| The flap over Tom Reilly's call to Worcester DA John Conte continues unabated. Just in today's Globe and Herald, we've got one editorial, three columns, and two news stories on the subject. We're pleased to report that many of them are taking a line similar to the one we posted here. Here's a brief rundown of today's stories.
The Herald's editorial page has chimed in with a surprisingly sensible piece saying that Reilly should "probably not" have made the call he made, but also that they believe his explanation of why he made it (helping a friend keep the matter away from the media, not interfering with an investigation). Yesterday's Globe editorial (entitled "Reilly's poor judgment") took a similar line: "It was a gesture that appears well-intended but was unwise." The Herald also criticizes the Romney/Healey response to the incident as "political opportunism," which it surely was.
Also in today's Herald, we find the opposite end of the reasonableness spectrum, namely, Howie Carr's column (reg. req'd). It's pretty much what you would expect: a lot of inflammatory one-liners along the thoughtful lines of this one: "Are you in need of reasonable doubt at a reasonable price? Please make your check payable to The Reilly Committee." But the column is notable for its conclusion: "You’re Tom Reilly, and you can’t understand why a moonbat flyweight like Deval Patrick is going to clean your clock at the caucuses Feb. 4." Interesting.
In the Globe, both Eileen McNamara and Joan Vennochi write about Reilly's call today, and they reach fairly similar conclusions. Both columnists think Reilly shouldn't have made the call, and they both see his handling of the incident as raising larger questions. Here's McNamara: "Reilly thinks the question of his role is irrelevant and impertinent. It isn't. The public is entitled to ask whether Reilly's call had a chilling effect on an ongoing police investigation, as Northborough Police Chief Mark Leahy has implied." And here's Vennochi: "when you choose as a public official to extend yourself on behalf of a friend, you accept the political consequences without tears; and you are prepared to face the political question that follows logically: Where do you draw the line on doing favors for a friend?"
Finally, the news reporters have some interesting contributions. The Globe has a long piece on the fact that it's actually quite difficult to enforce the "social host" law, so it's not all that surprising that charges weren't filed in this incident.
But perhaps the most telling of all of these items is the second news story: a report that Reilly's campaign operation has come out swinging against a Dept. of Public Health TV spot that tries to discourage underage drinking. Reilly's people are saying that public funds shouldn't be used for this ad because it mentions Kerry Healey's name so it amounts to a publicly-funded Healey campaign ad.
There are two huge problems with Reilly's take on this. First, it's stupid. According to the Globe article, the only mention of Healey is at the very end of the ad, when it says "A message from the Governor's Interagency Council on Substance Use and Prevention, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, Chair, and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Substance Abuse Services." Like it or not, Healey is the sitting Lieutenant Governor, and as such she gets to have her name associated with ads like this. It would be one thing if the ad featured Kerry Healey herself talking for 30 seconds about how much she's done to prevent underage drinking, but at least from the Globe article, it doesn't sound like that's the case. Moreover, it's not like Tom Reilly has never done something similar (the article mentions a calendar, presumably printed at state expense, that is distributed to seniors and that "features a color photo of Reilly inside, along with a list of helpful telephone numbers").
The second problem is that the timing of Reilly's attack could not possibly have been worse. In case Reilly hadn't noticed, the big story around here for the past four days or so has been allegations that Tom Reilly inappropriately involved himself in an investigation of a fatal accident involving underage drinking. So now he's criticizing the Dept. of Public Health for running a TV spot designed to prevent underage drinking just because it happens to mention Kerry Healey's name? Come on Tom - get your priorities straight. Maybe under other circumstances, it might have been worth trying to make something out of Healey's name in the ad (though for the reasons given above I frankly doubt it). But under current circumstances, he should have kept his mouth shut. Another instance of bad judgment from Reilly. |
