MANCHESTER, N.H. — For the past year, the race for the Republican presidential nomination has followed a predictable pattern. A Mitt Romney rival surges in the polls, can’t stand the spotlight and fades into obscurity — replaced by another rival who does exactly the same thing.
 
But the latest anti-Romney, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, seems to have a bit more staying power. And he’s raising new doubts about the inevitability of Romney landing the nomination — even in the former Mass. governor’s stronghold of New Hampshire.

Hit the ground running
 
Gingrich’s New Hampshire headquarters looks unlived in. That’s because it is. In contrast to Romney, who opened his New Hampshire headquarters in May, Gingrich’s, on Elm Street in Manchester, N.H., has been open for less than a month.
 
Andrew Hemingway, Gingrich’s New Hampshire campaign director, freely admitted that his candidate got a late start.
 
“Most of the other campaigns have been here for probably over a year, and they’re established. They’ve got everything moving,” Hemingway said.
 
Still, Gingrich has been chipping away at Romney’s once-vast lead in the Granite State. A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports put Romney’s cushion at just 10 points.
 
Hemingway predicted that down the home stretch, the Gingrich campaign’s lack of structure will provide a jolt of grassroots energy.
 
“It’s forcing us to run a campaign that’s completely decentralized, completely based on people willing to come on board who are willing who to help us, who are willing to push it,” he said. “Our organization literally depends on our volunteers.”

"He has great ideas"
 
In other words, it depends on people like Jonathan and Jean White of Amherst, N.H. After picking up some Newt 2012 yard signs, the Whites explained why they think Gingrich is the best of the GOP bunch.
 
“He balanced the budget for four years in a row while he was speaker of the House,” said John White. “He’s a tremendous intellect. He has great ideas.”
 
“I’m a Catholic and I think he’s living out his faith,” Jean White added. “That’s part of who he is and that’s part of what’s guiding him.”
 
Romney's counter-attack

For his part, Romney wants voters to see Gingrich and think “Washington insider.” During a recent interview on WTPL-FM, “New Hampshire Today” host Jack Heath asked Romney to describe the main differences between him and Gingrich.
 
“If the people of America are looking for folks that have a background in Washington,” Romney said, “who’ve spent a lifetime in Washington, who’ve worked in government affairs or lobbying — why, there are a lot of people to choose from.”
 
But with his poll numbers dropping, Romney may have to be more aggressive, especially since Gingrich has some traits that New Hampshire voters tend to prize.
 
“He’s less packaged, he’s not perfect, he’s a little disheveled,” Heath said of Gingrich. “He’s got that college professor look, versus Mitt Romney, who looks like he’s gotten the Academy Award role to play the president if Michael Douglas isn’t available.”
 
Heath agreed with Hemingway that Gingrich’s late start in New Hampshire won’t hurt him.
 
“[Gingrich] hasn’t lost anything from it,” Heath said. “He’s doing well and if he spends more time here and presses the flesh, goes to coffee shops, he’s going to have the national media horde and the local regional media. So I think he got lucky.”

If Newt, then what?
 
As of Dec. 2, Heath predicted that Romney would win New Hampshire by just three to five percentage points — an outcome that could reinforce the perception that Romney is fading and Gingrich surging. Heath thought there was a legitimate chance that Gingrich would win New Hampshire outright.
 
Since losing New Hampshire could doom Romney’s presidential hopes, his campaign will do everything possible to keep it from happening. But Hemingway claimed the passion was on Gingrich’s side.
 
“It’s a woman from Pennsylvania who emails me or writes a handwritten letter and says, ‘Hey, I’m disabled, I can’t do much, but I just rented a hotel room across the street and I’m going to be living in New Hampshire for five weeks because I want to be involved in the Newt Gingrich campaign,’” Hemingway said, smiling broadly.
 
In the end, that energy may not be enough to defeat Romney. But it’s already enough to make him sweat. 

BOSTON — There was a big media crowd at Governor Patrick's press availability this morning, and it's safe to say that most of us thought things might get testy. After all, the conditions seemed perfect. Patrick had just returned from a lengthy, somewhat controversial overseas trip. While he was gone, Fidelity Investments announced that it was moving 1,000 jobs out of state — without giving Patrick a chance to make a counterargument. What's more, we just learned that Patrick's own transportation secretary kept the governor — and the public — in the dark about a spooky new problem with the fruits of the Big Dig. Bring on the fireworks!

Didn't happen. The governor gave a strong performance — and I felt my skepticism about his past week ebb a bit, despite myself.

Asked about Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Mullan, Patrick said he was as frustrated as everybody else that Mullan kept quiet about that falling 100-pound light fixture for six weeks. But, he added, Mullan knows he screwed up. He's apologized. He has Patrick's full confidence. And it's time to move on.

As he's done in the past, Patrick also sounded a frustrated note on Fidelity's upcoming move, noting (again) that top Fidelity leadership failed to mention their plans during a recent meeting. I asked Patrick if his relationship with the company had frayed since founder Ned Johnson and his daughter Abigail backed Charlie Baker during last year's governor's race. Patrick responded that he had plenty of political supporters at Fidelity.

But he also noted that Fidelity was supposed to send someone on the just-completed Massachusetts trade mission--but backed out at the last minute. And a few minutes later — referring to an upcoming meeting with Fidelity brass — he hinted that his own relationship with the company has been strained since he took office in 2007. To paraphrase: I've told them since early in my tenure that businesses to work with the state to thrive. Evidently, he doesn't think Fidelity's listened. (Apologies for the lack of verbatim quotes; my audio of the presser vanished in an iPhone crash.)

Some members of the media were in full provocateur mode this morning. At one point, a female reporter — I didn't catch which one — asked the governor if his trip abroad had been worth everything he lost here at home. The governor looked quizzical and asked her to elaborate. Well, she explained, Fidelity is moving all those jobs elsewhere, and the public is losing trust in your judgment.The governor responded by telling the reporter, in the nicest possible way, that she had it wrong. The public trusts his judgment, but doesn't like the fact that Mullan kept quiet for so long. And now that's been dealt with. 

Actually, the public may not be as sanguine as Patrick says. As I tweeted this morning, the fact that Mullan waited so long to tell Patrick about this new post-Big Dig problem makes you wonder if the administration is working the way it should. Still, Patrick's performance this morning was strong enough that I found myself feeling less skeptical of the matter.

Couple more things. First, today's presser followed the cancellation of a media availability at Logan Airport last night. If the press had grilled Patrick right after he landed in the U.S., we might have seen a less masterful performance. So, good call by Patrick and his press team.

Finally, Patrick made a comment today about his managerial style that's worth pondering.

"I've told my team they can bring me any issue at any time, but I want a solution too. And fortunately when I was informed [Mullan] was able to tell me that an exhaustive review and inspection of all the light fixtures has taken place," Patrick said.

I've never been a manager. But I wonder: should the governor tell his subordinates not to come to him with problems unless they've got a solution? Or might that create a timidity and lack of candor that could, say, lead to top administration official keeping a serious problem quiet for weeks?

You can reach Adam at adam_reilly@wgbh.org.

BOSTON — A key co-defendant in the federal corruption case against former Massachusetts House Speaker Sal DiMasi is pleading guilty — and joining forces with the government.
 
Federal prosecutors say Joseph Lally acted as a crucial intermediary between the Burlington-based software firm Cognos, Speaker DiMasi and two other associates, all of whom allegedly made money when Cognos won two lucrative state contracts.
 
Until now, Lally has maintained his innocence. But yesterday he pled guilty to eight federal counts and committed to working with the prosecution, which means he could be called to testify against DiMasi and his other co-defendants.
 
As he left federal court, Lally made a terse statement to the press.
 
“Today I took responsibility for my actions. I am looking forward to moving forward and putting this matter behind me,” Lally said. “I'm very fortunate to have a loving wife, family and friends — and I will live up to my agreement that I've made with the prosecutors.”

DiMasi's attorney Tom Kiley downplayed the significance of Lally's switch, when a reporter asked if it would hurt DiMasi’s case.
 
“Well I certainly don't — I certainly hope not. And I don't think it will,” Kiley said.

Despite Kiley’s confidence, those closely watching the case say there's little doubt DiMasi's defense just got a whole lot more complicated. 

BOSTON — About 70 people stood patiently in front of Barnes & Noble at the Prudential Center in Boston on Tuesday. They were waiting to get their copies of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s ballyhooed new autobiography, Against All Odds: My Life of Hardships, Fast Breaks, and Second Chances — and they were hoping to get them signed by the senator himself.
 
The buzz around Against All Odds has been building ever since Brown revealed in a 60 Minutes interview that he’d been the victim of sexual abuse as a child.

At the Prudential Center, some of Brown’s supporters were still trying to figure out just what to make of that news. “I thought it was a little shocking that he came out and said that type of stuff,” said Eric Moreira of Dartmouth.
 
“I respect him for that,” Moreira added. “Definitely got a big buzz in the news recently. Not sure if that’s to boost sales of the book or what — but I respect him for saying those things and being truthful.”
 
But others were less interested in the motives behind Brown’s disclosure than their possible consequences. Jan Petty of Boston said that Brown’s story could be heartening to other sex-abuse victims.
 
“I don’t know whether he’s happy that that’s what everyone is talking about,” Petty said. “But I think he’s going to probably help some people who’ve been through the same thing he has, and let them know that you still can make it.”
 
Some conservatives have criticized Brown for his willingness to break ranks with his party and vote with the Senate’s Democrats. But Petty has no problem with Brown's heterodoxy.
 
“Not really,” she said when asked if she’d been disappointed by Brown’s votes across party lines. “I thought he would have to do that in order to – hopefully – get reelected.”
 
As of Tuesday afternoon, Against All Odds was number 30 on Amazon.com’s list of its top 100 bestsellers. 

BOSTON — Back in the Colonial era, the Massachusetts Governor’s Council had plenty of clout. Lately, though, it’s acquired a reputation as an antiquated, do-nothing body. Now, calls are mounting to eliminate the Council altogether.

So it may not be a coincidence that the Council has been making life increasingly difficult for Gov. Deval Patrick.
 
This week, the Governor’s Council nearly rejected Gov. Patrick’s judicial nominee Heather Bradley, showcasing its penchant for political fireworks. At one point, Councilor Marilyn Petitto Devaney waxed indignant about money that Bradley and her husband, State Rep. Garrett Bradley, have lavished on Massachusetts politicians.
 
“$210,00 dollars just in the past 3 years. How egregious is this?” Devaney asked.
 
Devaney also turned up the heat on her colleague at the council, Kelly Timilty, who got some of the Bradleys’ cash.
 
“I will respectfully request Councilor Timilty again to recuse herself from this vote,” Devaney said.
 
“I will not!” Timilty answered.
 
“As it would give the appearance of undo influence,” Deveney said, as Timilty shrugged.
 
Next up was newly elected Republican Councilor Charles Cipollini, who’s quickly earning a reputation for high drama. His commentary on Bradley didn’t disappoint.
 
“She is grossly unqualified and she lacks the experience,” Cipollini said, almost glowering.
 
For good measure, Cipollini vowed to continue his anti-Bradley fight even if she became a judge.
 
“I will file a complaint with the Massachusetts state ethics commission regarding the over $200,000 dollars she and her husband made in political contributions. My vote is no!” Cipollini added.
 
After the council split four-to-four, Governor Patrick took the gavel so Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray could cast the deciding vote.
 
He voted yes.
 
It was the first 5-4 vote in years, and grist for critics who say the Council is a needless impediment. The Boston Globe and the liberal blog Blue Mass. Group say the council should be eliminated. And a new bill from State Senator Brian Joyce would do just that. But supporters like the Fatherhood Coalition’s Joe Ureneck disagree.
 
“Finally the council is having some real discussion about these judicial nominations that are coming forward, instead of just being a rubber stamp,” Ureneck argued.
 
Next up for the Council: A vote on Joshua Wall, the governor’s pick to head the state’s troubled Parole Board. If you like political theater, make sure to bring some popcorn.

Public safety remains a top priority of the Administration, and the budget filed today is a balanced and fiscally responsible plan that reflects that commitment. Due to unprecedented fiscal challenges, the Administration was forced to make difficult choices in this budget proposal, including the potential closure of two state prisons.

Governor Patrick has proposed several reforms to the state’s criminal justice system and sentencing laws that will help address issues like overcrowding in our prisons, and looks forward to working with our legislative partnership to implement these critical reforms.

Chuck Turner spoke at a demonstration against home eviction in cases related to sub-prime lending in January 2008. (Jonathan McIntosh/Flickr

Last month, Turner was convicted on federal charges related to his alleged acceptance of a $1,000 bribe from an individual who turned out to be acting on a request from the FBI. Turner had hoped his colleagues would wait until his January sentencing to determine his political fate — but he actually helped draft the regulations that required them to schedule an immediate vote.

In a fiery press conference on City Hall Plaza, Turner vowed to campaign against every councilor who voted for his expulsion in the next elections. He also accused the council's Irish members of dishonoring the memory of James Michael Curley -- the legendary Boston mayor who finished his job despite a federal prison sentence.

"James Michael Curley is watching us at this very moment and he is ashamed, ashamed of his descendents who didn't have the courage to stand up and say, 'This is the kind of persecution that our beloved James Michael went through," Turner said.

"James Michael, forgive them, they know not what they do."

Several of Turner's colleagues expressed deep regret at voting him out. Councilor Ayanna Pressley cried openly before casting her vote to expel Turner. "This is an awful day," Pressley said, "I am heartsick at what has come to pass."

Councilor Ross provided over Wednesday's vote to remove Councilor Turner from his office. (Jess Bidgood/WGBH)

Speaking Thursday, City Council President Mike Ross said it was a difficult vote for him because of his professional relationship with Turner. When Ross joined the council, he said, Turner had already been working in Boston city politics for over 20 years.  "To be in a position where I'm presiding over the city council for removal of (Turner), it was a very sad day."

But, Ross added, the 11-1 vote left no doubts. "It was also a convincing decision," Ross said.

The only councilor to vote in Turner's favor was Mattapan's Charles Yancey.

The enigmatic and popular politician represented Roxbury since 2010. Turner is the only member of the City Council to ever have been re-elected while facing federal charges, as he was in 2008. The vote marks the first time the council has voted to expel one of its own.

More:

The Emily Rooney Show: City Council President Mike Ross On The Turner Conviction

Adam Reilly: Turner Sealed His Own Conviction

 

The phrase "circular firing squad" is usually used to describe Democrats, not Republicans. But there's been plenty of internecine sniping in the Mass. GOP since last Tuesday — when the state's Republicans failed to win the governorship, any statewide offices or any congressional seats.

The day after the election, for example, Boston Herald columnist and Tea Party activist Holly Robichaud called for a leadership shakeup in the state GOP on WGBH's Greater Boston. At the Red Mass. Group blog, a poster identified only as "The Angelic One" argued that the party lacks ideological cohesion. Then there's the right-wing group Mass Resistance, which seems to think the Mass. GOP's failures Tuesday stem from being soft on gays and abortion. Meanwhile, Mass. GOP chairman Jennifer Nassour counters that the party's pickup of 17 State House seats shows Republicans are on the right track.

Since I'm not privy to the inner workings of the Mass. GOP, I'm hesitant to take a side in this argument. But the disputants should think back to then-Gov. Mitt Romney's push to add Republicans to the MA Legislature back in 2004. After plenty of pageantry and optimism early on, Romney backed away as election day approached, saying he'd be happy to add just one Republican legislator. As it turned out, the GOP actually lost three seats that year.

This doesn't mean the Republicans shouldn't care that Charlie Baker lost to Gov. Patrick, or that strong statewide bids by Mary Connaughton and Karen Polito failed, or that the buzz-generating bids of Jeff Perry and Sean Bielat fell short. When you've got a bunch of big races that feel competitive, and you don't win any of them, disappointment is a natural reaction. Still, recent history suggests that the State House gains Nassour is trumpeting are actually pretty impressive. Whether they're a sign of something bigger — or just the bright spot in an otherwise depressing year — is something we won't know until 2012.

Strother: I just got the go ahead on everything we discussed. Yes on lottery ads and he has plenty of money. Yes on stepped up fundraising. Yes on going negative.

Meldrum: Yes!

Strother: Need to know the pollsters name and how much money the lottery has to spend. Cahill thinks most of the two million is there....

Strother: [W]e run ads about the lottery being well run and putting money back in the communities. I am going to speak to the ad company about copy cahill agreed

When Paul Loscocco announced he was dropping out as Tim Cahill’s running mate at a press conference on Friday, he offered what was supposed to be an excuse for his sudden change of heart. It went something like this: Loscocco always thought he and Cahill were running in a sort of “primary” – his word – against Charlie Baker and Richard Tisei. Clearly, Loscocco said, Baker/Tisei had won that primary; ergo, his choice made complete sense.

This strikes me as a pretty bogus take. Unless Loscocco is deeply confused about the state’s electoral schedule, he knows full well that he didn’t sign on for a primary challenge. Instead, he committed to a general-election fight – and then bailed when things started looking bleak. Those are the facts, no matter how aggressively Loscocco tries to rewrite history.

Still, there’s a germ of a legitimate point buried in Loscocco’s dubious rationalizations. There was a time, not too long ago, when Cahill actually seemed capable of winning this thing. But now – with just a month left until Election Day – it’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario in which he goes from spoiler to contender to victor. Like the good representative said, Baker and Cahill made their respective cases to voters – and Baker has emerged as the best hope for those who want Patrick out of office.

The problem for Cahill, I think, is that there’s just too much tension between his biography and the identity he tried to cultivate as a candidate. It’s hard to cast yourself as an outsider when you’ve been the state treasurer for eight years. It’s hard to rail convincingly against the two-party system when you’ve been a lifelong Democrat. And it’s especially hard to ask voters to boot the incumbent in favor of you when you gave that same incumbent an enthusiastic endorsement four years ago. Running as an independent would have been a dicey proposition even if Cahill didn’t have this baggage. With it, I’m not sure how he could have succeeded.

But that political obit is still premature – because, judging from his combative presser on Friday afternoon, Cahill plans to stay in this thing to the end. That’s good news for the press, since Cahill’s presence makes the race more complex and interesting to cover. But it’s also good news – at least potentially – for the electorate. Simply put, Cahill can give voice to frustrations and aspirations of the state’s beleaguered middle- and lower-middle classes in a way his two opponents can’t.

Think back to that debate at WGBH, when Cahill slammed Baker’s calls for pension reform as the bleatings of an economic elitist. Cahill’s populism isn’t always pretty: witness his fetishization of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, or his misguided attempt to make the governor’s meeting with Massachusetts Muslims a campaign issue. Nonetheless, a Baker-Patrick race features two guys who are very much creatures of Harvard Yard and the corporate boardroom. As long as he’s in the mix, Cahill brings a perspective they don’t.

Me either. I thought Jeff Perry would beat Joe Malone in the 10th Congressional GOP race--just not as easily as he did. I also expected Bill Keating to get the Democratic nod in that district over Rob O'Leary, especially after he chased down a thief right before the election. Suzanne Bump's win in the Democratic treasurer's primary might have been mildly unexpected--but Guy Glodis made enough embarrassing mistakes that I'm not surprised voters took a pass on his candidacy.

But even if Massachusetts didn't provide much electoral drama, we did offer a test case in whether anti-Washington sentiment can fuel Democrats as well as Republicans. And the answer seems to be: not really.

In the 9th Congressional district, Mac D'Alessandro ran against incumbent Congressman Steve Lynch from the left. He hit Lynch for opposing healthcare reform and backing the war in Afghanistan. D'Alessandro acquitted himself well and made his opponent sweat during a couple debates. And the end result? Lynch coasted, 66 percent to 34 percent.

Contrast that to Perry's big win in the 10th Congressional GOP primary. Joe Malone, Perry's main opponent, wasn't exactly an incumbent--but he's a former statewide office-holder and member of the Mass. GOP establishment. This bona fides didn't help Malone, and may actually have hurt him, as Perry won by a margin of more than 2 to 1 (!).

Generalizing on the basis of two races is risky, I know. But it's always struck me as a reach to suggest that the national mood is simply anti-incumbent--as opposed to anti-incumbent from the right. And based on what happened yesterday--here, and also in Delaware and New York and New Hampshire--I'm pretty sure it's the latter.