Nasty hit piece on Deval Patrick w/ a side of Kerry bashing for fun

[WildEyedLiberal]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/09/29/patricks_candor_gap/

Who is this McGrory tool? Is he another one of the Globe's "liberal" columnists that just happens to hate Democrats, or he is a rightwinger?

God, for such an amazing state, you guys have the worst. press. ever.

[Mass]

1. Chimes at midnight answer. I cant say it better.

http://chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com/2006/09/predictably.html

Predictably...
Globe columnist Brian McGrory has searched and searched and found Deval Patrick wanting.
It is not surprising, Humble Elias would in fact be shocked if McGrory or any of his moderate republican brethren on Morrissey Blvd started banging the pots for Patrick.
This raises however the question of just who Brian et al will be backing (if anyone) in this election?
Joanie Vennochi is a no brainer, she is all about swift and shallow running emotion, so look for her to come out for Healey at the first mild criticism of the Lt. Governor from Citizen Patrick. Joanie will get all indignant and cry for sisterhood united...it'll be hilarious to read believe me.
Scot Lehigh...is making ponderous measured and the usual objective noises now...but give him a few weeks to find the right moderate GOP strawman (or woman) to back. I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict Lehigh will mark out for Crazy Christy...but that is a bit of mirthful speculation on my part.
Coming back to Brian McGrory, he fell for Romney's bullshit completely in 2002, so why shouldn't he fall for Kerry Healey's nonsense in 2006?

You see how it works with these people? "May the best moderate republican doofus win" or to put it more crudely, "we need a GOP camp follower to fix the problems created by sixteen years of republican dilettante rule."
Whether Deval wins or not, don't look for that cherished myth to fade away as far as the local punditariat is concerned.

[WildEyedLiberal]

3. Oh my God, Elias is so brilliant

I laughed out loud at least three times reading that. I realllly need to bookmark Chimes at Midnight.

[ProSense]

15. Love the description of

Joanie "indignant" Vennochi.

When I click on a BG or BH op-ed, I usually brace myself for the ridiculous snark!

[TayTay]

2. Mr. Patrick is being vetted

This is hardly a bad thing. You know, some pols get vetted all the time. It helps them to develop a thicker skin, clarify their positions, figure out what in the stream of snark is real and should be paid attention to and what is just snark. Generally this type of vetting makes them better politicians. ( I recall a Senate race of a decade ago wherein the front runner, according to the biggest papers in the state was the incumbent Governor and it was deemed okay for it to be open season on the other guy in the press. I know you find this hard to believe, but the race even got down to how many friends houses the incumbent had slept in. He not only endured this kind of picayune coverage, he triumphed over it and became a better pol.)

The Commonwealth was *always* like this. The Boston Globe likes neighborhood guys who are like them and who they can understand without going to the added trouble of having to do research. It was ever so. Think about that and think about an idealistic candidate who has to run that guantlet and what they have to do to get over the hurdles. Then, tell me why it should surprise no one that we produce people in the state who never give up. If they were ever inclined to give up, they never would have run these awful gauntlets to begin with. (BTW, there are rules to abusing pols. Idealistic people are assumed to have something wrong with them and to be incapable of living up to their ideals. Most of the fun that newspapers get in tracking said candidates consists of finding 'gotcha' moments wherein said pol does something that, subjectively, isn't up to their idealistic standards. Sad, but true and a weird part of the coverage of pols in Mass. Idealists have it much, much worse than the corrupt. We never expected anything from the corrupt, so there is no reason to go medieval on their arses.)

This is nothing. Mr. Patrick did not get the full treatment during the primary because the other two candidates were more fun to cover and this 'grassroots' thing looked like work to investigate. (Never underestimate how lazy reporters actually are.) It is now his time to go through the public crucible. I think he can handle it. He will have to, as it is part of how things are done. (There is an ultimate good to this, it makes better and more enduring politicians.)

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. I think Patrick will still win... but Humble Elias is right

The Globe's nattering airheads will find some, any excuse to endorse Healey, because they're just too kool for the Democrats and endorsing "moderate" Republicans gives them some kind of bipartisan street cred, or something.

The only good thing I can say here is that the people of Massachusetts are goodly and enlightened enough to not fall for such disingenuous tiresome bullshit, or else there is no way there would be a single Democrat in the MA delegation, let alone 12. That said, I don't think there's really any excuse for the Globe's intellectual laziness and journalistic whoremongering.

[TayTay]

5. Ahm, it's funny.

The people of Massachusetts enjoy politics and like it funny and big as life and twice as ugly. Besides, who would ever vote for someone who couldn't get around the Boston Globe? If you can't live with the slings and arrows from Morrissey Blvd, then how could you ever be a real pol?

The Boston Herald does snark writing really, really well. I never make a single decision based on anything they say and I have to admit, they are funny. (Poisonous, acidic, unfair and funny. I still laugh over stories about the building of the 'love nest' from 10 years or so ago. It was wrong, it was intrusive, and it was hilarious.)

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. I guess I don't see the humor in it.

Not trying to be a wet blanket, but I find snark to be BEYOND tiresome. It requires no sharpness of intellect, no quickness of wit; only a willingness to be rude, cynical, and heavy-handedly sarcastic. It's not just the Globe: I cannot STAND Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, or any of the too-hip-to-be-sincere kool kid cohort. I am convinced that this exact type of too-kool jaded commentary hurt Kerry irreparably in the election. It may not hurt him in Massachusetts and it may not hurt Deval Patrick, but in other states, which are more likely to take what is written at face value and not see or laugh at the ridiculousness behind it, these kind of pieces do a lot of harm.

These exchanges with you are so fascinating to me and speak to the huge cultural differences between New England and the Midwest. Having grown up with the Boston press's particular brand of caustic battery acid, you are used to it and it doesn't faze you. I grew up in Illinois, where every opinion expressed is assumed to be earnest. You may be able to look at the Globe and roll your eyes and think "oh, here they go again," but people from elsewhere see these articles and assume them to be accurate. If someone were to write such vicious personal slander about a particular politician in an Illinois newspaper as the Herald often does, the person would have to be either truly awful or so widely vilified that their popularity would be almost nonexistant. It is just not, well, good manners to be so cruel to someone who isn't a criminal or a truly awful, awful person.

Maybe I should stop reading the Globe and get back to my cornfields, eh?

[Democrafty]

10. I have to agree.

I feel like journalism should be about the news, not the journalists.

[TayTay]

11. My dear, what do you propose we do about it?

Pitchforks and torches at midnight at the Globe offices? Nasty LTTE to the Herald? Besides, this culture of being snarky to each other goes back to colonial days. (OMG, we are indeed a nice tea party compared to how nasty press coverage in Boston used to be. OMG!)

I understand that these things are sometimes put into syndication. There is nothing I can do about that. I imagine that Patrick's press people are upset with the coverage they are getting. (Hey, this is nothing. The Lowell Sun said he is soft on child sex offenders and would hide their criminal records from employers. Geez, now that's nasty.)

This is the way it is in Massachusetts. Only really good and really tough people survive. (And the scammers, but not for long. I can name two Rethugs who had House seats in the '90's and they didn't last.) This is a tradition here. I like it. Everything is on the table, every topic allowed to be discussed, every little damn tiny thing is out there. Now, what the hell do you think about so-and-so, all things considered. Even after all that, we still manage to regularly grow pretty good Democrats here.

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. I don't know what to do about it any more than I know what to do

with any other dishonest whore in the entire national press corps (and there are plenty of them). Just because that's "the way it is" doesn't mean it's a good thing. Lots of things in this country that are the status quo are horrible and unfair, and acknowledging that they are horrible and unfair shouldn't mean just shrugging our shoulders and saying "oh well, that's how they are, get used to it." That ensures that nothing ever changes.

I'm sorry if I don't enjoy this idea of dog-eat-dog political Darwinism, because I DON'T think it always leads to the "really good and tough" people making it into power. I don't think excuses should be made for poor journalism, and substituting snark for facts is a pretty sterling example of poor journalism.

[TayTay]

17. I profoundly disagree

This type of baptism by press fire is good for people. IT shows character and resolve. People often implode in the full glare of the Boston Media. (AG Tom Reilly did earlier this year and his campaign never recovered after his gaffes.)

People need to be tough and able to take a really free press. The press is allowed to have tough and strong opinions. The pols in MAss, as a result, are more substantitive and Senate debates and Congressional debates are tougher and more intense.

There is a reason that we have good people in Congress. There is a reason that they withstand the pressure on them from the Repubs to rubberstamp Bush and rubberstamp Repub policy. They know how to fight and how to get through tough times. They don't get passes into public office. They fight for their jobs and they fight hard.

There is a reason we have a reputation for producing tough, smart and capable people. Cuz we do. The process helps to guarantee that. These people have been vetted, completely and it shows.

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. So that makes the profound dishonesty by McGrory et al OK?

Sorry, no. These aren't valiant intrepid reporters speaking truth to power and holding pols' feet to the fire. They are clueless nitwits, vapid self-absorbed twits who clearly love the sound of their own voice and the country-clubby atmosphere of the press corps cocktail circuit. They are the journalistic versions of the "mean girls" from junior high, only even more catty and spiteful.

I deeply, deeply abhor this behavior and quite frankly, what they do is just shy of Swiftboating. I reject the idea that Swiftboating candidates is somehow necessary or good or simply serves to "vet" them.

[MBS]

25. you bet

It's the pettiness that annoys me. The worst part is that their focus on negative and/or stupid stuff trivializes political discussions, or, in forcing candidates to respond to nonsense, distracts the campaign from addressing really important issues. . though I have to say that McGrory surprised me today; even though I don't always agree with him, he has usually been one of the more reasonable of the local-oped crowd. He's a nephew of the late great journalist Mary McGrory.

[ProSense]

27. The media has become a wholly owned entity of the GOP

No exaggeration! Every time people talk about individual journalists and small town papers, I think about the corporate machine operating them. The news is agenda driven. Check the links in the post below you can find the ownership of almost any local paper. There aren't too many independent journalists working for these organizations. A lot of them shill for the GOP. Now I know this is a bit extreme, but there are too many people who still believe the corporatization of the media is impossible because there are small papers in small towns across the country that have nothing to do with corporate America. I'm not saying there aren't independent papers and journalists, but the papers that are shaping views run the AP, UPI, Reuters syndicated news too, and if the paper is one of 15 or 20 owned by some billionaire somewhere, that can have an impact as well!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2360972&mesg_id=2360972

The other day when Chavez made his comment, the first thing that caught my eye was this:

7-11 Drops Citgo, Citing Ties to Venezuela's Chavez
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6154806&ft=1&f=1006

I don't know about anyone, but that seems a bit extreme! I wonder if it has to do with this relationship:

In early 2006, Citibank began operating 7-11 ATMs. This eliminated transaction fees for Citibank customers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Eleven

Key people
William R. Rhodes — Chairman, Citibank N.A.
Chuck Prince — Chairman and CEO, Citigroup
Sallie Krawchek — Chief Financial Officer
Shaukat Aziz — Former Executive Vice President & Head of Global Private Banking Division of Citibank, Prime Minister of Pakistan
Alwaleed bin Talal — Shareholder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citibank


:tinfoilhat:

[MBS]

19. I totally agree with you about

snark, Dowd, Rich, et al. They seem to me to symbolize everything that's wrong with journalism and political discourse today. That's one reason I miss Tom Oliphant so much

[karynnj]

21. I have to agree too

One big problem is that the assumptions go like this: Massachusetts is completely liberal, so the Boston Globe is very liberal, so they have pushed and covered for any liberal candidate. Kerry is a liberal, so the Boston Globe coverage and their book should be taken as the best take of what he has done, who he is, and any scandals. I have had to tell many people that if anything the BG, which always ends up endorsing him does him NO favors.

But the paper is what the paper is. If life were fair, these pundits, led by Joannie should have appeared at his first post election event and apologized for all the trouble they ever gave him. The good thing is that Kerry will have been pretty prominent on the national stage for at least 3 plus years when the primaries start.

[Blaukraut]

12. The love nest? What was that all about?

I wasn't here at that time. Would you share that story, please :-)

[TayTay]

16. Ahm, it was the collective stories about how the house on

Beacon Hill was rehabbed. That rehab took like 18 months or something. I believe the Boston Herald had some one they paid to sit around the Square over there and watch people going in and out and see what the rehab would do to the former convent building. So, every so often you would get an article in the BHerald as an update on what it dubbed Kerry's 'love nest' was like.

Ahm, this is very strange because no one really cares what someone else's house looks like. There is no big rush of people in Boston hanging around Beacon Hill so they can see what Sen. Kerry's house looks like. (You could easily walk by the place without even knowing it was his house, absent secret service of course.) This, of course, is good Yankee common sense and a minding of one's own business. The genius of Herald snark is that they let you peek without guilt. They have done this a lot to my taller Sen, for some reason or other he is just a good target for them.

BTW, the Herald has been against Kerry in just about every race he has run. Too bad for them he keeps winning races here. They run awful Howie Carr columns on Kerry. Kerry still wins. They do intrusive stories on the women he used to date back when he was single. He won the state with one of the highest Presidential vote counts in state history. They hate him totally, and yet people still like him a lot.

[Blaukraut]

20. that's just insane!

They did running reports on JK's renovating his house/love nest?! Jeez Louise...I knew the Herald has it in for Kerry, but that they would be willing to stoop to National Enquirer lows to get at him is amazing. Heh, I think I'd have read the occasional report or two, just to get an update on the nest. lol

[karynnj]

23. The thing that seems weirdest was that

this was a renovation on a very stately townhouse that belonged to a man and his legally married wife. Love nest sounds very provocative wording.

[rox63]

6. We're not always that enlightened

That's how Mittens got elected. The good citizens of Mass got hoodwinked, and it could happen again. I don't think it will this time, but this race will get a lot tougher before election day. Patrick will have to learn to give as good or better than he gets when the attacks really start flying. Which should be in the next week or two.

[TayTay]

8. Deval Patrick has to learn to hit back hard

People want a fighter. This is difficult because part of his campaign so far has been to position himself as a nice guy. This is fine, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a nice guy who happens to have an uzi nearby, if needed.

Shannon O'Brian, the last Dem Gov nominee to go down in flames made dopey mistakes in her last debates with the evil and conniving Mittens. There was no compelling reason to vote for her. Sigh! She was also ahead in the early polls, but not by a monstrous 39 points.

Mr. Patrick will have some difficulties. Everyone likes a gentleman. However, we all also like fighters. He must learn how to blend the two together. That is unbeatable. (And vetting is a good thing. This is why campaigns for President are so long, they give candidates enough time to either become good or to implode.)

[rox63]

18. I think both of our Senators have got that magic combination

of gentleman and fighter combined. Unfortunately, nice guys do often finish last here, unless they learn to give it right back to the people going after them. That's why I was so shocked at how restrained Kerry was when the Swifties went after him in 2004. It must have been extremely frustrating for him to be held back by the party and the Dem consultants. Because when similar types came after him here in Mass (in earlier elections), he went into combat mode and knocked them right back down.

[TayTay]

28. That shocked me.

Kerry was challenged on just that issue in 1972, 1984 and 1996. Each time he responded immediately and effectively and made it seem as if the Globe had it in for him. (One way to get people on your side to to have the Globe do an unfair story on you. Nobody trusts the Globe, whose nickname after all is The Glob.)

BTW, people should toughen up. Candidates get bad press. They learn to deal with it or they die on the vine. Life, if you haven't noticed, is friggin unfair. It's unlikely to get fair any time soon. You can complain all you want about the press, but until they 'wake up' to an issue or candidate, there is nothing you can do about it except get smarter and learn how to play their game against them. Otherwise politicans come off looking and sounding like a big babies and a whiners. After all, nobody is forcing them to run. IF they expect to run with the big guys, then they have to expect big time people to come after them. It was ever thus. John Kerry learned this a long time ago. He is no wuss when it comes to criticism. This is why he likes the growth of the blogs. He believes they can be an effective counter weight to the corporate media. There is no other way to change them. (You come off lokking weak and like a whiner, which no one likes.)

Politicians are held to all kinds of unfair standards in the press. That's life in the big city. Politicians run the risk of making it about them if they complain in the wrong way about the media. Rule #1, it's not about you as a pol, ever. It is always about the people you serve, it is never, never, never about you as a pol. Sen. Kerry, fairly or unfairly, knows this. You don't violate this rule because then the logical next step is people say, well then why don't you quit if you hate it so much and retire to one of those cushy 5 houses you have. Again, life is unfair. In politics, that goes double.

[MBS]

7. oh, yeah

as a relative newcomer, I've been amazed by the pettineses and snarkiness of the Globe. .I've never seen such a newspaper so churlish to its own politicians. Believe me, McGrory is one of the better ones. The only first-rate political columnist was Tom Oliphant, and he had to go and have health problems and take early retirement. I really really miss him. May the gods restore his health soon, so that his thoughtful perspective can return to the public arena.. he's very much needed.

[TayTay]

13. BTW, you missed the other snarky thing in the Globe this week

that claimed that a certain tall Senator was hanging around Deval Patrick because Deval was idealistic, charismatic, real and very clear, unlike said Senator. Oh, and the other snarky comment that said that a rather famous Mass pol was only hanging around with Deval Patrick because it meant he could get on TV, said time being much lessened since '04.

Gawd woman, this is snarky crap heaven. How can you not enjoy this stuff? How can you possibly enjoy the hit back and David Wade's incredible comments unless you see the atmosphere they come out of and against. (Please, the hit back from Camp Kerry is every bit as good, if not better, than what they get.)

[MBS]

22. I really enjoy David Wade

because it's not about him. . he's trying to make something happen. (He's also very witty ). But I find Dowd and Rich to be smug, narcissicistic cynics. I enjoy a good rant, including even some of the Dowd-Rich variety, but , for me, a steady diet of their cynicism (especially the pettiness of Dowd's girlie shtick) is bad for my health, and I believe that the passivity that cynicism generates (or reflects) is bad for society all around. This has a lot to do with an especially awful talk I heard by Rich in the last year, in which he responded to impassioned questions on what's happened to the mainstream media? with self-satisfied defense of NY Times as corporate entity. It was a very disillusioning evening. But hey-- I'm from west of the MIssissippi, too, so maybe I'm not sufficiently immunized.

Because of my hatred of snark, I've particularly appreciated Kerry's emphasis on criticism as a MERE first step; the second essential step is to propose a constructive alternative, and the third is to make it happen. Steps 2 and 3 are utterly missing from the the Dowd-Rich crowd.

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. I've been thoroughly disillusioned by "left-wing" pundits

You are totally right about Oliphant - and since he retired, it's been nothing but petty spitefulness.

I don't think I ever welcomed you to the Kerry forum - you're from St. Louis, right? (I'm a huge Cards fan.)

[whometense]

29. Just read this - I'm

behind in my newspaper reading. I give you Charley Manning, repuglican consultant, and veteran Kerry-hater:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=print

...What will happen next? Patrick's netroots political army has to scare rank-and-file Democrats. Some have already said Patrick is too liberal for voters in their districts. And how would you like to be, say, Marty Meehan? The longtime politician has been patiently waiting for his try at an office like governor or US senator, only to see Patrick come out of nowhere to crush his political mentor, Tom Reilly, and take over the party. No wonder John Kerry is acting like Patrick's shadow these days. Few Democrats will endorse Healey. But will they work hard for Patrick? And what will they do in the voting booth? During three-on-one attacks in the first debate, Healey stood her ground. That should help her lock down most of the Republican and conservative independent voters she needs to get her numbers up. Independent women voters are the key group for Healey, and the image of an angry man with bad tan yelling at her may help her gain some of those votes...

Such a joke. Kerry must be thrilled we have such a great candidate to elect to the governorship. But that's the repug plan - try to make John Kerry look small and weak - death by a million paper cuts. It's amazing to me that they still haven't figured out how strong he is.

[TayTay]

30. Boy, that Deval Patrick must be scared. He's only up by 34 - 39 points

in the polls. I wonder how anyone can think he can pull this race off. He must be getting his concession speech ready. Charlie Manning must be a friggin genius. With Deval only up by a minumum of 34 points in the polls, why he should be really, really scared of Kerry Healey, who as a sitting Lt. Gov of the Commonwealth is pulling a spectacular 24 or 25 points in the poll. (Deval Patrick is at either 57 or 64 percentage points in the poll.)

What a friggin idiot. The most Shannon O'Brien was ever up in 2002 was 5-6 points. Patrick is up by 34-39 points. Gee, the way the Globbies and their OpEd guests talk about it, you'd think Patrick was the one hoplessly down in the muck.

He can bite me. Doesn't anyone else at the Globe remember that John Walsh and Nancy Stohlberg worked for John Kerry in previous races. Doesn't anyone else remember that Deval Patrick helped the Kerry campaign in '04 and was one of the key people, according to Cam Kerry, in the room the night the decision to conceed was made. Kerry has known about Deval for years. For an elephant, Manning has terrible memory problems.

[whometense]

32. I don't know anyone

who was excited about voting for Shannon O'Brien. No body - including myself. Patrick is a whole different candidate. Did you see Dan Payne's column today? Another Kerry snark line:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/28/underdog_top_dog_attack_dog/

Kerry at Patrick victory party. John Kerry showed up to greet television cameras at Patrick primary celebration. Irony: For many Massachusetts Democrats, Patrick was the candidate Kerry should have been: liberal, electable, resolute, and likeable.

And he's tyhe democrat. Seriously, what does it take to impress these jerks?

[MBS]

33. Dan Payne is a "media consultant"

. . and political operative. I'm sure that a lot of his observations are very much entangled with his own political-operative career, who hired him, who fired him, who took his advice (or not), and so forth. I try not to take him seriously . I happened to SEE that footage of Kerry at the Patrick victory party, and KERRY was indeed liberal, electable, resolute, and likeable. . .and working very hard for the Democratic party, both in MA and across the country.
The other thing to know, besides the weirdness of the press, is that it is generally entangled (not just Payne, but the whole enterprise) with Boston Dem.politics, which are notoriously petty, personal and incestuous. I'm sick of that stuff, too. (Personally, I admire Kerry for plowing his way through all of that, despite, at least initially, being an outsider to the Boston Irish crowd, and just moving forward. . )

I'll also affirm that no one was enthusiastic about Shannon O'Brien. It's a very different race with Patrick.

[TayTay]

34. Dan Payne worked for Sen. Kerry

and did a couple of ad campaigns for him. I know he did ads in '90 and I think he did ads in 1996, then was replaced with Bob Schrum.

[karynnj]

36. I'm not sure I take this as negatively

I read it as Kerry was not PERCEIVED as such, though he should have been. It is inaccurate - Kerry was seen as the electable candidate.

On resolute and likability, the Republicans hit and turn strengths 180 degrees - Kerry is resolute. It would be hard to find another politician for whom it's possible to find decades old comments that are consistent with his current views - Madelaine Albright in her new book actually quotes from Kerry's 1966 Yale speech and it is not at odds with Kerry's 2006 speech in Ireland!

Likeable is subjective, but at the time of the convention, it was clear that the Kerrys were likable and interesting. The Kerry and Heinz kids were amazing. That's why the Republicans created the steretypes they did.

On liberal, I think Kerry is on target refusing a label.

I feel very lucky to have seen Patrick. He is incredible, but the author is comparing apples and oranges. Kerry has won his first Massachusetts statewide election - as liberal, resolute, and likeable.

[TayTay]

37. That was a purely snarky comment

And it shows ignorance of the pattern of who gets elected to what office in Massachusets and the reasons involved. Gov. Bill Weld was funny, likeable, intelligent and sort of resolute. He had just come off a 71% - 29% Gubernatorial win. By the logic of this article, he should have waltzed into the Senate when he faced John Kerry in 1996. Kerry beat him by 7%. This was not an accident.

People in Massachusetts tend not to see electoral offices as switcheable. A person who makes a good Governor does not automatically qualify as a good Senator. They are vastly different offices and require people with different talents. Deval Patrick is good to be Governor, an office that does require a bit of cheerleading in it. (The Governor is expected to be someone who can make the case nationally and internationally for people to come to the State and open businesses and so forth.) A Senator is expected to go to the Senate and uphold the values of Massachusetts. This is a bit murkier and harder to explain, but there is a very long history of Massachusetts expecting thoughtful, intelligent people with functioning consciences to be US Senators. Ahm, John Kerry talking about Patriotism and dissent at Faneuil Hall is the very image of a Senator from Massachusetts, in every way. (John Kerry on the floor of the Senate arguing for a moral point of view is the very image of a Mass Senator. He is quite, quite good at this and people respect that.) He is taking a stand and making choices vaced on moral values that are very much in sync with the people of the Commonwealth. (Talk radio and the Boston Herald notwithstanding. Senators are assumed to be tough enough to take this or else they wouldn't be US Senators from Massachusetts.)

Rightly or wrongly and for both good and bad, as WEL points out, Senators are held to a higher standard in Massachusetts. (Why else host 8 debates for a contested race here? Why not 8 debates, after all they should prove they deserve this honor. This matters, that voice and that seat in the Senate matters and has historical significance. Massachusetts has a long and proud history and Senators follow in the path of distinguished people who have been sent to Washington to be particular voices and to take an active part in debates and in making policy. Mr. KErry is a very good Senator and clearly reflects what Massachusetts wants. The comparison to Deval Patrick is snarky and unnecessary and doesn't mean anything to the voters here who understand that we shouldn't be demanding candidates who are all shaped by the same cookie cutter.

Being a Senator is different from being Governor. Different things are expected. Should Deval Patrick become Governor, he will have earned that seat because of who he is and his background. The same goes for the person who occupies the seat in Massachusetts in the US Senate. Right man for the right job.

[_dynamicdems]

31. McGrory is not just a political "reporter" or pundit (depending on who is

discussing him): he is also a published writer of fiction. He has written quite a few novels to date, some of them quite successful.

Now why does that sound familiar (remembered the Neutered Grinch)? Far too many repugs like to write fiction. It's right up their alley if you think about it. They are great at making up their own truths.

Writers of political thrillers should NOT be allowed to write political columns for a major newspaper. It is fundamentally wrong. But then again, what isn't today?

[Mass]

35. "voters cherry-pick issues" - Patrick 54 - Healey 30

Good news for Patrick in this CBS-Globe poll and amazing analysis by the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/09/30/patrick_has_a_big_lead_in_new_poll/?page=3

But of the issues the candidates have emphasized this year, taxes -- not immigration or crime -- was ranked as a top issue by the voters surveyed. When asked to list the most important issue, 22 percent named education , 19 percent pointed to taxes, and 13 percent cited the economy. Three percent named undocumented immigration and 4 percent said the Big Dig, which dominated the first debate last.
Patrick seems to benefit from the fact that some voters cherry-pick issues when considering candidates. One respondent, Doreen Churchill, 47, of Middleborough said she disagrees strongly with Patrick's stance on immigration, but supports his opposition to rolling back the state income tax.
A
``As much as I would like it back, I think we should use the money for property tax cuts or for the elderly," said Churchill, who runs a small business out of her home.

Now, caring about different priorities than the Globe thinks you should is called "cherry-picking?".