MA-Gov: Assessing the Damage & How to Spin it Back at the Repubs.

The Republican smear machine wants you to think Deval Patrick supports letting convicted rapists roam our streets.  Come see how we can use the Republican's lies against them, and how one unscientific poll might tell us how much damage their smears have done.

First, a brief review for those unfamiliar with the race.

Netroots candidate Deval Patrick has enjoyed up to a 25% lead in recent polls.  The campaign of Republican candidate Kerry Healey has been desperate to find something to smear him with.  With tactics taken right out of the Lee Atwater playbook, the Republicans have resurrected the ghost of Willie Horton...only this time he is named Benjamin Laguer.  Using the Laguer case, the Republicans are trying to convince the voters of Massachusetts that Deval Patrick cares more about criminals than victims, that he wants to let convicted rapists out of jail, and that he is, of course, "soft on crime".

Here are the facts.

1. Benjamin Laguer was convicted of rape, alleged the jury was racist, and wanted a new trial.
2. Deval wrote letters in support of Laguer, and even helped pay for a DNA test to once and for all prove Laguer's guilt or innocence.
3. The DNA test proved Laguer committed the crime, so Deval dropped his support.

Spinning it Back at Them:
The only thing Deval is guilty of is wanting see that justice was served, which it was in this case.  Allegations of jury misconduct are a serious thing, but apparently if Kerry Healey were in charge these things would never be investigated.  This would undoubtedly lead to innocent people being jailed for crimes they did not commit.  Is this the type of justice Kerry Healey intends to give us if elected?  Then Kerry Healey is soft on justice.  That's how we use this against her.

Very Crude Poll Numbers:
   I am a town co-coordinator/precinct captain for Deval.  We were making phone calls from my house tonight to drum up support.  Of 51 people who previously were supporting Deval, 2 said they were not voting for him based specifically on the Laguer case.  This is roughly a 4% loss, which rounds up nicely to 5%.  So, it is my feeling based on our unscientific poll that this issue has damaged Deval, but has only lost him ~5% of the electorate.  My favorite quote of the night, "I'm not a bigot, but Massachusetts is not ready for a black Governor".  Whenever anyone prefaces a comment with, "I'm not a bigot..." it probably means they are.  I honestly think the people we may be losing were looking for a reason to not vote for Deval.  I think we would have lost these people anyway as election day approached.

The good news is that I reckon we still have a 20% lead.  Also, people are still coming out of the woodwork to support Deval.  These are people who have never worked on a campaign before, and who have not voted in decades.  Deval's appeal to people who have "checked out" of politics to please "check back-in" is still working.  I think we still have a solid lead, and should take back the corner office in November.

•  Just remind people..

  about what happened in Illinios a few years back.  Several men who were on death row were found to be NOT GUILTY after DNA testing.  Some never had the chance and were killed!!!  

  And to top it off a Republican, who is now in jail, had to commute the sentences of these men and stop the killing until the whole thing was sorted out.  

  by realitythink on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 07:21:30 PM PDT

•  what comes around goes around

  The front page lead article in today's Boston Herald (yes, the Herald -- weird to say that) read Healey’s con job: Rips Deval as soft on crime while cop killer got perk post at the State House today.

  Where this goes, I do not know -- I've been in Massachusetts all of a month. But, this should be interesting.

  And Deval is still going to win!

  by pucknomad on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 07:33:07 PM PDT

  •  Ahhh

    Now that has bite.

    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:05:32 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely, let this kick Healey in the mouth.

    by wakemeup7nov06 on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:43:08 PM PDT

  •  Today's Healy ad

    Today, I saw what I think may be a different ad from Healy. It described how someone killed a cop in Georgia (?) and was sentenced to life, then the convicted hired Deval Patrick, who got his sentence reduced from life to 25 years, and he's eligible for parole.  The tag line was, "We understand that a defense attorney needs to vigorously defend his client, even a cop killer, but do we want one as governor?"
    
    Paid for my the Healy for Governor Committee.

    Now, I didn't catch it a second time, so if someone has recollection of this, and knows if it's the same ad, or a different ad, please let me know.

    Damn; 31 more days of this type of advertising.  :(

    by MikeTheLiberal on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:14:36 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, during the Tigers-Yankees game today

      I saw that ad about a zillion times.  It's definitely a different case than the rapist.  The story is that some guy killed a Florida state trooper and was sentenced to death.  Deval was hired and managed to get his death sentence commuted.

      It's a sleazy ad, but it actually makes me respect Deval even more.  I think the death penalty has no place in a civilized society.  

      by Balam on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 10:36:44 PM PDT

•  Is Healey on the air

  with an ad attacking Deval over LaGuer?

  If she is, it should be pretty easy to counter.  La Guer, after all, convinced most people -- including the editors of the Globe -- that he was innocent.  The fact the DA wouldn't let him have a DNA test really was suspicious.

  It shouldn't be hard to put an ad countering the attack, showing all the people who were taken in by the con.  And driving home the point you make in the diary, that DNA testing simply offers the innocent a further option, while confirming the guilt of the guilty.

  by litho on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 07:39:04 PM PDT

  •  Yeah she is on the air with it

    The best response in my book is the John Silber also wrote letters for this guy.

    by Osiris on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:49:48 PM PDT

•  It gets worse...

  The Healey campaign has been running an attack ad against Patrick over his defense of Carl Ray Songer, a Florida man convicted of shooting a state trooper in 1973.  Patrick successfully got his sentence reduced from death to life with the possibility of parole.

  The ad's tag line goes something like this: "Sure, copkillers are entitled to a defense lawyer, but do you really want that lawyer as your governor?", a line that could have been written by Lee Atwater.

  And though Healey suffers from her association with Mitt Romney, that isn't stopping the Republican Governors Association from running an ad that touts the accomplishments of the Romney/Healey administration (Boston Globe, last graf), like balancing the budget (at the expense of vital public services).

  Deval Patrick has what, a 25% lead with 16% undecided?  Only way Healey is going to beat that in the next four weeks is to personally bring Osama Bin Ladin's head on a platter to the State House for public viewing.

  
  
  
  

  k.

  by ktakki on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 07:49:22 PM PDT

  •  Question

    Why would Patrick Deval defend a cop killer like that? Honestly I don't get it. I have little respect for cop killers. Was Deval a public defender at some point?

    I know that Jerry Kilgore used this issue against Kaine because he was once a public defender. But Kaine was able to deflect it.

    by jiacinto on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 07:56:46 PM PDT

    •  Because he believes in the Constitution

      Right to counsel.

      Do you?

      by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:07:01 PM PDT

      •  Honestly

        I can't respect what Deval Patrick did in the case of that cop killer. The original issue raised in this thread is different, though. I still support Patrick, but I really wonder what he was thinking when he defended a cop killer like that.

        I would still support him and think that would he make a good governor of MA nonetheless. However, I don't respect what he did in trying to get that sentence reduced.

        by jiacinto on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:25:18 PM PDT

        •  See

          You have to defend the Constitution when you least want to.

          That is its beauty.

          It is to protect those who need it.

          It's easy to defend those you sympathize with.

          It's defending those you despise that makes us great.

          Rather, made us great.

          by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:28:16 PM PDT

          •  You know what

            I don't buy that argument. That man was a cop killer--and deserved to die.  

            by jiacinto on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:30:27 PM PDT

            •  You ran right past the issue

              Read my comment again.

              It is not abut whether he should die.

              It is about his right to due process.

              Let me put it this way - would you accept the fabrication of evidence against him to insure he gets the death penalty?

              IF not, why not? he deserves to die you say and Patrick insuring he gets due process is wrong you say.

              So why not fabricate evidence?

              Ends justify the means right?

              by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:49:39 PM PDT

              •  Well

                Unfortunately Mr. and Mrs. Swing voter in the suburbs won't see it that way. That's all that I am saying.

                by jiacinto on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:51:14 PM PDT

                •  That is not what you said

                  You said it was wrong.

                  I answered your Mr. and Mrs. Swing Voter line downthread.

                  by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:52:14 PM PDT

                  •  Well

                    I do believe that cop killers should have due process. That being said, though, given that the individual in question was guilty in any event, I just wouldn't have been rushing to advocate for him.

                    by jiacinto on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:09:11 PM PDT

                    •  Do as you wish

                      But do not condemn those who insure due process.

                      You inspired me to a diary

                      by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:41:28 PM PDT

                    •  Gee, you sound like Bush.

                      "Well, he's accused of being a terrorist cop killer, so that's what he must be." The label is the trial.

                      At first, I thought that perhaps you had some additional knowledge about the circumstances. But when I search the Internet, I find the Herald article, one NYT article from 1985, and that's it. Neither of those articles tells anything about witnesses or evidence. (They do point out that Patrick was working for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which probably means he didn't have much latitude in terms of which cases he would or wouldn't take.)

                      So I have to conclude that, indeed, you really don't know any of the details. You don't know whether there were witnesses or physical evidence to strengthen the claim that he was a "cop killer."

                      Furthermore, you don't seem to understand that there are people who oppose the death penalty in general, regardless of whether it's applied to an alleged "cop killer" or some random unlucky soul picked off the street.

                      by AlanF on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 09:36:22 AM PDT

                      •  I would give you a rec, but it's too late.

                        I'll get you a 4 next time.

                        You really did hit the nail on the head with that comment though.

                        by Balam on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 10:41:03 PM PDT

                  •  Do you listen to WEEI?

                    Because if you do, "You're making my point!"  :D

                    by MikeTheLiberal on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:28:18 AM PDT

        •  He is a lawyer, he is supposed to defend

          his client.

          In the primary he was accused of being a corporate shill for being a counsel for Coca Cola.

          by Osiris on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:52:42 PM PDT

        •  Then dump the ACLU while you're at it ...

          ... because everyone accused of a crime has the right to a vigorous defense.  We need habeus corpus, we need vigorous police work, and we need to have that defense to ensure that the People don't present falsified evidence, coerced confessions and other materials that prevent a fair trial.

          It's icky, but defending people you don't like is necessary in our criminal system.

          by MikeTheLiberal on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:21:25 AM PDT

    •  Not sure...

      My guess, and I'm still digging into this, is that Patrick was hired because of procedural problems with the Songer trial.  No doubt that Songer was guilty, but did he deserve to be railroaded into a death penalty?  Was the crime premeditaded or was it really Murder 2?

      Just my first take on this issue.  The Songer ad has only been running for a couple of days.

      
      
      
      

      k.

      by ktakki on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:10:13 PM PDT

      •  Well

        Who cares? Honestly the man killed a cop. That's what Mr. and Mrs. Swing voter will see. They won't care if there was a procedural mistake. The defendent was still guilty.

        Again I don't support what Deval Patrick did here. The man was guilty. So why the hell did he try to get involved like that?

        by jiacinto on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:29:43 PM PDT

        •  Are you willing to apply that same judgement to

          President Bush and all of his Administration?

          I mean...afterall...they're responsible for the deaths of thousands of soldiers and then there's the Iraqis...over 100,000 at this point.

          by Elise on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:52:06 PM PDT

        •  Well why was there a trial at all then?

          just shoot him in the back of the head. anybody who says 'Wait he should have a lawyer, or even comes forward and says 'hey due process wasn't followed' must support the killing of cops.....

          by Osiris on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:55:01 PM PDT

        •  Because...

          When the life or death of a defendent is in question, it is the duty of all good people to make sure that the state has performed its due dilligence in justifying the termination of a defendent's life.

          If Songer was your son/brother/father, wouldn't you want to see the state have its feet held to the fire, making sure that every I was dotted and every T was crossed?

          Deval Patrick worked for the Department of Justice, not the Department of Vengence.

          
          
          
          

          k.

          by ktakki on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:09:21 PM PDT

        •  Okay, you've stated your case

          If you really need to address this, create a diary entry. It's a valid topic, but at this point, you're trolling for an argument.

          by MikeTheLiberal on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:26:20 AM PDT

  •  Heh

    So the attack is Patrick is a great lawyer?

    Weird.

    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:06:20 PM PDT

  •  Damn, I'm dumb

    I just posted something about this above, then saw this.  (smacks head)

    Sorry about that.

    by MikeTheLiberal on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:16:04 AM PDT

•  Well

  Patrick should go on TV explaining that he believed that the person in question was innocent, but that he withdrew support once DNA proved him to be guilty.

  by jiacinto on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 07:54:34 PM PDT

  •  You don't say you believed he was innocent

    You just say, 'look, he had an unfair trial, and there was enough doubt about his guilt that I wanted to be sure.  So we made sure.  And he was guilty, and he's in jail.  And isn't that the way the system is supposed to work?'

    -fred

    by Fred Fnord on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:03:38 PM PDT

    •  Well

      Mr. and Mrs "Swing Voter" won't see it that way. They will see Patrick defending a criminal.

      by jiacinto on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:31:12 PM PDT

      •  See Boston Herald story link downthread. (n/t)

        by wakemeup7nov06 on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:44:38 PM PDT

      •  Wel guees what?

        Fuck Mr. and Mrs. Swing Voter.

        Sometimes you do something because it is the right thing to do, not because of MR. and Mrs. Swing Voter.

        by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:51:16 PM PDT

        •  To say nothing of the fact that

          with a 20+ point lead, there probably aren't even enough swing voters to save Healy at this point.  

          by Balam on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 10:44:22 PM PDT

      •  If Mr. & Mrs. Swing voter can't

        tell the difference between protecting the United States Constitution from 'protecting criminals', then we as a nation are shit out of luck anyway.

        How long do we put what's right on hold to win elections?  If Democrats win one or both houses in 2006, will we release the 'hold' or do we continue to sacrifice what's right until 2008? If Democrats lose the WH, do we put keep what's right on 'hold' until 2010? 2012?

        I get what you're saying and understanding why you're saying it. But the bottom line is: you advocate sacrificing what's right for votes. The same votes from people who can't tell the difference between protecting the United States Constitution and 'protecting criminals'.

        by callmecassandra on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 09:02:58 PM PDT

        •  We are sooooo screwed!

          If Mr. & Mrs. Swing voter can't tell the difference between protecting the United States Constitution from 'protecting criminals', then we as a nation are shit out of luck anyway.

          It's the standard GOPig argument: "If you want us to protect your freedoms, you need to relinquish your freedoms."

          People think it will never bite them, either.

          by MikeTheLiberal on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:31:04 AM PDT

      •  That's why you say it

        And if you say it well enough, and in a short enough sentence that the media will actually quote the whole thing, Mr. and Mrs. Swing Voter will understand it.

        Whereas if you say 'I believed he was innocent' you sound weak, credulous, or stupid to them, and I would submit that no matter how well you make the point, you still sound that way to them.

        -fred

        by Fred Fnord on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 10:38:32 PM PDT

•  Remarkable

  You mean the guy did not get out? How will this resonate?

  I think it is pretty simple, Patrick wanted to see if he was guilty.

  DNA could prove it one way or the other.

  Doesn't the conscience of Massachusetts feel better knowing a guilty man is behind bars? Not an innocent one?

  Patrick wants the guilty locked up. Not the innocent.

  Healy sounds like Bush. She doesn't care who is innocent or guilty.

  Her fear is what guides her. Like Bush.

  Like Bush? Then Healy is for you.

  by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:04:59 PM PDT

•  Take the Gloves Off?

  I'm starting to be swayed by the idea of Patrick taking the gloves off.  I know he's gotten a lot of mileage from this being a different kind of campaign, but I think he might need to reassure people that he won't stand for the Swift Boat/Willie Horton treatment.  The best way to do that is to get off the defensive and going after Healey --- maybe on the increasing murder rate and the non-response by the Romney/Healey administration.

  by rickterp on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:08:12 PM PDT

•  This is a nonstory. I'd just ignore it. n/t

  by masslib on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 08:08:59 PM PDT

•  It is not a non-story...

  If it is all over the front pages of the paper, and I know people are swithcing their votes as a result.  After sleeping on it, I think I have distilled Deval's response down even further...

  "In Kerry Healey's Massachusetts allegations of jury misconduct will not be investigated.  This will inevitably lead to the jailing of innocent people.  Is that the type of state you want to live in?"

  We need to make Kerry Healey say what she would do as governor if serious allegations of jury misconduct came down in a case.  If she says,"I would investigate them" Deval's response is simply, "That is what I was doing in the Laguer case."
  For those of you unfamiliar...yes, the rapist stayed in jail, and justice was served. As for the cop killer, Deval is against the death penalty and I think that is part of why he got involved in this case.
  Altogether a thoughtful discussion...thanks all!

  by The Angry Democrat on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 04:02:48 AM PDT