Mark Fisher Gets Shout Down Instead of Shout-Out

Like the old man in Moonstruck, "I'm confused." Not only did I get sucked into a winger radio show embedded in a RedMassGroup diary, but here I pass it along.

You can go to The Kuhner Report page for the audio show. You can catch it on Red Mass Group, replete with sniping comments from its readers. It is over 40 minutes of fast-paced accusations, counter-accusations, bluster, innuendo, and calumny.

H/T to RMG's Rob Eno. I had never heard Kuhner's show and would have been unaware of this high theater had Eno not featured it.

Guest for Jeff Kuhner's show yesterday was Mark Fisher, the Tea Party GOP candidate for MA governor. As he was when he joined Left Ahead, he started and remained calm and rational throughout the show. In stark contrast, a couple of caller- in said he was a liar, that he misrepresented him involvement in the GOP, and worse.

The gist of Fisher's contentions includes that a couple GOP Poobahs and moneyed types asked him to drop out of the gubernatorial race, giving nearly certain nominee Charlie Baker a clear field with no primary. In return, Fisher said, he would get a shot at a more winnable office, plus funding toward such a race.  He named the Grand Poobahs in the show.

There have been he-says/he-says disagreements on who offered whom what when. To us with clean hands, those seem like quibbles. Some Baker folk may imply Fisher tried to extort up to $1 million from the party bigs to get out. Fisher's competing implication is that they wanted to bribe him.

Regardless, the consensus among GOP functionaries seems to be avoiding the primary is essential for Baker's November victory. As an aside, I'm with various righties and lefties thinking a primary can only strengthen Baker's hand, particularly with unenrolled voters.

The lowest ring of his Kuhner-show hell featured Boston Herald columnist and GOP consultant Holly Robichaud. She is the show.

Robichaud plays the drama queen and is even worse than Chris Matthews and at least as bad as Bill O'Reilly in screaming, in shouting down other speakers, in raw, abrasive emotion in lieu of logic. She is unbelievable in multiple senses of that term.

Her basic refutation of Fisher relies entirely on ad hominem ploys. Again and again, she screams that she knows this or that person Fisher says was involved in proposing the deal. She knows, she just knows (without evidence) that what he said is impossible. She was as far as possible from demonstrating anything in her QED. She just knows, like a parent who just knows her son would never steal a car.

The show fascinates me. There's the circled-wagons aspect. There's the crazed shouting lady, bordering on sociopathy.  Mostly there's the raised curtain revealing the motley GOP crew backstage.

---

---

Fully Baked Charlie Baker on Gay Folk

There's a disarming, charming big-lug quality to Charlie Baker, candidate for MA Gov. You see him, as well as his brother Alex mirroring him, in the new ad off his campaign site.

Click below for a worthwhile two minutes. It's not going to make you cry or touch you deeply. Both guys are stiff, but hell, they're from New England. Yet, regardless of what you think of Charlie, you are likely to feel more positive about him...unless you hate and disrespect gay folk.

The head on his site page featuring the video is Charlie Releases New Video, "Brothers" To Mark 10 Year Anniversary Of Marriage Equality. That shows at least a bit of guts for an otherwise personally timid Charlie. It has not been news to Charlie that Alex is gay for quite some time. Alex married a man 10 years ago when MA was just gearing up for same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless, even in blue MA where SSM has been the law of the land for a decade, being openly LGBT friendly takes a bit of courage for a Republican. After all, the official state GOP platform claims on the one hand to " reject all forms of discrimination, intolerance and exploitation" and right below that " We believe the institution of traditional marriage strengthens our society." That passive-aggressive crap is just barely shy of overt anti-gay lingo.

So Charlie lets the exchange with Alex humanize him, in a big-lug, fraternal way. The arch conservatives and anti-homosexual types weren't going to vote for him anyway. As a political ploy, this can only help, In particular, unenrolled voters and wishy-washy Dems, particularly those who buy into the fantasy that we just have to have a Republican governor to keep balance in our government, are likely to feel good about the socially liberal Baker. That puts him in the mold of his mentor and former boss, GOP Gov. Bill Weld. That's good company around here.

Many around here though also know that the state house is full of registered Democratic legislators who are fiscally conservative, may also be somewhat socially conservative, and really were they honest and not afraid of losing their seats would swap registration to Republican. I've long held that most Republican pols in MA are Dems.

This ad can only help Baker get more undecided voters liking him. Nicely done at low risk, Charlie.

---

---

I Have a Wing to Pick With You

Ed. Ed. Ed, and some more Ed. Broom the vanity and ego aside to get to a vignette from MSNBC's The Ed Show. There, the former right-wing talker but a left-wing talker for the past 16 years, Ed (of course) Schultz did his usual short segment Ask Ed (of course) Live.

That evening, his tweeted query was why didn't more conservatives appear there. He answered simply and disdainfully that he asked them and would welcome them, but they didn't want to. He figured they figured doing so would not help them get elected.

While I nod to Occam's razor, I don't worship the idea that the simplest explanation according to the known facts settles everything. I muse on why so few Republicans and other self-identified conservatives will talk with me at the weekly Left Ahead show.

It's been running for seven years. From the beginning, some weeks the founders — Lynne Lupien, Ryan Adams and I (Mike Ball) — sometimes like to cover topics ourselves. We'll all highly opinionated. About every other week, there's a guest.

Lynne long ago dropped out, pleading business busyness. I generally arrange and book most guests. A few contact me, but typically I call, email or meet potential guests. Often it's a deal to dicker on a day and time, even though we long ago picked a default that works for many, Tuesday at 2:30 PM. Few pols in particularly are solidly committed then.

We also make it pretty painless. We use BlogTalkRadio, so guests don't have to travel or give us an office space to record the show. For what used to be an hour and is now a half hour, they just call in and I manage the connections by computer and the tubes.

Moreover, we're probably too nice. We don't book multiple guests, don't bring on tit-for-tat adversaries to sensationalize or conflict. We don't try to trick anyone or spring accusations. We like to get to the big ideas and help the guest develop them on air. A few listeners used to on-line bullies on winger radio, or the Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews shouters are disappointed that we don't badger guests.

Are Wingers Gutless?

Scan the Left Ahead archives to notice a few things. First, the topics and guests are mostly politics and politicians. Second, many big ideas are subjects. Third, many of the guests are hotshots and big shots — a current or former governor, a state or U.S. Senator, and many office seekers. Fourth, there are damned few conservatives.

That latter is not from my want of effort. Some smart, fun and provocative ones included the very conservative MA pol Karyn Polito and the now late economics and transit guru William Lind. My politics differed markedly from those two's. Yet I think we brought out good stuff. Lind in particular could not have been farther from my political views, all except for transit-oriented development and mass transit. We had met at the Rail-Volution 2009 conference in Boston and bonded over our overlaps.

In many ways, Polito was the outlier for me. She spoke with me, took my card, checked the site and said, sure, she'd talk with us in her run for MA Treasurer/Receiver General. That was not at all hard, but she is quite the exception.

Virtually all the other right-leaning potential guests I meet or contact seem terrified or at least disinterested. So, I ask myself, are they cowards or is it like Schultz said, that they don't see the upside?

This has been happening again in this election cycle, which includes MA Governor. Scan the archives again and see every gubernatorial candidate, except the presumptive GOP nominee, Charlie Baker. That includes all five Dems, the several independents or political affiliation candidates and and the other Republican, self-defined full-MA-GOP platform, Tea Party candidate Mark Fisher.

I can't quite figure out whether :

• Baker has no guts
• His campaign staff has no guts
• His staff's cost/benefit analysis doesn't see the ROI on an internet radio show
• He or his staff thinks he's too important to be bothered

Bad Manners

Having spent much of my childhood in more genteel parts of the country, I can still be surprised by the poor breeding of Bostonians and New Englanders. For example, when they do not return phone calls or emails, I have to wonder, who are their people? Were they raised by wolverines?

Baker's camp has been the worst, in both of his staggers toward the governorship. I have gotten fewer than one response to multiple voice and email requests to Baker and his campaign manager,

You can amuse yourself by calling the Baker campaign number, (617) 254-2014.There's no human and no option to speak to one...ever. You can dump your request into a voice box or punch in by last name. The communications director, Tim Buckley, does not communicate and is not even in the directory. The campaign manager, Jim Conroy, does not communicate but is in the directory. There's a slush email box, info@charliebaker2014.com and the other's is conroy@charliebaker2014.com.

Conroy has ignored 11 voice or email requests. Because Buckley hides from ordinary mortals, the closest I could get was Facebook and requests through that info box, where he ignored an FB friend request and two direct messages.

Again,who are their people? Didn't they have mothers or someone to act like a mother?

The gormless Baker-camp non-reactions are particularly noteworthy and amusing in light of Fisher's prompt and warm response. He and I could hardly differ more politically, but we had a good chat. Moreover, he clearly was raised well.

Fear of Lefties

A previous failure of booking seems to blend all the possible causes. I had Jennifer Nassour in hand, only to lose her. She chaired the MA GOP from Jan. 2009 through Sep. 2011.

I spoke with her at two political Rappaport presentations at Suffolk Law, in early 2009 and early 2011. At both, she pressed her card into my hand and told me how much she wanted to be a Left Ahead guest. She punked on both.

Most telling here is her mortal sin, in GOP eyes. She was candid.

In the April 1 (yes, that day), 2009 issue of Bay Windows, she spoke about the new Republican party here, particularly how they wouldn't be guilt tripping on marriage equality, gay rights and abortion. Honk. Wrong.

She got months of pitchfork poking from the most conservative party members and the nasty MassResistance guy, Brian Camenker pretending to be a real movement. The gist seems to be not only should she not have said the party would stop its hateful rhetoric to bring in unenrolled and socially liberal GOP voters, but she should never have even spoken with LGBT-friendly media.

Since her time, the newest MA GOP chair, Kirsten Hughes, won't respond to repeated contacts.

Well,our show hides nothing. It's there in the Left Ahead name. We're reasonable and nice but we don't pretend to be anything else.

I've lost count of the potential guests who have heard the name on a phone line or seen my card and stopped dead. "Left...Ahead...are you left wing?" is the typical shocked question.

Nothing that progressives and liberals speak with anyone, and that we are antithetical to right-wing talk radio's bullying tactics doesn't cut it. Far too many conservatives seem terrified at speaking with "left" anything. Pathetic.

Lefty Anomaly

To smooth the edges and risk being simple-mindedly even handed, I'll admit that there's one left winger's crew who is afraid of me.

Following the initial show with Elizabeth Warren, her handlers seem winger gutless. They won't return my calls or emails either. Once burned, 1000 times shy.

I was blessed or cursed with being early to the Warren extravaganza, in Oct. 2011, right after she announced for US Senate, she spoke with us. It was genial, particularly as she and I are the same age, and both born in OK.

We had a jolly time, including an exchange in which I noted that with my OK/WV background, I have heard repeatedlyfrom the provincials in Boston that I am a hick. Moreover, the local wingers had railed against her as a 17-year Harvard professor, a.k.a an elitist. She laughed, saying she was new class, an elite hick. She said something about going for the hick vote. We laughed.

Well, the plug nasties were loaded for her, just waiting. Our show was just the first Warren-hunting expedition.

The next morning, I got a call and email from her communications guy, asking if I knew of the s**t storm. Turns out, the forces of evil had tried to run with that innocuous bit of humor. Suddenly everyone from FoxNews to winger talk radio and even the likes of ABC TV and the NYTimes portrayed her as ridiculing rural America.

Of course, she didn't say anything like that. However, the imps had been lying in wait for something they could use.

In our show, she said maybe there should be a group hicks for Elizabeth. Again we laughed. I actually made some buttons (reproduced here). My wife and I, from hick backgrounds, wore them. People asked for them and I produced more. I showed her one at Boston Mayor Tom Menino's block party the next July She alleged to love it. I sent her one, but given the crap she got for moments of humor, she most assuredly tossed it.

At that party, one of her staffers, a ziftig woman actually pushed me. She muttered something about how I'd better not try to pull any tricks and insinuated that I and not the forces of right-wing evil has caused the early dust-up.

Meh.

The sad aspect is that Warren's people have not responded to several show requests since. I'll try again, likely by being at one of her public events and squirreling up with her. After all, she adores my yellow glasses.

Of course the hick-vote fad disappeared months later, to be replaced by the Native-American one. Those gunning for Warren picked up her listing herself in a faculty directory as having Cherokee roots. They manufactured a fantasy that she had only gotten jobs at Pennsylvania and Harvard as a result. They morphed that with calls for her to release every academic job application she has ever made, much in the mode of birthers demanding President Barack Obama's short-form, then long-form birth certificate, and subsequently his college applications and transcripts. Pathetic. As with the President, the crazies won't let go of their silly slanders.

Common Senselessness

So there it is, kiddies. There are many variations on guest-interview shows. You might:

• Be typical right-wing radio, badgering lefty guests and licking the hands of your own type
• Play grade-school magazine, bringing on a balance of left and right wingers for mush
• Let the guest shine, like Dave Leno or, dare I write, Left Ahead

There are others, but we are definitely in the latter category. So I still have to wonder why so many conservative sorts fear us.

Over the years, many right wingers have passed on coming on Left Ahead. Granted, we do not have prime-time TV or even cable reach. A small show for us gets hundreds of listeners and a big one 10,000. Those are far more than a pol talks to in a typical stump speech, plus anyone who listens live or clicks the archive play is committing to half an hour of dedicated ear time. If I were a candidate for any office, I'd chat with as many shows as would have me.

I note that the progressive and liberal pols have no problem going on hostile right-wing shows. Yet it seems rare that Republicans and self-described conservative types mirror that. Maybe I shouldn't advise them, but righties would be smart to go on pinko shows.

MA GOP niggling and wiggling

You'd think from experience the utter disingenuous John Boehner or R.M. Nixon or even hearing the testimony of a sneaky what-your-definition-of-is-is W.J. Clinton that even arrogant New Englanders would sense their limits. Instead the MA GOP spits in the faces of one of their candidates, their convention delegates, the larger party and voters.

The self-created disgrace continues. For the latest on the filthy deals at the convention, see today's Globe piece. I've also been one of many who's covered this, like here.

The point is this is not going away. The GOP functionaries can continue to wave their hands, but that changes nothing. This actually is simple.

• Certain GOP gubernatorial nominee Charlie Baker didn't blow out the convention.

• Also-ran Mark Fisher, the proud Tea Party, full-platform Republican, squeaked out a little over 15% of the convention delegate vote, as required to force a primary. 

• Done and done? Big no. See the Globe piece for details on how the party snuck behind everyone to deny reality. 

The punchline is my standard from my favorite philosopher/comic/junkie Lenny Bruce — There is only what is and that's it. What should be is a dirty lie.

The local GOPpers instead try the same crap you can hear at a country club bar or a Dorchester pub. Lie loudly and repeatedly, daring more honest and honorable folk to challenge you.

The Party doesn't want their party inconvenienced. They appear to have it in mind that an uncontested primary is their best bet for winning a statewide office in who can remember how long. To make that happen, they have fudged and cheated and scammed. Honk. Wrong!

Regular readers here know that Fisher and I differ vastly politically. I like him and trust him though. He's a straight-ahead, Boy Scout kind of guy, as am I. Understandably, he's suing to get what he earned — a shot at losing to Baker in a party primary...fair and square.

I remain to be convinced that uncontested primaries are an absolute good. A lot of research questions that as well. Moreover, it's wrong, really immoral, to clear the field against the party procedures and rules, just because. Some of the party insiders, notably Executive Director Rob Cunningham, are even denigrating Fisher's call to obey their own counting rules as irrelevant.

The MA GOP has long specialized in patronizing and insulting the majority of our voters, a.k.a. the unenrolled. This year, they seem intent on telling their own to buzz off. If enough party members are as delusional, that may well work. I'm betting though that Fisher's suit calling for obeying the rules will make that moot.

Alas, this was so simple. I think of the non-stop lunacy of the national GOP on the Affordable Care Act. All that was necessary was honesty; say thank God that the Dems came around to the Republican plan for health-care and implemented it; we win! Instead, they appear to be what they are, obstreperous asses.

Likewise, in Boston, the MA GOP need only have praised themselves for their open democracy and model convention. Instead, they reveal they are liars, sneaks and frauds.  How simple victory could have been.

By the bye, if you ever need confirmation of how sneaky they are, go to the party site. They don't cover anything meaningful. They never have controversial issues. They are months behind the times. They don't even post the approved party platform. They lack both courage and wisdom. You can thrive with only one of those but not without at least one.

Baker's Free Ride or Free Fall

It wasn't a clean and definitive win for Charlie Baker. Yet as far as the MA GOP bigs are concerned, he cleared the field of his single primary opponent, Mark Fisher.

A few more days may pass until we're positive that, unlike the Dems, the GOP'ers will have an uncontested race at the very top of the ticket. The debate includes how real the 14.765% of yesterday's convention ballot was. Fisher needs 15% to get on the primary ballot.

Complicating it is that the rules say blank ballots don't count. The party tabulators did instead tally 64 blanks, knocking Fisher down below 15% (as in Baker at 2,095 to Fisher at 394 and Fisher at 15.829 without blanks).

Fisher and I had a good chat at Left Ahead last week. I'll stick in his half-hour show below. He also graciously called me before the convention to thank me for being reasonable and respectful to him, as he was to me despite our political disparities. I can't run a Baker show; neither his campaign manager nor his communications director has responded to numerous requests.

Today, Fisher's FB feed includes:

Dear Friends,Thank you for your support over the last 5 months. I am currently speaking with lawyers about being jobbed out by Kirsten Hughes at the Massachusetts Republican Party "Kangaroo Convention". There were improprieties in the counting of the 'blank' vote that occurred which were not allowed to be challenged and no re-count was allowed. I will let you know our plans in the coming days.

He certainly has every right to feel cheated and to fight.

I don't know anyone who thinks Fisher would win a primary election against Baker. Yet we simple folk who took civics classes cling stubbornly to rudimentary concepts of democracy and fairness.

Conventional wisdom on this is that an uncontested primary is far better for the candidate than spending money and energy before a general election, all the while getting prodded and exposed by another party member.

Today's Globe has a pretty good piece on the convention results. They include a contrarian of moment, former Gov. Bill Weld, among the several saying how great it will be for Baker if he goes unprimaried. Weld says a Fisher challenge would help Baker interest unenrolled voters. As we all note here in MA, with 53% of voters unenrolled, that is where elections are won.

For analysis of uncontested MA primaries, you can try your own tabulation. Instead, look at the stats compiled and analyzed over at the Mass. Numbers blog. Over there in Nov. 2012, Bret Benson admitted the samples are small and Dems rarely have top seats without primaries. However, he concludes that most times, it works solidly in the GOP's advantage to clear the field for governor.

I note and admire the relentless optimism of the MA GOP leaders. I've heard the shouts of the party chairs from the carousel that seems to spin them off so quickly. This election will be different, like Weld or Mitt Romney and such. This is the right candidate at the right time. Then again, they insisted that when Baker went against Deval Patrick.

They would be foolish to turn down real or perceived advantages. Moreover, we have a long if irrational history here of the unenrolled claiming that voting for Republican governors to keep a check on the monolithic Dems. The wide disparity from one Dem legislator to another is plenty of restraint, more than a single chief executive could impose.

So it comes down to Baker. He's trimmed down and comes across a lot more human than in his last run. It may be long enough from his slash-and-burn at Harvard Pilgrim and his Big Dig associations that he can run pretty clean.

We in MA also are quite forgiving and don't burn an L for loser in the foreheads of unsuccessful politicians. Two or three goes at a high office are OK around here. Baker too has the plus of two full terms of a Dem governor. Those many voters who like that fairy tale of the magic of balance only a GOP can bring will certainly want a change on that alone.

Instead, I like the agon, when a governorship or presidency is the prize. Surprisingly, I find myself on Weld's side here. Whoever ends up as the Dem candidate will emerge well defined and with clear positions and personality traits for voters to see. For the other side, wouldn't it be swell to have the same?

Monday Followup: The Globe reports that Fisher remains unhappy at the appearance of a fix being in on the count and rules. MA GOP bigs deny both. I call with Baker the sure winner of a primary, the party should have let Fisher have a go, pretended they were honest and honorable, and not alienated unenrolled and GOP voters.


Update: Autoplay on Blogger started this regardless of settings. That's annoying. I removed the embedded player. Instead, click here to listen.

Indy McCormick Goes for MA Gov.

Cross-post note: This first appeared at BlueMassGroup.

Following a recent post here linking to chats with three Dem candidates for MA governor, a comment asked about the independents. The first Left Ahead did was today with Jeff McCormick.

Click at the player on the bottom to hear the half hour with him. In addition, he recently appeared at Suffolk Law's Rappaport Center roundtable. His 13-minute self-intro there appears as a video on Suffolk's site here.

My diary draws on both his chat today and on the roundtable.

Not Mitt

First, there are bound to be the obvious comparisons with Willard Mitt Romney. McCormick too has been very successful in MA as a venture capitalist (21 years with his Saturn Partners). 

Very much unlike Romney, he grew up blue-collar in upstate NY, to college on scholarships, and did not have a rich, politically and corporate connected father. He claims to have arrived in Boston with $800 to make his fortune, which he did. Unlike Romney, there is no delusion when he says he's self-made.

Superficially, McCormick was a lacrosse champion in HS and at Syracuse. He has a chin that could be a weapon and a great jawline. Those are important only in that they serve to reinforce his self-confidence and well-thought-out positions. I never for a moment felt he was jiving me.

Voters and donors have not been kind to independent gubernatorial candidates here. The few original governors came to office before parties, but maybe only Henry Gardner in 1855 fit the category. Although, as part of the Know-Nothing Movement, he was sort of in a party and managed to beat a popular Whig by a landside.

At the moment, McCormick figures he can appeal to enough voters, particularly the 53% of unenrolled ones. He seems to think it might not be as hard as some of his professional accomplishments. When asked about whether he's hitting the public meetings and diners, he's in his element. "I'm really comfortable in diners, much more than in ballrooms," he said. "I can relate to just about anyone."

Jobs and Jobs

His stump speech starts with asking voters to associate his campaign with Jeff for Jobs. As background, he cites such VC successes as Boston Duck Tours, Twin Rivers Technologies, and Constant Contact. 

He honesty figures he can make a culture change on Beacon Hill to bring some of that mindset. He thinks he can do a reset there. "We need to teach people to get out of their comfort zone," he stated with great confidence in his ability to do so.

He claims to be part of team in his VC career and said, "No one is voting for a CEO." Instead, he wants the legislators and administration to do the kind of problem solving he favors. He cites ME's US Sen. Angus King as saying when people see you are solving problems, they want to join you and that’s an easier way to govern. 

He offers a familiar and well articulated outline for job growth. He does rely on some accepted but un-implemented ideas, such as no dumb taxes on technology when you want that sector to grow, having an easy flow from high school into voc-tech or community colleges or four-year schools making sure people are learning for jobs that will be there when they finish. Listen in and check is campaign site for specifics.

He needs to be a little careful in his frequent use of business clichés. At Suffolk, for one example, he spoke of opening the kimono for sharing proprietary information. On the other hand, he is on solid ground, particularly in a sports-loving area alluding to Wayne Gretzky's comment on his icy success as being able to skate not to where the puck is but rather where it will be. McCormick sees his jobs proposals as doing that for workers and future workers here.

Why and How

We did deal today as he did last week at Suffolk with some of the very obvious areas. For one, why walk away from his highly profitable VC biz? Another is how to deal with a long boat of Dems, plus several Republicans and likely more independents.

For the why, I don't know how many millions he has, but I'm sure he could coast on that forever; likewise I'm sure that is not in his nature to coast at all. Instead, he readily agrees he'd take a huge economic hit to be governor, but that the challenges would be likely more than he has faced and he'd look forward to them.

He is confident enough in his approach and ideas that he thinks they can hold sway in the campaign. He figures there will be a shakeout (my term) as the campaign progresses. Then, "when everyone knows us equally well," he'll stand out as the right choice.

Update: Autoplay on Blogger started this regardless of settings. That's annoying. I removed the embedded player. Instead, click here to listen.  

Baker Only Player on MA GOP Bench

Lord love a duck, was it only three years ago that Mass Republicans' great wide hope, Charlie Baker, went down grimacing to Gov. Deval Patrick? He's back and big and bland as ever.

You can see his ho-hum announcement on the front of his new campaign site. At there moment, there's no other content accessible, short of signing up for his mailing list or giving him money.

The key concept here is that his only real hope of winning the open office will be voter delusion. The MA electorate loves its fantasy that putting Republicans into that office somehow is the smart thing to do, avoiding one-party rule and such.  Those who vote that way often say something like, "It's only common sense." Yet, that invariably means, "I got nothing. I'll make wild assertions and I don't want to be challenged or prove anything."

In MA reality, over half the electorate is unenrolled. The other 48% divvy up 36%-plus for Dems and 11%-plus for Republicans. Within both the unenrolled and Dems are substantial numbers of socially and fiscally conservative voters. I have long contended that this shadow Republican party is the base that the opposition needs to rally, where they need to pluck and groom their candidates from. That would apparently take more smarts, guts and energy than the GOP has here.

Amusingly, blogs around here, including the Red and the Blue Mass Groups, already carry Baker barkers claiming he will skunk Steve Grossman or whoever else wins the Dem primary. Some shills advance the very false idea that in the 2010 election, Baker would have beaten Patrick if Dem-turned-unenrolled Tim Cahill would not have run. That assumes Cahill's 8% of the vote would have gone entirely to Baker — a risible fantasy, when in fact Cahill bled Patrick votes from both Dem and unenrolled voters.

As outgoing MA Dem party chair John Walsh clears his desk, he also clears his throat and ridicules Baker's bluster. Moreover, sites like BigDigBaker.com and ProgressiveMass' list of 13 things Baker would like voters to forget they know about him are not being subtle about the candidates failures, shames and duplicity. If those seem like showing your hand and telling the opposition what's coming, it's no surprise to either side. Voters will have to delude themselves to smear the oval for Jolly Cholly.

Gov. is Baker's to Lose Again

Saddle up your swayback horses with cliché tack. The MA governor's race will be the wheezing GOP-for-balance one.

Lordy, that's tired and stupid!

Do-nothing state rep and senator, then fizzling firecracker fill-in US Senator Scott Brown said he would not run for MA governor next year. At least this time he seems to have finally learned not to jerk his party around until it was too late for other candidates to raise money.

That likely was a race he might have won. He hasn't failed at this race. His probable Dem opponent, Steve Grossman or a slimmer chance of Juliette Kayyem, face the dual disadvantages of that one-party paranoia and less celebrity glow.

The badly aging former teen model suffers from his own dual problems brought by ego and vanity. Someone he trusts needs to alert him to the reality that he is already making more money than he deserves to and that his occasional appearances on TV and in other media let him pretend to be wise and observant — traits he has never shown. He can play that online and on air without challenge.

Now the empty-bench MA GOP turns over in their political bed back to their old companion, Charles D. Baker Jr. Supposition, already in the Boston tabloid, is that the nomination for next year's race is his already.

 I have to agree that's almost certain.

Oddly, there may be other, better candidates, but they are hiding as Dems. The fairy tale here is that progressive, very left Dems dominate the politics, indeed the whole world of the Bay State.

If you are simpleminded and literal enough, sure, you can make that case. Both houses of the legislature are rife with Dems and have only a few Republicans. You can point to an over 3-to-1 party enrollment among voters as well.

Yet, numbers as well as even cursory analysis show a different reality. Consider that party registration is 35.7% Dem and 11.1% GOP, with a half percent Green-Rainbow and political designations (not officially parties but still a voter registration choice). Wait, you say, that's less than half. Sure enough, over half the MA voters do not choose a party — 52.6%.

The unenrolled as the official term has it regularly vote Democratic Party but have their pretense. They love literally to shout at polling places that they are "not unenrolled. I"m independent!" It's sort of silly but not too bad as adult foibles go. I've written on this before.

---

The One-Party Game

---

The game we play here is pin the governor on the statehouse. We've had up to 18 running years with Republican governors, while we vote solidly for Dem presidential candidates and keep that Dem balance on Beacon Hill otherwise.

The unproven, unprovable fantasy is that if we have a one-party system both legislative and executive branches, something terrible will happen. Specifically, voters across parties are wont to tell pollsters that Dems will ride the state with their spurs digging in, implementing all manner of extreme left-wing laws and expenditures. Voters are apt to chant, "It's only common sense."

That phrase is a verbal and political tic. Almost invariably that and "let's not reinvent the wheel" mean "I got nothing. I'm about to make wild, unsupported assertions and don't expect to have to justify them."

Back to reality, both major parties here are full of moderates and wishy-washy liberals. A few Republican legislators over the years have been nutty anti-choice types and such, but not many.Moreover, former Gov. Willard Mitt Romney constantly had to dance around his leadership in implementing universal health care for us while he was in office, arguably the most liberal act of any MA gov.

I contend that most Republican voters hide in the unenrolled ranks. Likewise, I contend that most Republican legislators hide as Democrats. There's general truth to the idea that except for governor or legislature from very conservative districts, you need a D next to your name for election.

That written, Left Ahead co-host Ryan Adams and I are among the legion lefties who want a more vibrant MA GOP. We end up speaking in political and economic code here instead of having substantial discourse and debate, both in campaigns and in the statehouse.

---

Guts, Anyone?

---

Lackaday, we seem to have a courage deficit here. Many Dem pols are willing to say they are fiscally or socially conservative but none switches to the GOP. For the Republicans, I can't even get a state party chair to chat it up with us on Left Ahead.

I had hopes for Jennifer Nassour. Three times when we met, she said how much she looked forward to coming on the show. Twice she asked for my card, took it and swore she'd make it happen. She never returned calls or email afterward.

Now I've tried the current one, Kristen Hughes. As close as I've gotten was to her scheduler guy. I called repeatedly to get him. I admit it was amusing when he heard the name of the show and asked whether we were left-wing. I told him both Ryan and I were progressive sorts, but that we let guests speak their piece without badgering them, pulling out surprise adversaries or using trick questions. He swore he'd get back with me but never has. No guts, those elephants.

I'd very much like to ask Hughes what chance she has of flipping conservative voters from unenrolled and conservative pols from Democratic.  I do see that as the positive future of the GOP here. Then again, that would require both insight and courage.

He Spits on the Popular Guy

Putting the gab in Gabriel, that Gomez clown has been doing the winger whinger thing. He is shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that Democrats are openly supporting Democratic candidate for US Senate Ed Markey. Can you imagine?

WTF, Republicans? Day follows night.

Reading and hearing his non-stop petulance, I see the parallel with such lunacy as anti-gay MassResistance spewing about and wanting a boycott of the corporate sponsors of Boston's Gay Pride week and events. Year after year, twisted little Brian and Amy (the army-ette of two) revealed the shocking, shocking I tell you, truth that Pride had a huge list of sponsors.

Apparently, this was to elicit outrage among us far morally superior to libertarians, queers, Unitarians and other scum. We were supposed to see the long and getting longer list of corporate and governmental sponsors and produce steam from our ears, grab our checkbooks to write checks to MR, and boycott these dreadful enablers.

From my distance, I couldn't help but see it otherwise. The sponsor list was a catalog of America, like the city of Boston, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Bank of America, Apple, Verizon, and a huge cross-section of hotel chains, supermarkets and on and on and on. In fact MR got its shaming list from the Pride brochures and any current year's sponsor list will show similar political and corporate power.

This allegation was that this was an anomaly that people could correct with protests and economic sanctions. Somehow, the clueless couple has yet to see that their publicizing the kissy-face support of LGBT celebrations carries a very, very different import.

What shame?

The real message has been for well over a decade that the world has moved beyond anti-gay paranoia and silliness. The wide and deep list of companies and agencies that celebrate diversity and equality indicates that those who hate gay folk are out of touch and out of tune with America and these times. Publishing the lists does not shame the sponsors at all. Instead, it makes reasonable folk ever more aware of how mainstream equality is.

Likewise with Gomez and other Republicans, complaining that two Presidents, the other US Senator from MA and dozens of Dems endorse Markey does not smear him. In contrast, the good guys like Markey, like him enough to trot to places like Boston and Worcester to say so publicly and at length.

In contrast, the best Gomez has earned has been an email from the very short-term, fill-in Senator Scott I-have-a-truck-to-haul-hay-for-my-daughters'-horses Brown. That's right, Brown couldn't even bother to endorse him at an even or on camera. (Insert snicker.)

So Gomez says repeatedly, "That Markey is so popular. Big shots endorse him. That's terrible! Vote for me!"

Instead maybe the unenrolled and even the Republicans will listen to all those effusive and specific endorsements of Obama, Clinton, Warren and on and on. Gabriel needs some friends. After he loses this race, he should have the time to find some.

No Fake Fairness for Dems

There are ways, ways and other ways to view Elizabeth Warren supporters drowning Marisa DeFranco's hopes and expectations for a US Senate primary. Yet at its base the point is that MA Dems want that seat badly enough to transcend cliché.

Many of us, including party officials were sure DeFranco would get the requisite 15% of delegates at the convention to advance. It has always been the sop handed to sincere, energetic campaigners, the thanks-for-playing prize, the C for trying.

It's like the wider electorate sending two chambers of lawmakers filled with Dems and mischievously picking a Republican governor. Large numbers of voters will provide an addle-pated justification of not giving one party all the power. Yet even cursory analysis indicates that with the RINO/DINO/moderate levels, that's crap and doesn't balance or control anything.

So yesterday, with forearm touches and sincere stares, The likes of ex-Gov. Mike Dukakis and literally thousands of Senate-starved delegates held the day on the aptly dark floor. DeFranco got about 4% of the votes and there's be no primary.

Dems chose not to reward DeFranco with the consolation prize. They chose to act with the efficacy of Republicans who did as much to Christie Mihos two years ago when he ran for governor and the elephants wanted Charlie Baker without a distracting primary.

In fact, the Mihos case better illustrated the stated fears of Dems this year, that a primary would sap resources and anger or confuse voters. He was an is much more conservative than Bib the Michelin candidate, Baker. The party regulars and independents would have a stark choice.

DeFranco is the same but different from Warren. She is more progressive, has concerns and platforms that deal  more below middle-class problems/solutions, and has concentrations like immigration reform that Warren does not. Yet their basic left values and approaches are close enough that there'd been no party splintering or turning off the unenrolled sorts.

I would have welcomed a primary. I would have loved for Warren to attend debate-like-events throughout the campaign. I have no question she was the best debater in the field, even when it was substantial.

Yet we have a direct and limited fight now. Incumbent Scott Brown v. Warren and their combined sordid, sundry funds.

Until debates begin, all indications are that Brown's side will continue to distract and lie, while Warren's will spray all with truth and sincerity. So far too, to their disgrace, the media, particularly the two real Boston dailies have manufactured issues, particularly the Cherokee-heritage one, where the Herald and Globe pretend they have substance instead of moot trivialities. I don't expect them to up their games, just to begin reacting like dogs to electronic collars when the debates put real topics in huge letters right in front of them.

Brown should not be nervous. His record is pathetic and ill serves us here in MA. He's probably hidden almost as long as he can behind made-up crap about Warren. His facade of voting against his party is based only on selected bills where his made no difference. When it came to substance, such as jobs bills, economic recovery and student loan costs, he spits and stomps on his constituents and the larger nation.

Shame on those who gave him cover for so long. The princeling is not only naked. This is not a silly magazine centerfold either. It's been governance and he's exposed in the worst ways..

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, DeFranco, Elizabeth Warren, Congress, U.S. Senate

Scott Brown Should Read His Own Stuff

Fill-in U.S. Sen. Scott Brown wants a full term, faces a challenge from a Ted Kennedy-worthy progressive, and isn't about to let logic or numbers hinder him. For the latest of his campaign spoor, check this excellent analysis at BlueMassGroup (ht to David Kravitz).

Sure, the big out-of-area PAC and superPAC bucks have not kicked in for Brown. They certainly will for him and nemesis Elizabeth Warren, even with their shaky pledge for no-negative ads, or else forced donations to charity. Both sides will have plenty of media buys to befuddle us here.

Amusingly though, Brown started with, what, $11 million in the bank or so to her nought? He seems to have assumed his incumbency, ever-wrinkling good looks, and low-brow humor would ensure he had almost all the resources.

Meanwhile though, Warren clicked with our wishy-washy liberals who dominate the electorate here, not to mention us pinkos and serious progressives. In the past quarter she outraised his contributions by over 2:1 or reported $3.4:$6.9 millions.

Again, both will have plenty under their control as well as from shadowy the other. This is not going to be a Mitt Romney I-bought-the-nomination deal.

What Brown's dishonest and even unmanly whining, per David's depiction, has produced is the evidence of obliviousness on the Senator's part. It brings clearly to mind another political set that doesn't seem to pay attention to its own blathering.

Every year, anti-LGBT ranter Brian Camenker at MassResistance gets the vapors over the ever increasing corporate and non-profit support for Boston's Gay Pride week and parade. Here's a typical post on it.

What he seems to miss here is what is obvious to folks not blinded by his prejudice. Those lists of stores, banks, manufacturers and so forth present and represent America. Those are the mainstream, accepted businesses that employ us and from whom we buy. They are us. The more his tiny group screams about and identifies the sponsors — calling for boycotts of much of American business — the more obvious it is who has won.

---

Who Loves Ya?

---

Likewise, Brown's oral, written and advertising comments point out who is cool and favored. He, who won the special election for his office with large contributions from out-of-state conservatives, financial industry machers, special-interest groups and PACs, has tried from Warren's first fund-raising report to paint her as the out-of-Massachusetts funded candidate. Not only does he still receive distant contributions, much of his campaign account is from such allegedly disgraceful sources.

Moreover, she has received considerably more in-commonwealth contributions, both in amount and number, than he. Plainly put, more MA residents like her message enough to support it over his. She is the favorite in money both inside and outside.

His drawing attention to that is like a spoiled kid claiming Mommy treats his sister better.

Here, the unenrolled, a.k.a. independent, voters are up for grabs. About a sixth of voters here are registered Republicans, but less than a third are Democrats, and over half are in the electoral ether, just waiting to be wooed to write checks and smear the ovals.

Brown still has the big club of incumbency. He also benefits from running in a state that seems loath to send a woman to Congress and has never, not once, elected a woman to the U.S. Senate. With those advantages, Warren getting more money from more local potential voters certainly does not ensure her victory.

She's still going to have to convince people who didn't know of her role in D.C. before this, those who are wary of putting a woman in the Senate, those who like Brown's aw-shucks persona, and of course the balance-the-lefties-we-elect types. That's a daunting challenge.

Fortunately for her, Brown is willing to help by repeatedly drawing attention to how much support she's already gotten, even before the Democratic convention in June. Both inside and outside MA, folks like her. He's made that very obvious. She might thank him.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, Congress, fund raising, U.S. Senate , Scott Brown , BMG 

Let Loose the Dogs of TV

Let's pace ourselves. The ads for the 2012 Senate from MA race are just kindling in competing bonfires being heaped.

State and national GOP and wingers accept the now obvious, that Elizabeth Warren will go for the seat against incumbent Scott Brown. Following the Citizens United/Super PAC/money-is-free-speech boner, this is the election where will find out how stupid and destructive that SCOTUS decision was.

Both Brown and Warren already have support from well funded and often hidden snipers. There are tons of coverage on the new, nasty reality. You can also find lots of examples, which I won't bother to embed any of here. Head to YouTube and search for strings like Scott Brown oil or Elizabeth Warren OWS to find current ones. Fresh dirt for him is here and for her here.

Disclaimer: We chatted with Warren over at Left Ahead last month and the three of us liked her both personally and for her ideas and solutions.

Let's now consider what's likely to happen with attack ads for these candidates.

First note that Brown has been in office over a year and one-half. Voters, should they bother, can look to his votes and statements, his record. Having never held elective office, Warren has the advantage/disadvantage of presenting what she would have done and would do.

The advantage here definitely looks to be hers. Brown has been a showboat from the beginning. He bragged about being in a pivotal spot, able to block or allow to pass any bill. During his tenure, legislation has been cumbersome, ineffective, and with negative effects on the economy and other big areas. Instead, he could have picked a couple key issues, as wise Senators are wont to, and led bipartisan efforts. Then he could have fairly claimed leadership and national interest — very good reasons for reelection.

She is left with his weakness and her forte, ideas. He speaks in political clichés and generalities. She likely has 20 or 30 IQ points on him, but is no Utopian or limited theoretician. She has the decided advantage of conceiving of and bringing to life the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is much needed, very appreciated, and in strong contrast to anything Brown ever did on state or national levels.

Her weakness is not that she can be aligned with some aims of OWS. Rather, she so far has spoken largely of rescuing and revivifying the American middle-class. Those folk not coincidentally are the majority of us and of voters. On the trail, she'll have to respond to other themes, such as foreign policy.

So far, the winger attacks have seemed desperate. Now there is her statement that she set the intellectual foundation that helped spawn OWS. Previously, they failed in trying to portray her banter with me on Left Ahead about being called a hick in MA as some insult to rural voters. Well, that backfired. Not only was that self-depreciating bit plain to the 10K-plus who heard the YouTube outtakes, it clearly was not what they wanted to trick people into thinking. They also drove over 1,000 so far to listen to the whole show with her, quite likely getting her new supporters. She could use more attack-ad enemies that politically clumsy.

Warren has powerful, detailed solutions to big problems. Her introduction into the race suddenly elevated the dialog beyond any ability to propose or debate that Brown so far has exhibited.

However, Brown has a predictable winger strength. He speaks in those clichés and generalities. Like Presidents Reagan and Bush the Lesser, he offers reassuring, if disingenuous, messages that don't require voters to think. For those who want guns-and-butter and everything-will-be-OK messages, Brown will be ready.

Let's also not overlook the gender factor. MA is at the bottom of states in terms of electing women to statewide office, much less sending them to the U.S. Senate.

Moreover, even here in the allegedly liberal land, STRONG + SMART + FEMALE = SCARY CANDIDATE. Her election would mean a breakthrough for the commonwealth.

As these attack ads proliferate, one factor to watch is the local v. out-of-state one. Voters here are largely provincial. As Southerners are wont to ask, "Who are your people?," Bay Staters favor those born and raised and still living in one MA town. Likewise, they are quick to ask of candidates, "How much of the campaign money is local?"

The latter is kablooey for the first time now. Following the unlimited-money thingummy, we'll see ads and cash flowing largely from out there. You can be sure the MA GOP and wingers will whinge about her support, while they will be even more guilty of the perceived sin of out-of-state funding.

Here, the slight majority of voters are unenrolled in any party. They feign independence and love being wooed. The ads will be for them.

Even flat-out lies by Warren defamers are not likely to benefit Brown with the unenrolled and undecided. The wingers, self-identified social conservatives, Republicans, and even those who demand a man in office made up their minds. If they are swayed at all, it will come from the likely outcome of debates where the empty barn coat creaks and flaps like a barn door.

What a great use of technology in a science-fiction sense if we could go about our lives while fast forwarding all the attack ads until next fall's election. At this time, I'm more delighted than ever that I watch almost no TV.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, Left Ahead, U.S. Senate, Scott Brown, Citizens United, attack ads 

Quick Kiss from Brown

Get him smelling salts. How very awkward for Sen. Scott Brown The gays like him. They really like him. (At least the small group of conservative, Republican ones do.)

Praise to Politico for being at the Log Cabin Republicans awards dinner last night. He was one of two pols getting the Spirit of Lincoln thingummy in D.C. He mumbled minimal thanks and refused to talk about LGBT issues with the press. So in a way, he was covered in case LCR members might still want to contribute to his campaign.

He did eventually vote for Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal. That was significant in that he's Republican and he's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It's your call whether MA Dems' views that he only joined in after the issue was settled is cynical or just honest (see Politico link  for quotes or the Globe coverage of Brown's LGBT record).

For that vote, Brown and Maine U.S. Sen. Susan Collins got the award. Brown also received the group's endorsement for re-election next year — not a terrific surprise as he's the sole Republican in the race.

The PR release on his award includes:

We thank Senator Brown for being on the right side of history in ending this failed policy and we are honored to present him with the Spirit of Lincoln Award. Senator Brown has proven himself to be an ally to our community whose service should be recognized, and Log Cabin Republicans are proud to call this warrior-citizen a friend.

Senator Scott Brown stated, "As I said when I voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, when a soldier answers the call to serve and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor. I would like to thank Log Cabin Republicans for this award." 

The one on the endorsement reads in part:

He has been a tremendous advocate for the people of Massachusetts and a solid ally for Log Cabin Republicans, representing the power and potential of an inclusive GOP. 

Brown grabbed his award, said little, and would not answer any Politico questions as he beat an exit. As they quote him, "I'm here talking about 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and I don't really respond to what the Democrats say. Never do." That seems along the line of, "Yes, I'll be your friend...so long as no one sees us together."

Even with the boosts of national GOP money and the terrible U.S. economy, it was very impressive for Brown to campaign well enough to grab the special election from a much better known Dem. He was an exurban state senator with an undistinguished legislative record, a who's-that? guy. Yet, he won.

Now he's clearly sweating his associations. He wants support from social conservatives and he wants it from homosexuals. He seems increasingly to alienate the Tea Party types, who remain doctrinaire. I suspect they just can't smudge the oval for him again.

Even with huge amounts of out-of-state funds from those who want to keep this symbolic seat Republican, can he appeal to enough of our 51% unenrolled voters to get a full term? I can't see his footwork being fancy enough to dance to everyone's tune.

Rampant MA Party Optimism

This week another in the remarkable Suffolk's Rappaport Center series had machers from the two major MA parties on stage. It sort of fulfilled the teaser of lessons learned from the campaign trail. There were s few insights, many laughs, and a strong promise of better battles in the works.

Big of body and voice, Dem party chair John Walsh (left) delivered the best lines, got the loudest laughs, and seemed most in touch with reality. His GOP counterpart, Jennifer Nassour (right), seemed plenty bright, reasonably candid, and buoyed by both the January Scott Brown win and a solid increase in local office and MA House seats.

Each was backed up by a major strategist. For Walsh, it was Sydney Asbury, Gov. Deval Patrick's deputy chief of staff, and a key campaign player. For Nassour, it was Robert Willington, who did strategy and web for Brown's campaign from his Swiftcurrent Strategies. He was also former exec of the MA GOP.

The hour-plus was refreshingly candid, if fairly shallow. The two moderators,reporters Scott Helman from the Globe and Alison King from NECN, kind of got in the way. They had a few idées fixe, which they kept revisiting, and sometimes seemed shills for the GOP. In the main though, Walsh and Nassour carried the session back to meaningful comments.

Flensed to the skeleton, the session dig get down to the apparent contradiction. How could a Republican snatch Ted Kennedy's seat in January and then the GOP lose all statewide elections 10 months later?

Walsh was plain about the Brown victory/Dem loss. He said he felt "a personal responsibility for losing Ted Kennedy's seat." He noted that Martha Coakley only came about 5% short, but "it felt like a much bigger loss."

He admitted that this caused considerable soul searching by his party. As Brown's margin mirrored Presidential candidate John McCain's loss, Walsh said, "What Scott Brown got credit for in my book is motivating voters to the polls." He added that Brown's campaign won the "coffee shops...parking lots...neighbors across the fence." Walsh concluded that this was "very annoying because it our (Dems') game."

The lesson here was an obvious one, according to Asbury. She said they told their grassroots organizers, "We couldn't be complacent." She noted both that Brown's January win "shook Democrats in Massachusetts," and that "it was an effective tool for us." MA Dems became focused on getting out their voters in the fall, as Brown had done.

So by this past fall, even knowing of the voter unrest with incumbents and the status quo, the MA Dems were ready. The GOP here did almost double their MA House total from 16 to 31 (of 160) and won some local elections. However, they failed in attacks on all statewide offices, including Governor, lost an MA Senate seat (from 6 to 5 of 40), and were unable to win any U.S. House races. That was in stark contrast to the national results with huge Republican gains.

Still, Nassour managed to keep her post easily among anguished, angry cries of party members. Many found gubernatorial hopeful Charlie Baker as a great bet for the office. She took the unusual step of writing to the state committee, reminding them of the MA GOP advances in numbers, fund-raising and candidate preparation during his tenure. "Don't give up on us," was the phrase there and in places like an interview with the Herald. She easily won re-election.

At Suffolk, she talked up what seemed like very conventional wisdom for the broad losses in November. She repeatedly cited the power of incumbency and name recognition. She also liked personality and campaign style, as well as hints of if only the GOP had more money. She added that Baker did not have as much money early and spend much of his time on over 500 fund raisers. She contended that had he started earlier and had more money, he could have won and "pulled a lot" of other statewide candidates along with him.

---

Run your own damn campaign!

---

We here are aware that MA likes to mix up its governors, throwing in Republican administrations evenly, under the rubric that somehow that would balance an overwhelming Dem legislature. That conveniently ignores the fairly large percentage of DINO lawmakers in the mix. We also have a little over half of our voters unenrolled, belonging to no party. Many of these loudly proclaim they are independents, as though party members were relatively mindless. That makes forecasting vote casting all the more exciting.

Yet, come last November, the GOP did not replicate the Brown win by taking the Governor's office from Patrick. Despite extraordinarily strong commonwealth and national discontent with incumbents, it was Patrick 48%, Baker42%, and Cahill about 10%. So much of the Suffolk session was on how the devil could that have happened?

Nassour had a fascinating cut on that, saying that Patrick was a much better campaigner than governor and Baker woulda, coulda, shoulda been the opposite. The moderators fed into that with one of their beloved ideas, that Baker was cast unfairly as the mean, angry candidate in contrast to Patrick's gracious and pleasant one. Willington jumped in with his beer buddy analogy. He knows Baker, finds him personable and would rather have a beer with him than Patrick. He belabored that for a few examples.

"The beer factor," Willington added, "is a powerful part of politics." He thought a candidate's personality and approachable nature (or not) swayed voters.

Walsh didn't really buy into that. As he put it, "It's a mistake in campaigns to focus overly on personality." Instead, he thought voters were more likely impressed as he had been by Patrick's candor and consistency. He said from the first time he met Patrick, "he said what he believes." While many pundits and strategists might advise against too much frankness, he said it has worked for Patrick, even when he announced that he had raised taxes and what benefits the public would get from them. "He absolutely proved that you can run a campaign on what you believe," said Walsh.

Several on stage said that certainly part of Brown's appeal is that he seems like a likable guy. There was a fair consensus that personality had been huge here. One person didn't quite buy into this. Near the end of the event, Walsh put forth the clear perspective he took away from the wins and losses of the past year. As he put it, "Run your own damn campaign! Don't spend your time thinking about the other guy. Don't take too many lessons from the last one."

Yet Baker had his own baggage. Those on the show did not mention his association with brutal head chopping of employees at Harvard Pilgrim as well as huge premium jumps in his time there. They did get into the Big Dig issue. He downplayed his key roll in the disastrous financing of it and the lack of communication to the public, those who still pay the bills. I am among the many wondering how his campaign might have gone if he had not tried to claim he was a great manager and financial expert, while ignoring what seem like such major problems.

The moderators seemed more consumed with independent gubernatorial Cahill. They plainly felt Baker's campaign had spent far too much effort and money to drive him from the race, unsuccessfully. Nassour disagreed, saying the party was convinced that Baker could not win with him in the contest, while Asbury noted that as Cahill's support waned, the voters pretty much evenly divided their support among Baker and Patrick.

Nassour strongly felt that minimizing Cahill's influence was the right strategy. As she put it, "Time Cahill was not the third wheel. He was a flat tire."

This campaign led to another moderator's idée fixe. Both kept returning to what they clearly had discussed before the session started — a conceit that Patrick is only trying to implement policies that Baker created and pitched in the race.

Walsh and Asbury both were calm in rebutting the contention, but that did not seem to do it for Helman and King. The moderators cited such actions as getting municipalities to reduce health costs by joining the state plan, replacing private attorneys with state ones as public defenders, and reducing the number of state employees. As King put it, "These are really all ideas that Charlie Baker put out front." Later Helman tried to revivify this with questions like, "Was there a disconnect between what Gov. Patrick was campaigning on and what he's petting forward."

Asbury was clearest in returning a few times to disagree. She noted that many of the proposals Baker has made were picking up those already advanced publicly from his office and to the legislature by Patrick. I was a bit surprised she didn't add that it would be fairer to ask whether Baker had simply lifted the governor's ideas and advanced them as his own.

In addressing particulars the moderators advanced, she gave a nice insight into the daily operation of the administration. She said Patrick's second administration has been consistent in advancing just four priorities:

• Jobs
• Lowering health costs
• Youth violence
• Education

According to Asbury, "every day I would say he'd drive into all of us who are working for him that if it doesn't relate to those four priorities, why are we talking about this?"

---

Shields up! Arm phasers!

---

Both sides said they were determined to use all grassroots efforts, including social and other digital media in addition to traditional methods. Also, Asbury noted that a lesson she had learned was that it was crucial to start as early as possible to keep volunteers both engaged and informed.

In response to future plays by Tea Party members and other anti-incumbent types, those on stage said they would be a factor. Willinton for one was quick to note that while Brown has voted with Dems on some issues, the T Party sorts know that overall he was much more to their mindset than Coakley would have been as Senator. "For the most part, Tea Party/center-right people have been pretty supportive," he said.

Walsh did not think their emergence in MA was anything new or that remarkable. He may have gotten the biggest laugh of the afternoon with, "I'm from Plymouth County. We've these crazy people have always been here. We just gave them a name."

For futures, Nassour's optimism is palpable. In addition to the local and legislative seats won, she points to the current GOP volunteer activity. On Saturday before this session, nearly 500 party volunteers met to organize. She thought that was impressive on a bad-weather weekend in a state where they are outnumbered by Dems three to one. Walsh didn't seem worried. He noted that the same weekend over 5,000 from his party met in over 200 caucuses. Another 350 more caucuses are about to follow for his party.

During the session, some questions hung in the air, such as what they expect to happen with the loss of a U.S. House seat. I didn't get to ask Nassour how she said incumbency was the huge factor, yet how was it that her party lost the rare open statewide offices of Treasurer and Auditor.

The cheery takeaway for us political sorts was also from Walsh. He cited the enthusiasm of the Republicans, the drive of Dems to hold on to or expand their power, and the continued pressure of the anti-incumbent voter contingent. "For people who love politics, 2012 is going to be a great year.".

---

Tags: massmarrier, GOP, elections, Deval Patrick, Democrats, John Walsh, Nassour, Massachusetts, Baker, Cahill, Tea Party, Rappaport Center