Today’s news that Deval Patrick is way ahead in the polls came as no surprise. That you made him the villain in your last two posts (Taj Deval?) was the best evidence that he was in the lead. The goal of the Let’s Play Fair commission isn’t to protect Patrick as you suggest, it’s to temper the attacks that all three Democratic candidates will make against each other on the way to the September 19th primary, attacks that will leave the victor wounded and at a great disadvantage during the seven week general election campaign. Given their experience with Willie Horton and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, I can understand why Mike Dukakis and Cam Kerry don’t like negative advertising. But as the results of the 1988 and 2004 presidential elections demonstrate, it works quite well and until it stops working, candidates or their surrogates will continue to use negative advertising.

God forbid that someone try to make political campaigns more civil, eh?

Considering Reilly has a history of going nasty (whether that's a good thing or bad thing is a judgement call but there it is), yeah maybe this is aimed at keeping Reilly from attacking mercilessly. I don't see Patrick or Gabrieli being interested in using super-negative ads, unless provoked.

What makes you think Patrick can't survive any attacks? Trust me, there's plenty I can and have attacked Reilly with. Interesing assumption that you haven't backed up. *shakes head*

I've talked with Phil Johnston. I do not get the impression he's trying to protect any one candidate (where the hell do you get that idea? again you don't back it up, you assume). I get the impression the Democratic leadership is sick to death of beaten and bruised winners of the Dem primary after a brutal campaign, unable to start hitting the Republicans with everything they've got because there ain't nothing left.

Why do you ascribe ulterior motives out of nowhere? And if it's not out of nowhere, please back it up. It's a blog, but that doesn't mean you aren't accountable for your assumptions.

Think of a blog as a thinking exercise, and all your premises are out there for public scrutiny. If they don't pass muster, you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

If Reilly #s get any lower than today's released poll (he's in third there), I'd drop out of the race if I were him. He doesn't serve himself any good by coming in a distant third.

Lynne, I appreciate your comments but don't give me advice on what to write in a blog. I've read yours, remember? Talk about playing with the facts, you could have been co-author of The Da Vinci Code for what gets posted about the city. That said, I want to applaud you for failing to see how politics works in this state. I am a contrarian and when certain people suggest doing good in politics, it usually means there's a dark cloud at the end of the tunnel. That's all. I agree with you and Dick Howe Jr. that Democrats are tired of beating up on themselves in the primary and then the winners is throw to the Republican wolf in the general election. But think about it. ONly uninformed people believe negative ads. That's the name of the game, isn't it? I would like to think there is a campaign out there that subscribes to a higher standard of truth, but there isn't.. The media has to do its job to hold these candidates to the truth and, quite frankly, it hasn't done a very good job of it. Maybe this time will be different. The Sun will certainly do its part. As for the three Democrats in the race, I think there is a slight degree of hope for change for the people of Massachusetts if either one of them wins. But I'm not betting the downtown condo on it. As for Kerry Healey, I can only dream that a woman running this state might do better than her male counterparts. There's nothing political in that statement or sexist. It's not an endorsement. I just think it would be good to get more qualified women running for office. But whomever wins the race for governor is not going to have a big impact on my life, one way or the other.. If I had to rely on government for anything, outside of registering my car, I'd have curled up under a tree and gone into a deep sleep a long time ago.
for more information on this visit Paul Sullivan's July 11th column:

Jim:

You are right, you are a contrarian. People like you and I are lucky that we do not need government to do much for us, but a lot of our neighbors in this city are not in that position so I do care who will be our next governor. Frankly, after reading your last two posts, sounds to me that you also really care: anyone but Deval Patrick seems to be your motto.

I like it that the Democrats are going to “play nice� this year. I am not so sure about bringing Dukakis out of retirement though.

Do you agree with Paul Sullivan’s comments in his column (fix the link, please), “… Negative stories about candidates and campaigns are spoon-fed to reporters. Be sure that those being attacked by the media are usually not part of the inner circle of the media elite.� I do.

By the way, what is with you and “The Da Vinci Code�?

Mimi, nothing like being double-teamed by the leftinlowell crowd. I agree with Paul Sullivan's comments about how negative stories are placed in the media, through campaign conduits. It happens all the time. Usually, the stories are based on a kernel of truth, and the press goes after them like a hungry dog. Also, these type of stories are usually pitched appear when the timeframe for a reply by the candidate under attack is limited. The Sun has refused to become engaged in these political antics, both on a local and state level. In my 17 years here, we've made some mistakes but we've made more good calls on getting out a fair message from all contending sides.
I think Deval Patrick's recent poll numbers show that he is generating interest.. The question is whether he can endure the heat of the race that begins in earnest in August when campaign advertising strategies are launched and media scrutiny picks up.
As for The DaVinci Code, it was a great book but I often think about how a great genius of our time, Leonardo DaVinci, would have felt about being portrayed as somewhat of an anti-Catholic zealot.
A good book on a similar subject, is "The Secret Supper" which builds a story line around DaVinci's famous painting ("Cenacolo" or The Last Supper) ) and what the famous artist was mysteriously trying to say in his mural. It's a good read. By the way, the painting can be found in Santa Maria della Grazie in Milan.

Why are Democrats always complaining about negative advertising? I mean, it's not like they don't indulge in it themselves. They're just not as good at it as Republicans, which is probably because the majority of the "free" country generally agrees with conservative principles, so voters are more agreeable to the points made by Republican candidates.

Now here in one-party/double standard Massachusetts, it's different. Has anyone in history ever run a more negative campaign than Senator Chappaquidick did when Mitt Romney was breathing down his neck in that senatorial race? You didn't hear Democrats whining like female dogs when Uncle Teddy pulled out the dirty bombs on Mitt, did you? That's because this union butt-kissing state agrees with Teddy's views, so they don't see his ads as negative.

Politics is a game played the same rules on both sides. Whether it's dirty or clean depends on which side of the aisle you're on in a particular argument.

Stop the whining dems, and let the three of them hammer it out.

My father used to say "It depends on whose ox is gored!"
Never is that so true as in a discussion about negative ads and negative campaigning.
Most if not all candidates have, do and will continue to use the "negative" if it furthers their candidacy. It jars the senses but these negatives can be effective. We take the images into the voting booth. Who can forget Dukakis in the tank? the Goldwater mushroom cloud and daisy? the "swift boat" attack? and references to cars and bridges, Wille Horton and those "morphing" faces?
I prefer civility but expect the hard, negative jabs to continue. I want my candidate to win and that means being aggressive and assertive in his candidacy and in sharp contrast to his opponents!
Is that negative? Not to me - maybe to others.
Democrats are generally more vulnerable after a harsh primary because we do in fact run more competitive candidates. The Republicans hand-pick their nominees while the Dems use a process that while very open can be very messy and devisive leading up to the Primary.
I have no expectation that the Johnston Team will curb the enthusiasm for negative ads so the media need not fear a loss of revenue. Its clear that the Republicans and Ms Healey plan to spend and spend trying to put a negative spin on anything and anyone Democratic.
The game is on and whatever the outcome I will stand in unity with the Democratic nominee(s) on September 20th. I'll come back to the negativity issue then.

I hope Paul Sullivan will use this Community Forum venue (with your permission of course)to engage with the readers.

ps
Marty Meehan's work to lessen the influence of special interests hasn't dulled his campaign style!

Agree with most of what you say Nana, except for your reasoning why dems are more susceptible to negative advertising. Perhaps it's true here in Massachusetts, but not on a national level. I think my theory of conservative issues resonating with the majority of the country is correct. (except for extreme liberal states like Mass, NY, Californian and a couple of others)

This is where I agree with Jim. What always happened on a national level was democrats would feed the friendly national tv media and get them to do their bidding for them. That way, they stay above the fray and don't have to appear "negative." But to think they don't get down and dirty is incredibly naive.