Herald's editorial board outdoes itself

Hmm (4.00 / 3)

I'm not so sure why you're targeting the Herald editorial board for this one. It's not like they had any control over Healey's ads, so why can't they wish that the campaign was focused more on the issues? I can see how your criticism can shut Healey down the second she says something along the lines of this editorial, but Healey isn't on the Herald staff.

---

by: mromanov @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 23:42:08 PM CST

that doesn't even make sense (4.00 / 1)

i'm pretty smaht, but I can't even make heads or tails out of that logic. The Herald shouldn't have made it seem like Kerry Healey was some innocent victim here when she's responsible for her campaign. But, then again, Republicans don't seem to believe in accountability... so I guess it's par for the course.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 00:54:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But... (0.00 / 0)

...they didn't make her out to be some innocent victim. They never said anything like that.

---

by: mromanov @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:41:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the point is (0.00 / 0)

that the Herald supposedly "endorsed" her besides the fact that the first line/paragraph of the editorial is "boy, she screwed this one up!"

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, a la anyone else's endorsement of Patrick.  But they're the Murdoch rag in town, so they endorse Republicans (although I guess they do have limits, as in the Senate and the AG races, both of which are joke candidates), so they have to bite their tongue even though they have nothing nice to say about Healey.

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin

---

by: pmegan @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:42:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

don't blame Murdoch (0.00 / 0)

Rupert Murdoch hasn't owned the Herald in over a decade now.

---

by: Ron Newman @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 06:53:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Good point (0.00 / 0)

---

by: mromanov @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:42:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

They are endorsing someone who doesn't exist (6.00 / 2)

When they say they are endorsing the "real" Kerry Healey, they act as if she is not in any way responsible for her ugly (and largely incompetent) campaign.  That makes no sense.

Not only did she run those horrible ads, but she defended them in debates.

The Herald is endorsing the candidate they wish she was, not the one she actually is.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 09:06:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Boston Herald is ... (6.00 / 1)

an unfortunate fact of journalistic life.

Grok Your World
grok: to understand something in a deep and empathic way

---

by: John Driscoll @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 23:42:39 PM CST

I wrote my version of the Herald Editorial (0.00 / 0)

On my blog. Here's a snippet:

Kerry Healey is a far better candidate and a far better person than the campaign she waged. Really, really, she is! She is! Take our word for it! .... She sides with the people of Massachusetts on the issues, that's why she thinks ALL public schools should be charter schools. She's fantastic and super in every way, but that evil, deceitful Deval Patrick won't let you know any better....

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 00:59:01 AM CST

I don't endorse Pol Pot, (6.00 / 2)

I endorse the man he could have been.

Barf.

---

by: stomv @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 05:53:55 AM CST

Patrick's Campaign also Negative (2.57 / 7)

Deval Patrick's campaign was also pretty damn negative. A difference between the two candidates success in advertising was that Patrick was able to convince reporters and BMG that only Kerry Healey was negative and he was Jesus Christ.

Be objective. Like Socrates, just look at the facts.

Thomas Jefferson
Lowell, MA

---

by: Thomas Jefferson @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 06:12:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's a load of crap. (6.00 / 5)

Deval's campaign centered around:

1.  Communicating with voters directly.  In most of his commercials, he looks the camera in the eye and talks.  No ominous voices, no imagery.  Just a conversation.

2.  Hope.  Involvement in the process.  Listening.  Kerry Healey never encouraged those things.

These are factual.  I encourage you to point out where DP supposedly went negative... because short of a few marginal items (one of which was lambased on BMG about 4 weeks ago IIRC), DP has done an outstanding job of staying above the fray, in both the primary and general.

The more you've actually accomplished (good or bad), the easier a target you are -- you have a notable record.  This made Patrick a far bigger target than Healey, who's accomplished virtually nothing as a state legislator or as LG.

---

by: stomv @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 06:46:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Any of Deval's negativity (6.00 / 3)

Was the truth, not distorted. Saying Kerry Healey cut police, cut town spending, raised fees by hundreds of millions and watched property taxes skyrocket isn't exactly an unfair charge. She was part of the Romney administration and that was the record she was running on - she did little, if anything, to really distance herself from Romney. So Deval was right to go after her record.

Kerry Healey, on the other hand, did sleezy campaigning. She cared not about the truth, only about how she could distort it. Furthermore, her attacks bordered on racism - trying again and again to link Deval with rapists and criminals, and gee, I wonder why? The fact he was black must not have had anything to do with it!

And before anyong goes, "but that was his record!" I point you all to "Inmates for Deval." That was outrageous, over the top and downright scandalous. That was a metaphor for her entire campaign.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 07:58:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Troll? (2.00 / 6)

By calling me a "troll," I guess you are calling me a supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore.

That's brilliant.

Now for the issues. I don't give a damn about negative ads. And that is because voters don't give a damn about intelligent discussions of the issues. If they did, we would see intelligent public discourse. Even the debates avoid discussing the issues as much as possible.

And if a particular voter is angered by a particular ad, then let him vote for the other guy. Why bitch about it?

As far as property taxes go, ever since the law Proposition 2 1/2 was passed years ago, all towns, 100 percent of the time, always raise their taxes by 2/12 percent annually. It never changes, regardless of how much state aid they receive.

So Patrick is LYING when he says property taxes went up because of reductions in local aid. They stayed the same.

Towns will always take, take, take, as much money as they can from the people, regardless of their budgets.

Patrick is determined to take your hard earned money and give it to the lazy who are unwilling to work.

And by the way, I never said who I am voting for. You have no idea, troll.

Thomas Jefferson
Lowell, MA

---

by: Thomas Jefferson @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 08:20:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thomas Jefferson? You think pretty highly of yourself. (0.00 / 0)

You sound like a very angry person.

---

by: MarcGov @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 08:43:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're for Grace Ross, no doubt! ;-) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: David @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 08:45:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You appear to be lying. (0.00 / 0)

All towns most definitely do not raise their taxes by 2 1/2 percent every year.  Perhaps your town has, but they all have not. So that makes *you* a liar.

I think it is pretty clear that reductions in local aid are responsible for some -- but not all -- of the increases in property taxes across the state.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 09:11:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Who is the Liar Now? (0.00 / 0)

Name one town, in any year, that DID NOT raise taxes by 2 1/2 percent.

And this across-the-board annual raise occurs even when the state greatly increased local aid, such as when Weld and Cellucci were governors, and recently, when the Federal government also poured more dollars in local municipalities.

Name the town.

Thomas Jefferson
Lowell, MA

---

by: Thomas Jefferson @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 09:40:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

To be fair (0.00 / 0)

There are a few.  Very, very few. 

Some little towns crept by with small increases in 2000, 2001 like Hawley with its less than single digit increases (i.e. .07%, .06%) before going for a large increase in 2005-06 of something like 21%.

I see others from my spreadsheet, but, there are darn few, a small handful, and I'm too lazy to sort out the actual numbers (it's a 2400 line spreadsheet). 

---

by: gary @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 10:09:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's a list (6.00 / 1)

Acton, in 2000, left 1.41% ($499k) on the table.

Adams, in 2003, left 12.35% ($818k) on the table.

Agawam, in 2002, left 13.33% ($4.6m) on the table.

Alford, in 2002, left 16.49% ($155k) on the table.

Barre, in 2001, left 15.68% ($608k) on the table.

Source: Proposition 2 1/2 Levy Limit Capacity and Referenda Votes from the state DLS website.

By "left on the table", that means the difference between the tax levy they were allowed to raise, versus the amount that they actually raised.

Do you want me to continue, or are you satisfied?

Overall, in aggregate, towns left 2.62% on the table in 2000, 2.65% in 2001, 2.42% in 2002, 2.09% in 2003, 1.90% in 2004, 1.78% in 2005, and 1.94% in 2006. The aggregate numbers ranged from $174m to $204m.

State aid was reduced in 2004 (2003 cuts were retroactive, after tax rates had been set) and was flat in 2005, and the amount left on the table was at its lowest. State aid was increased in 2006, and the amount left on the table increased.

---

by: NoPolitician @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 10:37:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You must work for the Sun (0.00 / 0)

Most towns were quite a bit under the levy limit in 2001 as a matter of fact.  The levy limit is what has gone up at 2.5% since the 80s.  In the late 90s, most towns didn't need all that money so they taxed less than they had to.  As things got bad, they cranked it into the red and started collecting every last tax dollar they could.

So you're, well, not lying, just horribly misinformed.

---

by: jaybooth @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 09:38:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This is a NO THOMAS JEFFERSON zone!! (0.00 / 0)

GRRR! Let's get our pitchforks and burn this intruder!

---

by: mromanov @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 11:47:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not really (0.00 / 0)

If you mean that Patrick has criticized the Healey/Romney administration on their policies and performance, I guess you can consider that negative.  But he has spent much more time talking about positive things he will do as governor.

Healey, on the other hand, has spent much of her campaign funds on ads that do nothing other than attack Patrick's character without saying anything positive about herself.  Only recently have we begun to see some positive ads from her.

In any case, negativity is clearly in the eyes of the beholder and polling up to this point has clearly shown that most people perceive Healey to be much more negative than Patrick.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 09:21:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

like anyone was truly surprised by this (0.00 / 0)

I was just wondering when they were going to announce it. It's not exactly the most enthusiastic editorial. Given the faint praise, who cares?It looks like the "real" Kerry Heale hasn't been running for governor, the imaginary one is out there with her foreboding voiceover.

---

by: notodeval @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 07:12:32 AM CST

Two thoughts (6.00 / 1)

1) Evidently the Herald has a close working relationship with Healey that allows them to see something the rest of us don't.  I wish they'd share the details.

2) Have they been covering state politics for the last two years?  Healey's been acting governor a lot of that time.  They had nothing to say about whether that was "the real Kerry Healey."  Exactly when do they expect this person to emerge?

Whoever this "real Kerry Healey" is, she wasn't a candidate in this race.  They might as well have endorsed Santa Claus.

  - Dan

---

by: danseidman @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 07:57:36 AM CST

There's so much potential for spoofs on this (0.00 / 0)

Just who is the real Kerry Healey?

LOL

We need YOUTUBE VIDEOS, everyone!

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 08:03:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Campaign like you would govern (6.00 / 3)

I have to credit the Herald with inadvertently getting to the point:  Deval Patrick has tried to show the kind of governor he would be in the way he has conducted his campaign. 

Republicans, faced with the prospect of revealing their true intentions ("Vote for me, so I can grab some dough for my rich friends and kick the rest of you to the curb"), typically can't afford to do that, so it's on purpose that they suck the air out of the room with their ads and diversions, and never let the issues get a hearing. 

But all of a sudden, after years of aiding and abetting the muckrakers and rabble-rousers, the Boston Herald has come to Jesus and wants to focus on the issues.

After years of watching Democrats who would have made great elected officials, either trying to ignore or getting caught up in the game, trying to play the hands their opponents dealt them, I'm hopeful this election will provide some lessons on both sides for the next cycle.

Eschewing obfuscation since 1955.

---

by: shiltone @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 09:41:37 AM CST

A-frakking-men! (0.00 / 0)

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 13:37:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]