Today’s Globe has an interesting interview with Governor Patrick – the whole thing is worth reading. Of particular interest to BMGers, I thought, is this bit:
[In 2007, legislative leaders] didn’t like Patrick supporters trying to lobby them on his agenda, and they told the governor to knock it off. Patrick, a State House rookie among legislative graybeards, did, and the organization atrophied. But that was then.
Newly elected to a second term, Patrick is brimming with seasoned confidence, determined to avoid the mistakes he made last time and expressly unwilling to be cowed again by House and Senate leaders if they object to his backers’ activism.
“I’m not going to listen to that. That’s democracy,” Patrick said. “And if that’s a problem for people, get over it.”
That’s great to hear. My question for you is: what do you think that means? So far, as far as I know, nobody has really figured out how to keep a grassroots campaign organization energized and vibrant post-election. It didn’t happen here in 2007, and I don’t think it’s really happened in 2009-10 with OFA either.
So how should it work? What use should Deval 2.0 make of his campaign organization, which if anything was more impressive than the organization in 2006? How can an organization devoted to a single goal – winning an election – remain effective when it comes to advancing policy goals over time?
I’d really like to hear everyone’s thoughts on this. I think the Governor means what he says, and I think BMG can have a real role to play in this going forward.
Other noteworthy tidbits from the article are the Governor’s apparent lack of interest in two things: putting a lot of energy into casinos, and asking Charlie Baker to advise or otherwise participate in his second administration. Both good calls, IMHO.