The sleepy governor's race stirred to life yesterday, with Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly charging that voters "cannot trust" Democratic rival Deval L. Patrick on taxes, and Patrick firing back that Reilly has switched positions on the issue. [emphasis added]

Adam and David,

I read both of your posts on my story. I hope you'll post my response as well. To wit:

First, thanks for the plug. Nice of you. Truly. I would, though, like to clarify a few things.

The two specific sections of my story you posted, looked at side by side, do seem contradictory: 1) that the Dems are no good at political theater, and 2) that Deval Patrick "appreciates the value of style as well as substance." Importantly, though, in the actual article there are 3,247 words separating these two observations, during which I noted that Patrick took part in some laughably tame debates, and that his staff made awkward comments regarding trying to run his campaign like a Dean/Kerry hybrid. I also made it clear that whatever strengths the candidates have are too often undercut by the blunders of the party apparatus here: "Fact is, you could have JFK and FDR rolled into one-if the party machinery is missing a few springs, then the best of candidates will end up looking bad."

I don't think it contradicts the thesis to that state that, should he win, Patrick will still owe his victory, in part, to the fact that he was better at the packaging than most of his Democratic peers. Some things, after all, are relative. Patrick was, at times, guilty by association (as opposed to Gabrieli and Reilly, who frequently jammed their feet into their mouths), but he emerged from the slapstick somewhat unscathed.

The idea that I'm endorsing Patrick in the article is also incorrect. Patrick seemed, to me, to be better at this particular brand of politics than the rest. I don't think there's anything wrongheaded or obsequious with pointing out the fact that he who bumbles least has an advantage.

The Dems may have the edge on policy around here, but when it comes to image, they’ve been dismal. Judging by the candidates’ performances so far, this year’s election looks like a rerun. Like their predecessors, the latest batch of Democratic gubernatorial hopefuls—Attorney General Tom Reilly, former Clinton staffer Deval Patrick, and zany millionaire Chris Gabrieli—have often approached the level of slapstick.

If Patrick does win the primary, it will be due in part to the fact that, more than all the Democratic candidates over the past 16 years, he...appreciates the value of style as well as substance. He appreciates packaging, even though he claims to hate packaging (which, yes, is a part of his packaging).

In July, as Patrick worked the room at an Elks lodge in Everett, an older woman came over to say hello. Her name was Patricia, and she had a big tuft of silver hair and friendly eyes. She was thrilled to be so close to the candidate and told him so, told him that he had her vote, told him that she had heard him speak and had fallen in love with what he had to say.

"Tell me,” Patrick said, touching her arm, "what was it you liked so much?"

The woman thought for a second, then, with a mostly toothless smile, said: “You know, I don’t really remember. I just liked the way you said it."

A short time in Gabrieli’s presence revealed that he had little to say—or, rather, quite a lot to say with little effect. Here’s a blurb from his website under the Meet Chris section: “It’s hard to sum up Chris Gabrieli with one word, but if you had to, you’d probably go with results.” Actually, I’d probably go with redundant. During our conversation, he used the word “results” about 20 times, mainly in several flurries in which he spoke at least seven times about “getting results,” four times about goals being “different than results,” and, my favorite, five times in which he used the word results in relation to his own results—as in, “These results are real results.” All of which resulted in me hating results.

MIHOS AND SULLIVAN SUBMIT MORE THAN 26,000 SIGNATURES
Independent candidates will appear on the ballot this November

BOSTON – Independent gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos and running mate John J. Sullivan turned in more than 26,000 signatures to the Secretary of the Commonwealth on Wednesday afternoon, securing their place on the general election ballot in November.

“The people of Massachusetts have spoken, and their message is loud and clear,” Mihos said after turning in petitions on Wednesday afternoon. “They want to have an independent voice in the corner office in November, and I’m encouraged by this incredible showing of support.”

Of the 26,000 signatures Mihos and Sullivan received, the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office certified 18,193 of them on Wednesday afternoon. Mihos and Sullivan only needed 10,000 certified signatures to have their names placed on the ballot in November and they collected nearly double that number.

“I’m honored to be on the ballot this November with John Sullivan, and I know the two of us can make this Commonwealth a better place for all residents,” Mihos said. “I’m excited at this opportunity to represent Massachusetts, and I’m looking forward to meeting more residents, visiting more towns and discussing more issues this fall.”

He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we're learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides....

August 9, 2006


Office of Campaign and Political Finance   
Michael J. Sullivan, Director
One Ashburton Place, Room 411
Boston, MA   02108

DELIVERED BY HAND

Dear  Mr. Sullivan:

We, the undersigned Massachusetts labor officials, write to call your attention to clear and egregious violations of Massachusetts campaign finance laws by The Campaign to Stop Killer Coke (“Killer Coke”), its corporate parent, a New York state for-profit corporation called Corporate Campaign, Inc. (“CCI”), and Ray Rogers, a New York City public relations consultant who controls CCI and styles himself the “director” of “Killer Coke.” Please consider this a formal complaint and request for investigation.

On the web site www.killercoke.org, in an August 7, 2006 interview with the Boston Globe, and elsewhere,  Mr. Rogers has said that he and “Killer Coke” advocate the defeat of gubernatorial candidate Deval L. Patrick, and are communicating with voters and soliciting and expending funds for this purpose, including to create and distribute literature and Internet content attacking Mr. Patrick. Although calling itself a “campaign” and using a dot org domain name, “Killer Coke” is not in fact a registered political committee, not a PAC, not a 527,  and not a credentialed not-for-profit of any kind. Rather, it is simply an arm of Mr. Rogers’s personal business.

Recently your office issued Interpretive Bulletin 06-01, which explains how and when third party political activity becomes subject to Massachusetts campaign finance laws. You explain that one trigger is when a person or group engages in Express Advocacy: communications to “vote against,” “defeat,” or “reject” a candidate, or synonyms (or their positive equivalents). As can be seen from the attached materials, Mr. Rogers’s and “Killer Coke’s” attacks on Mr. Patrick are replete with just such Express Advocacy. The flyer, for examples, asks readers to consider various negative allegations about Patrick “before voting on Sept. 19” and bears the tag line “A Vote for Deval Devalues Your Priorities.” Likewise, a July 17, 2006 newsletter petitions aid to “help us expose Deval Patrick's and Coke's deplorable record to Massachusetts' voters.”

“Killer Coke” is subject to Massachusetts campaign finance laws and regulations but has failed to register, file, or disclose with OCPF. Mr.  Rogers and “Killer Coke” stand in violation of multiple provisions, including:

1.    Rogers and “Killer Coke” have expended funds to attack candidate Patrick, and plan to continue to do so, but have failed to report these expenditures and their purposes and amounts, as required by law.

2.    Rogers and Killer Coke have solicited donations from the public to attack candidate Patrick but failed to create and register as a political committee to receive, expend, and report these funds, as required by law.

3.    Because “Killer Coke” is in reality simply part of a for-profit corporation (CCI), all funds funneled through its account and spent to harm candidate Patrick are corporate expenditures, which are forbidden by law.

In addition to the above clear-cut violations, we further believe that the activity of Mr. Rogers and “Killer Coke” raises troubling questions that bear close scrutiny by your office:

•    Is Mr. Rogers coordinating his activity, or that of “Killer Coke,” with any political committee, or candidate?

•    Who are the “donors” to “Killer Coke?” Has any person or entity connected to a Massachusetts candidate or political committee given to Killer Coke, or caused others to do so?

•    On his web site, Mr. Rogers solicits for what he labels “donations” (notwithstanding that Killer Coke is part of a for-profit company). Where do these so-called donations go? Who controls the bank account into which they are deposited and for what purposes are the funds spent?

In light of the importance and proximity of the gubernatorial election that Mr. Rogers and “Killer Coke” improperly seek to influence, we respectfully request your earliest possible attention to these matters and speedy action against such violations as you determine have occurred.

You may direct your response to the undersigned Michael Grunko at  400 Talcott Ave, Building 131, Watertown, MA 02472, telephone 617 924 8509.

Sincerely,




Tim Cayton, President                       Richard Stutman, President
Intntl Brotherhood of Electrical               Boston Teachers Union               
Local 223



Michael Grunko, President            Gary Sullivan, President
Service Employees Intntl Union            Utility Workers Union of America
Local 509                    Local 369


George Noel, President   
Intntl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 1505                   

Strange stuff, this.

Quoth Lindsay: "I've been trying to go to Iraq with Hillary Clinton for so long. Hillary was trying to work it out, but it seemed too dangerous."

Also, Lohan says that if such a trip were arranged, she would take shooting lessons with her security guard to prepare.

FYI, this doesn't quite jibe with the account offered by a Clinton spokesman.

Poll Results Show Voters Want a Change

Second Suffolk District Open to Chang-Díaz's Candidacy

ROXBURY – The Chang-Díaz for State Senate Campaign released internal polling results today demonstrating strong support for Chang-Díaz's message of change and high levels of voter dissatisfaction with incumbent Dianne Wilkerson. This internal poll of likely voters for the September 19 th Democratic Primary indicates that the district is looking for change and that Chang-Díaz has a strong opportunity to unseat Wilkerson in next month's election.

Polling Results:

The district is ready for change: only 35% of respondents said that Dianne Wilkerson deserves re-election.

This is an unusually low number for an incumbent State Senator, especially among Democratic primary voters. With only a little more than a third of the electorate believing that Wilkerson deserves to be returned to the Senate, this is a clear mark of the incumbent's vulnerability.

Once voters hear about Dianne Wilkerson's documented legal and ethical transgressions, they are even less likely to vote for her.

Over half of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for Dianne Wilkerson once they learn about her legal and ethical transgressions. Further more, 48.7% said they would be more likely to vote for Chang-Díaz once they learn that she is running against Wilkerson because of these legal and ethical problems.

Voters are drawn to Sonia Chang-Díaz's background and message.

The poll tested voter response to Chang-Díaz's bio, her background, her agenda, and her reasons for running. Each of these pieces of information drew strong positive support and virtually no negative response.

Voters appreciate Dianne Wilkerson's positions on the issues...but don't believe that is enough to re-elect her .

The poll tested Wilkerson's bio, her record, and a positive message on her behalf. The poll finds that although respondents appreciate her stance on the issues and her legislative record, only a minority of the electorate feels this makes her deserving of re-election.

Once voters learn about Sonia Chang-Díaz, her background, and why she is running, they support her – and her support increases to within the margin of error.

Dianne Wilkerson's name recognition is strong in the district, as would be expected.

Over the course of the poll, however, as respondents learn more about Chang-Díaz's background, her experience, her agenda, and why she is running, they open up to her in substantial numbers. Towards the end of the poll, respondents are asked, given what they now know about each candidate, who they plan to support in the September 19 th election – and on this question, Chang-Díaz  closes to within the margin of error.

These polling results are a clear indication that the Second Suffolk Senate District is ready for change. Voters are frustrated with Dianne Wilkerson's continual legal and ethical transgressions, and they are excited by Sonia Chang-Díaz's message of leadership we can all be proud of. Second Suffolk voters are ready and willing to choose Sonia Chang-Díaz to be their next State Senator.  

Methodology:

Sample size: 297.

Margin of error: +/- 5.6% (95% confidence level).

Poll was of voters who identified themselves as likely to vote in the September 19th Democratic primary.

Poll Dates July 10th – 13th

Pollster: Dan Cohen, Connection Strategies

“Although he is almost eighty years old, Castro still holds tight control over Cuba and the Cuban people—never once relinquishing power in his 47 years as president.  Today’s news reminds us of Castro’s mortality, and makes us realize that the end of his rule may be imminent.”

His departure may finally mean free and fair elections in Cuba.  The future of democracy on this Caribbean island depends as much on our president as their president.  There will be pressure from Cuban-American political forces in Miami for a U.S. military intervention.  Democratic change in Cuba should be led from democratic movements within that country, not imposed by special interests in Florida.”