It is an interesting race, with no one pulling away quite yet. Gabrieli had gone to the whip early, but the other two have picked up their pace and appear to be fending off his challenge as they reach the top of the stretch.

Reilly has slammed the other two on the issue of taxes, so they must have valid rejoinders when the meet in debate. The Mass Taxpayers and other tax experts have given them good information to counter that attack, so we will have to see if they can do it effectively. With all the trouble that cities and towns are having financially, a good case can be made on the trade-off between income and property taxes.

Cape Wind seems to be an issue that hasn't made it to the forefront of the campaign. With Reilly against, Patrick for, and Gabrieli apparently for, it would appear that this could be a discriminator in the debate. I especially like Patrick's position that we should not only promote the wind farms, but to go beyond that with manufacturing of the key components for that technology. Government would have to be a key player to encourage that type of work for the State with tax credits and infrastructure support if necessary. I believe GE in Lynn could be a realistic producer of the turbines, although we would have to make sure they didn't outsource the work because of excessive costs in State.

So, on the issues of taxes and wind farms, I think Patrick could pull away down the stretch. He would have to make the following points obvious:

1) Property taxes are regressive, whereas income tax (State) is neutral. Lowering the income tax and forcing the cities to increase the property tax is a regressive policy, since property values are artificially increased at the low end by the demand/supply economics.

2) Wind energy should be an essential part of our State policy, and we should go beyond the mere production of energy, but also incentivize the manufacturing of the key components of this technology. With Reilly against, and Gabrieli a bit wishy-washy for it, he should stand out in this discussion.

I believe O'Reilly will be viewed as part of the "Established Power Base". Poeple are unhappy with "Politics as usual" on the hill. Gabrielle makes me very nervious due to his strong Business background. Will he really try to help the middle class [or what is left of it]? Patrick is a refressing voice in the political theatre. His assessment of taxes is right on the money [no pun intended]. As a town meeting representative in Chelmsford we see first hand what happens to the homeowners when the Federal and State Candidates pledge no new taxes to get elected. Homeowners are really taking a hit on property taxes. Patrick also has an interesting background in Civil Rights. With everything going on at the Federal level with the patriot act etc. I believe people would want a govenor who better understands the rights of the people and I believe Duval Patrick has the background in this area.

speaking fo taxes, Deval Patrick is the only candidate - Democrat, Republican, Independent - who would keep the income tax at 5.3 percent. He feels that the state's revenue stream concerning taxes and fees are just dandy as they are, without cutting back the income tax as state voters demanded overwhelmingly in the 2000 election. If Patrick is going to prioritize spending, that's one thing. But over the past two years, when Massachusetts has received record budget surpluses and Lottery profits, there is still a need for more money for roads, education, etc., even when the 2007 state budget represents an unprecedented $25.7 billion in spending. More tax dollars only mean more spending. it doesn't mean it will be well spent. The only time politicians make good choices is when the revenue stream is reduced. This happened in the 2001-2002 recession cycle when state aid to municipalities was drastically reduced. As it was, the Legislature had to raise $3.2 bill in taxes and fees to balance the budget, which was built on capital gains increases during the stock market boom years. This is no longer the case. I am a firm believer that the state can get by just fine by lowering the income tax to 5 percent. it would mean a loss of $623 million annually to the state, but taxpayers would reinvest that money in other ways. The $623 million represents less than 1 percent of the state budget. Tom Reilly believes he can find reductions to balance the loss, and I believe any candidate for govwernor who deserves to be in the office can find the money in waste and inefficiencies. Who's kidding who here? The state income tax does little to provide for municipalities. It goes toward big state government and programs. Reilly, Gabrieli, Mihos and Healey would all cut the income tax rate under one plan or another, although Gabrieli's plan seems like a farce. It would take a dramatic increase in the economy for his formula to kick in. Patrick is the only candidate who wouldn't touch the income tax under any conditions. he'd continue to ignore the will of the people. That's not good enough for me. In fact, it shows that he'd willingly cater to a few liberal big spenders and run roughshod over the rest of us.

"The $623 million represents less than 1 percent of the state budget."

Check your math.

It doesn't matter who wins this primary or the general election, Travelini and DiMasi do whatever they want anyway. The fact that they ignore the results of referenum questions, like the tax rollback, prove that. If 99% of the people voted for the rollback, we still would never see it.