Patrick offered this common-sense observation: “I take a lot of heat over this . . . but 49 other states seem to be able to get by with a blend of flaggers and police details and that’s all we’re trying to do.”
Noting that Bill Weld, Baker’s mentor, once tried (briefly) to move to flaggers, the governor cast himself as the real reformer. “They talked about flaggers,” he said. “We did it.”
Point to Patrick.
In fact, Baker is in such bad shape on this issue that even the usually Deval-phobic Globe commenters are, at least in some cases, showing some sympathy with him, and are trashing Baker.
As far as I can tell, Baker thinks we’re all stupid.
Patrick is right–49 states do not require police details and most states use only flaggers. That Massachusetts should go it alone in this regard shows how powerful the police unions are in preventing change. On other issues like education, it seems that Baker is anti-union. What’s up with that and why the contradiction?
In an era where a qualified responsible non-Democrat can win in Massachusetts, the Republicans are coming up very very short.
Baker should be more concerned about angry citizens who are tired of funding the Quinn Bill and details instead of pandering to police unions. Charlie is looking more and more like a public union hack.
Would Harvard Pilgrim exist today if the state hadn’t intervened?
I like Baker, but I just don’t see that he can walk the walk.
Charlie, when people are trying to choose between a democrat or a republican trying to sound like a democrat, they will always pick the democrat.
Can we have a do-over for the republican nomination for governor?