Attorney General Thomas Reilly should quit the race for governor. The news that self-made millionaire and good-government political activist Chris Gabrieli is allowing organizers of a “Draft Chris” movement to go forward together with the already declared candidacy of Bill Clinton’s assistant attorney general for civil rights and corporate lawyer Deval Patrick means that the Democratic Party is not without options when it comes to challenging Republican lieutenant governor Kerry Healey for the big office in the State House. (And the speculation that maverick Republican Christy Mihos might challenge Healey or — most interesting and probable of all — run as an independent, means that Massachusetts voters could face some unexpected choices in the months ahead.)
But the first order of business is for Reilly to exit. Reilly’s principal claim on the Democratic Party’s nomination is the incontestable fact that he’s raised a lot of money — $3.7 million as reported by the end of last year. But are big bucks from well-heeled party insiders and special interests the best measure of what Democrats want in a gubernatorial candidate? What about vision? What about political competence? Truth be told, Reilly has been a passable attorney general, but hardly stellar. He’s a garden-variety local prosecutor whose biggest claim to fame is that he managed to win statewide election. As attorney general he has not been in the same league as his predecessors, Republican Elliot Richardson or Democrats Robert Quinn, Frank Bellotti, and Scott Harshbarger.
Reilly is not ready for prime time. His political ineptitude and bad judgment have been sadly demonstrated on two pathetic recent occasions: the Worcester County case where he perhaps understandably but nevertheless inappropriately interceded in the investigation of an automobile fatality that may have involved an instance of underage drinking, and his embarrassing choice of the financially challenged Dorchester state senator Marie St. Fleur as his running mate without properly vetting her, even after she hinted broadly — but not broadly enough — that she had substantial tax-related problems.
It’s true that everybody makes mistakes, but do the Democrats want to entrust their party, which has been frozen out of the governor’s office for 12 years running, to a guy who makes two whoppers within a period of several weeks? Reilly has tried to deflect criticism by saying that politics has never been his strong suit. That won’t wash. As governor he would be the state’s chief executive, and as such he would have to combine the instincts needed for public life with the managerial talents demanded by the private sector. By these measures, he’s a double failure.
Reilly’s performance at the recent Democratic caucuses was equally dispiriting. The left-leaning wing of the party may enjoy an outsize influence in these intramural scrims, but should a two-time, statewide officeholder suffer a loss to electoral virgin Patrick by a margin that may exceed four to one (the ballots are still being counted) and presume to be a winner in November?
If questions about Reilly’s judgment don’t give party warhorses pause, one would think that the starker calculus of electability might.
One of Reilly’s problems may be that he has thought too much about raising the money he needs to be elected governor and not enough about what he would stand for if he were to be elected. Witness Reilly’s flip-flop embrace of the death penalty; it was every bit as squirrelly as the conversion Mitt Romney miraculously underwent when he cast his cold and calculating eyes on the White House, at which point he abandoned his position on abortion that while he was personally opposed to it, he respected and upheld a woman’s right to choose. And then there was his spineless performance on the issue of gay marriage. Reilly really stuck it to a community that had for the most part supported his electoral career. Even if as attorney general Reilly felt he had absolutely no wiggle room and had to allow a statewide referendum on gay marriage (something we — like others — doubt), he could have made a more convincing case and showed more solicitude toward his gay supporters. When the going gets tough, Reilly gets squishy. At least more-conservative Democrats have the candor to hold their positions with conviction.
While he may not do it convincingly, Reilly is always on watch trying to turn easy headlines into political hay. He tried to exploit the nasty and soul-numbing scandal over the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests by suggesting constitutionally dubious oversight of church affairs by his office. He tried to worm his way into the sale of the Red Sox with dubious claims of policing the trusts that owned the team. And he offended civil libertarians as well as people of common sense when he injected himself into a fracas caused by two loathsome radio talk-show jocks who made a racist wisecrack on the air.
But when there were issues that really mattered and where his office had a clear interest — such as the spate of murder-conviction reversals in Suffolk County and the plague of murders that Boston police have not been able to solve — where was Reilly? Keeping his mouth shut.
Although the prospect appears unlikely, we’d welcome the entrance of one of our congressmen into the race. Whether Patrick or Gabrieli have what it takes to make it as governor remains to be seen. They may, by the standards of political pros, be long shots. But we think their candidacies are more appealing than Reilly’s.
