1988 Redux – Mitt Romney's Willie Horton?

Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney announced on April 11 that he is “formally exploring a presidential bid”. As such, because a 2012 Romney run would be a repetition of his 2008 attempt at presidential power, a look back is in order.

When Michael Dukakis, another Governor of Massachusetts, ran for the great office in 1988 there were many who considered him a serious contender. After all, he had the much-touted but highly questionable “Massachusetts Miracle” claim of economic prosperity in that state during the mid to later parts of that decade to bolster his profile.

George Bush appeared a lackluster candidate in comparison and almost “too easy” to beat – it seemed at the time. But there were ghosts that haunted Mr. Dukakis. As the Democratic candidate seemed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and Mr. Bush became “Bush #1” it was clear that, for Mr. Dukakis’ campaign, the man and the hour had certainly not met.

Analysts and voters at the time found at least three negatives about Mr. Dukakis that he could not overcome – and which seemed to unavoidably bring him to defeat. The first was his bizarrely cold and politician-like answer during the second presidential debate to moderator Bernard Shaw’s question: “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”

Dukakis’ spiritless, calculating politician-like answer stunned the nation. “No, I don’t, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life.” This unfortunate but honest answer essentially ended the debates – Dukakis lost. In addition to this stunning exposure of calculation and lack of passion, the photo of Dukakis in the Abrams tank, the failed brainchild plan of some marketing hack confirmed the public’s fears of the Democratic candidate’s poor judgment and character flaws. But what really ended the Dukakis campaign was the masterful use of the Willie Horton scandal by the Republicans.

Massachusetts is known for its liberal politics. Barney Frank is from Massachusetts (and Edward M. Kennedy). Liberalism reaches to the core of Massachusetts’ political and public culture. Willie Horton was a convicted murderer released into society by a forgiving liberal Massachusetts judicial system prior to the end of his mandated sentence. Had Horton disappeared into daily life on his furlough as the forgiving, nice jurists had unreasonably expected, Mr. Dukakis may very well have been elected president despite his missteps and questionable judgment. But the Horton case would not die; it would not die because the Republicans would not allow it to go away. Shortly after his release, Horton committed new crimes including vicious assault and rape.

Dukakis had supported the “compassionate” program through which the criminal had been released to commit further atrocities. The idea became a strong one in the collective mind of the American electorate that Mr. Dukakis’ judgment was questionable and that he was “soft on crime.” The Republican campaign helped America to not forget.

More cynical, entertainment-oriented voters might say, what does the 1988 campaign have to with 2012? They might add that history is “history” and doesn’t affect us today. They are wrong. They are wrong because former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has similar mountainous problems to overcome.

The nightmarish case of one Daniel Tavares, a convicted murderer held in a Massachusetts prison only to be released by a Romney-appointed liberal judge, to kill again in another state is now almost entirely forgotten.

If Mr. Romney becomes the Republican nominee the Democrats and reasonable people across the country will have a great deal of soul-searching to do on this case. Because the convicted murderer killed again due to Massachusetts’ leniency and “liberal tolerance” for such things (Massachusetts liberal politicians did not learn the “Willie Horton lesson” of being “soft on crime”) this case will certainly come up in the 2012 campaign.

Few media outlets covered this case in 2007. Few media outlets are covering this important story today now that Mr. Romney may well stand again for President. This in itself is a mystery.

The facts of this very ugly case are these:

• Daniel T. Tavares is sentenced in June, 1992 to 17-20 years in prison for brutally killing his mother.

‘He was a vicious kid. A lot of mistakes were made with Daniel Tavares,’ said retired Somerset Detective John D. O’Neil, who obtained a videotaped confession from Tavares just hours after he killed his mother, Ann Marie Tavares, in 1991. ‘Someone stabs his mother 26 times. It doesn’t get more vicious than that. You have to think about him getting out again, and then he did,’ O’Neil said.

• Tavares goes before Romney-appointed Judge Kathe Tuttman to request early release because he had served the lower end of his sentence. Tavares has a history of violent behavior in prison including at least one assault on a guard.
• Three days prior to the day he was to be released from prison, assault charges were filed against Tavares, June 11, 2007. Judge Martha Brennan ordered him held on $100,000 bail.
• Romney-appointed judge Kathe Tuttman cancels the $100,000 bail. Tavares is released on personal recognizance.
• Tavares has been in jail for ten years for the vicious murder of his mother. Judge Tuttman states from the bench that she does not believe Tavares to be a flight risk. This is July 16, 2007, there is pending legal action on the assault case.

‘It’s difficult to believe he was able to get away,’ said Timothy Connolly, a spokesman for Worcester District Attorney Joseph Early Jr. Connolly said Early was notified by the state police that Tavares was able to buy a plane ticket and fly across the country despite two open warrants for his arrest.

• Tavares leaves the state and goes to Graham, Washington in Pierce County.
• November 17, 2007, Tavares walks to the residence of his neighbors – a newlywed couple, Brian Mauck, 30, and Beverly Mauck, 28. Tavares shoots and kills both Brian and Beverly Mauck.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for then-Governor Romney, said (November, 2007) that Judge Kathe M. Tuttman should never have freed Daniel T. Tavares Jr. on personal recognizance in July after he was charged with assaulting two prison guards.

‘There was a system-wide failure in this case starting with the judge,’ Fehrnstrom said in a statement yesterday. ‘Her decision represented an inexplicable lapse in judgment and was inexcusable. Unless there are facts unknown to us, Governor Romney believes Judge Tuttman should resign.’

Asked (11/24/07) if he was afraid the press attention on Tuttman would create a similar situation (Willie Horton and Dukakis), Romney said simply, “No, not really.”

Twenty months after he put a career prosecutor on the Massachusetts Superior Court bench, confident in her law-and-order credentials, Mitt Romney called yesterday for the judge to resign because she released without bail a convicted killer who went on to allegedly kill again. (Boston Globe; LA Times)

Superior Court Chief Justice Barbara J. Rouse issued a statement of supportfor the judge on November 26, 2007 several days after Governor Romney called for Judge Tuttman’s resignation.

The wisdom and effectiveness of the Massachusetts court system is clearly open to question in this case. However, what is more important is the Chief Executive who, through his decision as Governor, appointed the judge who allowed the killer to go free to kill again.

In December, 2007, Two members of the board that appointed Judge Kathe Tuttman now want her booted from the bench, charging that former Gov. Mitt Romney did not inform them of her involvement as a prosecutor in a botched case that freed a child rapist.

‘This is ridiculous. The Romney people didn’t do their investigation,’ Governor’s Councilor Marilyn Pettito-Devaney said.

It is admirable that two “members of the board” wanted to see Judge Tuttman held accountable and removed but, more importantly, how much influence did Governor Romney actually exercise? How much judgment was involved on his part in the selection of Tuttman in the first place? These are important questions as their answers might illustrate both the powers held by Romney at the time (powers reserved to himself by his own choosing) and his ability to make wise decisions as Chief Executive of the State of Massachusetts.

According to Mr. Romney, in his role as Governor of the State of Massachusetts, he alone reserved the “responsibility to evaluate judicial temperament and philosophy.” (As of this writing, Judge Tuttman appears on the “Judges” page of the Massachusetts Court System.)

When Romney took office in 2003, he pledged a ‘squeaky clean process that has no room for politics and favors.’ Yet in February 2006, complaining the JNC (Judicial Nominating Commission) wasn’t forwarding enough applicants for his consideration, Romney said he wanted the JNC to focus solely on applicants’ educational and professional experience. ‘I reserve to myself the responsibility to evaluate judicial temperament and philosophy,’ Romney wrote.”

Apparently, in this nightmarish, tragic case, then-Governor Romney evaluated judicial temperament and philosophy … ineffectively.

If Mitt Romney wants to have another “go” at getting elected to the presidency of the greatest country in the history of the world the horrific case of Tavares and the tragic crime against the Mauks of Oregon must be explained once again. The rule of law is the foundation of any society of value and justice. A crisis in the judiciary in any state (especially in the home state of a former governor running for president) is a crisis for all Americans. The Tavares case is indicative of a crisis in both the political and judicial cultures of Massachusetts during Mitt Romney’s tenure as Governor.

The Tavares case was clearly mishandled despite the terse defense of the judge in the case by the Massachusetts Chief Justice of the Superior Court. The vicious murders of Mr. and Mrs. Mauk in Oregon were not inevitable.

Somebody has to take responsibility for the release back into society of someone so violent and savage as Daniel Tavares. Governor Romney appointed the judge in the case. Is he responsible in some way? Such a decision may soon reside with the voters.

Mitt Romney must show the country how he differs from former Governor Dukakis. During the 1988 campaignMr. Dukakis said,

I am a very strong Democrat, a liberal Democrat, a progressive Democrat.

Since Mr. Romney has both the horrific judicial failure of the Tavares case as well as the Massachusetts health care “solution” called now “Romney Care” (a plan upon which the widely unpopular “Obama Care” plan is based) to discuss with the American people, how will he differentiate himself from his “very strong Democrat, a liberal Democrat, a progressive Democrat” gubernatorial predecessor during the campaign?

The Tavares case is painfully reminiscent of the Dukakis/Willie Horton episode. “Romney Care’s” association with “Obama Care” and the rampant unrealistic, excessive nanny-statism and legislative excess that that program (and strong-arm process to pass it) created combines to create a difficult marketing/public relations challenge for Mr. Romney in the upcoming election should he decide to run.

Michael Graham in the Boston Herald of April 12, 2011 writes,

As a health care plan, Romney care is an unmitigated fiasco. It has caused costs to skyrocket, insurance premiums to soar and nonprofit providers like Blue Cross to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

Illustrative of the deep rift across the country about Romney Care/Obama Care and too many issues to discuss, Graham cites a new Suffolk University poll showing dissatisfaction with the Massachusetts Romney Plan.

But after five years of actually experiencing this new universe, even the Kennedy Democrats have had enough. A new Suffolk University poll showed that nearly half of Massachusetts voters say the law isn’t helping, while just 38 percent say it is. As Michael Cannon at the Cato Institute pointed out, Romney care is almost as unpopular here as Obama- care is across America.

Confirming the democrat/republican, conservative/liberal divide, the Huffington Post published an article in mid- March, 2011 which cited a different poll with opposite results.

A large majority of Massachusetts residents are satisfied with the commonwealth’s subsidized health plan, which has components similar to the Obama administration’s federal plan, according to a poll released on Thursday. The poll by Market Decisions, a research and consulting group, found that 84 percent of residents are satisfied with the Massachusetts plan, which requires most adults to have health insurance.

Even worse for both Mr. Romney and the current administration is the AP poll of April 13, 2011.

The Associated Press-GfK poll showed that support for Obama’s health-insurance expansion has slipped to 35 percent, while opposition stands at 45 percent, and another 17 percent are neutral. Among seniors, support has dipped below 30 percent for the first time.

As 2011 is the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, that horrible conflict is in the thoughts of many. Its lessons and apparently still unsettled conflicts are the subject of discussion and will continue to be for as long as the Union remains.

California Governor Jerry Brown was quite clear on the matter when he suggested recently that the current political and civil discord was reminiscent of an earlier time.

‘We are at a point of civil discord, and I would not minimize the risk to our country and to our state. It is not trivial,’ said Brown. ‘I’ve been around a long time, I’m a student of history, I’m a student of contemporary politics. We are facing what I would call a “regime crisis.” The legitimacy of our very democratic institutions are in question,’ he said.

This week Brown has been using Civil War metaphors at his public events to describe the deep divisions in California, and the entire country for that matter, preaching with the passion of a born-again that the country is dangerously polarized.

If the current political milieu in the United States is truly one in which “our democratic institutions are in question” the upcoming presidential election may be the most important since 1860.

The election of 2012 is about nothing less than radical change. It seems strange to suggest that a return to traditional values, functional government, a rational foreign policy, economic growth, international respect, and a diminishment of nanny-statism and federal encroachment on the lives of citizens could be considered “radical” – but it is.

Those who suggest that history does not influence the present are mistaken – history matters. The case of Dukakis and Horton certainly proves the point. It is entirely appropriate that the American people critically examine the past of all the candidates, including Mr. Romney, an examination they failed to do in the case of the current resident of the White House.

Mr. Romney’s performance as Governor of Massachusetts is both important and pertinent. His judicial appointments, their decisions, and his leadership of that state (inclusive of Romney Care) all should be reviewed. As concerned citizens we should learn from the past as best we can. Will 2012 be a rewind of 1988 with Mr. Romney in the M1-Abrams tank-role of Mr. Dukakis?

If the 2012 presidential election becomes an updated version of 1988, the renewal of the country, and its rescue from decline, deconstruction, economic failure, and international loss of respect, authority, and power could be abrogated with disastrous consequences.

The new radicalism is the old conservatism and, as we wrench the pendulum of our political culture back from the extreme left where it has been driven by the Obama administration, we should be sure that whoever replaces Mr. Obama at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is much more than slick marketing and deconstruction but a person of character and wisdom who can lead, and unite the country with a belief in the importance and value of the country and a firm foundation in the Constitution of the United States.