Dead Blogging The Massachusetts Gubernatorial Debate

The bell rang last night on WBZ-TV for the real opening round of the Massachusetts governor’s race (up to now it’s been mostly about money and media).

The main event was Gov. Deval Patrick (D-We’re Number Whatever!) vs. GOP challenger Charlie Baker (R-Blue Shirt Republicans).

Treasury Secretary Tim Cahill (I-Think I Can Win) and Jill Stein (G/R-Gee Are You Still Listening?) were decidedly the undercard.

The referee was Jon Keller, who always looks good in stripes.

Ads ‘n’ ends from the festivities:


At 6:58 – two minutes before the debate began – the hardworking staff received a blast email from the Patrick campaign that said this:

Attached please find a background document relative to anticipated claims that will be made by Republican Charles Baker and Independent candidate Tim Cahill during tonight’s WBZ-TV debate – and the facts that counter those claims.

We won’t bore you with the details of the attachment. Suffice it to say that when you assume, you make . . . etc. etc.


If you chose “different set of values” for your drinking game, Patrick had you knee-walking by 7:30.

Glossary, Please

David Tuerck? Michael Widmer? The Pacheco Law? The Connector?

Are the candidates so out of touch they think the average voter knows what they’re talking about when they just toss out those names?

Memo to gubernatorial hopefuls: You’re done with the insiders. It’s real people you need to talk to now.

Deval’s Buddy System

(All quotes approximate)

“Tim is right.”

“I want to build on Tim’s point.”

“I want to applaud Tim for his school-building program.”

Patrick to voters: If you don’t like me, love Cahill.

Baker: Hark! The Herald

Baker went out of his way to stroke the Boston Herald (they’ve been covering the patronage abuses at the Massachusetts Probation Department for years) and whack the Boston Globe for its late-to-the-party “big boom story.”

Newspaper endorsements, anyone? (Not that they were remotely in question.)

Best New Catchphrase

Props to Jill Stein for this riff off her claim that 50% of the state budget goes to healthcare payments: “We don’t have a healthcare system; we have a disease-care system.”

Tim Cahill’s Coming Out Party

Are we the only ones who didn’t know Tim Cahill is a supply-sider? Damn – where’d we put that Laffer Curve?

Baker’s “Doesn’t”

The debate ended, and two seconds later this Charlie Baker spot ran:

Sample comments from people who’ve “had enough:”

These guys on Beacon Hill – Deval Patrick and Tim Cahill – they just don’t get it.

Last time, I voted for Patrick and Cahill – they didn’t get it done.

Get it?

To Summarize

One debate down, too many (for some) to go.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Dead Blogging The Massachusetts Gubernatorial Debate

  1. Pingback: Debate Wrap-Up « Lovers Muggers and Thieves

  2. richard coit says:

    Thanks for the good posting of the debate.
    (Notes to J. Stein(of whom I am a supporter): Play to a bigger field. You’re taking on the corporate media (national AND international!) and to the two-party system. People will respond to the fact you’re taking on The System which is horribly broken. This IS a place where bringing in a somewhat big if outdated big-gun like Nader might impress some voters. The Fed government is a local issue now….”all local politics is now national”;
    -and to women candidates in general, your appearance will always mark you out….I mean, “Out”….One only has to look at the Globe picture to see four men in business suits and a woman appearing as though she’s ready for a picnic. I recommend either the woman-as-judge look….black with a white crevat (?), to match the conservative black suit and tie….i.e. some kind of formal long gown…or in the same vein, a concert look, medium length black gown/dress….
    “god, things are bad and need to change quickly!”

    • Campaign Outsider says:

      Even guys can’t dress outside the lines – Baker’s blue shirt was more of a distraction than anything else.

  3. Pingback: Wednesday Morning: Who Won The Debate? | WBUR

  4. Laurence Glavin says:

    Am I alone in being upset by the fact THAT ANY COMMERCIALS AT ALL WERE INSERTED INTO A DEBATE? To paraphrase Joe Welch: “WBZ…at long last have you no sense of decency?” In the TV and radio biz, the location of ads is determined by availability. There’s plenty of time for the insertion of spots throughout the evening and nighttime schedule. And if these spots were intended for “Rota Fortunae” and “Jeopardy”, their new seasons haven’t started yet.

    • Campaign Outsider says:

      I’m as idealistic as the next guy, Laurence (assuming the next guy isn’t you), but there’s no way WBZ is giving up that prime commercial time made even primer by the target-rich audience.
      I just thought giving the first spot after the debate to Baker felt wrong.

  5. Pingback: Wednesday Morning: Who Won The Debate? | Hubbub | Blogs | WBUR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s