieli allowing his supporters to explore a late entrance. And it's reasonable to lament the tremendous power of money in politics. But Gabrieli isn't just a legitimate prosepct because he's rich--he's a smart, thoughtful guy who knows his shit and has paid his dues. (Remember 2002?) Furthermore, the former frontrunner, Tom Reilly, has been committing long, slow political suicide. And despite Patrick's considerable appeal, there's legitimate concern about whether he can win a general-election fight.

Back to Reilly for a minute. When Reilly tapped St. Fleur, Lynne at Left in Lowell criticized him for being anti-democratic. Now, we all know that the St. Fleur pick was disastrous. But I'll hearken back to my previous point: if Reilly sized up the existing Democratic LG field and decided that he didn't want to run with any of the candidates, why shouldn't he get his own woman into the race?

To reiterate: the top priority for state Democrats should be winning the Big One. Period. As long as everyone plays by the rules--which Reilly did when he picked St. Fleur, and which Gabrieli is currently doing as well--there's no reason to complain.

2/15/2006 2:47:57 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [6] |
Tracked by:
"Governor's Race Off the Boil" (Left Center Left) [Trackback]

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:38:07 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

I wholeheartedly agree, Adam. I strongly disagree with Susan's sentiment that:

"If Gabrieli wanted to be in the Governor's race, then he damn well should have gotten involved before the caucus and actually done the work. Having this "committee" do the work for him with his blessing, but not his involvement (yeah, right) is damn passive-aggressive and is also an insult to grassroots democratic activists who have been busting their asses to work for the two announced candidates."

Actually, Gabrieli's method - having HIS grassroots supporters organize and determine how much support there is for him amongst the delegates is a TRIBUTE, not an insult, to the grassroots democratic activists. It may be to the disadvantage of Reilly and Patrick, but it's not only legal, it's actually rather in-the-spirit of grassroots organizing.

Anonymous

Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:21:26 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Ms. Mariposa's grounding looks solid. She seems to decry the arrogance, egotism and opportunism (not like _I_ have any opinions on the matter).

Mr. G. goofs with Tom, dangling his personal fortune and then jerking it away. He refuses to participate in the caucuses as a gubernatorial candidate, likely figuring (accurately) that Deval would skunk him too.

Then, he manufactures a DRAFT GABRIELI effort aimed at the convention. He might imagine himself a white knight, but he looks pretty sooty from here.

This so smacks of many such failed efforts. Think Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party.

Gabrieli has not shown he can win at all. He needs to put some of that money behind a candidate who can.

massmarrier

Thursday, February 16, 2006 10:20:24 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Anonymous - nice screenname.

Tribute? LOL o-k-a-y... Maybe if Gabrieli got involved pre-caucus, I could go with that, but as it is, he is now in the position of poaching elected delegates away from Reilly and Patrick (I don't believe that there are enough undecideds to give him his 500, assuming they could decide on Gabrieli) and I could give a rip about the legality of it. It's a straight up punk-ass move designed to get a party establishment-approved candidate on the ballot.

I'm gonna have more on this later.

Thanks for the traffic, Adam.

Susan M. (aka Mariposa)

Thursday, February 16, 2006 10:49:52 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Honestly, I'm inclined to believe Gabrieli that he was approached by a bunch of people who were so turned off by Tom Reilly's campaign implosion the week before the caucuses that they jumped ship and started looking for a new face. Thanks to Tom, Gabrieli had been thinking about running statewide for weeks anyway, so he was already receptive to being on the ballot.

Is it a 'punk-ass move'? No. If the USS Reilly had started taking on water in a serious way in December, I think we would have seen a caucus effort for someone else, maybe Gabrieli, maybe another candidate. On the other hand, is it 'designed to get a party establishment-approved candidate on the ballot'. You bet. Politics ain't beanbag, though, and if people think that Chris is a better horse to back, then they're welcome to try to get him a place in the primary. Don't expect me to help, though.

sco

Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:05:09 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Since I'm not a big fan of the caucus process (my ornery take is here: http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showComment.do?commentId=5243), it doesn't bother me terribly that Gabrieli is doing an end-run around that process. What bothers me is that I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would see Gabrieli as such a terrific alternative to the existing candidates. He's tried to win elections several times but has failed. He does not strike me as especially charismatic, based on the few TV appearances I've seen (along with my painful memories of 2002). So really, what does he offer besides a ton of cash? "A smart, thoughtful guy"? Sure, but come on, this is Massachusetts, we're lousy with smart and thoughtful guys. "Knows his shit?" Ditto. And "has paid his dues"? Well, he lost a few elections, if that's what you mean - not exactly going to rally the troops with that one. So I honestly don't get it.

David

Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:54:57 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

David, I won't disagree with anything you've said. I was just trying to dispel any notion that Gabrieli is nothing more than a rich opportunist. In the instantly dated piece I wrote back when St. Fleur was Reilly's LG pick, I spent a fair amount of time detailing my concerns about Reilly--which are pretty much the same ones you brought up here.

Having said that, I may need to lower my cliche output a bit.

Adam

Comments are closed.