Healey's blatant lie about police on the streets, and other garbage

gee (0.00 / 0)

How do you really feel, David? :)

---

by: Benny @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:32:28 AM CDT

The great thing (0.00 / 0)

about having a blog is that, after I finish yelling at the radio, I can transcribe my rant and post it!  ;-)

---

by: David @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:42:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You Nailed It .. (0.00 / 0)

I wanted to read the transcript of the debate this morning to read what Healey said about police hires (well at least search for it).  From the notes on BMG last night they were questioning whether the numbers were "new" or "additional" police.  But you found it and she lied. She should be called on it.

Another note, from the link you posted about Tim O'Brien's statement, the Globe also reported:

According to 2005 FBI figures, the most recent available, Massachusetts had a far higher violent crime rate than other New England states and New Jersey, though its rate of 457 violent crimes per 100,000 people was only slightly higher than New York's 446 per 100,000.

They could have found it on their own, but WTF they could have credited BMG if that's where they first saw it.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:46:20 AM CDT

"they could have credited BMG if that's where they first saw it." (0.00 / 0)

When hell freezes over, baby!  ;-)

---

by: David @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:47:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How Deval is like the Patriots (5.00 / 1)

Isn't Jeff Berry criticism a lot like saying the Patriots aren't very good because they don't "blow people away"?  Remember when people criticized the Patriots, after having won three superbowls in five years, for winning those games by a combined score of nine points?  That's what this feels like. 

Deval's up by 20 in the polls, gives a solid debate performance, and you get criticism from "Jeff from Medford."  Whatever.

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 08:48:45 AM CDT

Deval and the Pats (0.00 / 0)

I like this analogy.

DP, like the Pats, is executing solidly in a weak division.  Dolphins, Bills, Jets = Healey, Mihos, Ross. 

On WEEI, the only question is Pats margin of victory in winning the division; on BMG, only question is DP's margin of victory. 

For the Pats, playoffs are what it's all about.  They will get the chance to compete in the playoffs.  But they do lack a vertical threat, and Vinateri will be missed.  Can they defeat the Broncos, Chargers, Colts, et al? 

For DP, governance is what it's all about.  As with Gilette, the home field of Beacon Hill is an absolute mess.  Can he stand up to the cronyism, hackery, and special interests...mostly among folks who believe that they're "in" with DP?  That is what it will take to "win the Super Bowl" - to truly transform MA. 

I also wonder about BMG's post-election role.  The cheerleading of Patriots Weekly?  Or the tough love of Sons of Sam Horn? 

---

by: GoldsteinGoneWild @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:13:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tough love. (0.00 / 0)

"I also wonder about BMG's post-election role.  The cheerleading of Patriots Weekly?  Or the tough love of Sons of Sam Horn?"

Tough love. Count on it.

I also predict we'll get a lot more boring, with more policy-wonkish stuff. Sorry, all. Hit the books!

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:28:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

One can only hope (0.00 / 0)

The policy content is far more interesting than the silly Yay-teamism, boo-themism that must inevitably afflict us at this point in an election cycle.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:33:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

John Lennon (0.00 / 0)

I've got another analogy for you (I love analogies).  John Lennon once remarked that, creatively, the Beatles were finished by the time they hit the big time in the US.  I'm not sure I'd rate that premise given St. Peppers, but anyway...

At this point, the governor's race is creatively dead.  You're not going to get substantive debate on any of the issues until after the election.  There just isn't any room for it anymore.  Not when you spend half the debate talking about negative ads.  Really, that's just debating about debating.  The same way "Glass Onion" was singing about singing. Anyone still following this?  No?  Okay.

Personally, I blame the Healey campaign.  You can't complain Deval doesn't address specifics and then force him to talk about Ben LaGuer.  Well, okay, you CAN, but not if you really want him to talk substance.

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:44:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hear you loud and clear (0.00 / 0)

... and Nov. 9th can't come soon enough for me. I'm getting kind of sick of this election ... or at least what it's become.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 21:56:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Healey sucked in the debate. (0.00 / 0)

Mike Barnicle saw it and called the election for Deval saying he would win by 10-15 points.  The Republican advocating for Healey in the post-debate said she should stop running those ad's ASAP.  I can not believe some of the bs coming out of the local media today.  Healey was booed by a bunch of seniors yesterday. Her winning strategy is a loser.

---

by: melanie @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:12:44 AM CDT

Deval wasn't honest either... (0.00 / 0)

Thanks David for your post, but are we ignoring the fact that Deval should get some better numbers himself?

From today's globe:

"Patrick's campaign, for its part, said it arrived at the figure of 700 fewer officers by averaging a federal 2004 report showing 400 fewer officers and a May 2004 interim legislative report that said the commonwealth had lost 945 officers through layoffs and attrition since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."

Patrick is using numbers from 2001-2004, which start 2 years before Romney took office and end two years before the present. I'm sure cops have been added since 2004, and you can't blame Healey for things that happened two years before she even got there.

Deval has a case to be made, but he hurts it when he doesn't use the best figures. It's tough to hit Healey on numbers when we have problems of our own with numbers.

---

by: MaDemVoter @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:31:25 AM CDT

Sorry, I don't buy it. (6.00 / 1)

Healey lied, and she knew she was lying.

Patrick's numbers on cops are estimates, but they're based on the best numbers that are available, and they're consistent with other sources.  There's no comparison.

---

by: David @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:42:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's mathematics... (0.00 / 0)

Thanks David for your post, but are we ignoring the fact that Deval should get some better numbers himself?

From today's globe:

"Patrick's campaign, for its part, said it arrived at the figure of 700 fewer officers by averaging a federal 2004 report showing 400 fewer officers and a May 2004 interim legislative report that said the commonwealth had lost 945 officers through layoffs and attrition since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."
Patrick is using numbers from 2001-2004, which start 2 years before Romney took office and end two years before the present. I'm sure cops have been added since 2004, and you can't blame Healey for things that happened two years before she even got there.

Deval has a case to be made, but he hurts it when he doesn't use the best figures. It's tough to hit Healey on numbers when we have problems of our own with numbers.

You're in the tenuous position of arguing that math used correctly to make an educated guess is somehow as evil as math performed incompetently to proffer a lie.

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:43:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In defense of Berry (0.00 / 0)

I don't know, David ... I heard Berry, and didn't exactly agree with how he phrased it, but it sounded like an approximation of FrankSkeffington's exhortation to the "Kitchen Sink" strategy. And as we've noticed, Patrick has fought back with a bit more vigor in recent weeks. So aside from the hooey about "Can Patrick Quarterback a Campaign", I don't think Berry was *totally* wrong in his appraisal.

Look, I'd love to have a really high-minded public debate about great issues that affect us all. I like to think we've tried to contribute to that on this blog. I'd love to have the kinds of debates that Kevin at Pundit Review has suggested. The candidates could do that and be perfectly tough, question each other's records, all that stuff.

But Healey decided it wouldn't be that kind of race. And the nastiness requires a response -- hopefully one that is effective enough to turn the debate back to something more aspirational.

As it stands, I think she'll both lose the race *and* her dignity in the process.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:23:50 AM CDT

That's sorta my point. (0.00 / 0)

Patrick is hitting back.  His current stump speech, which he gave at the Common, and at the Clinton event, and (as time allowed) last night, is tough and effective, without being personally brutal.  (Should he have started that earlier?  Yes, absolutely, as we've all been saying.  But whatever -- he's doing it now, and he's doing it well.)  So for some "Perfesser" to be pontificating about how he ought to be more vicious, from the comfort of his university office, strikes me as ridiculous.

---

by: David @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:26:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would have been nice (0.00 / 0)

to hit back right away, like within hours or a day, rather than spend 3 weeks having supporters whine about the unfairness of it all.  Then the whole mess wouldn't ahve gained traction in the first place. 

I wish, in general, that Democrats were not always so timid about fighting dirty.  Politics in this country has been dirty since Jefferson v. Adams.  The candidate can be high minded after he wins.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:50:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Like I said, (0.00 / 0)

I don't really disagree with most of that.  But hitting back hard and defending your record strongly is (are?) one thing; "fighting dirty" is another.

---

by: David @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:00:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nice? Not so much... (6.00 / 2)

Would have been nice  (0.00 / 0)

to hit back right away, like within hours or a day, rather than spend 3 weeks having supporters whine about the unfairness of it all.  Then the whole mess wouldn't ahve gained traction in the first place.

I wish, in general, that Democrats were not always so timid about fighting dirty.  Politics in this country has been dirty since Jefferson v. Adams.  The candidate can be high minded after he wins.

I categorically deny your assertion that the Democrats are "timid about fighting dirty".  This misses the point entirely and past that by leaps and bounds.  Two things we both know, A) The modern day GOP does not play by the rules: they cheat, lie, steal and bully; and 2) nobody in their right mind would have any legitimate reason to vote Kerry Healey into office if they took the time to think about it.  Neither timidity or brazen attacks on the part of Democrats change these, the two most salient facts.

How then does this make the Democrats in any way responsible for our present situation? Or, put another way, taking the national backdrop of the campaign: given no rational reason to vote for George Bush, doesn't that mean he was elected for irrational reasons??  What combination of rationality, courage and fighting spirit on the part of Democrats changes that???

Here's the thing about irrationality: it doesn't mean lacking reason, but actually, actively, resistant to reason!!! Kerry Healey is a rather smartly tailored mean streak completely lacking in clue. It beggars the imagination that she has one tenth of one percent of the vote, never mind a full 30 percent!!! That's beyond surreal in it's irrationality...

In the movie "Blazing Saddles" there is a great and telling line:  Gene Wilder, introducing the character 'Mungo' says, "don't shoot him.  It only  makes him mad."  This is the modern GOP.  They don't care about the facts. They care about the fight. They want to be mad, and they want as many voters as possible enslaved to the irrationality of that anger. They love bloody knuckles and they are, at present, engaged amongst themselves in a bloody race to the ruthless bottom.  Any pain you inflict in a fight is only going to arouse them for more. This is exactly what they want and too many Democrats are all too happy to oblige. 

When Bill Clinton was accused of any number of scandals, he and his attack dogs, Carville and Begale and any number of others, went on the offensive.  This only protracted the scandals.  This happened, not because they weren't righteous in their defense (they were) but because the opposition revels, wallows, luxuriates in the muck.  It fits in with their old-testament zeal and their frankly petty and bullying natures. When Clinton was caught in a laughably petty affair, almost literally with his pants down, the resultant pushback from Democrats only ignited the conflagration far far beyond what it should have been.

Point is, fighting dirty has nothing whatsoever to do with 'timidity.'  Ironically enough, Clinton was the one who said it best, "If we get people to think, we win."  You can't get people to think by fighting dirty. In fact, just the opposite happens.  The beauty of it is, when we get people to think, not only do we win... but so do they.

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:16:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Evil (0.00 / 0)

Blazing Saddles?  Oh yes.  I thought the Muffy campaign resembled a movie!

 Only the cod is sacred.

---

by: pablo @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 13:01:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

maybe this was the right strategy (6.00 / 1)

Think about it.  The debate spent the first 21 minutes talking about the sleazy Muffy ad.  The prevailing theme is just how nasty Muffy is.  By hitting back early, Muffy wouldn't have been out there driving up her own negatives.

Given the large number of Republican leaning independents and real Republicans sickened by the sight of Muffy's ads, and the heat she is taking for jumping the shark, that letting her go off the deep end may have been a very sound strategy.

 Only the cod is sacred.

---

by: pablo @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:46:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well put, Pablo (6.00 / 1)

There was a time a couple of weeks ago when the big issue in the campaign was Deval's handling of the LaGuer case, and it was bad for him.  Now the questions that people are asking are "Is Healey a racist?" and "Is Healey just playing to fear?"  By all means let this be the discussion topic, and let's drag it out as much as possible, for the next 18 days if we can.

Meanwhile, Deval's ads hitting her "overhoused" comment seem perfectly reasonable in comparison but they will have their effect.

  - Dan

---

by: danseidman @ Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 13:21:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]