With all due respect, it’s time for him to go.
1) Can’t win the big one. We have not been able to grab the Corner Office under his “leadership”.
2) His victory claims are unwarranted. The Dems picked up three seats when Romney made his attempt to take some legislative seats for the Republicans. Please point me to the how the state party helped that along.
3) Senator Scott Brown. Brown was and is a lightweight. In a special election to replace a sitting Dem, and where the state party in an overwhelming Democratic state had no other race to focus, Phil could not deliver the goods.
4) We owe it to Senator Kennedy to stop the wind farm. Please. Nobody is a bigger Kennedy fan than I (except amybe Phill), but it’s always bad form to base a major policy decision on being in the tank for Ted. I guess you’ve got to give him points for candor in being against the wind farm because Ted says so – as opposed to for policy reasons). And it’s particularly bad form to for a state chair to bash certain guberatorial candidates on the eve of the convention. Of course, I don’t think anyone would accuse Phil Johnston of being an honest broker for the Democratic Party.
5) The 2002 convention. How anyone could last four years after that debacle is truly astounding? First we have the aggressive brokering to make sure all candidates get on the ballot. Then we had the Treasurer’s race. Each of those candidates should get personal checks from Phil for the money they spent on convention participation. (Not to mention the hours of their lives convention attendees will never get back). A summary of that event – two days and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars for the grand purpose of keeping one Lt. Gov. candidate off the ballot.
6) Banning delegates – The party has had Democratic defectors for years. Now the party is going after a select few. Phil has known for years who the defectors are without taking any action. Now the party is claiming that activists dimed out certain ex officio delegates. Why is he hiding behind these activists instead of acting like the leader of the party and enforcing the rules across the board? (Disclosure – I think barring the delegates will hurt the party in the general.)
Let’s get a chair whose #1 focus is leading the entire party to victory rather than favoring his friends. Let’s get a chair who can deliver the goods.
is that he’ll be gone soon, but not before November. If a Dem wins the Gov’s race, he declares victory and steps down in glory. If not, he’ll be forced out or will quit before it happens.
Does Phil Johson represent the “Old Boys Network” of MA? Because before I assume that he has been completely ineffective as Chair, I would hope he maybe represents a part of the party that is becoming extinguished?
but the coordinated campaign in 2004 was pretty great. For the first time I can remember, the party actually worked together in a meaningful way to help the legislators targeted by Romney. The party, along with the Senate President and (to a lesser extent) the Speaker provided funds, logistical support, regular talking points, direct mail, etc. Now, the likelihood is that Phil Johnston had very little to do with the actual implementation of any of this, but he was the guy in charge, and it was a huge success.
As for the Brown/McQuilken fiasco, the party DID focus all kinds of resources to help the Dem win, in an election held the same day as the Democratic Presidential primary, and he still lost. Does that say more about a lack of support from the party or the lack of appeal of the candidate?
<
p>
It may be time for Phil to go, but not for these reasons.
Here’s the in-kind contribution info for the party to the McQuilken campaign (in a short special):
03/19/04 C 11034 MA Democratic Party 10 Granite Street Quincy, MA 02169 $103,898.40 Political Services
One caller called Phil “the Harry Sinden” of the Democratic Party. Pretty accurate. Phil should have been removed after the 2002 Treasurers’ fiasco. Or how about this year when the state committee ignored its own by-laws to allow Chris Gabrieli into the convention, in spite of the fact that he did not have sufficient signutires from elected delegates? I’m pretty sure Phil had his hands in the “legal” opinion that tweaked the definition of an “elected” delegate. (All delegates are elected, even the ex officio ones?!?!) Would they have done that for Steve Lynch, or Guy Glodis, if they had decided to jump into the race after the caucuses?
<
p>And another thing, the party has stooped to kicking out delegates who mereley supported Republicans in the past? What about candidates who used to be Republicans running against life-long Democrats? Where’s Phil on that one? That’s right, he supported the former Republican, because it was the politically expedient thing to do. (Yeah, I’m echoing another point that the same caller made to Paul Sullivan tonight, but I’m pretty riled up about the out-of-touch leadership our party has.)
<
p>I’m just glad I voted for Delahunt in ’96. Thank God for hanging chads! Could you imagine Phil in Congress? He’d make Nancy Pelosi look like Tip O’Neill.
If Angus McQuilken like candidates continue to represent those most identifiable with the state democratic party,we are doomed. Like Jarrett Barrios, Diane Wilkerson.
These politicians are strongly identified as favorites of the state party. More moderate dems are more or less shut-out from the state party. What the party doesn’t understand, is most dem politicians don’t care.
<
p>
What will new boss do if he continues to work with same pedigree?