Calm down. Not “D’ oh! Deval” at all.

I see FrankSkeffington’s original thread growing longer, and people remaining hot and bothered, but I don’t see why the Gov’s out-of-town travel on the day of the casino vote is considered a big deal.

Everyone on Beacon Hill knows, if you think you’re going to line up votes on the DAY OF a big vote, then you are sad and pathetic.  


With a few rare exceptions, you know exactly how many votes you have days before the House or Senate is in session.

The Gov did what he could to promote the casino idea.  He held a rally with hundreds of union guys, made speeches and probably made dozens of phone calls to legislators.  He was not sitting on his hands while the lobbyists tried to promote this bill.  They have no reason to doubt that he was supportive.

I didn’t work in the Building itself, so current and former legislative aides feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but the Gov wouldn’t really play a role in a floor vote anyway.  In my 9th grade civics class I vaguely recall something about the executive branch and the legislative branch doing things separately sometimes.  The Gov’s role in the bill passage process comes before (sometimes) and after the legislature acts.  He or she is not expected to be active on the day of a legislative vote.  He could be in the Berkshires with the smart people on such a day, or make a quick foray into the Empire State to hear firsthand the gossip about the new Gov over there, maybe have lunch with his daughter and sign a book deal.

Advisors?  I’m sure Gov. Patrick’s advisors thought it was a great idea for him to be unavailable to reporters in the immediate aftermath of the casino vote.  This is the opposite of dumb.  You DO NOT want to provide a photo-op and unlimited sound bites on a day when your proposal loses.  The Gov. knew it was going down to defeat, but he didn’t need to be visibly associated with the sunken ship.  Honestly, I think it was a good idea to be out of town.

As for those who think this is a big defeat for Deval, keep in mind that his first idea for generating revenue for the Commonwealth’s budget gap was to close corporate loopholes.  The Speaker did not support him.  So the Governor tried to be constructive by proposing an alternative – casino income.  As we all know, the Speaker didn’t like that idea at all.  

Now, class, when the casino vote failed, what happened next?

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi . . . endors[ed] Gov. Deval Patrick’s plan to balance the budget by closing business tax loopholes.

The Governor has not had support from the legislature for most of his proposals, but I think he deserves some credit here for getting what he wanted in the first place.  When he gave the Speaker a choice between the frying pan and the fire, the gentleman chose the frying pan after all – just what the Governor wanted in the first place.

No “D’ oh!” here.  But it looks like there will be some dough for the state’s coffers.  

This post was originally published with Soapblox and contains additional formatting and metadata.
View archived version of this post
.



Discuss

53 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. You see the trees but not the forest...

    Most of us who have reacted negatively to this episode see this as a continued pattern that runs totally counter to the spirit and promise of Deval's campaign.  

    Since August of 2006, when it appeared he was going to be my party's nominee for Governor (even though I supported Gabby) I've held off on criticzing Deval.  I ignored the Caddy/Drapes/Special Assistant issues (but wished he was more aware of the negative symbolism it offered); I wished he went after that $700 million of "waste" he talked about in the campaign...but instead went after the loopholes (why not both).

    Then he hung his hat on the casinos and appeared less engaged by spending so much time in the Western MA "Governor's Mansion".  Or he was in Iowa, or New Hampshire or South Carolina for Obama (who I support). Then this...and for you to say he should not have been around the day for the vote is an insult to every support who was there that day.  Amber Paw made an excellent point regarding LEADERSHIP or the lack of it, by not being there.

    We've already had governors appear less than engaged--whether they vacationed in NH like Romney or the Berkshires like Deval.  We've already had Governor's spending their time writing books during their term--first Weld and now Deval.  (And I'm not buying the BS about working on it nights and weekends...Deval promised he was running to be a full-time Governor.  He is the CEO of a $26 billion organization.  Sure he needs down time--but writing books and campaigning for Obama is not down time, it's eating into his time to do things like improve education or provided promised property tax relief.  I want the fulltime Governor I was promised)

    The past 14 months has been politics as usual.  Nothing transforming about it.  And that is what Deval promised would be different. That is what many of us are reacting to.  Not whether he should or should not have been in the State House for the vote--that was just the spark that ignited a bigger reaction.

    • It smacks of $quot;me first$quot;

      Frank's done a bang up job of capturing "how this looks" and "how it feels" to have the Governor take a road trip on the day of one of the biggest votes of his very short tenure.  Amber hit it right on the nose - it's the Leadership quotient; you know - doing the right thing, no matter what?  

      The trip to NY to cement his book deal smacks of "me first" - just like the caddie and the drapes, and the personal secretary for his wife smacked of "me first."  When we have home foreclosures spreading like wildfire, an economy in meltdown....and a budget that makes swiss cheese look substantial - the Governor leaves to seal a better than a million dollar book deal.  When the mood out on the street in this ugly, and it is - do you really think this was a dandy idea?  Why not have a videoconference and stay in the damned state?  How do you think people think "together we can" when he's bailing out at the first sign of a gale?  And not for nothing, it was a gale of his own damned making.  It's not like he ran on a casino plank and everybody knew in advance that this was his big plan to save the Commonwealth.  

      Call it symbolic and paint this episode in all the happy, tutti-fruiti colors you want - this isn't pretty.  This is one selfish, self-absorbed piece of work...who masqueraded as something all together during his campaign.  You can't blame people for feeling "had."  

  2. Doubt it...

    I highly doubt that the Governor through out casinos as an easy pitch for DiMasi to hit oit of the park, so that DiMasi was then forced to swing at tax loopholes!

  3. A.

    New York is where people like Roger Clemens go to.  There are lots of Massachusetts based publishers.  And there are telephones.  I don't care that he didn't attend the casino vote or make himself available for defeat photos afterwards, i just think he should have barricaded himself in his office and shoudl use the telephone, and never go to NYC ever again.  

  4. Dude's been a colossal disappontment.

    I wouldn't care about the faux pas if he were more competent. I appreciated his work on gay marriage, and the telephone thingy. Last I knew, even legislators who supported him, were getting sick of trying to work with him.

    The book deal wouldn't matter if he were doing a great job, but ducking out of town and not telling anyone why was shabby. Not the end of the world, just shabby.

    "Together, we can't," but "Alone, I can."

    Mark  

  5. $quot;Luv ya and Leave ya Guvs$quot;

    Hey, give the man a break!  He is different than the previous "Gotta Go Guvs", at least he pays MA taxes on his vacation home.

    • Ever hear of th e Berkshire reference 212?

      Who exactly from Boston vacations in the Berkshires?  My neighbor did, but only because her husband was in the BSO for the summer.  NH, ME, Cape Cod, yes.  New Yorkers for the most part go to the Berkshires.

      I'm not going to pretend to be a DP supporter as a self identified GOPer, but one would think after the stumbling around at the beginning of the term w/ the drapes, Caddy, et al and a shaky, inexperienced staff, that he had moved on and learned his lesson.  But to not be around for the vote, and then for it to turn out that he was down in NYC negotiating a book deal (can't you do that sort of stuff on a weekend or over the phone - us in the private sector tend to view midweek as the work week) was a faux pas; doesn't seem that he has learned any of the earlier lessons.  Almost like he has Howie Carr making up his schedule for him.

  6. Here's the beef.

    Let's get past the point about "it looks bad" to miss the big vote to go sign a book deal. We can all agree on that.

    The real issue is not that Patrick wasn't here, it's that he didn't want to be here. That shows a lack of personal involvement. A Governor who is passionate about a his proposal, who believes it's what Massachusetts needs, is going to want to be involved on the day of the vote. He'll want to be there to encourage his reps, consult with his floor whips, and provide leadership in the event of victory or defeat. He'll want to rally his troops, and to build them for a long-term movement.

    The fact that Patrick wasn't there means that he wasn't committed to his team, he wasn't committed to his cause, and he was not working to build lasting support in the legislature.

    That's the real problem.

    • It was a lousy thing to do for many reasons

      I agree with Will's comments and much of Sabutai's as well (but I don't understand your "mark me down as a D" - D wasn't one of our response choices, was it?).

      Obama, who's running a similar style campaign to Patrick's, better be a lot different than Patrick once he gets into office...or many of us will be feeling like we've been had all over again.

  7. The puzzle in my eyes...

    ...and the reason this is confusing for so many of us is that it is obvious that cutting out early in a losing effort looks bad.  It looks bad if you're a leader in any field to leave your crew on the field to get pasted.  The head coach doesn't walk out on his team even if they're down 24 points with 1 minute left.  That's the moment when the head coach absolutely has to be there.  Otherwise, he's not part of the team.

    Deval comes off not as the leader of a pro-casino force, but a lobbyist or consultant who bails in order to cut his losses.

    And heck, even if Deval didn't have the basic political instincts to realize that the cut-and-run would look bad, one would expect that he'd have developed those instincts in the aftermath of the Caddrapretary troika dumbness he pulled off earlier.  Or at least figured out to listen to his advisers on this stuff.

    There are two obvious answers to the question "why did he do this?"...A-he really is that dumb or B-he really cares that little.  Lots of people are desperately looking for a convincing third choice.

    As for Charley's question, mark me down as D.  I don't care that much, but I can't even say I'm disappointed.  I've long expected very little from Deval, and thus far those expectations have been spot on.

    sabutai   @   Tue 4 Dec 7:00 PM
  8. Back to Earth

    A: Among the regular folks nobody. But as this site prooves once again the Govs own supporters are most dissapointed in him.

    I think that Devals reason for appealing to everyone was that he is a political neophite and once again we get what we vote for. Originaly I thought it was just a matter of hin getting settled into the job but it's bigger than that. This is the man and everyone has to accept it.

    B: This is politics, how everyone else feels is the point.

    C: I don't

    But the Gov's office should. In politics you are most powerful just before you act. So the action has to have taken into consider the reaction. I don't think that the Governor get this.  

  9. Question

    What difference did Deval Patrick's location on that day make to the millions of people living in this state?

    Why should an average guy on the street care one bit where the governor was on a specific day? Was his lack of presence responsible for something happening that would not have happened if he was there?

    If not, then this is just grousing. The fact that people are trying to link it to "the drapes" proves it to me.

    • It means a lot to all the average people on the street who supported him

      and believed it when he said he was going to be different than previous governors.  For many people, his casino proposal and his behavior on the day of the vote on his proposal makes it pretty clear that the promises he made during his campaign were pretty hollow.  BTW, the Patrick casino plan essentially has been around since at least the days of Bill Weld.  

      The Patrick casino proposal was ill advised and cost the state a lot of time and money that would have been used by a real leader to actually try to solve the fiscal crisis the state is going to face in the next year. Maybe we should demand that the Governor pay a percentage of his book deal proceeds to the state to reimburse us for what he has cost us with his incompetence.  After all, he negotiated the deal on our time, and, as someone else on BMG has stated, he would never have gotten the book deal if we had not elected him governor.      

    • Nihilism

      The "average guy on the street" doesn't even care who the governor is, whether it's Patrick, Kerry Healy or Sal DiMasi's trained hamster. What is your point, NoPolitician? Your question reeks of cynicism bordering on nihilism. Patrick supporters, a group to which I do not belong, and political/media junkies, of which I am a card-carrying member, care a great deal.

      • how does one actually get the card?

        political/media junkies, of which I am a card-carrying member

        I just have a Qdoba card.    

      • Symbolism

        The action was at best symbolic, and at worst, an afterthought. In other words, it has about as much weight as a politician wearing (or not wearing) a little flag pin on their lapel, to "show that they're against terrorism".

        It didn't matter one bit to the general public or to people's lives. The only people it matters to are those displeased with Patrick; they are simply waving it as a negative symbol of the governor, and, as I mentioned, bringing in the drapes and the caddy to try and create a "Deval doesn't care" image of him.

        Problem is, such branding is in the eye of the brander. Should someone who didn't put their flag pin on be considered "sympathetic to the terrorists"? There are those who try that brand.

        Similarly, there is a group of people working overtime to brand Deval Patrick as some kind of disappointment because he was not in the state at the time of a vote that he knew he was going to lose.

        I would ask people to contemplate the motivation of those branders. What are they concerned with? I suspect the only common thread is that they wanted a different candidate to be elected in 2006.

  10. I don't care.

    I can't imagine the "perfect time" for Deval to announce his book deal. He would have gotten gruff no matter what. I'm waiting for his mid-term grade to come in around Dec/Jan before I break to far one way or the other on DP.  

    • So he's failed every pop-quiz and test

      so far but you'll wait until the Mid-term.  I had a problem with Calc II in college my freshman year, after my first test came back a rousing 29 I dropped it and took it in the following summer when I could dedicate more time to it.  But hey if you want to wait until the midterm when it may be too late.  

      At least Romney got sick of being governor after the losses of the 2004 election cycle.  That was two full years after he took office.  Deval's been in for one year and two months and already he seems bored, very bored.

      • I think much of the non-Casino flack...

        ...Deval has gotten is due to setting the bar so incredibly high. Deval hasn't knocked my socks off, but he's not running the "malAdministration" that you characterize it as.  I'm not willing to write someone off based an analysis of 30% of his work.

        If you want a grade so far, B-, in my book. But the remaining 3/4 of this year holds much potential. We're in the early second quarter of a four-quarter game.

    • maybe

      Maybe you're right, and there was no "perfect time" to announce his book deal. But surely the time wasn't just after he lost his signature vote, and surely the time to do the book deal wasn't during that actual vote.

      That said, this public has a long history of supporting politicians who write books - from Barack Obama to JFK. So, I have a hard time believing that if the Governor signed this deal at a different time, people would have still been angry.

  11. Book deal shmook deal

    Patrick's true failure has been that he has--so far--not engaged his grass-roots base in a fight for those things for which he campaigned. For instance, reform of the "big-dig culture" or fiscal relief for cities and towns and their taxpayers. (Yeah, thats what casinos were ostensibly for. Sort of. Maybe. At first.)

    It is that failure that is the source of angst about this business of leaving town during a vote that he'd already lost. Otherwise, big deal.

    Patrick is not exactly a bomb-chucker. How does he engage that grass-roots base without turning Beacon Hill into a political war zone? How does he take on entrenched conventional wisdom without pissing everyone off? I don't know but it seems to me this is the make-or-break problem of his governorship.  

    • $quot;Reform Big Dig Culture$quot;

      For the record, I am very encouraged by Patrick's progress in eliminating police details at construction sites. It's exactly the sort of reform he campaigned on, and he delivered.

  12. Bob asked

    How many folks are a.) actually upset about the governor leaving; and how many folks are b.) upset because of what other people might think about the governor leaving town; and how many c.) don't care?

    Put me in group "C".  Do. Not. Care.

    And for all those who are expressing disappointment that the Gov isn't engaging the grassroots to achieve his agenda - let's hear exactly what you are doing in support of it.  

    • he has a listening proble, Bean

      Our job, as a grassroots army, isn't to do whatever Deval Pleases. He's not a Lord or King. It's Governor Patrick's job to listen to what the people want, and to act on that. At the beginning of his administration, for the first few months, he was doing a fantastic job with that - holding civic engagement meetings across the state, starting a website geared toward listening to the people (even if the website never reached its potential and become sort of useless).

      Let me tell you this: whether people supported casinos or were against it, there was no grassroots movement rising up and demanding we open three casinos in this state. That just didn't exist. His pushing it was his policy issue alone - and he tried to do politics the old fashioned way, the way he campaigned against - and he lost. Big time. Further complicating that issue is the fact that he's not very good at that kind of politics - he's only showed success at listening to the people and building a grassroots army in the past. I just wish he didn't get frustrated with that process and kept with it, because if he had, we'd a) all be relatively happy with him and b) probably have more to show with the Governor's first two years in office.

      • Ryan, there's too much focus on what the Governor

        Is or isn't doing - it's as though it's all about him.  It isn't.  If there is a meaningful grassroots progressive movement in this state, it ought to coalesce around some issues and try to move them forward.  Instead, BMG-ers are arguing about whether the Governor should or shouldn't have been in town for the casino defeat.  Snore.  

        I know you, at least, have been working on political campaigns.  But I wonder how many of the other "disillusioned Devalites" are actually working on moving anything?    

        • I know it isn't just about him

          And, in fact, there are plenty of issue-based groups that formed - some of which formed in response to the Governor's listening problem (and his resulting priority to legalize gambling).

          And I absolutely agree with you that there aren't enough people working on the ground to enact change. In fact, I'm organizing my April 19th meet up to help spawn ways of becoming better at doing that as a state-based netroots movement. That said, there's no better way to start organizing a major grassroots effort than the Governor touring around the state, listening and working on the issues the people are demanding be worked on: he can't be the sole soldier and a one-man force for change. I would never expect that out of him; it's impossible. But, that doesn't mean he can't help lay the groundwork for that kind of a movement - in fact, he did during his campaign. He just let it dry up and dwindle, and didn't use those people effectively.

          No one person can change the world. But certainly, it takes a leader to start organizing that small group for change. MoveOn wouldn't be sending out any petitions or creating any adds without Eli Parisher, MassEquality wouldn't have laid the ground work for marriage equality without Marc Solomon. Neither Mark nor Eli could have got anywhere alone, but they both understand their roles and use them effectively. When I voted for Governor Patrick, it was with the understanding that he'd be an effective leader and understand exactly what he could and more importantly couldn't do in that role.

          He clearly hasn't been an effective grassroots Governor and, I'd go further, has abandoned the grassroots since his Municipal Partnership Act initially failed in almost every shape and form. He didn't understand that it would be a long term struggle and that the will of the people isn't enough for instant change. So, yes, the Governor can't be a one-person force for change: but there's a helluva lot any Governor can do, and a whole lot more that they can do if they effectively use a people-powered movement as a force for change. The Governor still needs to learn that lesson.

          • For someone so young, Ryan

            You have a very mature and insightful perspective on that which is ailing the Governor. I have a tremendous respect for your ability to think things through all the way its logical end.  

            And you're right, Ryan - it is all about listening.

            But, that doesn't mean he can't help lay the groundwork for that kind of a movement - in fact, he did during his campaign. He just let it dry up and dwindle, and didn't use those people effectively.

            This is exactly right. Effective leaders don't just react - they listen, take in all the empirical evidence and create and plan and then execute the plan.  They recognize both their strengths and their weaknesses and surround themselves with smart people to fill in the gaps. The post-campaign administration doesn't resemble the pre-election of Mr. Patrick because he's hopscotching over the steps needed to be effective at governing.  He let the grassroots wither and dwindle, and I don't know if it's because he's lazy, autocratic anyway, or or whether he's just unaccustomed to the mechanics of government.  

            I do know the guy has a tinniest ear I have ever seen.  He's making bush-league mistakes.    

             

          • Many (not all) of the Gov's grassroots supporters didn't agree with him on casinos

            But I don't see how you get from there to 'abandoned the grassroots' ... I've certainly been receiving a steady stream of requests via the Patricklist for engagement.

            MassEquality is an interesting example that actually argues for the point I made.  I don't want to take anything away from Marc Solomon, but he didn't found the organization or lead it until it was already well-established, and it was an effective organization not because of him, but because it had broad support, a clear goal and many engaged volunteers.  

            The challenge I see for progressives now is that we aren't united around a single issue or set of issues.  So many people like me took days off of work to attend ConCons, lobby legislators and work for marriage equality.  If progressives could get together to focus on a particular issue or set of issues with that kind of intensity, we'd be unstoppable.  

  13. Charley,

    He was certainly active on the day of the last ConCon, and even if it made the difference of 1 or 2 votes, that mattered. It also mattered on the symbolic level: it remains, to this day, the only major, significant thing the public remembers that he had a serious hand in accomplishing. He wouldn't be remembered for that if he didn't show up on the day of the vote, that's for sure.

    The bottom line is if this was anyone else's bill, and he was just supporting it, then I'd completely agree with you. But the fact that he'd ditch his own bill, the most important one of his administration - where he put far more effort into it than anything than else (save perhaps marriage equality, though even that's debatable), speaks poorly of himself. Is it any worse than the caddy and the drapes? No. But the fact that he'd do something to allow those kind of issues creep up again in his administration is beyond stupid.

  14. shack,

    Advisors?  I'm sure Gov. Patrick's advisors thought it was a great idea for him to be unavailable to reporters in the immediate aftermath of the casino vote.  This is the opposite of dumb.  You DO NOT want to provide a photo-op and unlimited sound bites on a day when your proposal loses.  

    Maybe, and maybe not. But what you don't want to do is be off taking a picnic during the second most important vote of your administration. But, honestly, I don't necessarily agree with you on this point at all: if you're the Governor, and you want this to eventually pass, then by god you try to shape the freaking story. I wouldn't give a photo-op, but who said he had to? A few short quotes to spread your message in any campaign is usually preferable to not doing it, and the casino issue is a campaign on both sides. So, what ended up happening  here is he allowed the story of this all to continue - but in a way much worse than it should have been. He could have kept pushing his signature proposal, quite effectively, by tsk-tsking the legislature and trying to appeal to the people... but, thankfully, he didn't. Honestly, this is the best thing he's ever done when it comes to casinos... but I it's ruining my vision of the Governor accepting the loss on this issue and starting to become the Governor we all thought we elected in November, 06: one who listened to the electorate and fought for the issues we cared about.

  15. They probably didn't read much Grantland Rice at Milton Academy.

    For when the One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name, He writes - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game.

    You don't play the game by gossiping with the smart set in the Berkshires, or talking only to those who will support you unreservedly.  You play the game by taking responsibility for a plan you set in motion, spent state money on, and asked others to vote for.

    It was always a dumb plan - bringing three resorts on line simultaneously is a receipe for all of them to be underattended (the Indians waited until Foxwoods was ten years old before plannign Mohegan Sun).  It never made economic sense, only political sense - and that it why it is being judged so harshly as a political boondoggle.

  16. Feel Betrayed Yet?

    Governor Deluxe sold everyone out even before he snatched the brass ring.

    Greed.  Ameriquest.  A mansion.  Sound familiar?  

    Drapes. A Cadillac.  Casinos.  A book deal.  See a pattern here?

    Let them eat cake! Betrayed.

    • a mansion? greed?

      Gabrieli's home has got to be worth more than both of Patrick's combined. Kerry Healey owned owns a beautiful home in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in all of Massachusetts. These were issues almost no one brought up during the campaign.

      I've been very critical of the governor, but I won't venture forth into attacking him for having money, or even using it. I won't criticize him for deciding to write a book (although the timing of his book signing was, of course, indefensible). He should be criticized for his failures - from opening himself to attack on stupid PR stuff to not making good on his words of leading a true grassroots effort as Governor. But for owning a nice home in the Berkshires? Hey, at least he had the decency of building it in Massachusetts - quite unlike our previous Governor's former vacation home (which, again, was never a problem).

      • Grace Ross did

        and got some mileage out of it.

      • I don't care what he chooses to do with his money, but

        the types of folks who are ordinarily building $6m vacation homes aren't financing them - they pay cash.  Further, you don't get to deduct mortgage interest on anything over $1m. Something really doesn't add up in this financial choice of his, especially going into a self-imposed 4 year limited income period (unless he's sniffing a huge payback in the future).  Sure, it's his choice to build this Berkshire Shangri La, but it doesn't make a whole heckuva lot of economic sense, which raised my eyebrows during the election as to whether this lack of good personal sense would carry over to economic decisions he would be making in the future with our money.  So far, haven't seen anything that dissuades me from my gut feeling.

        • paying cash

          can you factually back what you said, that "the types of folks who are ordinarily building $6m vacation homes aren't financing them - they pay cash"?  because i don't believe it.

          • I think he's right

            The homes are just too big to easily finance with a typical mortgage.  No single bank wants the risk or has the underwriting set up to deal with that price range: too risky with big swings in FMV and difficult to appraise.  Plus, it's not all deductible interest.

            For example, demographics of the Hawaii buyer in that price range:

            $5 million to $10 million: -Cash buyers. -Buyers have multiple home collections -Financing is not an issue. -Most from Europe, Mainland, Hong Kong and the Philippines.

            $10 million plus: -Own more homes than they can possibly use. -Worth $300 to $400 million dollars. -International buyer. -Own their own planes and yachts.

          • Think about it:

            Huge liability especially for second homes as pointed out by gary; difficult to really get this type of elephant jumbo financing, considering size, and fact that these prices are even more susceptible to market swings being vacation homes (and you really can only get great financing if you're say a Board of Director of Ameriquest, but that's another story).  Two, you don't get to deduct interest on the mortgage amount over $1million, so if you're debt financing a $6million house purchase, may want to rethink such an extravagance.  Third, not to belittle Dianne Patrick and a R&G partner's salary, but most of the extreme houses in Nantucket, Marthas Vineyard, and the Hamptons are fueled by Hedge Fund / Private Equity types pulling down 8 or 9 figures a year, which is another league of capitalism.  Those are the types who usually spend that type of dough on the "weekend getaway cabin".

            • true....

              but those are vacation homes. Patrick's already on record that his home in the Berkshires is where he intends to live, permanently, after he's finished being Governor. I don't think a partner at R&G and a 3-figure earning Gov owning a 6 million dollar home is all that out of the ordinary. More importantly, why bother even caring? The way they spend their money is their concern.

              FYI He only keeps his home in Milton because it's close Boston. I've even heard that coming from his mouth, when he invited a bunch of the state's bloggers for questions at Boston Latin around a year or so ago. After he's finished being Governor, they'll move to the Berkshires.  

              • Ryan, you're 23, own a house or gone through the process yet?

                Reality is he got incredible sweetheart financing terms through his connections w/ Ameriquest and has virtually no equity in either the Milton or Berkshire property (i.e., he's mortgaged to the hilt).  Fine, that's his choice, but given his choices and what I know partners make (and what he can't deduct) it gives me pause as to his financial acumen and by extension his judgement in larger finances.  You do realize, BTW, that his "take home" pay as gov is basically covering only the property tax bills on these two properties?

                • What's that have to do with it?

                  Does my age or whether or not I own a home have anything to do with the difference of opinion? I think not.

                  You know what, Mike. Get back to me when Deval defaults on his  mortgage. Then this is an issue, but until then, it isn't. Enough said.  

                  • Not an issue?

                    It sure was an issue when Celluci accumulated excessive debt.  Excess debt makes people do funny things.

                  • NOT trying to bust your chops,

                    but until you've gone through the process and what's involved in home ownership (believe me, the mortgage is the least of the issues as you get into it - you have to be there), that as Gary points out this level of debt does raise eyebrows (not sure that he can anticipate say the same payback that Clinton did post office w/ $2m speaking gigs).  Debt makes you do funny things (like maybe head to NYC at a politically sensitive time to sign a book deal).

      • Gabri Wwho?

  17. Simply because

    it shows self is more important than serving.  Not an admirable quality in a leader.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Wed 16 Apr 12:08 PM