Notes From D. R.

RISKY BUSINESS

It won't surprise me in the least if Massachusetts Democrat gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick asks Al Gore to campaign for him in the days leading up to the November 7 election. Patrick has, after all, borrowed a critical element from Gore's 2000 campaign playbook.

Six years ago, Gore repeatedly denounced George W. Bush's tax cut proposal as a "risky scheme" that would damage the economy. Gore asserted that Bush's plan to reduce taxes was irresponsible, not wanted by the American people, and represented gimmickry as opposed to sound policy.

Now, in 2006, Patrick has lambasted Kerry Healey's call to reduce the state income tax as lacking in economic and intellectual merit. Ignoring the fact that voters overwhelmingly voted for a state income tax cut in 2000, Patrick has insisted that property taxes should be cut instead, despite having never laid out a clear plan to cut such taxes. He has cited Healey's call for an income tax cut as an example of glib, shallow GOP policymaking--just as Gore did six years earlier.

Of course, the voters didn't buy Gore's "risky scheme" claims in 2000, and the way the polls are currently moving, it doesn't look like Bay Staters will buy Patrick's assertions in 2006. Patrick's supporters have largely agreed with their candidate's decision to scorn the very concept of reducing income taxes to stimulate economic growth. If the voters decide that Patrick's in the wrong, will these supporters demand a recount?

Weekend Box Office: Holding Grudges

The Grudge 2 ends up at number one.

FEAR FACTOR

It's hilarious as hell to listen to Massachusetts Democrat gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick trash Kerry Healey for allegedly engaging in the politics of fear, when in reality it is Patrick and his followers who fear Healey.

Patrick and his supporters are scared to death of Healey--and for good reason: she has successfully reduced his lead by a significant margin in just three weeks, and will in all likelihood continue to do so. Patrick and his supporters never expected this to happen--and they fear what will happen next.

Ultimately, Patrick and his backers are petrified about a Healey victory on November 7. They know that if Healey is elected, it will represent a return to the Weld-Cellucci 1990s, an era that most of the state enjoyed but partisan Democrats detested. The Democrats are still bitter over the results of the 1990, 1994, and 1998 Bay State gubernatorial elections. They still feel that Weld and Cellucci had no business running for dogcatcher, let alone the state's leader.

A sense of desperation has set in, despite Patrick's once-"commanding" lead in the polls. They know that if this chance, this opportunity, slips away, it will be a long, long time before a Democrat successfully wins a gubernatorial election in this state. Let's face it, the Democrat "bench" in this state really isn't that deep, in terms of potential gubernatorial candidates.

The Democrats still can't believe that, with all the success they've had in this state, they haven't been able to have one of their own in the Governor's chair since 1991. They're still livid over Weld's triumphs in '90 and '94, and Cellucci's triumph in '98. They are now peddling the same garbage about Healey that they once peddled about Weld and Cellucci--that she's somehow unfit to be Governor.

What a load of hooey.

A Healey win will be tremendously dispiriting for partisan Democrats. After all the time and effort they've spent trying to convince the voters that Healey's an inept lightweight, can you imagine how they'll feel if, on November 7, the voters reject such an assertion--and also reject their Golden Boy, Patrick?

It is the Democrats, not Kerry Healey, who are the true practitioners of fear and smear. On November 7, however, Healey's triumph will be clear.

UPDATE: Human Events on the Healey-Patrick race.

Star-Studded

Controversial former Massachusetts Congressman Gerry Studds passes away at 69.

No Static At All

Air America Radio files for bankruptcy. More from Brian Maloney, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, the Smoking Gun and the New York Times.

WHAT'S NEW?

If the stories are true about voters wanting to throw out incumbent Congressmen who haven't done enough to improve the lives of the average American, then I would hope that Massachusetts Congressman Stephen Lynch is a part of that mix.

I've wracked my brains for months trying to figure out exactly what Lynch has done for the voters of the Ninth District. Say what you will about Lynch's predecessor Joe Moakley, at least he tried to help the residents of the District. Where are Lynch's accomplishments? Other than flip-flopping on the war, what has he done to distinguish himself from the rest of the Bay State Congressional delegation?

Lynch has become the dictionary definition of politics as usual. He's a cipher, an
empty vessel, a Nowhere Man. On the issues, he seems too conservative for the liberals, too liberal for the conservatives. The Ninth District has had to deal with his non-leadership for five years. Enough is enough.

On November 7, let's replace Lynch with an independent-minded man who's unbought, unbossed, and unafraid to challenge the conventional wisdom. Let's send a Congressman with wisdom and class to put an end to the failed politics of the past. Let's tell Steve to leave, and add Jack to the pack.

UPDATE: Jack Robinson's new TV ad.

GRAVE CONDITION

Remember back in July 2000, when George W. Bush announced that Richard Cheney would be his running mate? Shortly after the announcement, almost every major US news organization ran stories suggesting that the selection of Cheney was an effort to add "gravitas" to Bush's candidacy. The word "gravitas" was used so frequently in news reports about the Cheney announcement that Rush Limbaugh at one point kept a running tally of how many times the word was used by the mainstream press.

The idea that Bush, by himself, lacked the "gravitas" to be a serious Presidential contender defined the media's coverage of the 2000 campaign. A similar concept also defines the Massachusetts media's coverage of the 2006 gubernatorial campaign between Kerry Healey and Deval Patrick.

While the term "gravitas" has not specifically been used, much of the coverage of the Healey campaign has centered around questions about her fitness to serve. We hear precious little about her qualifications as a criminologist or her private-sector work in the 1980s and 1990s, but we hear plenty about her supposed flip-flops on the issues, often accompanied by speculation about her ability to take principled stands.

Conversely, much of the coverage of the Patrick campaign has cast his past in a favorable light. We are often told of his leadership in the Clinton Justice Department, at Texaco, Coca-Cola and Ameriquest. While there has been some critical coverage of his private- and public-sector past, most of the reporting about his previous work has been obsequious--no questions about "gravitas" here!

In truth, neither Healey nor Patrick lack "gravitas." What Patrick does lack is any respect for the will of the voters--as reflected by his refusal to honor the wishes of those who voted overwhelmingly in November 2000 to return the state income tax rate to 5.0%. Patrick has consistently insulted the intelligence of the voters by suggesting that the state cannot afford to reduce the rate and by surrounding himself with supporters who argue that a reduction in the rate is no big deal.

What Patrick also lacks is any real concern for the victims of violent crime, as reflected by his extensive advocacy on behalf of those who have taken the lives of police officers and those who have been proven guilty of sexual assaults. There is little in Patrick's background to negate the perception that he is soft on crime, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Like Bush in 2000, Healey is engaging in two battles--one against a Democrat
opponent who considers special interests his cherished brethren, and one against a media climate that insists upon branding her a lightweight. On November 7, 2000, Bush won both battles. On November 7, 2006, Kerry Healey will do the same.

PAST TENSE, PRESENT TENSE

The fervor among Massachusetts liberals for Deval Patrick's gubernatorial bid
isn't all that surprising when put in context. To gain a little insight as to why Patrick has been so warmly embraced despite his vagueness on the issues, all one has to do is recall the admiration accorded two prominent "progressive" figures of an earlier era--Ruth Batson and Elma Lewis.

Batson, who died in October 2003, and Lewis, who passed away in January 2004, were revered by progressives for their hard work in advancing African-American equality. Batson and Lewis were seen as forceful figures who challenged the state of Massachusetts to live up to its reputation for fairness, inclusion and egalitarianism. Today, the term "social justice" is undefined and amorphous, but thirty years ago, if one wanted a clear definition of "social justice," all one had to do was look at Batson and Lewis and what they stood for.

When Batson and Lewis passed away, Massachusetts progressives lamented their departure and concluded that no one could truly fill their shoes. Now, in Patrick, they see a suitable replacement.

Patrick is perceived by progressives as the rightful heir to Batson and Lewis'
legacy of social change. To the left, Patrick will continue the fight for fairness,
inclusion and egalitarianism into the next generation.

In theory, this is true. Reality indicates otherwise.

In what is perhaps the ultimate irony, Patrick's ideas, if implemented, will slow down the advancement of blacks towards equality with whites in Massachusetts. By opposing vouchers and casting a skeptical eye towards charter schools, Patrick, if elected, will effectively trap black kids in substandard, dysfunctional public schools. By supporting accommodations for the undocumented, Patrick will, if elected, set up circumstances in which the undocumented will continue to come to the state in large numbers to take positions that would otherwise go to working-class African-Americans. By refusing to embrace true tax reform, Patrick will, if elected, increase the financial burdens afflicting working- and middle-class blacks in the Bay State.

Progressives evidently feel that by electing Deval Patrick, they will honor the legacy of Batson and Lewis. This feeling is deep, real, sincere--and in conflict with the facts.

Speak Up

HubPolitics.com reports that Massachusetts Congressman John Tierney is refusing to debate challenger Rick Barton. I would advise Rep. Tierney's colleague, Stephen Lynch, not to emulate Tierney, and instead agree to two debates with his challenger, the independent-minded Jack Robinson. The voters of the Ninth District deserve an opportunity to hear Rep. Lynch explain exactly how he has contributed to the Ninth District's well-being, and exactly what vision he has for the future of Iraq. Robinson's vision and views are clear. Lynch's views remain opaque. He owes the voters of the Ninth District clarity. He owes the voters of the Ninth District respect. He owes these voters two debates with Jack Robinson.

Man Down

Baseball star Cory Lidle passes away at 34 in a horrifying accident.

Love & Basketball

If Kerry Healey beats Deval Patrick to become the new governor of Massachusetts on November 7, the pundits will suggest that Patrick's "lack of electability" cost him the election, and that the Democrats probably should have considered backing Chris Gabrieli instead of Patrick. This would mirror something that occurred in the 2000 Presidential contest, when Democrats backed an ultimately unelectable Al Gore instead of a more personable rival.

Six years ago, former basketball star and New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley challenged Gore for the Democrat Presidential nomination. Bradley combined solid liberalism (for example, he seemed to be an even stronger supporter of affirmative action than Gore) with a folksy, down-home appeal that would have allowed him to hold his down in the personality department against George W. Bush. Michael Jordan famously endorsed Bradley, and a good argument could be made that if the Democrats had also endorsed him, the 2000 election might have had a different result.

Instead, the Democrats backed the far more divisive, far less personable Gore, and ended up losing the White House. The Democrats ignored the fact that Gore was permanently tainted by the Clinton scandals and was thus profoundly unappealing to voters who disapproved of the 42nd President's behavior (much like the situation that faced Gerald Ford in 1976). They convinced themselves that Gore would roll right over Bush--and were stunned when Bush rolled right over Gore.

We could look back a month from now and say that Chris Gabrieli was the Bill
Bradley of the 2006 governor's race--a solid liberal whose personality made him a non-divisive figure. Never tainted by scandal, Gabrieli probably would not have found himself in the situation currently facing Patrick, whose past actions as a defense attorney and as head of the Civil Rights Division of the Clinton Justice Department have now become significant liabilities.

Bradley's attributes could have helped him defeat Bush and bring the Presidential
championship back to the Democrats. Instead, the party benched Bradley, put Gore on the court, and watched in horror as Bush beat him in the finals. Last month, the Democrats traded Gabrieli for Patrick, and celebrated their new player's performance in the first half of the championship game. Now, however, it's halftime, with the third quarter about to start--and Healey's abilities as a clutch player cannot be underestimated.

If Healey ends up winning the gubernatorial trophy for the Republicans, will Patrick's supporters admit that he was ultimately the most overrated athlete in the league?

When You're Smiling

The New York Times profiles left-wing talk radio star Tavis Smiley. While I disagree with Smiley politically, I've always felt that if Air America had built their network around him instead of Al Franken, they might have had more success.

TUNED IN

Yet another parallel to be found between the 2000 Bush-Gore Presidential contest and the 2006 Healey-Patrick Massachusetts gubernatorial race: the role of the electronic media in destroying stereotypes about the Republican candidate.

In September 2000, George W. Bush made a now-famous appearance on Oprah
Winfrey's television show. The program showed Bush as relaxed, intelligent, and personable, a sharp contrast to the ignorant, boorish frat boy persona created for him by the Democrats. Chris Rock would later joke that the interview got Bush elected, because once Americans saw the show, they could no longer accept the notion that Bush was unintelligent.

Similarly, Kerry Healey's frequent appearances on Boston-area talk radio help to erode the aloof, out-of-touch image foisted upon Healey by the left. Healey's interviews on WRKO-AM and WTKK-FM reveal her to be highly intelligent, genial and confident--the polar opposite of the Democrat perception of her as the woman who stood silently behind Mitt Romney for four years. Healey comes across as an independent thinker, a woman of reason and principle, and a candidate committed to the continued improvement of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts--in short, nothing like the Blue Mass. Group caricature of her.

Just as Oprah clearly played a role in Bush's win, talk radio will be a major factor in a Healey win. Massachusetts Democrat party chair Philip Johnston has already acknowledged the influence that talk radio has on politics in Massachusetts. If Healey defeats Patrick on November 7, that influence will be felt again.

CARD GAME

Another similarity between the 2006 Kerry Healey-Deval Patrick Massachusetts governor's race and the 2000 George Bush-Al Gore Presidential election: the attempt by the left in each case to brand the Republican candidate a racist in an attempt to maximize black Democrat turnout.

In 2000, the unofficially pro-Democrat NAACP ran an ad attacking George W. Bush for refusing to back a "hate-crimes" law while governor of Texas. The implication was that Bush refused to support a "hate-crimes" law because he harbored barely concealed contempt for African-Americans (the NAACP evidently believed that no one could have a philosophical opposition to the concept of prosecuting violent crimes differently based on motivation). The commercial played a crucial role in increasing black voter turnout for Al Gore; partially as a result of the ad, Bush yielded only eight percent of the black vote on November 7, 2000.

Just as the NAACP smeared Bush as a closet racist bigot six years ago, so too did Massachusetts Democrat Party chairman Philip Johnston attack Kerry Healey as a reactionary last month. While Johnston later backed away from his remarks, the Healey-is-a-bigot theme has returned with a vengeance, as Healey has been accused of playing upon racial fears by criticizing Patrick's past work as a criminal defense attorney. The argument, of course, is completely nonsensical--but that hasn't stopped progressives from making it.

The anti-Healey attack is different from the anti-Bush attack in one significant way: back in 2000, the Democrats weren't really concerned about black voters "jumping ship" to support Bush, as they were confident that Gore, as the close ally of Bill "First Black President" Clinton, would receive tremendous black support (the purpose of the NAACP ad was merely to ensure as much black Democrat turnout as possible, to offset the expected large pro-Bush turnout). This time around, the Democrats are concerned that, despite supposedly solid black support for Patrick, some blacks will not vote for him because they disagree with his positions on issues such as same-sex marriage. Thus, there are two purposes to the current Healey-bashing--increasing anti-Healey sentiment among blacks, and intimidating blacks who don't support Patrick into voting for him. The hidden intent of this current anti-Healey attack is clear: make it evident to those blacks who don't support Patrick's left-wing ideology that, if they vote for Healey instead of him, they will be ostracized and demonized as "Uncle Toms."

It's a clever, though sick, strategy. Will it work? Here's hoping it doesn't.

UPDATE: More evidence that hardcore anti-Mitt Romney sentiment is motivating supporters of Patrick. Plus, Jeff Jacoby on Patrick vs. Healey.

Security Violation

North Korea goes nuclear. (How much do you want to bet that certain figures on the left will suggest that this is some sort of "October Surprise" to help the GOP?)