Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Sen. Prez Murray gets some wires crossed.

By

Now this is a lede. Matt Viser, take a bow.

Senate President Therese Murray escalated tensions among leading Democrats on Beacon Hill this week, calling Governor Deval Patrick “irrelevant” during a radio interview and saying she wished he would be more conciliatory with the Legislature.

Just about sums it up right there: Hey Mr. Irrelevant, be more conciliatory! “We really need him.” Or not.

(I do wish the papers would not frame this as “Democratic infighting,” as if party were particularly salient in MA right now. Unless and until the Republicans make themselves relevant again, these are the divisions we're going to see: Institutional prerogatives, not party power; parochial vs. state-wide concerns; special interest vs. public interest.)

I'd suggest that to the extent that any legislators are feeling in the least bit electorally vulnerable, Deval Patrick is being precisely the partner they need. In light of the revenue “catastrophe”, tax increases are necessary. They are not, never are, will not be popular. But they can be understood and tolerated if the public has confidence their tax dollars will not continue to be flushed down the toilet. The Governor's proposed reforms are a good-faith attempt at providing exactly that — political cover for raising the necessary revenues.

Unfortunately, the Senate decided to fear the MBTA Carmen's union more than taxpayers, and choked on ethics reform.

The Gov's trying, Madame President.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. There is so much that’s double-backwards on this post, it makes my head swim.  But it (again) boils down to the same thing:

    <

    p>The governor has nothing to give the Legislature that they don’t already have at the moment.  Until he and his people get that through their perennially indignant, self-indulged skulls, nothing will change.

    <

    p>”Electorally vulnerable”??  To whom?  There has been zero evidence of interest that Deval is interested in party-building.  The Republicans, as you say, are a joke.  If I’m a legislator, what am I going to be worried about?  Magic?  Perhaps the constant complaining about the Legislature is meant to inspire progressives to take action against their local legislator, but until I don’t see that Camp Deval is willing to back that up with any support.  Frankly, the logical assumption from this post is that Deval is trying to maneuver Legislators into a position of either being his kind of Democrat, or losing to a Republican.  Which is a great move…if you’re a Republican governor.

    <

    p>(BTW, Murray is a very sharp lady, more than most people credit around here.  I had an up-close seat for her dismantling of her high-profile, high-funded challenger that Romney promoted in her district in 2004.  She cleaned his clock and laughed the whole time.  She knows where the power is.  Deval’s a smart guy, but politically, he’s not in her league — and she knows that.)

    <

    p>The issue right now is that the governor is insisting on acting as if he has lots of power — and he doesn’t have any.  Casinos and the sales tax are proof enough of that.  Until Deval acts to break the solidarity of Democratic legislators, I see analysis like this as bitterness mixed with hot air.  He’s got some of the right ideas, but using all the wrong tactics over and over again — while complaining about the unfairness all the while — isn’t going to change much.  Except perhaps his own electoral prospects next year.

    • Well, what tactics do you suggest, sab?  All the tactics in the world aren’t going to change the math in the legislature.  I’ll have more to say on this hopefully later today, but for now, the fact remains that there’s very little any Governor, using any “tactics,” could do to break the control the Senate President and House Speaker exercise over their membership.  Those institutional prerogatives cannot be changed by any Governor.

      • We recently had a close special primary election in Boston, Sal’s old seat.  A candidate in Sal’s image beat out a candidate in Deval’s image, but not by much.  This chance to slightly change the look of the Legislature was thoroughly wasted, so now a seat that sits in the power structure will remain sitting in the power structure.

        <

        p>Did Passoni get Deval’s lists?  Did he endorse her, the way he endorsed Wilkerson?  Did he lend any of his star power to her campaign, when it could garner him another vote in the Legislature?  Did he try to make the change?

        <

        p>No, he sat to the sidelinesand wasted the opportunity: another seat out of his reach.  Until Deval starts playing hardball, and not just talking about it, he’ll lose.  There’s a reason that Deval was crushed among the legislative class of 2008…he simply hasn’t done legwork among new members and isn’t doing it among potential members.

        <

        p>I would like to see any district where there is a chance for retirement, promotion, or swing, to have a candidate being groomed who could vote with Deval more regularly.  If the machine wants to make it into a primary, so be it.  But the same old thing just ain’t working.

        • You’re right — the Gov should be trying to reshape the legislature in his own image, and that election was a missed opportunity.

          • People here confuse harsh critiques of Deval’s methods with critiques of his goals.  We can have a discussion about his goals, and I will not completely line up with others here.

            <

            p>However, most of my critiques are on the weakness of his methods, and they stretch in a long line back to my concerns before the primary.  And on that score, I have trouble seeing how anyone can say that he has been a political success.

    • Deval has been, you must admit, nothing but reasonable.  You may not agree with his positions, and that’s fine.   But Murray and DeLeo have turned the corner from scorn to outright, and unreasoning, defiance.    

      <

      p>The hinge, it seems to me, upon which this door has swayed was the Governors proposal of entirely reasonable and needed ethics reform.    That and the equally neccessary transportation reform has caused both DeLeo and Murray to Hulk out and seek to smash Patrick.    In fact, they’re moving past Hulk mode and into Cheney mode:  defending all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons with every thing they got…    

      <

      p>It’s kinda pathetic, if you step back and look at the long view, and what precipitated this latest round of viciousness, that Murray and DeLeo can’t let themselves agree with Patrick on anything but must place operational defiance above the common wealth…  

      <

      p>I may be true, as you aver, that Murray is smarter than Deval.  That doesn’t, automagically, give her the moral high ground, now does it?  

      • You link to a report of Deval saying the Legislature “thumbed their noses” at taxpayers as a sign that he’s not being reasonable?  Deval talks a great game, but he’s not backing it up.  

        <

        p>As for moral high ground, there’s not much to be had.  But political history is full of losers who had the right idea.

    • The issue right now is that the governor is insisting on acting as if he has lots of power — and he doesn’t have any.  Casinos and the sales tax are proof enough of that.

      <

      p>His manner is 2007, but his numbers are 2009. Humility would go a long way.

      • You’re mistaking political capital with constitutional power.  The governor acts like… well… a governor.   Something wrong with that?  

      • If Gov. Patrick doesn’t have any power, it doesn’t seem as if he would gain any by going along to get along, appearing to bail out on the courage of his convictions.  If what you mean is that the tone should be different, I’m not sure I would argue against that.

        <

        p>But given that he was elected while knowing when to stay above the fray and when to get into it, I’m reluctant to second-guess his tactics now.

        • … is not to gain power. The goal is to serve us.

          <

          p>(I can hear David laughing already.)

          • The Governor DOES have power – it just isn’t over legislation.  Even his veto is a worthless sham over a united legislture (OT – this is what drove me wild over WelducciSwomney ‘cuts’ – the Lege could change the funding in a heartbeat, but preferred to shove responsibiltiy for any bad news out the door).

            <

            p>BUT – He controls EVERY State agency, and agencies promulgate their own regulations; at a day to day level, the Governor affects the populace far more than the Lege, with their dumb bills about the toll house cookies and driving with cell phones.

            <

            p>We GOP understood that. We didn’t make legislation the centerpiece since Weld lost the sustainable veto – instead, reforms were enacted through agancy/secretariat policy, and bills were filed so Democrats could gut/rehab them and slap their own names on them.

            <

            p>If Deval really wanted to do anything but posture, he’d…I say no more…

    • Your short-term analysis is accurate enough at the ground level, but you’re forgetting the big picture. If the Legislature enrages the people enough — which they are well on their way to doing — the status quo will change. Challengers will emerge, be they Republican or some version of Democrat. Then, at a moment of crisis, the existing power structure will crumble. It happened to the Republicans at a national level over the past two years when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan turned sour and, critically, when the economic melt down administered the coup-de-grace. They went from controlling all three branches of government to holding on by their fingernails to just one, the judiciary. History is filled with similar examples.

      <

      p>In the long run, the people will be heard and, at the moment, the Governor is speaking for the people not the Legislature no matter what the internal power dynamics on Beacon Hill. “Ka-ching!”  

      • The Legislature has enraged people for as long as I can remember.

        <

        p>I can appreciate your cynicism about the General Court, but I am curious why you think the Governor is speaking for the people. I am getting cynical about him too. In all sincerity, I am asking you why I shouldn’t.

          • But that wasn’t really what I was asking. Why do you take Deval at his word? I suppose Rick Santelli thinks he’s speaking for the people too. (I am not comparing the two, merely making the point.)

              • As I read your comments, you:

                <

                p>- Trust Deval.

                <

                p>- Do not trust Terry Murray.

                <

                p>Let’s assume for the moment that you are right about Murray.

                <

                p>I want to know why you are right about Deval. Why can he be trusted? Why do you take him at his word?

                <

                p>And I’m not saying I don’t trust him, but like I said above, I’m getting cynical about him. Tell me why I shouldn’t be.

                <

                p>

                • As I read your comments, you:
                  – Trust Deval.

                  <

                  p>Because he:

                  <

                  p>A) proposes legislation that makes sense to me and
                  2) appears to have come to these proposals after a thoughful process of study and deliberation

                  <

                  p>

                  – Do not trust Terry Murray.

                  <

                  p>Because she:

                  <

                  p>!) rejects the Governors proposal for no other (apparent) reason than they are the governors proposals. Same goes for DeLeo.
                  B) makes counter-proposals that, at the least, look arbitrary: what the senate proposed and voted on both makes no sense and doesn’t appear to have any deliberation or serious thought behind them

                  <

                  p>Honestly, I think that if Deval had proposed a sales tax, the Lege would have passed a gas tax…   And the ethics reform is HUGE for me:  they look very clearly like they are protecting their prerogative to act unethically.

                  <

                  p>

                  I want to know why you are right about Deval. Why can he be trusted? Why do you take him at his word?

                  <

                  p>I do.  The House, you see, has a history of unethical behaviour… that’s why reform is needed.   Why is your cynicism being directed away from the institution under the ethical cloud???

                  <

                  p>

                • Two years ago, I would have agreed wholeheartedly, Deval was head-and-shoulders above the Legislature.

                  <

                  p>Now I’m not so sure. The slide began with his casino proposal, which I hated. When the Legislature didn’t jump for joy at it, he sulked.

                  <

                  p>Since then he’s unveiled a series of revenue proposals, ranging from OK to awful. (A city restaurant tax, for one — yeah, let’s make Newton and Waltham compete for restaurant revenue. What could possibly go wrong?)

                  <

                  p>Now he’s (admirably) trying to recapture his reform mojo, but he is showing no skill at it. The Legislature is horrific, no question about it. But Murray is a relatively new leader, so I’m prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.

                  <

                  p>I’m not ready to give up on Deval. But I think you guys are cutting him too much slack. Yes, he’s saying the right things, publicly, but he’s not making the sale.

                  <

                  p>  

      • That’s why I’m pissed that the governor is apparently sabotaging himself.  He’s about the most inept ambassador for good ideas we’ve had in this state for a long time.

        <

        p>Instead of hopping up and down and hoping that challengers miraculously emerge like worms after a rainstorm, how about Deval does something about it?  The Democrats took over in 2006 not just because voters were pissed, but because the DNC had the foresight to take advantage of that mood by putting in resources to find and run candidates who would capture their votes.

        <

        p>Deval has the first half down (whipping up anger) and is at a loss on the second half (investing in finding candidates).

        <

        p>PS:  Pissing off the entire progressive wing by throwing the platform in their face isn’t helping, either.

    • If I’m a legislator, what am I going to be worried about?

      <

      p>If it is to stay in power, they don’t have too much to worry about.

      <

      p>But if it is that they are in a position to improve the lives of the citizens, and don’t, then they are failures.  Maybe failures without penalty, but failures nonetheless, and something most people would not want as their legacy.

  2. …which has covered every possible position from A to Z, can we finally retire the worn-out meme about this being a one-party state?

      • … is a political coalition of sorts, it’s not really true because while there is one party rule, there is not ‘one-coalition-of-ideas’ rule.

        <

        p>In this way our one party rule does not function as you’d expect one party rule to.

        <

        p>As is typical, a soundbite description misses the true sense of things.  I can’t really blame the opposition for using this soundbite as such, because nuanced positions run contrary to the media methods for cultivating the party base.

      • …can we finally retire the worn-out meme about two parties being needed to provide balance and a diversity of ideas?

        <

        p>We certainly have that, without the extraneous baggage and tin-foil hats that would come with the Republican label!

  3. Put me in the Murray camp. She’s got a tougher role to navigate, and you may not agree with everything she’s saying, but she’s leading.

    <

    p>With respect to Matt Viser, she said, “He’s making himself irrelevant,” which is pretty far from saying he is irrelevant.

    <

    p>David Ortiz makes himself irrelevant if he doesn’t hit, but he is far from irrelevant. (Baseball metaphors work for everything, at least in this town.)

    • As of now (6.00 / 2)

      Put me in the Murray camp. She’s got a tougher role to navigate, and you may not agree with everything she’s saying, but she’s leading.
      With respect to Matt Viser, she said, “He’s making himself irrelevant,” which is pretty far from saying he is irrelevant.

      David Ortiz makes himself irrelevant if he doesn’t hit, but he is far from irrelevant. (Baseball metaphors work for everything, at least in this town.)

      <

      p>Gutting ethics reform and making arbitrary counter-proposals Isn’t leading.

      <

      p> Deval took the lead on ethics and the lege wants to play the hidden ball trick.

      <

      p>But you are correct, baseball metaphors DO work for everything…

  4. Deval not fundraising much.  Tim Murray is raising a ton.  Who knows.  

    <

    p>Perhaps Deval is thinking — with so much resistance to change, why run again?  

    <

    p>Perhaps Beacon Hill is thinking — hmm I wonder if he’s not running again, so why show deference?  

  5. For a second I though TIM Murray called Deval irrelevant. Now that would be a lively story.

  6. It goes beyond challenging incuments, because honestly, that tactic will not work well on a percentage basis.  But between the line item veto, appointment power, ability to direct capital spending, and 100 other tools, Patrick could challenge the legislature if he wanted to.  Put better, he could SPLIT the legislature if he wanted to.  

    <

    p>Take Sen. Panagiotakis.  He wants to be Sen Pres (continuing the fine tradition of buying your way into power with earmarks, etc.), so he has his nose firmly up Murray’s backside.  To the point that he went against the views of his border district.  And I’m going to guess that running a DLP-supported challenger against him in the primary wouldn’t be effective.  But, if the Gov wanted to play hardball, there are lots of things he could do to “win” his support:
    – Lowell wants a new courthouse… sorry, that just got bumped down in the priority list.
    – Lowell wants money for “Smart Growth Districts”… sorry, better opportunities elsewhere.
    – Getting rid of exec branch employees that are his friends, cousins, etc.

    <

    p>It may not be Change We Can Believe In.  But sometimes, you have to stop bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Archives