Has Mr. Gabrieli said anything about the CA/T failure? I guess so. He indicated that his appointees to the Turnpike Authority would have “ unquestionable expertise and independence.” I donât doubt it, but once again Mr. Gabrieli refuses to actually point a finger at what he perceives as the underlying problem, which then brings us to the latest ConCon.
Our dear Jim Braude, bless his heart, tried in vain to get Mr. Gabrieli to show some leadership spine, all he got was an oil slick of smooth nothingness. Simple enough question: should they vote âup or downâ on the anti-gay marriage amendment? Gabrieliâs calculus: âI will leave that to the legislative leadership to decide how to conduct that side. I’m running for Governor; I’m not running for the legislature.â If my math is correct, Mr. Gabrieliâs answer was (Yes + No) divided by two, which I believe is equal to saying, âI donât want to ruffle any of the legeâs feathersâ.
Iâm looking for a leader, and Mr. Patrick is still in the lead.
He expressed no sense of the unfairness of the Legislature handing out pension money to their friends’ family. And now he will leave another decision up to the legislature. Just more evidence that makes me think Gabs got his delegates by promising to give the legislature free rein.
<
p>
Which is what the people do NOT want in a governor.
Can you provide any links that outlines this evidence you suggest exists that Gabs got his delegates by promising to give the Leg. a free rein? I thought Gabs just bought the delegates?
<
p>
As for me, I’m a fool. He spoke with me at length, I asked tough questions and he answered them. If your right, I feel cheated that he made no promises or offered me any money.
I’ll be happy to throw out my hypothesis when Gabs makes a strong statement that put himself at odds with the legislature.
<
p>
Gabs bought his delegates? That’s a new one to me, Frank.
<
p>
He was definitely sweating the 15% when he went into the convention. Even during the ballot counting, I remember his running total floating around 12%, 13%. Then last couple districts came in, and he was over.
<
p>
Still, let’s see if he’ll make a strong stand that puts him at odds with the legislature.
I’m glad to hear you went with the Gabber for honest reasons. As I’ve said elsewhere, I think Chris is a good guy, he just happens to be my second choice.
<
p>
I don’t think you’ll find any “links” to back-room dealmaking. All I can tell you is that it was sort of an open secret at the Convention that people with Reilly t-shirts on were voting for your candidate. It’s only speculation that political pressure was applied to them. Maybe they just happened to change their minds after hearing his speech.
<
p>
I know Deval’s speech won over a lot of undecided delegates.
<
p>
All’s fair in love and politics, and different things motivate different people. Maybe when this is all said and done you can write the definitive account. In the meantime, I’m glad to know that you remain unbought and unbowed.
I go to the same damn convention as you and don’t see any signg of Reilly shirted folks voting for Chris. Gee, no one tells me anything!
It took me far too long to realize that you “rebutted” my claims of deal-making between Gabrieli and powerful legislators by saying Gabrieli forthrightly appealed to you personally. Any interactions he has with you are completely separate from his dealings with power brokers.
<
p>
And as for Gabs giving the lege free rein, he keeps making these statements that jive nicely with what the powerfuly in the lege want. If he’s forthright and honest, then his statements now will reflect how compliant his behavior would be should he be governor.
I was astounded to read the exchange provided via your link, David. “Bob and weave” sound about right?
<
p>
What happened to the “Bully Pulpit” which is such a vital privilege of the Executive? What will the Gabber do about healthcare? Wait to hear what the General Court wants to do?
<
p>
I could go on, but you get the point. One of the vital functions of our Governor is to provide moral leadership for our Commonwealth. Something that has been lacking for a long time.
<
p>
I think Chris is a good guy, but I’m looking for more than that in my next Governor. I want someone who will take bold stands on difficult issues. So far, I’ve only seen one candidate in this race (and I include the two non-Dems) who is capable of doing that. If anyone wants to know my choice, speak to me privately.
You and I support gay marriage and oppose the amendment. Now if the proponents of this hateful measure play by the rules–get their signitures and all–would you ignore the Mass Constitution and thwart a vote, as required by the Constitution?
<
p>
Tom Reilly (and Jim Braude) are in favor of having the Constitution Convention vote on it. Deval is for ending the process and apparently usurping the Constitution.
<
p>
Gabs, obviously is conflicted. Which frankly I am also. He doesn’t want the measure voted on, yet won’t advocate the undermining of our state’s Constitution.
<
p>
So he’s punting and saying its up to the Leg to decide. Yes, hardly a profile in courage. But frankly Deval’s stand is tough to defend. Sometimes executives have got to make decisions that they are morally opposed to, but have to uphold because of an oath they took. At least Chris is not advocating this voilation of public trust.
<
p>
Sadly…or ironically…it’s Tom Reilly that I give the “courage in profile” award to on this issue.
<
p>
Lastly, at the end of the day…the answer to this question is all about politics. Reilly knows he’ll never get the gay vote, Deval knows he can’t piss off a key support group and Chris is just trying to split the difference. Yes I am the cynic.
that has historically had its rights denied, with the consent of majorities in state legislatures, and he doesn’t think people’s rights should come up for votes.
…he may have to make those kinds of decisions. I can respect him totally for trying to stop the vote–but not after he took an oath to uphold the process. If he wants to usurp the process–to stop the amendment from getting on the ballot–he should not be running for Governor.
I think you have “nailed it” in terms of the essence of the issue. I quibble with you about a couple of details.
<
p>
First, I think joel has pointed out an important feature of where Deval is coming from. Deval himself makes that point in different ways, such as when he tells the story of sitting in the Oval Office giving counsel to the POTUS and then going outside and having trouble hailing a cab because they pass him by to pick up the other-shaded suits.
<
p>
So, let’s start with first principles. For Deval, and for me (and I suspect for you), equal marriage is a civil rights issue. The SJC found that our Constitution does not allow discrimination on this issue. I’m pleased with that finding. I hope you are, too.
<
p>
That said, Deval and I (and I believe you, too) are opposed to writing discrimination into our Constitution. That’s just not what America is all about, or ever has been.
<
p>
So, how do we prevent that? Deval, in my opinion, has shown leadership on this issue by unequivocally opposing any attempts to dilute the rights of all citizens to marry. He criticized the AG for certifying the petition initiative. He is calling for the legislature to confine it to the purgatory it so rightly deserves.
<
p>
Civil rights are not defined by popularity contests. The Bill of Rights was created, in large part, to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
<
p>
Deval’s stand is not about his desire to avoid, as you put it, pissing off a key support group [he’s not going to lose those votes no matter what] but about standing up for the rights of a minority. Something that he is well qualified to speak to, and something that I believe is at the heart of our way of life.
<
p>
So, in summary, I think your award is misplaced. I think it belongs to Deval Patrick for being willing to stand up to the system when critical human rights are at stake.
<
p>
Thanks again for your great post.
This is not an Amendment to elect senators directly or to grant women their long overdue right to vote. This is not a correction of injustice or an improvement to the function of government. This “Amendment” is a political ploy to win votes for Republican candidates. The Right Wingers will use every tool to promote this political ploy, even the powers to amend the state consitution. which should not be entered into lightly.
<
p>
They have been bold in parading the worst abuses and the silliest ideas in clothing of “the Rule of Law” and “Constitutional Authority,” and the media have treated their clowning with far more respect than it deserves. The President claims the Authorization to Use Military Force in Afghanistan gives him the right to wiretap without a court order, and none of the reporters laugh. They claim the institution of marriage is threatened, but who asks them to find a divorce case caused by gays getting hitched? It’s almost as bad as when “the rule of law” and “respect for precedent” were the reasons for keeping black people out of voting booths and hospitals and schools.
<
p>
The Amendment process should be respected and protected by stopping this bad idea before it makes a mockery of the idea that our Constitution protects individual rights.
<
p>
These Right Wingers have put lipstick on a pig, and I’m glad to see Deval is telling them it’s still a pig and not a lady.
On the constitutional amendments, I think the legislature were wrong to avoid the vote on both health care and equal marriage, and as a result, Deval was wrong for encouraging it on the equal marriage ban. If the pro-marriage bloc didn’t have the 75% to veto it, then they should have voted and campaign to get more pro-marriage legislators to replace the anti-marriage group to defeat it in the second vote. If that doesn’t work, then the pro-marriage majority will defeat it at the ballot box.
<
p>
I commend Reilly for being right, even though he could have done more as AG to challenge it before reaching the legislature, but I’m also glad Deval made a decision to support a path, unlike Chris. I don’t want a governor who will be a “unitary executive”, but also a governor does need to lead, and candidates for the job should be too, and this is something that is hurting Gabrieli. He was implicitly endorsing the trickery without having the strength to state it publicly. This is also not the first time, or else it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s also well-known that Sal DiMasi was key in getting Gabrieli over the 15% barrier by asking the delegates he controlled to vote for Gabs instead, so accusation that Gabs being light on the Leg. is somehow connected do make sense.
<
p>
“Splitting the difference” all the time doesn’t always work out, but that seems to be Gabrieli is best at: in my eyes, he’s an expert and almost always right when it comes to education, he’s completely wrong on immigration, and seems to be trying to split the difference on everything else, which implies he doesn’t have a real opinion or knowledge on the issues.