"'We are happy here,' [Reilly] says. "I don't need any more than this."

That's Tom Reilly: a lone stoic in the gubernatorial field.

STATEMENT FROM DEVAL PATRICK ON TODAY'S SJC DECISION ON THE 1913 LAW

BOSTON—Thursday, March 30, 2006 — The statement below is in response to today's decision by the Supreme Judicial Court to uphold Governor Mitt Romney's and Attorney General Tom Reilly's invocation of the 1913 law:

"I'm disappointed by today’s SJC decision.  Although it leaves the door ajar for marriage equality for couples from other states, it adds new layers of process and bureaucracy to the exercise of those rights.  That costs us all in money and time spent on an issue we are all ready to move beyond.

"We have Tom Reilly and Mitt Romney to thank for prolonging this debate.  The SJC got it right in Goodrich, by affirming the bedrock principle that people come before their government as equals.  In the two years since, the sky has not fallen.  Yet Reilly and Romney revived this 1913 law to torpedo those rights.  It's a glaring example of their bad leadership.

"Gay men and lesbians have married in Massachusetts, accepted the rights and the responsibilities of marriage, and moved on with their lives out in the open.  The rest of us ought to try doing the same."

Reilly Surpasses $4 Million Milestone

Unmatched Cash-On-Hand Mark Reached After Highly Successful Birthday Fundraiser Brought In Over $300,000 From More Than 600 Individual Contributors

BOSTON - Attorney General and Democratic candidate for Governor Tom Reilly today announced that his campaign has surpassed the $4 million cash-on-hand mark in fundraising, reaching that goal after a highly successful fundraiser last night.

The fundraiser, held at the State Room in Boston, brought in over $300,000 from more than 600 individual contributors. The event will vault Reilly over the $4 million cash-on-hand mark in his March campaign finance filings.

Reilly campaign manager Sean Sinclair noted that cash-on-hand is the only true marker in fundraising, assuring that Reilly will have the resources to compete against the deep pockets of Kerry Healey and Christy Mihos in November.

"Kerry Healey and Christy Mihos are going to pump millions of their personal fortunes into their candidacies, and it is vital for the Democratic candidate to have the resources to compete," Sinclair said. "Tom Reilly  is clearly the best candidate - in terms of experience, vision, and support - to become our next Governor and get Massachusetts moving again."

No other candidate for Governor in Massachusetts history has reached the $4 million cash-on-hand level at this stage of the campaign.

And as for Card, there are rumors that he will jump into the race for governor in Massachusetts, where incumbent Republican Mitt Romney is leaving after one term, and where Romney's lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey, is not doing so well. My guess is that it doesn't happen; perhaps one reason the rumor has surfaced is that Card has previously talked of the governorship, and in fact ran once before, in 1982, finishing third in the GOP primary. (There's another scenario that has Card heading back to the Bay State to help with Romney's anticipated presidential candidacy.)

[Deirdre Fulton guest-blogging.]

Today's meeting comes on the heels of yesterday's news that the council violated the city's Open Meeting Law and will be fined $11,000. Let's see if anything seems different.

Looking solely at demographics, staunch Bush supporters are typically caucasian (89%), over the age of 45 (62%), protestant (60%), and attend religious services regularly. Trending socially conservative, morality is a top concern for them. But when it comes to casting a vote for their next POTUS, they are not looking for a renegade, but someone who more fits into the mold of Bush. 81% say they are "very likely" to re-elect Bush if he was eligible to run for POTUS again and 99% approve of the job Bush is doing as pres.

I'll say this: Felix Arroyo gets right to the point. Check out the first few lines of the latest Felix Field Report:

Friends and supporters,

I have two important announcements for you. First is my birthday party, which will take place next month. Please be as generous as you can when making your donation. A mailed invitation will follow - credit card link is below.

Presumably, cash and checks are also acceptable.

If you're thinking times are tight over at Arroyo HQ, you're correct. As of March 15, according to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, the at-large city councilor and progressive darling had just $479.47 in the bank.

Romney and O'Malley offer somewhat different descriptions of their relationship and how the governor decided to come to Rome. Romney, through his spokesman, describes the archbishop as a friend and says the archbishop invited him to Rome; O'Malley, in an interview, described the governor as an acquaintance and says he invited no one to Rome other than his relatives.

''I've met him a couple of times -- don't know him well -- but he's always been very gracious," O'Malley said. ''I think that it's an honor for the church that the governor would be a part of this."

MASSACHUSETTS DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S STATEMENT ON REED HILLMAN'S EFFORTS TO EXCUSE A REPEAT DRUNK DRIVER

"Reed Hillman's efforts to pardon a repeat drunk driver are nothing short of hypocritical," said Massachusetts Democratic Party Spokeswoman Cyndi Roy. "Clearly, Mr. Tough on Crime can talk the talk, but when it comes down to it, the rules simply don't apply to his friends and campaign donors."

If there is anyone who should understand the danger and gravity of even one drunken driving offense, it would be Mr. Hillman. Clearly, this should prompt Kerry Healey to reconsider her choice for lieutenant governor.

The bad news for Kerry Healey, Hillman's would-be boss, is that she can't ride her drunk-driving high horse anymore. Other than her success pushing Melanie's Bill through, Healey doesn't have much to brag about. But now, following this Hillman twist, any Healey references to said bill will invite snickering references to her running mate.*

The good news--so far, at least--is that the Healey camp is managing this effectively. Hillman weighed in in today's piece by Boston Herald reporter Dave Wedge, who deserves credit for breaking this story. But since then, there's been nary a peep out of Merrimac Street. Quite a contrast with the way the Reilly campaign handled things back in January.

*NOTE: Since I initially thought Hillman's baggage would only make it hard for Healey to hammer Reilly, this sentence initially read: "Which means that, if Tom Reilly wins the Democratic nomination, Healey's just lost a potentially valuable line of attack." Upon further reflection, though, I realized the problem is a whole lot bigger for the LG.

AFTER YEARS of weak leadership on health-care reform, the Massachusetts governor and legislature are closer than ever to a bipartisan deal that might make things better for people without health insurance. It is not a panacea, but it looks to be a real step forward.

Now the media are reporting that Grover Norquist is joining the health-care debate in Massachusetts. Norquist -- the so-called prophet of Republican conservatism and the man who invented the no-new-taxes pledge so popular among aspirants for political office -- is now counseling Governor Romney to reject the legislative compromise. Why? Because he wants us to believe that the $295-per-employee assessment on businesses is a tax.

My message to Governor Romney: don't listen to Grover. Grover and I were classmates in college. I remember sitting with him in the dining hall while he described a vision of government as something bad, mainly about advancing the interests of the well connected and powerful, not worthy of the talents of anyone competent or committed. He espoused the view that we should all be on our own. At college 30 years ago, it was a theoretical rant. Now, he and others who share that vision are in charge.

That's the wrong vision for Massachusetts. Over half a million people in Massachusetts have no health insurance -- in many instances, even if they have a full-time job. Many more are underinsured, because of the prohibitively high costs of our current system. At every level, our system is failing us, and the private market is not getting the job done on its own.

The debate at the State House stalled over who should pay to make high-quality insurance more widely available in our state. The truth is that we already pay to care for those without coverage; we just do so in the most inefficient and expensive way possible. Many of the uninsured seek emergency care, rather than primary or preventative care; emergency care is significantly more expensive and less effective. And that care is paid for, in the form of higher premiums and co-pays, by insured individuals and businesses alike.

Let me be clear: It is time for those companies that don't cover their employees to pay their fair share.

Beyond the question of who should pay, there is the issue of how much we pay already. By some estimates, we spend $1 billion a week on health care in Massachusetts. Of that staggering sum, $300 million goes to the cost of administering the system. That's too much. If efforts to reform the health-care system don't include serious cost-containment measures, no one is going to be able to afford anything approaching adequate coverage -- even with state and employer contributions.

There are several ideas that the legislature should consider in order to make a serious dent in the soaring cost of health care: better prescription-drug purchasing and price policies; fixing catastrophic care; uniform codes and forms for reimbursements; more and smarter use of technology to maintain and manage medical records, and reduce medical errors; and targeted investment in our grossly underfunded public-health system, so that we prevent and treat chronic illnesses before they lead to expensive emergency-room visits.

Some of these ideas are discussed with only passing interest in the current legislation. They will never get serious consideration if Norquist with his tired rhetoric influences the debate. Meanwhile, the rest of us continue to pay more for less.

Health-care reform has the potential to be a win-win situation for business and consumer interests alike. Massachusetts's employers (even drug and insurance companies) recognize that a better health-insurance model would make them more competitive; and citizens recognize that a system that offers skimpy coverage at an ever-increasing price is no system at all. But striking the right balance will require genuine leadership and an honest debate.

Our system is broken; we must fix it. We all have a stake in that. And when we all have a stake in something, government leadership has a role to play. But that is not how Norquist sees it. The sad fact is that Norquist's vision of government is precisely what was on display in the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina: thousands of vulnerable people, abandoned on rooftops, who had in fact been abandoned before that storm.

Health is a public good. Start from that simple truth, Governor Romney, and you will see why it is so important for Massachusetts that you show my old classmate Grover Norquist the door.

Deval Patrick is a Democratic candidate for governor of Massachusetts.

12:22 p.m: Meeting adjourned. Come on, guys! Give me some better material!

[Deirdre Fulton guest-blogging.]

Last week, two city councilors told me that the first live-blogging experiment (posted here and broadcast in part on NECN's NewsNight with Jim Braude) may have had a hand in the more timely start of the March 15 meeting. I'm heading down to City Hall now; place your bets to see if the effect can last two weeks.

Read it now!

Two things jump out at me: Tom Reilly's got some kind of Teflon thing going, and Deval Patrick has to be hoping that Chris Gabrieli gets in the race ASAP.

"You know how the tournament goes, and how the teams go. They go from 64 to 32 to 16. Kind of like my poll numbers, folks."

--Gubernatorial hopeful Tom Reilly, at the March 19 St. Patrick's Day Breakfast. (Thanks to Jon Keller for the transcription.)

"Everybody's excited about March Madness, the big NCAA tournament? Here's how it works: It starts at 65, then 64, then 32, then 16. It's just like Bush's approval rating."

--David Letterman, in his March 14 monologue. (Click here for video if you'd got Real Player.)

Not that it's a great joke or anything, but still.

*NOTE: While I'd originally titled this post "Reilly's Biden Moment?," I didn't actually think that Reilly's recycling of Letterman's schtick was truly problematic. I plead guilty to overstatement!  (Obviously, Massachusetts politicians aren't the only ones who have trouble being funny.) Anonymous, thanks for calling bullshit on this, and also for pointing out that Reilly was hardly the only politician to recycle yesterday.

"This is extraordinary, and particularly for someone of my faith," said Romney, a Mormon, before he spoke at a St. Patrick's Day breakfast in New Hampshire, an early presidential state. "I don't know that there's ever been a Mormon guy that's been to the Vatican for a Mass held by the Pope, so it's a personal honor."

"...[I]n politics as in life, timing is everything. Because of major changes in the organizations of several of my clients in recent months, I am required to be more involved in the day-to-day activities of my consulting business than I had anticipated back in the Fall. It has become clear that the amount of time required for effective fund-raising and voter outreach would be incompatible with my current responsibilities as a small business owner. Hence, I have decided not to proceed with the race."

[Deirdre Fulton guest-blogging.]

Only two things worth noting this week:

11:40 a.m.: Council President Michael Flaherty bangs the gavel --- only 10 minutes late, a great improvement from last week! Councilors Ross, Feeney, Murphy, Turner, and Kelly are missing (Kelly gets a pass, obviously).

12:09 p.m.: Paul Scapicchio is stepping down, and he wants to make sure someone takes his place before budget process begins. Preliminary special election scheduled for May 16, general election will take place on June 13, new District One councilor to be sworn in by the end of June. Scappicchio hopes for a "robust race."

The meeting ended at 12:15, with Flaherty wishing the chamber a "happy, healthy, and safe Evacuation Day."

That's the message coming from the Massachusetts GOP, which just put out a press release accusing Tom Reilly of flip-flopping on eliminating the statue of limitations for child sex-abuse cases--and on a few other subjects, too. A hearing on the issue--bagging the S.O.L. for molestation cases, that is, not Reilly's alleged flip-flopping--took place at the State House earlier today.

Here's the full text of A) today's Reilly statement saying the statute of limitations shouldn't apply in these cases and B) the Mass. GOP's rapid response.

Expect a lot more of this if Reilly's the Democratic nominee.

 

Reilly's statement:

STATEMENT FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL TOM REILLY ON ELIMINATING CHILD SEX ABUSE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

"When someone is brave enough to come forward and report sexual abuse, the law must support them in every way possible. Massachusetts needs to take the step to eliminate the statute of limitations altogether--on the criminal and civil levels. The passage of time should not be an obstacle to law enforcement when it comes to punishing those who hurt children.

"These important bills will ensure that those who hurt our children by perpetrating these crimes will always be held accountable."

 

Mass. GOP response:

REILLY OPPSED ABUSE BILL BEFORE SUPPORTING IT

Reilly's Other Flip Flops: Gay Weddings, Tax Cut, Death Penalty

Tom Reilly opposed legislation to eliminate the statute of limitations on child sex crimes before he supported it.  The sudden support for the sexual abuse legislation is the fourth major flip-flop by Reilly, including changes to his positions on gay marriage, reducing the income tax and the death penalty.

You cannot trust Tom Reilly’s position on any issue because he changes his mind so frequently.  Reilly is not telling voters what he thinks, he’s telling voters what he thinks they want to hear.  He’ll say anything to get elected,” said Matt Wylie, Executive Director of the MassGOP.

Reilly is listed in the Boston Herald as a supporter of legislation to eliminate the statute of limitations on sexual abuse crimes against children, which is the subject of a Judiciary Committee hearing today.  But in 2003, after investigating the clergy abuse scandal, Reilly clearly opposed the legislation.

"[Reilly] disagreed on the efficacy of extending the statute of limitations on abuse as a means of accomodating victims who take years to report child molestation. "We'll continue to review that," he said. --The Boston Herald, July 24, 2003

"Reilly said this week that he did not support legislation that would eliminate the statute of limitations in cases of rape and sexual abuse, despite evidence that some victims do not report such abuse for years." --The Boston Globe, July 25, 2003

"It's a tough question that we get a lot from victims," said Stephen Bilafer, chief of staff for Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, who opposes the elimination of the statute of limitations in sexual assault cases... "These are very difficult cases to make under any circumstances, but especially after an extended passage of time," Bilafer said. "A case like this one cries out for the ability to prosecute, but the fact is that the ability to do justice does diminish over time." --The Boston Globe, September 29, 2004

Reilly flipped his position on this issue in March 2005 as he began his campaign for governor. 

"When someone is brave enough to come forward and report sexual abuse, the law must support them in every way possible. Massachusetts needs to take the step to eliminate the statute of limitations altogether – on the criminal and civil levels. The passage of time should not be an obstacle to law enforcement when it comes to punishing those who hurt children. These important bills will ensure that those who hurt our children by perpetrating these crimes will always be held accountable." --Reilly statement, March 14, 2006

Reilly’s flip-flop coincided with switches on other key issues last year:

--Reilly now supports gay marriage after fighting it in court.

"In a television interview and comments repeated to the Herald yesterday, Reilly said he opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage. "Everything changes on May 17 when gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts," Reilly said. "Once rights are given, they should never be taken away." --The Boston Herald, February 12, 2005 (by then-reporter David R. Guarino, now director of communications in the attorney general's office)

--Reilly now supports an income tax cut to 5 percent.

"If these numbers hold up, then we should do it," Reilly said. In March, Reilly said the income tax rollback championed by Governor Mitt Romney was tantamount to "short-changing the future," and added, "we have difficult financial challenges ahead of us over the foreseeable future, over the next few years, and right now we cannot afford to be rolling back taxes." --The Boston Globe, December 9, 2005

--Reilly opposes the death penalty, after supporting it, after opposing it.

"I, too, have never supported a death penalty in this particular state." --Then-district attorney Reilly in the Boston Globe, March 15, 1990

"To me, the death penalty is punishment, just punishment of people for what they have done." Then-district attorney Reilly in the Boston Globe, May 13, 1995

Reilly said he does not support bringing back the death penalty, though, because, "Across the board, I just don't see that as a solution." --Attorney General Reilly, Telegram & Gazette, September 29, 1999

"At this point, without the infrastructure in place, I think we have greater priorities in public safety and housing and jobs." --Attorney General Reilly, The Boston Globe, April 29, 2005

"When asked if he would sign into law this particular bill if he were governor, Reilly responded: 'Yeah, probably.' He added: 'I believe the death penalty can be fairly and equally applied.' But, he said, reinstating capital punishment is 'not on the list of my priorities.'" --The State House News Service, April 29, 2005

"Romney is so polished on the stump his handlers are going to have to schedule a lot of whimsical, impromptu off–the-record moments of natural expression during the campaign. This might have been the goal when Romney opened his speech by singing the lyrics to "Davy Crockett" and altering the last line to, "Doctorrrr, Doctor Bill Frist, king of the wild frontier." This sucking up to the hometown favorite coupled with Clark Griswold goofiness made me want to dive under the desk out of embarrassment for Romney and mankind. The audience didn't care. They liked him and were still talking about him two days later."

"If there was any juicy gossip coming out of the three-day event down in Memphis, it was the unexpected exit of Trent Wisecup, the director of Gov. Mitt Romney's Commonwealth leadership PAC.

"Wisecup is a founding partner with Mike Murphy in the DC Navigators consulting group. Murphy had served as Romney's communications consultant, but split with Romney to focus on other clients, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Wisecup stayed with Romney.

"The scuttlebutt is that Wisecup had had several run-ins with Romney's chief of staff Beth Myers, who most likely will fill a similar role in Romney's presidential bid. What's ironic in all of this is that Wisecup was telling folks over the weekend that he was moving back from Boston to Michigan, which is where Romney supporters believe the governor will open his presidential campaign operation. Why? Romney's familial and broader political base resides in the state where his father was governor, and where an early Republican primary will be held in 2008."

"...I look back over my experience, and every time I change jobs, I feel depressed for about the first six months. I think I have made a big, big mistake. When I got into law school, when I was there, I said, 'Oh my goodness, this is unfortunate.' And then I went to the Boston Consulting Group, and I said, 'Oh, this is not a good fit.' And then I went over to Bain and I said, 'Oh, this is really a bad fit.' When I went to the Olympics, I said, 'Oh, this is a nightmare.' Just one after the other."

Q: Lieutenant Govenor, what do you think of the policy that Reed defended with the State Police that [barred] pregnant women from doing a lot of activities?

Kerry Healey: Well, I think that I'll let Reed talk about that particular policy.  But what I can tell you is that I have no doubt at all that women can trust Reed Hillman to fight for their rights, to work for victims' rights of all kinds for all people in this Commonwealth. He wouldn't be standing here with me today if I didn't believe that.

Q: But do you support that policy?

Healey: That policy has been changed. And I think that it has been modernized in a way that made sense. At the time, the State Police had a policy that their top doctor, the surgeon--surgeon general? is that what you call it?--yes, their surgeon general was the person to make the determination when a pregnant individual would go out on partial disability. Now the person can go to their own doctor and have that determined. And I think that's a much more rational policy, and I will let Reed add to that.

Hillman: The State Oolice had a policy of constant rewriting of our policies [inaudible], which is a very large volume, one of which is the temporary modified leave policy. As colonel, it was my job to sign off on the work that's been done by staff and human resources and legal. And the temporary modified leave that was put in place initially was one that a small number of females found did not work for them. They made a complaint. The--the end result was that we changed that policy, and the policy that i signed in 1998, which is still in place today, is a national model, protects females who are pregnant, and allows they and their physician to make the determination.

Q: But you defended the old policy at the time.

Hillman: The old policy at the time was developed by the people who are experts in house, in consultation with gynecologists and--obstetricians! Thank you. Developed with input from an obstetrician who was an expert in the area. The big difference is that the old policy said it was the State Police surgeon, a contract employee of the State Police, who made that determination. The new policy allows the trooper and her physician to make that decision.

Q: Do you regret making that decision at the time?

Hillman: At the time, we thought we made the right decision.

Q: No regrets about making that decision now?

Hillman: Of course there's a regret. If I could live my life again I would do many things differently, and that would be one.

Q: Were you involved in writing that policy? Or was it at the staff level, and you signed off on it?

Hillman: The staffers in research and development and human resources [inaudible], almost all of whom were female, did a nationwide search to see, How do [we] have a temporary modified leave that protects the members of the Sate Police and the public we serve. And the policy they developed was signed off by me, no question about it. It applied to men and women; it said the same thing for everybody. It was a gender-neutral policy which stated the department's physician, for any type of temporary physical disability--including pregnancy--he would make the decision. As i said, the new policy that I signed in 1998, we left the decision up to the officer and her physician.