Above the fold on the front page of today’s Globe is a must-read story about the 2010 Governor’s race. Here’s the money quote:
“We had this incredibly rich relationship that we built with the grass-roots network the last time,” the governor told 20 supporters at a private home here last week. “And then we got in, and we let it go. And there are reasons for that. But I think it’s a terrible thing. We missed it. I missed it personally. And I think a lot of the folks in the organization missed it.”
Despite the challenge Patrick faces in rebuilding his grassroots organization — variously described in the article as “daunting,” “not going to be easy,” and “very, very hard” — there is a ton of good news in this article. To me, the best is that not only does the Governor recognize the need and the challenge, but he’s actually going about doing it the way he did last time: one house party at a time.
Last Saturday, he hit four stops, including opening his first field office in Worcester and greeting patrons at a Chelmsford coffee house…. When the governor traveled to Springfield after his State of the Commonwealth speech last month, he arrived at 10 p.m. to a house party packed with 70 people, said Alex Goldstein, a Patrick spokesman, who attended the event.
Good stuff. Keep it up.
What do you want to see/hear from the Governor over the coming weeks and months?
If David had been quoted, he’d have front paged that shit!
<
p>;)
<
p>Kidding!
<
p>Well not really, but kidding about being offended. đŸ™‚
The reason I joined on with the Patrick campaign nearly 5 years ago was that I believed him — and frankly my cynicism meter goes to 11 so I really bought into the idea that here was a guy who was really talking the talk and walking the walk…. Say what you mean and mean what you say — it’s really that simple.
<
p>When you say Chapter 70 funding is “broken” and needs to be fixed, it shouldn’t take 4 years for nothing to happen. When you say that you don’t support lifting the cap on charters until the funding mechanism is fixed, then don’t lift the cap until it’s fixed.
<
p>When you refuse to dump a Secretary who shamelessly urges the Commissioner of Education to endorse a substandard charter school for the purpose of bolstering an agenda you are telling me that values are flexible and collateral damage in my community is a price we have to accept.
<
p>I want the Governor to come out strong and clear on his position on how to fix the mess created by Reville in Gloucester.
As you know, a governor isn’t a despot, and we’ve got separation of powers. Fixing Chapter 70 can’t be done with the single stroke of Patrick’s pen. You could argue that he shouldn’t have campaigned so strongly on fixing it if he couldn’t get it done — but at the same time I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to pin not making MA perfect solely on him.
<
p>As for charters, it’s clear that it’s a major issue for you, one in which you are certainly more expert than I.
Patrick’s references to the “broken” chapter 70 formula were not made as a candidate. He made them while in office. He has made no attempt to fix what he freely admits is broken. On this issue he gets an F.
I agree with you that he couldn’t fix it by himself — and I’ve been critical of the Legislature’s inability to do anything meaningful in this regard, but as was just pointed out, don’t make it a major talking point on education if you don’t have the intention of making it a priority at some point in 4 years.
The best argument in Patrick’s favor in the 2006 campaign, the only one that really distinguished him from other Democrats, was that his campaign was a model of civic empowerment in governance. He and his supporters appear to be conceding here that a grassroots campaign is no such thing; that all it can do is get people involved in electioneering. Which is good for democracy, but which is, for the candidate, mostly just a good strategy for getting elected, rather than a new way of governing. I like Governor Patrick and will support him. But I’m curious, how do his more active campaigners from 2006 feel about giving up this central piece of his original appeal?
I absolutely agree that this aspect of the Gov’s campaign never came to pass once he won. But I think part of the reason for that is that no one could really figure out what it meant. What do you think should have happened that didn’t?
…how you turn a grassroots campaign into a more open and democratic government, but then, I wasn’t part of that movement. Supporting a rival of his in the primary, I just remember it was the only aspect of his candidacy that I had no answer for, other than skepticism, which he had already (brilliantly) defined as cynicism. So I’m not coming at this from the position of being let down, which is why I’m curious about the reactions of those who did have high expectations. Can they let go of that ideal, and actively support the governor as just a fairly effective and progressive Democrat?
All sorts of “civic engagement” on the party platform. All of which was promptly recycled in favor of letting a staffer sit in an office and water down the document.
First, a lot of us who were part of that grassroots went on to be other grassroots – in issue campaigns, local government, etc. The grassroots didn’t really go away, they became something else, something less focused and together on the gubernatorial end of things, certainly, but there nonetheless. I can tell you a bunch of examples in my circle alone of this, and a lot of my “network” that formed in 06 is still around today.
<
p>Second, the “put pressure on the legislature” thing made a lot of legislators balk. I’m not saying that it’s fair, or that it’s right for them to not get a little pressure from their own constituents, but I’m not sure Patrick would have been as effective in that first two-year session if he had continued to wield the grassroots as some sort of weapon. Without that focus, there, what is there to do for the grassroots? As David said, no one really knew what that would look like.
<
p>Of course, in this last session of the lege, it would have been useful to wield that sort of pressure again, since under DeLeo they were balky again…but of course, those people had dispersed to other pursuits…in particular, you might remember a certain presidential candidate that took up a lot of the grassroots power…
David, 13 months ago you initiated what became a spirited discussion on grassroots civic engagement under “Patrick to Obama: don’t repeat our mistakes vis-a-vis the grassroots”. Among other things, we talked about civic engagement as electoral activism vs. the wider scope of civic engagement, i.e. activism in all kinds of community activities. My suggestion was that the governor might stay in friendly contact with his grassroots supporters over his term – including the thousands who had checked in solely because they were inspired by his candidacy – via a special campaign of encouraging them to get involved in their local communities and neighborhoods. Come election time, my thinking was, they would appreciate how he had got them involved locally, and be happy to work on his reelection campaign.
I have yet to see anyone attempt to defend Patrick’s early statement to the Boston Globe, when asked what the biggest misconception about him was, that it was “the liberal thing.”
<
p>That perception was such a carefully and deliberately cultivated one that he pretty much laid it all bare for all progressives to see, right then and there. That he continued to disappoint should be no surprise. At the very least, I hope progressives respect themselves enough this year to hold the corporate apologist to some concrete promises instead of smart, lofty rhetoric.
<
p>It’s incredible that this all played out all over again at the national level, and people put logic aside to get all excited about hope and change and grassroots democracy. The problem is that this brand of democracy ends at the voting booth, when real democracy begins there and is practiced daily.
<
p>Real progressives: wake up, break free, and organize your selves and your communities! There is no knight in shining armor, or to borrow from John Kerry, “help is not on the way!”
<
p>
<
p>What else is there other than a charming, thoughtful-yet-fraudulent apologist for business-as-usual?
His resignation. Let Tim Murray have a shot. Deval Patrick isn’t cut out for leadership. That is an observation not a criticism. Heck, not every smart person is a leader that is why there are more followers than leaders.
<
p>Sure he speaks in flowery prose about “checking in” to government, but as soon as anyone states a different view than his the Governor labels them “cynical”. He might be a nice guy, but that isn’t leadership. It is more like the reaction of a spoiled child. I supported the guy in 2006, but I think Deval has worn out his welcome and people are fatigued by him.
that’s obviously not going to happen. So let’s try to be a bit more constructive.
<
p>I do agree that the Gov has been too quick to label his critics, or even those who simply disagree with him on certain things, as “cynical.” But that’s hardly a reason to jump ship.
Deval’s treading water in a 3-way race in a deep blue state. Pretending people aren’t frustrated with him is going to give us Governor Baker.
<
p>PS: It’ll be interesting to see what happens. As sure as his 2006 campaign was only a dry-run for Obama’s campaign 2 years later, we can be sure that Deval’s re-election campaign will serve as a test-lab for Obama ’12.
to ignore frustration — I agree that acknowledging it and dealing with it is not only constructive but essential.
<
p>I mean it’s not constructive to say that Patrick should resign, or not run for reelection. That’s simply not going to happen, so it’s pointless to talk about it.
He’ll sink deeper and deeper into despair and be an easier target for Charlie Baker.
<
p>Don’t give up Deval!!! And please keep that scowl on your face that makes you look like you just smelled something bad!
<
p>
Leaders in this country only resign due to scandal or to take another position, not for loss of confidence in either the legislature or the electorate.
I’d like to see is the Governor announcing that he’s had a change of heart on casino gambling. If he does that, it will turn me instantly into a pretty enthusiastic supporter again.
<
p>But right now, I’m pretty disillusioned — we are hell-bent on selling our soul as a state to the astonishing corrupt/corrupting gambling (don’t say “gaming”) industry and support for going this route seems universal among all the serious candidates for Governor. As it stands, I’m left wondering whether to hold my nose and vote for Patrick or vote for an anti-casino fringe candidate. I certainly won’t be donating any $$ to the Governor and will focus my $$ and energy on getting anti-casino Reps and Senators elected.
Time to re-think the barriers to getting what you want… it is YOU who stands in the way.
upon Governor Patricks proposal for resort casinos.
<
p>I fully understand (totally, without question, no doubt in my mind) that on this blog lies the most outspoken critics of casino gambling. But…. there are also many people who are excited about the idea of an entertainment complex coming to the area.
<
p>If the concern over gambling is that great, I think we should hear more outrage about the lottery, because there is nothing more annoying than standing in line behind
someone who is picking and choosing 20 different lottery tickets on Saturday night. At least at a casino resort, maybe that person will decide to spend the money on dinner instead, as they walk by the buffet on their way to the slot parlor.
<
p>If the real concern here is that people don’t have any self control, then lottery and KENO should be made illegal too. We should want any candidate to be anti-lottery as well. Perhaps even propose to end the lottery in Massachusetts.
You’re absolutely right. Personally, I’d like to see the state slowly roll back on lottery by
1. Eliminating Keno in places which serve alcohol
2. Eliminating Keno everywhere
3. Put a “freeze” on the number of scratch off games at each price level. No more games at each price level…
4. Slowly reduce the number of scratch off games
<
p>etc.
<
p>The thing is, a lot of the lottery revenue goes directly to cities and towns. So, eliminating that whacks our local budgets, which means more reliance on property tax, something which isn’t popular in either party.
<
p>
<
p>Casinos, on the other hand, don’t pump lots of money into state or local coffers. They also pump all the action into a few small places instead of distributing that action to dozens of stores in each city or town. So, while both are bad, casinos offer more pain and less budgetary pleasure.
what is the profit margin for stores selling lottery tickets (and I’m not talking ancillary sales, what is their profit margin on a scratch or lottery ticket?). Do they get any of the sale? Or are they just counting on a cup of coffee or chips being purchased with the scratch tickets?
<
p>Here in Duxbury we’ve moved to “pay as you throw” (also known as “take your trash to work”) with town specific garbage bags that you have to put your trash in before taking to the dump. Of course these bags are about the flimsiest things you can imagine, so the reality is that you can’t exactly use these things as actual trash bags. Rather, you start with your regular garbage bag, then mash that into a contractor bag, then try to drape the $1.50 .00005 ml town bag over the whole resultant mess (at least, that’s what those of us not living on trust funds do). Not exactly sure how green this whole exercise is, nor how much sense it makes having a whole town drive their trash to the dump rather than having a truck come around once a week and make the run, but that’s another story. Stores make no profit whatsoever on the sale of the bags (so they are a separate cash sell as they literally lose money otherwise) as that would be “wrong”.
<
p>Sorry for the sideways slant, but I hope that the actual stores get a cut out of the lottery sales.
and, if it makes you feel better, PAYT is both more fair (more trash == higher fees) and really does result in less trash created and more trash diverted to recycling. In most cities, the amount of trash thrown out goes down by about 25%. I was on a PAYT study committee in my town.
<
p> * yes, some of that 25% is thrown away at the office or in the Burger King dumpster. But some of that 25% is also trash from one’s Cape Cod home which doesn’t come back to (Norwell) to be thrown away. Some of it is recycled. Some of it is just never acquired in the first place. Some of it goes to Good Will. etc.
Not all of the “less trash created” really is that. Chelmsford had a bag fee for a year or two, some time back. Woodland dumping became a big problem, not just in Chelmsford, but in other nearby towns. The bag fee was only $0.50, IIRC, but that was apparently sufficient to persuade some people to act like pigs. They didn’t create less trash, they just didn’t put it into the town disposal stream.
A $2 scratch ticket results in $0 for the store that sells it, unless it sells a big winner. Given the volume of sales, that is no impossible.
<
p>Worse still in the case of scratch tickets, they have to pay up front. So if Local Stop buys 5,000 Valentine’s Day theme tickets and sells 4,800 by late February, they have a choice: continue to give them shelf space, where they probably won’t be sold (particularly if all the big prizes have been claimed) or eat the $200.
If all politics is is grass roots, then every moonbat progressive at BMG would be an office holder.
<
p>The MAIN reason we might have Governor Charlie Baker is because people believe Deval Patrick stinks at the job.
<
p>I’m not sure whether that’s 50% or 100% true, but it’s the general and perhaps widespread perception. Coupled with a collapsing state and national economy (with no real prospects of an Obama recovery), it may doom Patrick to a 2-year Obama administration cabinet position.
<
p>Until Obama gets voted out in 2012.
Mass Lawyers Weekly Call the Budget filed by Gov. Patrick a 42% cut to funding for the small firm and solo attorneys who do most indigent defense. According to this article, more than 500 new state employees would be required – and to avoid case loads so high as to render representation of the indigent a sham – probably a whole lot more than 500 new hires would be needed as staff, state employee, public defenders.
<
p>Yet, the solo and small firm attorneys who know the problems of the poor first hand were strong supporters of Governor Patrick when he first ran.
<
p>The bitterness in the indigent defense bar, and the anger over what feels like a betrayal is hard to underestimate. It is huge. These attorneys are scattered all over the state, in every town, and mostly independents with a large number of ex-military in their ranks.
<
p>I admit that the Governor’s budget feels like a kick in the teeth, even to me.
<
p>The work I am doing for the Democratic Party this year is done without joy. The reality that Deval Patrick is charming in person has not numbed the sick feeling from reading House One, and the devastation it would reek unless the legislature retains the current line items with full funding for indigent defense in 0321-1510.
<
p>There is also no protection for the work of guardians ad litem for children in the care and custody of the Department of Children and Families at all.
Teachers are not overly enthusiastic supporters of the governor right now, especially after the passage of his ed reform bill. I’m sure the MTA will give its official endorsement, but I don’t expect you’ll see teachers coming out to volunteer on his campaign like you did last time around.
<
p>I worked on his election campaign and can’t get myself to do so again. Don’t get me wrong – he’s got my vote, mainly because the alternatives are worse. But it’s hard to go out and recruit my friends on “the other guys are worse”.
you guys are depressing me! Cheer up… there are good alternatives!
although I don’t want to waste my vote. Certainly when there’s nothing on Jill Stein’s website about education. (Education is my number one issue, as a public school teacher and a parent.)
<
p>And I couldn’t even find a Grace Ross website, so I have no idea what her position is on education.
<
p>Cahill and Baker are more of the same on education, but probably with worse intentions.
<
p>So, unfortunately, at least on this issue, all the alternatives do look worse.
<
p>Is there any sign that she’s running for governor other than her pulling papers?
My chances of voting for Charlie Baker are slim and nil. I think the only reason I got campaign literature from him is because I’m an independent. However, Deval’s lack of leadership on education issues is causing me to explore alternatives, such as Grace Ross:
<
p>Q: What’s your take on the MCAS?
<
p>ROSS: We have a generation now that might not even make it through high school. About a quarter of kids are dropping out, if you go to African American kids you get close to 50%, Latino kids we’re over 50%. The test is a big part of the problem. Obviously we need the funding for the schools. But the reality is that test is a key piece, it’s connected with the timing of when the kids started dropping out and we’ve got to pay attention.
<
p>Or Jill Stein:
<
p>End high-stakes MCAS testing as a graduation requirement
Ensure quality education for all students by increasing funding in low-income districts and increasing teacher salaries
Hold school districts accountable for poor performance
Provide on-site social services and health care support in high-risk, low-income districts
<
p>I might be willing to consider these two progressives ahead of Deval Patrick’s selling out teachers and public education.