Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Did Kerry Healey really run an excessively negative gubernatorial campaign?

It is now an article of faith in Massachusetts that Healey lost the 2006 gubernatorial race to Deval Patrick because of an unreasonably low-class campaign. According to the conventional wisdom, Healey engaged in off-the-charts demagoguery and borderline race-baiting, while Patrick ran an uplifting, civil campaign appealing to mankind’s better instincts.

Whenever I hear this conventional wisdom being espoused, I can’t help thinking of Hollywood producer Robert Evans’ famous saying: "There are three sides to every story–your side, my side, and the truth." It’s inaccurate to characterize Healey’s campaign as flawless, but it’s also inaccurate to characterize her campaign as the ultimate in political depravity. The truth, as they say, lies somewhere in between.

Healey wasn’t wrong to emphasize Patrick’s attitudes concerning crime and punishment. The issue of crime is never irrelevant, and Patrick’s support of a convicted rapist and his efforts to have a cop-killer removed from death row were pertinent issues. Healey ran an effective commercial highlighting Patrick’s involvement in the Carl Ray Songer cop-killer case, and a highly controversial spot focusing on Patrick’s efforts in the Ben LaGuer rape case. Looking back, it seems that the LaGuer commercial, now commonly referred to as the "garage ad," missed the mark and hurt Healey’s campaign–but not for the reason everyone seems to believe.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims of figures such as former Patrick adviser Dan Payne, the "garage ad" represented neither deliberate nor unintentional race-baiting. However, the ad likely turned viewers off because it reminded victims of crime and their friends and relatives of the trauma they went through. Instead of turning those viewers against Patrick (because of his actions in the LaGuer case), the ad caused those viewers to perceive Healey as a candidate willing to exploit real-life crimes to gain political advantage.

Healey also wasn’t wrong to label Patrick a "tax-and-spend liberal"; considering Patrick’s well-documented scorn of tax cuts, such a depiction was not inappropriate. However, Healey failed to come up with a response to those who argued that Patrick’s corporate background made him an unlikely tax-and-spender. She never emphasized that there are plenty of hardcore left-wingers in the corridors of corporate America (Ted Turner, anyone?) and that Patrick’s private-sector success did not mean he wouldn’t be a public-sector failure.

Frankly, as Patrick would say, Healey was doomed. Anti-Mitt Romney sentiment in this state was at the boiling point, and nothing was going to stop Healey from being scalded. Even if she had forcefully condemned Romney’s anti-Massachusetts remarks, it would not have been enough to dampen voter enthusiasm for Patrick.

Healey was linked to the Legacy of Mitt–and as it turned out, fifty-six percent of the electorate considered that legacy a bitter one. While she clearly made significant mistakes in her campaign, it’s a distortion to claim that her "over-the-top negativity" was the primary factor in her loss. She did not become our next governor principally because of the Bay State’s contempt for the man who could become our next President.