O'Brien Brings Her "A-Game" to Final Debate

Casts Romney as Heartless Capitalist; Will Electorate Buy It?

By Todd Sharek
October 30, 2002

Prior to their debate last week, Shannon O'Brien and Mitt Romney were in a statistical dead heat. At that debate, O'Brien's performance was abysmal. No one-not even people on her campaign staff-could say with a straight face that their gal had performed admirably. Yet somehow this week's Boston Herald poll shows O'Brien six points ahead of Romney.

Hmm.

Either pundits like myself missed some subliminal power punches thrown by O'Brien last Thursday or perhaps people aren't watching these debates at all. The more likely explanation? While O'Brien's performance was mediocre, Romney wasn't exactly wowing the crowd himself. [I said as much in last Thursday's column, calling Stein the winner of the fourth debate.]

In any event, last night's debate at Suffolk University was "third-and-long" for Romney. He needed to win and his people knew it. Let's face it, when your campaign manager tries to discount the Herald poll because "professional pollsters don't poll on Friday and Saturday because the people who answer their phones at these times are not representative of the general voting public," you're in deep doo-doo.

Moderator Tim Russert had his combatants around the proverbial kitchen table. He was lenient with time constraints, allowing candidates ample time to answer, countercharge and rebut. There was never any doubt as to who was in charge however. Russert did appear agitated on those occasions when O'Brien refused to answer direct questions with direct answers. Romney was consistently peppered with body blows from O'Brien. She was rarely dissuaded. Romney was on the ropes for most of the 53 minutes. On the defensive, he tried masking his frustration in chivalry, telling O'Brien on more than one occasion that her attacks were "not becoming."

The topical Beltway sniper attacks made their way into the debate as the death penalty was question #1. Romney is in favor of the death penalty. O'Brien is against the death penalty. Yet, "law and order" types certainly couldn't discount O'Brien's support of ballistic fingerprinting. Romney, saying the science was too new, wanted time before committing fully.

The anti-abortion crowd really had to read between the lines if they were choosing between the two candidates. O'Brien brought up Romney's Utah "Letter to the Editor" and his 1994 endorsement from a pro-life group. She also brought out the "Multiple Choice" moniker. Romney, perturbed, scolded O'Brien for "scaring people." Single-issue "pro-life" voters probably have a better friend in Romney. O'Brien went extraordinarily left with her support of granting 16-year-olds "parental-free" abortions. Russert countered that a 16-year old can't buy cigarettes or even get a tattoo. O'Brien then asked Russert if he'd like to see her tattoo. It wasn't a scorecard-altering moment on par with Gerry Ford and Poland but given the tenor of the setting, it was inappropriate.

It was also about the only thing O'Brien did wrong all evening.

On matters of fiscal health, Russert opened with a doom-and-gloom statement from Speaker Finneran. Where would Shannon find $2 billion, Russert wanted to know. By her own admission, she only hit $500 million. Russert egged and nudged but O'Brien didn't mention the "T" word. On the contrary, she honestly tried to paint her self as the fiscal conservative. Neither Romney nor Russert was buying it. During Romney's turn at bat, he first called the $2 billion number too high, preferring to use the Mass Taxpayers Foundation's figure of $1.5 billion. Romney, who in previous debates was very specific about his cost savings, reported that his latest balance sheet totaled $1,071,000,000. His patronage-in-the-Judiciary example (for Russert's benefit) as well as his hospital "economies of scale" metaphor was weak, however.

Russert segued the fiscal health question into whether O'Brien would gut Proposition 2 ½. Before answering the question and despite Russert's caution, she backtracked to Romney's last answer. Her strategy was to summarily dismiss Romney's numbers as being "pulled out of the air." Again, O'Brien tried to paint (for an uneducated viewer, I suppose) Romney as the taxer, saying, "The only person who's actually talking about taxes is Mitt Romney." She said he has proposed new taxes on development in sub urban (was that suburban, Shannon, or sub urban?) communities. Moreover, it is Romney-not Shannon O'Brien-who's talking about "tinkering" with Prop 2 ½. On taxes we are equals, she told Russert. "I acknowledge that both Mitt Romney and Shannon O'Brien won't take a 'No New Taxes' pledge."

Everyone and their aunt knows that Shannon is going to raise taxes if elected but what could Romney do? She was crafty, devious and dodging. "Mitt, why didn't you just sign the goddamn Pledge?" Republicans across the Commonwealth had to be grumbling.

Next, Russert put Romney on the spot. Have the people on Beacon Hill been there too long? "Yes," replied Romney. Now that you insulted them, Russert asked how Romney expected to work with them. Finally, halfway through the fifth debate, Romney brought up the "checks and balances" angle. The last time we had one party, "a gang of three," it didn't make for a good democracy, he said. Romney could have been much more assertive or colorful here. "If they passed $1.25B in taxes with a Republican Governor, can you just imagine what Shannon, Speaker Finneran and Travaglini will do? Folks, hold onto your wallets." Unfortunately, that is MY QUOTE you're reading, not Romney's. Had he used my quote, it may have shifted the advantage over to him.

When asked by Russert what checks and balances would be in place with a Shannon O'Brien-led "Gang of Three," she began by suggesting Romney's "Clean up the mess on Beacon Hill" mantra would fare no better than Bill Weld's "Clean up the mess on Beacon Hill" mantra of 1990. Ever evasive, Russert had to finally ask her point-blank if she would veto another billion dollars in taxes if they were passed by the Legislature. She didn't bite. Russert interjected, "It's a very specific question."

Shannon was truly the master debater. She brought the non-answer to dizzying heights. She was slicker than snot on a doorknob, the hillbilly marveled. When it was Romney's turn, O'Brien somehow weaseled her way into his opening remarks. Romney was beginning to show signs of wear. "I can't believe I'm on the defensive on taxes," he had to be saying to himself. Before he could gain footing, Russert whistled the question dead.

Russert then made both defend their private sector experiences. O'Brien went first and immediately put Romney on the defensive. Damon Company had committed Medicare fraud on Mitt Romney's watch, she explained. Quoting a federal prosecutor, O'Brien ridiculed Romney's claim that he was a whistleblower. Romney had to be seething. Yes, he could explain himself out of it but the damage was already "out there." As for her murky private sector experience, she told viewers that she was merely an uninformed, innocent public relations stooge.

Next came the candidates questioning each other. O'Brien immediately portrayed Romney as Gordon Gecko. How much is enough, Gordon? "Couldn't you have made $80 million instead of $102 million and helped keep people on their healthcare benefits for a little bit longer?" she asked. Romney tried to give a short class in Venture Capitalism 101 but he may as well have been answering the question "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Romney cornered O'Brien on her votes on taxes as a legislator. Like she did with Russert, she merely chose to ignore it.

O'Brien's next question tried to portray Romney as an out-of-touch, aloof boob who wouldn't know a federal reimbursement from Shinola. You just can't get $1.7 billion in federal subsidies, she regretfully informed Romney. How did she know? Ted Kennedy told her so. Romney denied saying such a thing. [Sorry, I have no idea whether or not he said it. You'll have to read Rick Klein from the Globe to see if he did.]

Romney's last gasp had him chastising O'Brien for her lack of internal controls in the recent pension scandal reported by the Boston Herald. Most of it was on Joe Malone's watch, she explained. As for Lt. Mace, "it did get past our office." Funny, but even as she took responsibility, it wasn't a "Gotcha!" moment for this viewer. She then gave Romney and Russert a history lesson on Joe Malone's internal control practices.

Somehow she beat Romney on his question. His last question. In a Gubernatorial debate, that is inexcusable.

Ever the diplomat, Russert forced both candidates to highlight the best and worst in their opponent before signing off.

Considering what happened with the polls after O'Brien's lousy performance, maybe the Polling Gods will shine some sympathy on Romney for this performance. It's unlikely. As a wise man once said, if Romney's looking for sympathy, he ought to look between "sh**" and "syphilis" in the dictionary.

Todd Sharek is the editor of NewtonGOP.com.

Tuesday January 13, 2004 News Links World Net Daily **Agape Press * TownHall.com * FreeCongress.org FoxNews.com *Media Research * CNSnews.com * Human Events **