| As David mentioned, Andy's pissed:
Enough is enough. My frustration has been growing for several weeks but the push to the edge began with Adam Reilly's baseless claim and came to a full crescendo with Brian McGrory's column (no one has risen to the challenge? I don't know how you would describe a no name, no money candidate knocking off two extremely well positioned Dems to go into a general eleciton with a double digit lead other than rising to the challenge, but I digress). What is it you ask that has me so angry? Both Reilly and McGrory (and frankly every other over exposed political pundit from Jim Braude to Jon Keller to Frank Phillips) said that Deval was "too light on specifics."
Here is what kills me: neither McGrory nor Reilly offered any specifics on how Patrick is light on specifics. Instead it just has become the punditries' (is that correct spelling?) standard line on Deval. None, and I dare anyone to challenge me on this, none of the pundits have offered detailed explanations on how Patrick lacks specifics. I will say that in a debate it isn't possible to boil down several pages of position papers into a nice turn of phrase for the press. So I guess that means he is light on specifics because he chooses not to oversimplify. What's worse is that if he did come up with the soundbites that sounded more explanatory then he would be chastised for being a soundbite candidate. Hey Adam and Brian, go to the website and read until your eyes glaze over because Patrick has ideas and specifics (and no, it isn't some fluffy 50 point presentation, talk about weak on ideas!).
So again, count me with Andy and Lynne and David -- and everyone else who has heard Patrick speak in public, or actually read his proposals -- that this line of criticism is just bunk. Note to the media: A one-hour so-called "debate" with four candidates is not really the time to be listing a bunch of numbers that no one can follow anyway. Nor is a stump speech. The website's the thing to catch the conscience of Allison King [e.g.].
Furthermore, as David points out, Healey's plans are chockful of the most remote kind of fantasy; her tax cut alone is thought by the Mass. Taxpayers Foundation to be totally unrealistic, but never mind -- she's got plenty of new spending proposals, too. Patrick says we've got to economically grow our way into the revenues that will allow property tax relief and other spending. Maybe that's vague and hopeful, but it's a heck of a lot more realistic than simply stating 2-2=3. And lest we need a reminder, Patrick has been perfectly specific on what he'll do with the income tax: leave it where it is. And I'd love to hear someone question Healey about her doubtless oh-so-specific plans for, say, alternative energy. I believe in deep water turbines ... in some distant future, in a galaxy far, far, away ... Visualize it ... someday it could be ... Right. Well, how about the very specific Cape Wind project, ready to go? Oh gosh no, we can't do that.
Perhaps we should be good sports to Scot Lehigh when he complains that Patrick doesn't have a plan for reworking charter school financing. But don't you think Andy's challenge is a good one? Be specific yourself -- then come at him. Scot should propose a plan himself (or choose someone else's) and bounce it off Patrick. At the very least, Scot would find out if Patrick understands the issue in a useful way. But you can't just say "Tell me something about school funding" and expect a useful answer.
So, I can't help but think this is a case of "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished". Patrick has indeed been more specific on any number of issues, for longer than any other candidate. That's a major reason why we endorsed him: He's considerably more up-front with his ideas than any of the other candidates -- and indeed, that includes saying "I don't know" when he doesn't know. That he doesn't care to expound on the specifics in a one-hour debate or a stump speech doesn't lose me one wink of sleep.
But some in the media must think that since he's given us this much, he's gotta show all of his cards now. I don't think that's necessary, or even that important. He's made promises in general but ambitious terms, and if he wins, he'll be evaluated on how well he follows through. |
