Patrick's candor gap

Sorry, Deval, but the holier-than-thou act isn't going to cut it very long in the main draw of the gubernatorial campaign.

Deval Patrick was asked a few questions at a news conference this week that he apparently didn't like -- fair questions, the first and foremost being: You knocked Mitt Romney for raising $700 million in fees to balance the budget, so what would you have done instead?

His answer? He didn't. Rather, he ducked and dodged. And then he snapped at the reporter who had the audacity to be curious, ``I'm not talking about government back in 2003; I'm talking about today." As questions continued, he abruptly stalked off the stage.

Now I'm sure that all his sandal-wearing, Volvo-driving acolytes from Newton and Lexington believe that their candidate has no obligation to offer specifics, just as they swoon every time he talks about collaboration in government and finding a better way.

But I'm guessing there are an awful lot of regular people who might be a little bit interested in knowing how Patrick would have bridged that yawning deficit of a few years ago, especially if he wasn't going to raise fees. And what they got was the back of his head.

Let's assume that he had to use the men's room in a hurry and by the time he got back, all the reporters were gone. So I called the campaign yesterday to give them another chance.

Campaign spokesman Richard Chacón patiently explained that everyone was missing the point, which is always a bad sign.

``The main point is that he thinks it's disingenuous for Kerry Healey and Mitt Romney to present themselves as tax-cutters when over the last four years, taxes and fees have risen significantly," Chacón said. ``He was just calling for them to be honest."

I see. But back in April, Patrick released a written statement, covered in the Globe, in which he said Romney's fee hikes were ``fiscally irresponsible."

So we're back where we started. If the hikes were irresponsible, and maybe they were, what would he have done instead?

To that, I got an e-mailed statement that, among other things, said, ``A Patrick-Murray administration would have worked to increase efficiency and cut costs in state government."

Aha! Make state government more efficient! Press palm to forehead, please. Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this before? Every other governor in America is going to turn green with envy when they hear about this incredible plan.

The truth is, Deval Patrick may well make a good governor. He's certainly a charismatic figure with an inspiring personal story and a nuclear resume. But his campaign is heavy on the fuzzy rhetoric about new styles of leadership and light in the nuts and bolts of how exactly he might get things done.

During the primary, it was pointed out that Patrick was for the Public Safety Act of 2006, even as Patrick purported to be against specific provisions contained within it. Patrick seems to be for MCAS testing, but not entirely. He's against Romney's fee hikes, but won't say how he'd do things any different.

Sir, there's a Senator John Kerry on Line 3 commending your ability to be clear on the issues.

That little spat this week nags at something else as well. Many months ago, Patrick was the dynamic new voice in the state, passionate and matter-of-fact at the same time. He could walk into a room of activists or downtown leaders and answer nearly every question they had. If he couldn't, he'd say it up front.

These days, he seems so relentlessly on message that his words are getting the ring of scripted pap. He carries the veneer of spontaneity, but too little of the accompanying candor.

Maybe his advisers are telling him he doesn't have to answer questions, doesn't have to get specific to beat Healey. But they're woefully wrong.

Deval Patrick may well be no ordinary leader. But unless he levels with voters, he won't be given the chance to be any leader at all.

Brian McGrory is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at mcgrory@globe.com.