Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Mob Hit

The Departed arrives on top.

"At My Signal, Unleash Hell"

The similarities between the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial race between Kerry Healey and Deval Patrick and the 2000 US Presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore extend far beyond the sharp differences between the respective Republican and Democratic candidates and the intense partisanship of the respective races. Just as Bush was savagely pilloried by the left in the wake of the 2000 election, so too will Kerry Healey be pummeled by progressives in the event of her victory.

Even if Bush never went into Iraq, he would still be the most hated Republican politician in modern times, largely because his victory over Al Gore "wasn't supposed to happen." In 2000, the mainstream press declared Gore the smarter, smoother, better candidate; Bush was depicted as a religious zealot, an ex-drunk ready to fall off the wagon at any second, a Vietnam War dodger, and a possible former cocaine addict.

The notion that Gore would lose to Bush was simply beyond consideration. The pundit class was convinced that Bush was just a country bumpkin with a famous name--and thus was convinced that Gore would trounce him on November 7, 2000.

Of course, it didn't turn out that way. Bush defeated Gore--and in doing so, earned the undying ire of the left. Progressives didn't like Ronald Reagan, but many of them realized (or should have realized) that Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale had no chance of beating him in 1980 and 1984, respectively. Bush, however, was supposed to be a patsy, an easy mark, someone ripe for the pickings. Instead, he picked off the supposedly superior Gore.

Like Bush in 2000, Kerry Healey has been similarly trashed as a lightweight, a no-hoper, an "uninspiring" choice. The pundit class has already declared Deval Patrick the winner, just as they prematurely declared Gore the winner of the 2000 election. Like Gore, Patrick has been declared smoother, smarter, more charismatic, more equipped, more congenial, more "gubernatorial."

What will happen if, on November 7, 2006, the "conventional wisdom" gets refuted, just as it was six years earlier?

Like Bush, Healey will be smeared as a racist and a practitioner of "underhanded" political tactics. Like Bush, Healey will be incorrectly blamed for all of the state's ills. Like Bush, Healey will be relentlessly demonized by the press.

Those of us who believe that Kerry Healey is the best choice for governor of Massachusetts should not only work to ensure her victory on November 7, but also be prepared to defend her aggressively when the Patrick partisans launch their post-election attacks. Already, figures such as Ted Kennedy are on the warpath; yesterday, the liberal lion loathsomely labeled Healey's ads a "Swift-Boating" of Patrick. We'll see more of this crap if she wins--and it will be up to us to force them to cut it.

UPDATE: Glen Johnson of the AP on Healey vs. Patrick.

DEJA VU

The Massachusetts gubernatorial race between Republican Kerry Healey and Democrat Deval Patrick is about as pure an ideological conflict as you can find. In so many ways, this race bears similarities to the Bush vs. Gore Presidential contest of 2000.

On one side, you have a centrist Republican committed to reducing crime, appointing reasonable judges, cutting taxes and easing the burdens that face businesses, particularly small businesses, in the state of Massachusetts. On the other side, you have a slick Democrat who has aligned himself with all manner and manifestation of far-left interest groups, a man whose past actions include
helping to spare a cop killer from death row and aiding a convicted rapist's effort to get out of jail free.

On one side, you have a candidate whose base of support includes conservatives, moderates, and sensible progressives. On the other side, you have a contender backed largely by ideologues who are filled with bilious contempt for all things non-liberal.

On one side, you have a candidate who worked her way through Harvard but who rejected the institution's elitism. On the other side, you have a candidate who believed that absorbing the elitism of Harvard and Milton Academy was his ticket to wealth and success.

Like Al Gore, Patrick utilizes a subtly demagogic, "people versus the powerful" imagery that appeals to the emotions, but not to the intellect. On the other hand, Healey has made clear her status as the thinking person's candidate.

The contrast is stark. In a Healey Administration, taxes will be reduced, criminals will be removed from the streets, and businesses will flourish. In a Patrick Administration, excessive taxation will bleed personal finances dry, criminals with effective sob stories will be pardoned, and businesses will flee to either New Hampshire or North Carolina.

Compare the views of both Healey and Patrick and it becomes obvious that, in the traditional sense of the word, Healey is the true "progressive" in the race. Her ideas will result in actual, tangible progress--in education, in the law, in health, in the economy. With Patrick as the captain of a nearly nine-tenths Democrat legislative crew, the state will not progress, but will retreat into the brutal economic malaise of the late 1980s.

The Bay State press has made frequent references to the passion that Patrick has inspired in his supporters. Yet Healey's supporters are just as passionate--passionate about finally implementing the state income tax the people overwhelmingly voted for in 2000, passionate about keeping hardened criminals behind bars, passionate about real, demonstrable education reform, passionate about making Massachusetts a place one wants to come to, not come from.

On November 7, let's make the press recognize the truth. Let's make Patrick's supporters recognize that it's Kerry Healey who is truly "No Ordinary Leader."

UPDATE: Human Events on Healey vs. Patrick.

A Quality Production

1970s action film star Tamara Dobson (Cleopatra Jones) passes away at 59.

MEMORY BANK

A message for Ninth District Congressman Stephen Lynch: just because the media is focused on the Mark Foley controversy and the Healey-Patrick gubernatorial contest doesn't mean that we've forgotten about your battle with independent-minded opponent Jack Robinson.

We still want a debate--preferably two debates with the challenger.

We still want to see you defend your record--especially your vacillation on the issue of Iraq.

We still want you to explain in detail exactly what you've done for the residents of the Ninth District.

We still want you to point out the flaws, if any, in Robinson's criticisms of your
record. (From this vantage point, Robinson's critique is pretty airtight.)

We want to see you stand up and answer Robinson's challenge.

Will you do it--or will you try to run out the clock?

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Boston talk-radio star Scott Allen Miller has drawn heat recently for his issues-based criticism of Massachusetts Democrat gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick. Patrick's supporters have lambasted "Scotto" for arguing that Patrick's campaign represents symbolism over substance.

Miller's argument is true, but for Patrick's supporters, it's irrelevant. One cannot dismiss the power of symbolism as it pertains to Patrick's campaign.

As I've argued before, some of Patrick's support is derived from an intense desire to symbolically declare an end to the era of racial tension that negatively defined the state of Massachusetts a generation ago. Just as progressives backed Colin Powell's potential presidential run eleven years ago out of a desire to witness a symbolic end to American racism, so too is a portion of Patrick's support generated by those who came of age during the absolute absence of racial harmony in the Bay State--and who would like to send a message to the rest of the country that Massachusetts is truly as progressive as its reputation.

One can understand this line of thinking without agreeing with it. Everybody remembers the famous photo of Ted Landsmark being assaulted on Boston City Hall Plaza with the American flag on April 5, 1976. However, there is another  photograph taken that day that has never been widely distributed. Published on the front page of the April 6, 1976 Boston Herald American, the photo shows two men kicking Mr. Landsmark with almost indescribable force. The image captured in the photo is so disturbing, so repugnant, so perverse that one cannot be surprised by the fact that the photo has received far less public distribution over the last thirty years than the comparatively "tamer" American flag photo.

It's not hard to comprehend why those who lived through such turbulent times would feel a compulsion to symbolically declare that era over. That is why you see so many
blue-and-white Patrick bumper stickers when you drive around. To these people, Patrick's
vagueness and his lack of substance aren't factors. The symbolic power of his candidacy
is all that matters.

I wish that those who feel such an emotional pull towards Patrick would understand that, if
Kerry Healey wins, it will not represent a continuation of the "bad old days"; instead, it will
also represent tremendous social progress. Let's face it, Massachusetts wasn't the most
forward-thinking place a generation ago for women either. At the time, with few exceptions,
women were almost totally invisible in the Bay State business and political worlds. If Healey
wins, it will be every bit as socially significant in this state as a Patrick victory would be.
However, I fear that, for partisan political reasons, Patrick's supporters will not recognize
this truth. Don't progressives realize that it doesn't matter who breaks the political glass
ceiling, so long as it's broken once and for all?

Because of his criticism of Patrick, Miller has been accused of ideological intolerance. However,
if Patrick's supporters don't give a victorious Healey her just due as a political trailblazer, they
will be guilty of the exact same thing they accuse "Scotto" of.

In & Out

What would happen to conservative Democrats in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts if Deval Patrick were to become governor?

They wouldn't have an easy time of it, that's for sure. It's hard to see Patrick giving any respect to those Democrats who agreed with former House Speaker Tom Finneran on social issues, since Patrick has been aggressively backed by those who loathed Finneran's traditionalism on matters such as same-sex marriage.

Boston talk-radio star (and Patrick critic) Scott Allen Miller has argued that Patrick's ascendancy represents the triumph of the liberal Mike Dukakis Democrats over the socially conservative Ed King Democrats in Massachusetts. This is true, but it didn't happen by accident.

Since the late 1990s, the Bay State left has worked tirelessly to remove social conservative Democrats and replace them with dyed-in-the-wool progressives. Controversial Boston City Counilor Albert L. "Dapper" O'Neil was the first casualty of this war. Attorney General Tom Reilly--a supporter of tax cuts and a less-than-enthusiastic backer of same-sex marriage--was the latest, trounced by Patrick in the September 19 Democrat gubernatorial primary.

A Patrick general-election win would put conservative Democrats on notice that their services are no longer desired. If you're a loyal Democrat who nevertheless opposes tuition breaks for the undocumented and racial preferences, you will be unofficially disinvited from the Democrat Party if Patrick wins. Progressives demand ideological purity, and a Patrick win would be a clear and unmistakable sign that social conservatism is considered a social disease in Bay State Democrat circles.

Of course, this can all be avoided if conservative Democrats take a good look at what's really going on, and consider becoming "Healey Democrats" on November 7.

THE CONVERSATION

If Ted Kennedy can debate Republican challenger Ken Chase, why can't Massachusetts Ninth District Congressman Stephen Lynch debate Jack Robinson?

Kennedy famously refused to debate Robinson when the latter challenged the former in 2000, but the circumstances were far different; back then, the Massachusetts press so successfully peddled the notion that Robinson was a de facto third-party challenger that Kennedy didn't feel the need to debate him. Now, the Massachusetts press is so focused on the Healey-Patrick gubernatorial contest that they don't have time to "disqualify" Robinson once again. Thus, Robinson, an independent-minded Republican (who, remarkably, is a more familiar name than the incumbent!) doesn't have to deal with the media noise machine that drowned him out in 2000.

Lynch has no excuses. Now, no one's questioning Robinson's fitness as a challenger. Now, no one's implying that Lynch deserves to run unopposed. Now, Lynch isn't dealing with a fringe challenger like the man he faced in the Democrat primary. Now, he's dealing with a serious contender, someone who thinks outside the box while Lynch hides under it.

Step up, Steve. Answer the challenge. Agree to two debates with Jack Robinson.

You have no excuse.

UPDATE: A compelling conversation with Robinson.