Lot of folks picking on Jon Keller these days, so maybe I should say two things.
One, I don’t think people realize how revolutionary it is to have a gubernatorial debate that focuses squarely on policy choices, instead of poll numbers, horserace positioning, fuzzy symbolic ‘issues’, or personality conflicts. I’ll take this last debate over a Tim Russert one any day.
Two, who/what are we comparing him to? Others may be fond of or nostalgic for the stalwart political reporters on the Boston scene, but can you imagine Andy Hiller making a statement like this:
Gabrieli also has a problem that the debate exposes. He’s too cute by half. He’s all for the income tax rollback to five percent, but maybe not right away, and if you listen closely to his pitch, maybe not at all. He likes the wind farm project, but supports Ted Kennedy’s backroom move to kill it by letting Gov. Romney veto it. In response to a question about willingness to use race as the sole criteria in an employee layoff decision, Gabrieli appeared to say both yes, he would, and no, he wouldn’t, according to my transcription, but that may have just been confused syntax. I’m sure the Gabrieli people will say this is all just Chris being thoughtful and avoiding simplictic sound bites, but it sure smells like waffling to me, and I bet it will to others.
Other pundits, playing the pundit game, hedge their statements too much with qualification (Hiller) or fail to break out of the fetishization of the political scene (Henning). I have some criticisms of his style (hyperbolic insults tossed from the position of luxury of not actually having to offer a positive solution to anything), but in face of the alternatives Keller is a welcome breath of fresh air.
No comments have been added to this post yet.