A good example is the income tax rollback. Voters voted for it. Yet you continually agitate against it. Your policy reasons may all be valid and logical and righteous. But, still, the voters voted against it. Yet you continue to hold this position. You deny the political reality of the votersâ preference. âItâs trickery,â you complain, or âthe Republicans demagogue the issue,â or âwe havenât framed it right.â Whatever. The people still want the income tax rolled back to 5.0%. Itâs what was promised.
I hear you argue on BMG all the time âhow important is it to people, whatâs the difference between 5.3% and 5.0%, they wonât care if we âframeâ properly the reasons for holding onto the extra 0.3%,â and so on. People do care. The roll back is a broken promise, and they still are angry about it. Least you forget, this was amply reflected in the referendum question (2002?) eliminating the income tax altogether which lost 55/45. In this state that can be considered a draw.
Come the fall campaign, no matter what the Zogby poll shows today, your refusal to roll the rate back will be hammered, and hammered, and hammered. “Broken promise,” Healy will charge, “not trustworthy,” and evidence “they’ll raise your taxes.” You can see it coming. Can’t you?
And now youâve fallen into the same self-defeating behavior on the illegal immigration issue. It appears a majority of people in MA want our state laws to be enforced. Itâs likely they have, in their own minds, considered the choices being offered them politically, choices which Frank frames perfectly: âleave them (undocumented workers) alone, they deserve a chance just like our immigrant ancestorsâ vs. âthese people are breaking the law, using fake Social Security cards, living on welfare and not paying taxes.â
The way I read it, according to the Rasmussen poll cited in previous posts, theyâve made their choice: 58% want the issue of illegal immigration âsolvedâ (meaning border enforcement and employer sanctions) because they perceive this behavior as economically hurtful to them and unfair to others who obey the law by applying for green cards or work permits legally.
The 2 choices Frank frames are not mutually exclusive. But progressives seem to have an unlimited supply of hubris which makes them unable to acknowledge the validity of other policy positions or opinions. So you revert to excusing these alternate viewpoints, promoted by the newspapers, talk radio and by the Healy, as campaign trickery.
In politics and in policy, you want only what you want. My guess is that youâve sufficiently isolated yourself from voter sentiment that it takes once-in-a-decade correlation of political forces â Iraq, Romney, insert-your-beef-here â to win an election. If you were a consumer products company, like Gillette, or McDonalds, youâd be out of business within a couple of quarters.
I donât mean any of this in a mean-spirited way. You hold your convictions and beliefs strongly. So do I. But as a conservative in a blue state Iâve had to accept the fact that my views will never be policy because Iâm too far to the right of the general MA voter. Perhaps youâre too far left, and need to accept that as a political disadvantage. No amount of âbattlefield framingâ will fix the problem. If you continue to blame trickery, negative advertising and voter stupidity for your election losses, be prepared for further losses.
Instead try asking, “is illegal immigration really a problem? If so, what can be done to fix it yet meet our goals of providing opportunity to new immigrants?”
Try accepting that âthese people are breaking the law, using fake Social Security cards, living on welfare and not paying taxesâ is a real problem which concerns the average voter. Help solve this problem and voters will give you the keys to the Corner Office.
If you canât bring yourselves to acknowledging illegal immigration as a valid political campaign issue, which the majority of people in MA believe is a serious economic and social problem, then I canât see you winning many elections anytime soon.
He’s right. Bostonshepherd’s diagnosis is a clinically sound, in my view, so the challenge becomes how to reconcile what the voters want with what what we think is right when the two are seemingly incompatible. Our failure to win elections as a party, both nationally and in red states, demonstrates that we’ve not developed any meaningful treatment for what is becoming an intractable problem. Hamster meet treadmill.
<
p>
I don’t know the answers. Fresh eyes need to take a look at this thing at the micro and macro levels because I’m not at all convinced that the activists–both newly minted and veteran–the hackery, or the apparatchiks can ever agree on a vision that will unify the party and appeal to masses who vote.
Provocative post.
<
p>
You said: “Help solve this problem and voters will give you the keys to the Corner Office.” I disagree. I don’t think the campaign is a “search for solutions.”
<
p>
Basically, Healey needs a few CULTURAL/VALUES issues. Remember October 2002? Mitt v. Shannon debate over bilingual ed. Pushes the same buttons. If Shannon had said “Like Mitt, I believe in English immersion,” the topic would have been dropped and he’d have instead stuck with death penalty and anti-gay marriage, possibly adding one more “new” issue to the mix.
<
p>
Thus:
<
p>
1. If the Dem primary winner were to choose a strong position against illegal immigration, as you suggest, Healey would simply move on – pick another hot-button issue….and immigration enforcement would disappear as a topic in this election.
<
p>
2. Dem candidates don’t have to tilt center/right on EVERY values issue. They just need a few, and it doesn’t much matter which ones. The way Clinton handled this in 1992 was to pick a few cultural issues that rankled the far left. That served as an innoculation against “this is another crazy leftist commie” type of attack, giving Clinton enough credibility with independents as a reasonable guy that he was then able to focus on “it’s the economy, stupid.”
<
p>
Also remember: Perot got 19% back then, and Mihos is polling around 15%, allowing Clinton to win with just low 40s.
<
p>
The Dem candidates figure “Look, I’ve got to win the primary, and don’t want to stir up activists on immigration. Healey simply CAN’T win if Mihos stays in the race, because then I only need 40% to win and in this state I can’t NOT get 40%, so I’ll take my chances in the primary by staying to the left…”
<
p>
3. There’s risk here for Healey, too. If she gets perceived as harshly anti-immigrant, that turns off independents that she needs (which is why the Bush Administration has been much closer to Ted Kennedy than to Tom Delay).
Move left in the primaries, try to move back to the right in the general election. Age old problem exacerbated in MA by the far-left convention, year-round activists, and primary players.
<
p>
The entire country has become more right-left, much more 50/50 with a hollow middle. I have no advice for Massachusetts Democrats on how to reconcile primary platforms with the general election. On the national scene, Hillary seems to be doing a skillful job.
<
p>
And Goldstein, don’t use the phrase “anti-immigrant.” You’ll get slaughtered in the general, head-to-head with Healey, who’ll correct you endlessly that it’s “anti-illegal-immigrant,” and hammer you day after day that the Dems don’t care about the illegal part.
I chose my words correctly. I said if “Healey gets perceived as anti-immigrant.” That is, the reason which Bush has alienated many conservatives is because Rove told him that if he were to choose policies which were strongly “anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant”, that could be perceived by moderate voters as “anti-immigrant” – that voters may miss the nuance. Healey faces same risk.
<
p>
Also, I’m not advocating for any particular position here; I’m merely describing the political risk for KH, reading tea leaves, same as you.
The question is, for someone with a generic middle-ground position, which is worse: to be seen as “anti-immigrant” when really you’re pro-immigrant but think the laws should be respected; or to be seen as “soft on illegals” when really you think laws should be respected but still want to help immigrants.
<
p>
In Greater Boston, granted, it’s probably worse to be anti-immigrant. There are lots of immigrants here (including legal voting immigrants).
<
p>
However in the rest of MA, the second position is more dangerous. And there are more voters there.
If you think something is wrong on the merits, do you support it and risk being seen as a pandering/flip-flopping phony or do you go with your beliefs and be seen as an out-of-step know-it-all elitist?
How can you be “for” illegal immigration?
<
p>
If you wish to treat illegal immigrants as legal ones, say so and suffer the consequences at the voting booth.
<
p>
I think the illegal issue is an important one to MA voters — sorry Frank Skeffington, can’t point to any numbers — but I point to the general theme in the papers, the furor on talk radio, and also the way the in-state tuition issue was torpedoed on Beacon Hill.
<
p>
Another signal: Patrick and Gabrielli are generally hammering Reilly on the issue. Successfully.
<
p>
You tell me. If you’re on the wrong side of an A-list issue, what do you do?
Ms., or Mr., (or perhaps a border collie with an extra-large keyboard) Shepherd is exactly right. It’s progressive to support democracy and respect for the laws, because without them we’d regress back to the state of nature and life would become nasty, brutish and short, as Mr. Hobbes put it. Personally, I completely agree that candidates should support the 5.0% rollback — and have been saying so until my keyboard glows red. If Deval Patrick, a wonderful candidate in many ways, can’t bring himself for whatever reason to support the roll-back, he should start thinking mighty quick about how he can prove to Massachusetts voters that he will save them more than $200 each in property taxes if they vote for him. Pathetically trivial in many respects, I know, but that’s politics. As to immigration, the Democrats should (a) shovel this right back into Healey’s lap: who created this problem? The Governor and his inexperienced do-nothing Lieutenant, by not mobilizing state resources to help brave Tom Reilly and the Legislature enforce our laws and save our jobs; and (b) get specific about the steps they would take, at least in principle, to enforce the laws.
the other night Bob you asked me for what I would do, in my Ambush posting…it was late and I never ansered. But my thinking is pretty much you point A.
Is immigration a problem that should dominate the state election?
<
p>
I won’t refute any of your points–like most arguments, I find some truth in what you say. Yes, something has to be done about immigration. But where on the priority list should it be? Folks like you whip up lots of emotion and anecdotal stories–but very little facts to convince me that it should be a top public policy priority.
<
p>
There is plenty of evidence that global warming should be addressed before immigration, be Iâm sure you would like to ignore that issue.
<
p>
Communities are laying off teachers and cutting back services and that is a bigger issue than immigration.
<
p>
The cost of housing in the state and our loss of population which is hurting our economic growth and is a more important issue than immigration.
<
p>
Yet those issues are ignored as people get wipe up by emotional agitators with very little facts and figures. As exhibit A to back up my point, I submit you as proof.
<
p>
Yes I want immigration fixed. But I want a lot more issues fixed first, because they are more important. Of course these issue are things conservatives / Republicans like to ignore and that is why they wave the bloody flag of immigration and taxes.
<
p>
If you’ve listened to Howie Carr or any other Republican shill lately, you’ll notice that the Republicans are pinning the problems in this country squarely on illegal immigrants.
<
p>
Howie Carr constantly highlights the crimes committed by illegal immigrants. He is putting in people’s minds that they are the ones responsible for the recent crime increase.
<
p>
He constantly highlights the car accidents that they get into, thereby making it seem like they are responsible for the high auto insurance we are paying.
<
p>
He talks about how illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes, but they have kids in the schools. So immigrants are now directly responsible for the reductions in services that we’re seeing.
<
p>
He talks about how they don’t have health insurance, but they still get treated in the emergency rooms. So they’re also responsible for the high cost of health care. I spoke to someone who parrotted this theory right back to me.
<
p>
He uses the fact that they are Spanish or Brazillian to highlight non-English resentment in people.
<
p>
In the mind of a Howie Carr listener — not an insignificant piece of the MA population — illegal immigrants are responsible for all the misery in life. I’d expect that dismissing the problem to the voters won’t be looked at as favorable.
…and your posting reinforces my basic point–there is a rightwing media barge that has been laid down that has created a PERCEPTION that illegal immigrants are the root of all our problems. Yes we need a strategy to respond and your points below are good ones.
<
p>
The basic reason for my “Ambushed” post is to call attention to the bigger issue of us being manipulated by Republican operatives into having a pissing match for 2 days between Chris, Deval and Tom supporters tearing each other down. We need to accept some subtle differences between these three candidates–IGNORE these differences instead of using them in the Primary to beat each other up–and focus all our attention regarding this issue at the outside forces (Healey operatives) who are controlling the agenda.
<
p>
Yes, we need to articulate a sound response and then ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK those MFs on the right and not spin our wheels attacking each other. Which we’ve been doing.
<
p>
Not smart–the Healey folks are laughing at us. How does that make you feel BMG readers?
But isn’t this a function of the Republican’s freedom, by and large, from the need to win a primary?
<
p>
The three Democrats all want to win a primary. They each must beat the other two in order to do so. How can there not be a pissing contest?
No need to worry about September, so they can focus on November. And yes, the Dems will are spending lots of resources on the Primary–mostly a disadvantage. Depending on how the adults on the Democratic side play this, we can use all the media attention to highlight our issues and control the issues agenda for the 6 weeks between the primary and the general.
<
p>
Or we can get into a pissing contest. It’s far easier to get in a pissing contest. But if the adults (Mike Dukakis, Phil Johnson, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Sal and Trav, Chris, Deval and Tom) can reign in the bad behavior, we can save the tough fighting for November. Yes, wiseful thinking.
Frank — I honestly don’t know what the 5 most important issues are to voters right now. Is there some resource which gives insight?
Frank — be reasonable. How is global warming a local issue (statewide issue) with any traction? What will MA voters be willing to sacrifice unilaterally? Nothing.
<
p>
Similarly, housing costs (I’m in the housing industry) is something that is going to require more than a couple of policy corrections…it’s decades of disincentives and obstacles built into the system. Plus adverse demographics and some bad geography too. This is long range stuff which EVERYONE will talk about but on which mcuh, if any, action will (or can) be taken. No amount of 40B, R or S feel-good legislation will solve the problem in the short term.
<
p>
Immigration represents instant politics. We can pass in-state-tuition for illegals, or not. Drivers licenses, or not. MassHealth access, or not. Tougher employer sanctions, or not. Each topic represents potential action or inaction, and is clearly understood by voters.
…was on the front page of the paper when I wrote the post, so it was top of mind and I used it as an example of more important issues than immigration.
<
p>
I find it interesting that you say global warming is a national issue and the housing costs are long term problems with no quick fix in this election cycle–yet immigration offers “instant” solutions. LOL!
<
p>
So, you can address the micro issues you list–in-state tuition, driver licenses, ect. But these remedies will do nothing to address the root causes. (The only “instant politics” [your words] immigration offers, is to change the subject from the dismal economic growth weâve had in this state, so swing voters will forget about the pathetic job Romney Healey have been doing.)
<
p>
In fact both immigration and global warming can only be solved on the international level. And just like we can deal with the tuition issue here, we can join the regional states to agree to lower C02 levels; just like we can deny driver licenses to non-citizens, we can develop conservation efforts to lower C02 levels.
<
p>
No, the state of Massachusetts is not going to solve the problem of immigration in this country, nor will it solve the global warming issue. All we can do is make incremental adjustments to minimize (or make worse) the problem. So, maybe both of these issues should, at best, play a minimal role in the November election.
<
p>
But that’s not going to happen. Because people like you and Kerry Healey understand that the key winning this election is by getting swing voters to forget about the cuts in education at their local schools and get angry about an issue state government can do very little to solveâbut you can win elections with the immigration issue.
I’m simply talking about what issues have the most traction in state elections.
<
p>
Sometimes (amazingly) it’s the silly stuff — Fluffernutters. We have legislation pending on this burning issue of the day. But somehow, it attrached attention and interest for a while.
<
p>
Various immigration sub-issues can attract and hold voter attention. In-state-tuition is one of them. Fixing root causes in Latin American economies is not.
<
p>
So too with global warming. It’s the opposite extreme of the Fluff debate, way too esoteric for voters to spend much time contemplating. Merely advocating a local effort to reduce CO2 emission could be a voter turn-off: “That’s great Deval, but why are we paying extra for expensive pollution controls when Indiana and Ohio still get to send their acid rain our way?”
<
p>
This is not to say these issues are not important. But they’re too national or global in scope — hard to frame, impossible for MA to rectify — to matter much to enough voters.
<
p>
To advise candidtes to take up these issues is a disservice. There’s only so much money, airtime, and ad space available to an campaign. Spend it on issues which are actionable, or at least important, at the state level.
<
p>
I wish I could point to a poll identifying the top 5 or ten local (state) issues for voters, but I can’t. My gut says global warming isn’t one of them.
But aren’t you enabling poll-driven candidates and campaigns that pander to public opinion? Hey, you and I won’t agree on a lot of things, but I think we’ll agree on this: One of Bill Clinton’s greatest weaknesses was poll-driven decision-making and one positive quality of George W Bush is he acts on his beliefs (beliefs I disagree with).
<
p>
I’m a practical person and if I see an issue that I agree with and know it has “legs” with the electorate (or the gullible press, aka Fluffernutters)–hell let’s go for it. But we all have moral lines that we draw.
<
p>
Yes, there are real problems with immigration and we need to fix them. But many illegal immigrants are as much of the victim as you and me. Some paid someone a lot of money (for them) to cram into a box car or truck, so that they can work in substandard conditions and lower wages that maximize profits for the business owner (and/or provide lower costs products for you and me to buy–we are part of the problem).
<
p>
But instead of taking a “thoughtful” approach to this problem, the right exploits the issue to whip up anger and fear against vulnerable people. I find that appalling and crossing the line.
<
p>
To digress, you will probably find examples in my postings of attacking a candidate (Healey) or certain groups of people (the rich), so I’m not against whacking people. But these folks have way more power than me. They can defend themselves. I just can’t look at myself in the mirror if I used powerless people who are being exploited by our current system. Other people obviously have no problem with that.
There was a great post a few days ago that detailed Reilly’s tact with immigration, that (i) it’s a federal issue and shouldn’t become yet another federal unfunded mandate, and that (ii) by cracking down on undocumented workers, you repress any slim chance of them coming forward if they’re being physically or sexually abused by their employers, paid below minimum wage or shortchanged on their paycheck, etc. Since those undocumented workers are the most vulnerable, it’s important for society to protect them.
<
p>
That being said, employers who are hiring undocumented workers are taking a competitive advantage over law abiding businesses, and that’s really bad behavior. It would seem that cracking down on illegal hiring by prosecuting (fine and jail time) those who are doing the hiring, it would become far harder for undocumented workers to find jobs, and that word might head south that the jobs just aren’t here any more, so you might as well work through the system instead of head here and not have work.
<
p>
So, my question: is it possible to persue both of those strategies at the same time? Can the state crack down on businesses hiring undocumented workers (I’d focus on landscape, construction, and hotel maid services first) without effectively preventing them from coming forward if they are being abused or taken advantage of? It would seem that this policy, if it exists, would be a huge boon for Democrats. It protects the most vulnurable, protects union jobs in construction and SEIU-ish areas, cracks down on companies cheating the system, and reaffirms law and order, all at the same time. But does it exist?
Illegal immigration is an issue that crosses many boundaries. There’s really no clear solution to it proposed by either the Republicans or Democrats — nor is it even possible to peg a proposal as “Republican” or “Democratic”.
<
p>
Personally, I see unconstrained immigration as a liability to the workers of this country. I don’t think the benefits of cheap labor offset the costs that it creates — namely a large group of US citizens who are out of work, or who are working for less than it takes to live a quality life here.
<
p>
However, it rubs a lot of Democrats the wrong way to “criminalize” hard working people who are here because they want to make a living in this country. It rubs me the wrong way too. How can you hate someone who is working their butt off doing really crappy work?
<
p>
I think that correct levels of immigration can have good economic benefits to this state — as long as the influx level isn’t flooding any particular job markets or depressing wages.
<
p>
I liked Deval Patrick’s response to this challenge. I’m a Patrick supporter, but his response was in line with what I believe. We should enforce the rules against companies — including the state — who are hiring illegal immigrants. There’s no excuse for a company or the state to not do a simple check on a social security number that has been provided by a potential worker, and if it doesn’t check out, respond by saying “sorry, we can’t hire you”.
<
p>
That appears to be a way to combat the problem without criminalizing so many people. But then, of course, the thinking man will say “so what about all the illegals who are already here”. That’s a good question with few answers that match the “toughness” of the enforcement piece. The answer is to either try and prosecute and deport them, let them live in the fringes of society with no possible employment, or give them amnesty. I think the latter is the best option, but that will turn off the majority of voters because the explanation as to why that is the best doesn’t fit into a sound bite as well as “arrest and deport them all” or even the Bush “indentured servant” plan.
<
p>
Maybe though, the people who respond to sound bites will be happy enough with “crack down on companies who are hiring these immigrants and depressing the wage of the middle class” will like that plan without proceeding to the thinking man’s question.
This is an excellent and lively exchange that I’m finding provacative. But I’m wondering if in fact the electorate is as concerned about immigration as BosShep postulates. Does anyboy have any polling info that demonstrates that people reall are that focused on immigration reform? The fact that “58% of people want the issue of illegal immigration solved’ doesn’t say anything about their views about the problem or the solutions they prefer, and may only be a reflection of the issue’s media saturation.
<
p>
I suspect that folks are more concerned with other issues but can’t say so with any scientific certainty………..
lost me in his first few words, when he says “the reason MA Democrats keep losing elections…”.
<
p>
Um…the Dems control 85% of the state legislature, most county- and state-wide offices, and the entire Federal Congressional delegation. That alone makes me take shep’s arguments with a big grain of salt.
<
p>
That said, I’m quite sure immigration won’t be much of an issue in this campaign. And I say this as someone who thinks that the immigration issue is THE biggest issue on the national level. Fact is, despite the polls bostonshepherd cites, immigration ranks lower on people’s priority lists here in MA than it does in just about every other state (Rasmussen had a poll on different states’ attitudes lately on this).
<
p>
And finally, I am sick of the attitude that because “the voters” voted 55/45 for an income tax rollback, the state has somehow “promised” a rollback to the voters. No. There is a reason why these initiatives are non-binding. We don’t want to be like California which is in fiscal dire straits largely because of the initiative process both mandating tax cuts and budget increases.
<
p>
If you ask MA voters what they want, they’ll talk about school, local aid, and funding for improving local services before talking about a minor tax cut of .3%.
<
p>
No disrespect because I mean this as a serious question –given how Democrats and liberals dominate this state’s political sphere, perhaps we shouldn’t be taking a conservative Republican’s advice on how to “win elections” quite so seriously?
The voters enacted a law through the initiative process that, had the legislature done nothing, would have rolled back the income tax to 5%. The legislature subsequently enacted another law that stopped the rollback at 5.3%. I don’t know where this “non-binding” idea came from, but it is flat-out wrong.
<
p>
As for taking advice…the reason I FP’d this comment is that it’s precisely issues like the tax rollback that Cellucci was able to win. We may control the legislature, but we have lost the big one four times in a row, and I am sick of it. Like it or not, rollback and immigration WILL be issues in November, and IMHO Healey is more of a threat than many here seem to think.
that rollback will be an issue in November around these parts — immigration, not so much. Of course you are correct that the legislature enacted another law that stopped the rollback at 5.3% — but that’s what I mean about it being, in essence, “non-binding”. My understanding of, say, California’s system is that Propositions, if passed, may only be altered by the voters themselves, not the legislature. If so, MA’s system is much less constrictive indeed.
<
p>
I am with you on being sick of the Governorship being in the hands of the GOP term after term. But there’s a dynamic going on in MA I don’t think many realize around here.
<
p>
We often talk about one or another candidate being the “outsider candidate” (like Patrick), or the “Establishment candidate” (like Reilly). But what people don’t realize is that the true “Establishment candidate” of the Democratic establishment here is Kerry Healey. I can’t stress this enough. I can guarantee you the Legislature will do the minimum to help a Dem win the Governorship. They like having a Republican Gov, because it provides an easy scapegoat if anything goes wrong, and anything that they want can be obtained via enacting laws and overriding vetoes at will.
<
p>
And, no, I’m not a conspiracy nut. This really is how it is because of the political dynamic here. In any case, the reason I bring this up is because I think you’re overestimating the power of Republicans’ campaigns for Governor as the reason why they are able to win. It has far more to do with this dyanmic (as well as the voters’ penchant for a “watchdog/check” on the Legislature) than any particular issues, such as the tax rollback. After all, if voters were so pissed at the Legislature about the rollback being blocked, why have Democrats extended their already dominanting position in the Legislature so far this decade?
The reason Democrats have lost 4 straight elections for Governor is that the Democratic Legislature wants a Republican to blame for things that go wrong. I’ll just say I disagree with that theory.
Nice job twisting my words. I did not say that this is THE reason. But if you don’t think it’s a factor here, you’re quite mistaken.
<
p>
In any case, my point is that some are overestimating “great” Republican campaigns, or particular policy issues, for the reason the Republicans have success obtaining the Gov’ship. That’s all.
That is the second time in recent days a poster just dismissed the signifance of the 2000 tax roll back vote. Is there something in the water?
millionth time I’ve heard the old canard about how “the people’s will” is reflected in the rollback vote.
<
p>
Thank God MA doesn’t have the same dysfunctional direct initative process that the West Coast has.
<
p>
Answer this — if “the people” are so angry about the Legislature “blocking” the rollback, why do they keep voting Dems into just about every single office other than Governor? I guess they have other issues they care about more than this supposedly “significant” vote. Or do you care to elaborate…?
where do I (or David) use the phrase “the people’s will”? We did not. My point on that is that folks are trying to miniumize the 2000 vote by calling it “non binding” or, as the poster a few days ago wrote, a “resolution”. It was neither.
<
p>
As for your theory of the Legislature wanting a Republican Governor–I can’t buy that. First off, the “Legislature” is 200 folks who can’t speak as one. Even if you count just the Speaker and Sen. Pres. we’ve had several of them since 1990 and they certainly aren’t monolithic (sp). Even the cynic would suggest they’d want more access to the patronage the Gov controls and they’d get a better shake with a Dem.
<
p>
As for your comment, “if “the people” are so angry about the Legislature “blocking” the rollback, why do they keep voting Dems into just about every single office other than Governor?”
<
p>
Wow, so many ways to answer that. First, it’s only been an issue this year because it’s the first statewide election since the Leg passed the 5.3 and no one has run against the 5.3 rate–now Healey and her operativesw are. Secondly, have you ever heard of the power of the imcumbency, where like 98% of all incumbents win reelection–even when indicted? So looking at that as a positive affirmation for opposition of the the tax roll back is way off the mark.
<
p>
I think I’m speaking for David when I suggest that neither of us are for the tax roll back from a policy view point (I’m not and I’ve virually positive David is not). But history tells us that “taxes” as a mythological (sp) concept has been killig us in elections.
<
p>
And my point is that to dismiss the 2000 vote as non-binding or a resolution or a different time is delusional and is setting us up for another defeat.
I believe your spelling is correct in both instances.
I’m considering changing my handle on here to Ditto Boland. Thoughts?
there is such thing as “power of the incumbency” — no doubt. My point is simply that if it was such a huge issue, it would have at least taken down SOME of the incumbents, rather than Democrats actually GAINING seats in the Legislature.
<
p>
You make fair points, but my problem is the same I have with many of my fellow Democrats — we always put ourselves on the defensive and overestimate (and constantly fret about) supposed political dangers, rather than taking the initative.
<
p>
The idea that the tax issue is “killing us in elections” and “setting ourselves up for another (?) defeat” is simply part of this unfortunte trend.
<
p>
Dems dominate this state, and for good reason. We actually pursue policies that people here care about. The idea that we are “doomed” because we don’t take a particular position on a miniscule 0.3% tax rollback or on illegal immigration is simply part of the Democratic scaredy-catness (so to speak) that I’m frankly sick of. When we have 100% of the Federal delegation, 85% of the Legislature, and most of the state- and county-wide offices, we are not “losing” and getting “killed” in elections.
Gee, with all that blue clout, Dems can’t win the corner office. Which brings all those executive branch positions and power.
<
p>
Maybe this cycle.
“All those executive branch positions and power”.
<
p>
Perhaps when the Democratic legislature overrides the 500th (or more) Republican executive veto, that will shed more light on the supposed “powers” of the executive office here in MA.
Paul — of course you can continue to have a veto-proof legislature, but that’s not as good as controling all three branches.
<
p>
The dynamics change when you sit in the executive branch chair. You control the initiative, much harder to do as senate president or house speaker. Legislatures are an amalgam of many political voices. The governor is a bullhorn.
<
p>
Take health care “reform” (scare quotes mine.) For a long time, without leadership from the governor, the legislature tried to do something but never got their act together. It took Romney to get the ball rolling, and make it stick.
<
p>
I don’t believe the MA electorate is as liberal as its representation. I view public attitudes on illegal immigration and abortion as proof that once elected, MA legislators generally trend left. The in-state-tuition-for-illegals flap and Shannon O’Brien’s self-immolation on abortion-consent-age issue, along with the income-tax repeal referendum — not roll-back, repeal — are recent waypoints of this disconnect.
<
p>
The fact that voters have not trusted the corner office to Dems and instead prefer a counterbalance says a lot. Your “screw the voters on the rollback” attitude only reinforces my belief that voters will, once again, likely elect a Republican.
<
p>
=== an aside ===
<
p>
Posts on BMG excoriate Bush and national Republicans for their alleged political hegemony when in fact in MA the Dems have much more, at least according to you.
you are overestimating the power of the Governorship here in MA, but you make some good points.
<
p>
As far as MA not being as liberal as its representation — this is true. Just as the US generally is not as conservative as its current representation.
<
p>
I am still not understanding this “screw the voters” charge you keep bringing up as far as the rollback (or tax repeal) goes. We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. There is a reason why legislators, representing the people, make policy and not the voters directly.
<
p>
Take tax repeal, for example. It almost passed here in MA (it got about 45%, right?). But this very same consistituency wants better schools, lower property taxes, more local aid, etc. If we has “the people” voting on every fiscal matter, we would have complete fiscal chaos — look waht’s happened in CA, which has a more direct form of inititative process than MA.
<
p>
As an aside, are you consistent in your belief that “the people” should be allowed to vote on particular policies? Given poll numbers on individual issues (stem cell research, government spending, health care, etc.), I’m not quite sure Republicans would want to extend this past their tiresome and simplistic “less taxes!!!” mantra.
Perched on the Mexican Border, eh?
<
p>
http://capecodporcupine.blogspot.com/2006/06/looking-in-wrong-direction.html
<
p>
Best of all – I posted it two weeks ago!