Measuring Romney's coattails - Special House race shaping up as key test of GOP resurgence next year

f Governor Mitt Romney has a ''machine gun'' aimed at Democratic state lawmakers, as House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran warned last week, then the special House election in a district south of Boston offers Romney his first target.

With six days left before voters go to the polls in the only state election this year, Romney and the state Republican Party already have poured considerable effort and money into the race. According to GOP executive director Dominick Ianno, the party has spent more than $10,000 on 24-year-old Matt Sisk's campaign, funding four mass mailings, two automated phone blitzes, and a poll for the political neophyte.

Democrats say the figure is probably closer to $50,000, based on the typical costs of such efforts.

In addition, both Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey have appeared personally with Sisk, who is running for a seat that covers Braintree and parts of Randolph and Holbrook. Romney also sent out a personalized mailing on the candidate's behalf, and Healy donated $100 to Sisk.

As a result, the competition between Democrat Joseph Driscoll and Sisk in the Fifth Norfolk District is fast shaping up as a key, early test of Romney's political coattails: Can the Republican governor's reformist image rub off on an unknown local candidate, or will his party's habitual poor performance in local elections persist?

Regardless, some observers say, the race already has provided some interesting clues about how Romney and the Republicans would manage next year's general elections -- and the importance the governor has placed on getting more friendly faces in the Democrat-dominated Legislature.

''For the past four to five years, all the energy has gone to the top of the ticket, but you have to build a base at the local level, and they understand that now,'' Mickey Edwards, a Harvard professor and Republican strategist, said of the GOP. ''Romney has not been at all shy in saying that if he has to get Republicans elected in the Legislature to succeed, that's what he'll do. Whatever happens in this race, it will be an indicator of the effectiveness of that strategy.''

It's clear from Sisk's campaign finance reports -- the latest ones filed Monday -- that the Republican's base of support sits far outside the district where he lives. Of 72 contributions, just 12 came from residents of the district. The GOP's Ianno said that was natural, since Republicans make up just 13 percent of the voters in Braintree.

Asked about the lopsided contribution base in his campaign, Sisk said, ''I'm running to end politics as usual. Governor Romney is trying to enact reforms and reduce waste, and that message has a broad appeal.''

But while there's nothing untoward about raising money from whomever and wherever a candidate can, the Democrats have decried some of the Republican moves on Sisk's behalf as downright underhanded.

For example, one of four mass mailings paid for by the state GOP shows Driscoll apparently standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Finneran, the caption reading, ''Kings of government waste and cronyism.'' The image is actually the melding of two separate photos, unlike an adjacent shot of ''Matt'' and ''Mitt'' beaming together on the campaign trail.

''The picture is doctored. How much more outrageous can you get than that?'' said P.J. O'Sullivan, a Driscoll spokesman who helped manage US Representative William Delahunt's campaigns. ''Not only is the Republican Party trying to buy a House seat, but they're doing it through inaccurate, misleading, and false mailings.''

Another flyer shows two men shaking hands with several $100 bills pressed between them, and blasts Driscoll's financial support from Big Dig lobbyists and contractors. Ianno defended the mailings, saying, ''There's nothing in there that's not true.''

Yet if the Democrats are scornful of the Republican methods, they are not above adopting some of them.

Philip W. Johnston, the state Democratic chairman, said he decided yesterday the party will spend $5,000 on Driscoll's candidacy between now and Election Day, May 13. They also will renew efforts to bring out an army of volunteers to help Driscoll, a former legislative aide and prosecutor.

''We intend to do the same next year to the extent that Romney continues this effort of running and financing candidates against Democratic legislators,'' Johnston said. ''We intend to be ready with financial and organizational resources, and we intend to combat Republican legislators toe to toe in their districts.''

As for attack ads and other tough campaigning, Johnston said, ''The Romney people need to understand that every time they try to smear one of our candidates, we're going to respond. We're not going to take those attacks lying down.'' He later poked fun at Sisk for still living with his parents.

Privately, some Republicans and Democrats were reluctant to attach too much importance to next week's elections, because of the inherent risks involved. If Sisk loses, Romney and the Republicans don't want to appear as though they exerted immense amounts of effort and still lost, which could have a chilling effect on other races next year.

And if Driscoll loses, Democrats would worry that Republicans elsewhere would be emboldened to run, making next year's elections a costly affair.

Still, if Romney's backing of Sisk bears fruit, he ''could really revitalize two-party competition in this state,'' said GOP consultant Todd Domke. ''The Braintree race gives some hope for that.''

But Democratic consultant Michael Goldman was less bullish on Romney's influence on the Braintree race -- or any race, for that matter. Republicans hold just 30 seats on Beacon Hill, despite more than a decade of GOP control of the corner office, he said. And past claims that the party is experiencing a renaissance have often ended the same way.

''There's three things you can count on,'' Goldman said. ''The swallows coming back to Capistrano, Punxsutawney Phil, and . . . the Republicans [saying they] will get someone elected to the state Legislature.''

He pointed to a recent controversy in the Braintree race, after Driscoll called a local pizzeria and berated the manager for posting a Sisk sign in the window. Driscoll, also a selectman, said he was just an angry customer, but caller ID at the eatery showed his identity. The incident found its way to the local papers and Driscoll's seemingly untarnished reputation took a major blow.

''Prior to the pizza incident, there wasn't one person around who thought this kid [Sisk] could win,'' Goldman said. ''So the Romney aspect had nothing to do with it. It's all about a mess-up.''

Yet some Democrats are not so sure. In fact, they have accused the Romney administration of leaking the ''Pizzagate'' incident to the press, an allegation that a Romney spokesman said was ''ridiculous and ludicrous.'' Whatever the truth, the Democrats clearly see Romney casting a long shadow over a race in a Democratic district, and an election that was once a sure thing now seems hotly contested.

''The [Republican] party was in a dismal hole just a couple of years ago,'' Domke said. ''So just the fact that they're out so aggressively now is a sea change over the last couple of years.''

The state GOP in MA is probably the most abysmal in the nation (perhaps surpassed only by RI's party, which hasn't been relevant since the 'Rat coup d'etat of the mid-1930s), and having to rebuild it in this formerly preeminent GOP state will be an absolutely monumental task (much like the situation in southern states of 50 years ago). The "Republican Governors" (RINOs all) starting with Weld were effectively political independents that consisted of themselves and only their Lieutenants (albeit Weld started out gamely enough, and managed to get a decent number of state legislators elected with him in '90 (16 out of 40, and 40 out of 160 House members), but the gains all but vanished, even as Weld won reelection in a massive landslide in '94, and there are fewer members now than during the '80s under Dukakis). Weld-Cellucci-Swift all made it perfectly clear that Conservatives weren't welcome in the MA GOP, so the numbers in the legislature shrunk to what are now a few pro-abort/pro-gay rights leftist RINOs and, as a result, practically all of the ideological battles are fought within the 'Rat party, which goes from Marxist left to fairly Conservative. If Romney is telling Conservatives they are not only welcome, but badly needed, this is a good start. But the grass roots are dead, and something is going to have to be done about that. A top-down approach will only get you so far.

I hear you, and I know where your coming from because I'm up in Connecticut.

I like Romney a lot. The more I here about him, the more he sounds like he can get things done. He's what a NorthEasterner Republican should be - Fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal.

But most importantly , Romney shows the ONE THING Republicans Governors MUST have in all States:

He is not afraid to FIGHT the Democrats.

His building the party from scratch is necessary, because - well... The Party doesn't really exist in MA.

Know this, at least the Romney's GOP has NOWHERE to go but up.

I know what you mean. I'm from Connecticut too and John Rowland has been a disaster for our party at the local level.

When he was elected we were thinking, GREAT! finally a Republican Governor who can help us recruit candidates, fund-raise, etc. What did we get? Well, he won't recruit candidates and, in fact, cherry picks local talent for state jobs. He started with our local State Rep in 1995 and the seat promptly turned over to the Democrats.

If you try to get him to campaign, it's impossible. He won't work weekends and spends more time on Block Island than our part of the state. The events he has done have been last minute and multi-town. These took place right before the election. It's kind of pointless to have all your workers crowd into headquarters outside your district to have the Governor ask for their votes.

Last year, faced with an underfunded weak opponent, he canceled a state-wide fundraiser at a local amusement park. It was too much for him to bear that $30,000 would not benefit him directly and go to the grass roots.

I guess the people of CT have no reason to vote Republican anyway. He certainly hasn't laid out an agenda that conflicts with what the democrats in the legislature want.

It is amazing though. Rowland was considered a fairly good Congressman in the '80s, a strong Conservative with a lot of potential. Now he seems to have devolved into CT's version of Bill Weld (if not nearly a clone of Lowell Wackjob). The same was said of Pataki in NY when he first was elected to the State Senate. Even my former Governor, Scumquist, here in TN, when he served in Congress, was a decent Conservative. What is it that happens once these "Conservatives" get to the Governor's office that they lose their minds and go native ? It's too bad in '90 (in MA) that the party nominees couldn't have switched places. Weld was a "great" 'Rat Governor, helping build their already huge majority into an impenetrable force, but John Silber might've done a fantastic job bringing back Conservatives into the GOP. Silber should've won that contest... :-(

"The "Republican Governors" (RINOs all) starting with Weld were effectively political independents"

I thought that Romney was a moderate, not an all-out RINO. He isn't really pro-abortion, is he? If so, he may be the only pro-abortion Mormon politician who has attained high office (even liberal Harry Reid usually votes pro-life, and I believe so does Jim Matheson (D-UT)).

I also understand that Governor Carcieri of Rhode Island is pro-life, and fairly conservative on other issues as well. How could someone that conservative get 55% of the vote in a state where W. only got like 30% in 2000? I know Rhode Island is our most Catholic state (between 50-60% Catholic), but I thought they were mostly French-Canadian Cafeteria Catholics.

"The state GOP in MA is probably the most abysmal in the nation (perhaps surpassed only by RI's party, which hasn't been relevant since the 'Rat coup d'etat of the mid-1930s), and having to rebuild it in this formerly preeminent GOP state will be an absolutely monumental task (much like the situation in southern states of 50 years ago). The "Republican Governors" (RINOs all) starting with Weld were effectively political independents that consisted of themselves and only their Lieutenants (albeit Weld started out gamely enough, and managed to get a decent number of state legislators elected with him in '90 (16 out of 40, and 40 out of 160 House members), but the gains all but vanished, even as Weld won reelection in a massive landslide in '94, and there are fewer members now than during the '80s under Dukakis). Weld-Cellucci-Swift all made it perfectly clear that Conservatives weren't welcome in the MA GOP, so the numbers in the legislature shrunk to what are now a few pro-abort/pro-gay rights leftist RINOs and, as a result, practically all of the ideological battles are fought within the 'Rat party, which goes from Marxist left to fairly Conservative. If Romney is telling Conservatives they are not only welcome, but badly needed, this is a good start. But the grass roots are dead, and something is going to have to be done about that. A top-down approach will only get you so far."

I understand what your saying. What I'm not really sure about is how to build the MA GOP. How do we win when we put up a conservative candidate, but the generally left leaning electorate refuses to vote for? Or if we put up a moderate, how do we win when conservatives refuse to vote? I consider myself to be politically well informed (and I am politically active) but I have no clue how to win in the heart of "Gore Country", Massachussetts.

Your completely right about the ideological battles in the MA GOP. We should feel very fortunate Tom Finneran is the Speaker of the MA House.

"I thought that Romney was a moderate, not an all-out RINO. He isn't really pro-abortion, is he? If so, he may be the only pro-abortion Mormon politician who has attained high office (even liberal Harry Reid usually votes pro-life, and I believe so does Jim Matheson (D-UT))."

I think at one point, he was pondering running as a pro-lifer for Governor, but changed his mind when his pollsters told him that might prove difficult. Jim Matheson, I believe, is pro-abortion. Even after gerrymandering that seat in UT, we failed to provide enough $$ support to the Republican to knock him off.

"I also understand that Governor Carcieri of Rhode Island is pro-life, and fairly conservative on other issues as well. How could someone that conservative get 55% of the vote in a state where W. only got like 30% in 2000? I know Rhode Island is our most Catholic state (between 50-60% Catholic), but I thought they were mostly French-Canadian Cafeteria Catholics."

The pro-life issue got lost in the fact that Myrth York was the 'Rat nominee for the 3rd time in a row.

If Matheson runs for re-election (he may run for Governor instead), he will go down in 2004. Swallow lost by like 1% even though he got very little support from the GOP. That will not be the case in 2004, and with Bush wielding his mighty coattails, Utah will once again have an all-Republican Congressional delegation (it should have been 4 Republican Representatives, not 3, but the Census Bureau and the Supreme Court stole one of Utah's seats and gave it to North Carolina).

"I understand what your saying. What I'm not really sure about is how to build the MA GOP. How do we win when we put up a conservative candidate, but the generally left leaning electorate refuses to vote for? Or if we put up a moderate, how do we win when conservatives refuse to vote? I consider myself to be politically well informed (and I am politically active) but I have no clue how to win in the heart of "Gore Country", Massachussetts."

That is the question, and this will be very difficult to do. We have to be prepared to lose a lot of races, but we need to start to build a farm team in every township in the state, get more young people involved (since most of the older ones are probably too diehard 'Rat) and also businesspeople willing to donate time and money. This was one of the approaches that was taken decades ago in the south where the GOP was largely extinct. Some of the local GOP clubs might oppose this (wanting to remain exclusive social organizations, which many are), but they still need to press on. Romney needs to encourage this. He has already realized the inherent worth of winning a Governorship in a state where there's practically none of your party, and that's a recipe for disaster. The MA legislature can rule the state (pass legislation and initiatives) completely without the input of the Governor. Well, you get what I'm saying here.

"Your completely right about the ideological battles in the MA GOP. We should feel very fortunate Tom Finneran is the Speaker of the MA House."

Finneran is the firewall for MA leftist politics. The left has been aching to replace him for a long time, and once they do, the inmates will be in charge of the asylum again (of course, they already were in the Senate under Birmingham).

"If Matheson runs for re-election (he may run for Governor instead), he will go down in 2004. Swallow lost by like 1% even though he got very little support from the GOP. That will not be the case in 2004, and with Bush wielding his mighty coattails, Utah will once again have an all-Republican Congressional delegation (it should have been 4 Republican Representatives, not 3, but the Census Bureau and the Supreme Court stole one of Utah's seats and gave it to North Carolina)."

The name Matheson is rather revered in UT (because of Jim's dad, Scott, the late Governor from 1977-85). Jimbo is much more leftist than pop and I do think he may run for Governor (I fear he might actually win. I'm no fan of the current Governor Leavitt, who's gotten way too cocky and has really pi$$ed me off on championing taxing internet purchases). Did you know there is a Black GOP State Senator who just won in SLC in November ? I wonder if his district falls within Matheson's ? Anyway, his name is James Evans, and he won in a shocking upset (and with scant GOP support) in the penultimate 'Rat Hispanic district (after a brutal internecine battle following the death of its former holder). The media ignores the former South Carolinian and Tuskegee graduate and even the likes of Gov. Bill Richardson have traveled to the state to demand Hispanics "take back seats" (a thinly veiled reference to Evans' 1st district). Evans may face a huge blitz next time around, and I hope the GOP looks to this gentleman for either the Congressional seat or the Lieutenant-Governorship if Leavitt steps aside.

State Sen. James Evans (R-1st-UT)

"his name is James Evans, and he won in a shocking upset (and with scant GOP support) in the penultimate 'Rat Hispanic district"

I have to assume that little if any of Senator Evans's district lies within Matheson's congressional district, since the most Democratic parts of SLC were placed in the other two districts in order to hurt Matheson. Besides, if James Evans (is his wife's name Florida : ) isn't a Mormon, he'd have a really tough time beating Matheson, since it may take away the usual Republican advantage in the rural counties added to the district.

"I have to assume that little if any of Senator Evans's district lies within Matheson's congressional district, since the most Democratic parts of SLC were placed in the other two districts in order to hurt Matheson."

Yeah, I think you're right. I just typed in Sen. Evans's zip code into "Write your Representative", and it stated he's in Rob Bishop's 1st. The question is whether even any sliver of that district is within the 2nd, which I don't know.

"Besides, if James Evans (is his wife's name Florida : )"

I wonder if someone might pick up on that (I'm also a fan of 'Good Times', too). :-)

"isn't a Mormon, he'd have a really tough time beating Matheson, since it may take away the usual Republican advantage in the rural counties added to the district."

The case I was making was more if Matheson vacated the seat. I looked for Sen. Evans's religious affiliation, and I couldn't find it. It might be rather presumptive on my part to claim he's a good old fashioned Southern Baptist. :-)

How could someone that conservative get 55% of the vote in a state where W. only got like 30% in 2000?

That's a long story. But RI is pretty pro-life, just it's usually the Dems who are pro-life, not the Republicans.

Carcieri was also running against a two-time loser who went extremely negative right away in her campaign and drew a huge backlash.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.