Now, I’m not an expert on the merits of the bill; whether a sell-out of out disadvantaged communities to polluting developers, or trivial legislative compromise. It seems opinions vary. But Iâll give Ms. Wilkerson the benefit of the doubt and assume that her motives at least were sound. Problem is, I take a dim view of politicians who clamor loudly for action, but achieve nothing. Unfortunately, Massachusetts seems to have its share of those.
Ms. Wilkersonâs late-night marathon sits with me about as well as our tragic Senator Kerryâs call for an Alito filibuster from his infamous ski resort in Davos, Switzerland. For the record, Alito struck me as the legal equivalent of a right-wing hatchet man; I wanted a filibuster, and I felt it was eminently achievable. But Kerryâs pitiful maneuver, which was the very essence of âall bark, no bite,â displayed not even a shadow of the effectiveness I expect from our Party leaders. (I wasnât too happy with Kennedy on that one, either.)
Ms. Wilkerson shouldnât claim any merit for her futile speech, and her subsequent shouting match with the Senate Chair. If this bill were really threatening to her constituents, she should have put in the work behind the scenes; built the coalition; worked with the billâs sponsors; gotten the results. Her âlast standâ isnât a point in her favor; itâs more evidence that Ms. Wilkerson puts talking the talk above walking the walk.
All of which brings me to Ms. Wilkersonâs Democratic challenger, Sonia Chang-Diaz. It strikes me that Ms. Chang-Diazâ campaign theme of âExpect Moreâ was exactly the right choice. I hope that campaign is spinning Ms. Wilkersonâs harangue as exactly what it was: demonstrated ineffectiveness. While Ms. Wilkerson will point to it as evidence that she is still the go-to woman for needy communities, the reality is that when politicians put more effort into grabbing headlines than getting results, their constituents inevitably suffer.
But heyâam I missing the secret hand signs? Is âsound and fury, signifying nothingâ the way of doing business here in Massachusetts? If so, somebody clue me in quick. Until then, Iâll be keeping an eye on Ms. Wilkersonâs challenger.
Disclaimer: I have no paid position or formal relation with the Chang-Diaz campaign.
whether Wilkerson in fact tried what you suggest? I don’t – I’m asking. Maybe she did but couldn’t get enough votes, and hoped to swing a few more through her floor speech.
<
p>
As for Davos, I’m with you that Kerry’s last-ditch filibuster effort was chuckle-worthy, but it doesn’t strike me as all that comparable to what Wilkerson did – at least Wilkerson was in the chamber!
good questions, will.
<
p>
i have no answers, but i do have another question….
<
p>
wilkerson’s opponents are sonia chang-diaz and samiyah diaz, all 3 of which have sticker campaigns (i.e., write-ins).
<
p>
can any election strategists (armchair or otherwise) explain who it helps/hurts to have 2 of 3 candidates named “diaz”?
You name two candidates and refer to them as “all three.” Who’s the other? And if they’re write-ins, does it really matter? How often do you elect write-ins (or stickers) these days?
Wilkerson, the incumbent, is ALSO a sticker/write-in. So one of the 3 will win, and that person will be a write-in. Yes, it’s rare!
<
p>
Wilkerson/her staff did not gather enough valid signatures (500 needed) to be on the ballot…almost unprecedented for an incumbent.
So if it hurts anyone, it will be Samiyah hurting Sonia, since Samiyah didn’t have a chance to win (not the Democratic primary, anyway)
<
p>
However, because this is a 3-way write-in, the name confusion would not be expected to have an impact. Each candidate will distribute stickers with their name to their supporters, which the supporters will put on their ballot the next day (easier and less error-prone than actually writing the name in).
That’s a fair question, and I can’t know for a fact what Wilkerson did behind the scenes, but it doesn’t look like it was much; otherwise, her filibuster or protest or whatever it was would have been expected to have more participants than just herself. Apparently Barrios (my senator) was getting into the mix with her and Trav after the 12:05am resumption; but that may well have just been the spur of the moment on Barrios’ part.
<
p>
While I welcome any information from better-informed sources, at this point Wilkerson’s move appears to have been a one-woman show.
There were at least a few other Senators ready to filibuster (including Barrios) but they actually couldn’t, due to the filibuster rules. Wilkerson could not yield her time (unlike in the House, and unlike in Congress) or she would lose her turn. So you see, there couldn’t have been other Senators speaking.
<
p>
There’s a part of the transcript that State House News got wrong, at 12:05 when Wilkerson got up and asked to be recognized, Barrios was doing the same thing. They were both ignored by the Senate President.
<
p>
Senator Wilkerson and others actually seem to have done quite a bit of legwork on this issue. The environmental justice component was included in the Senate version of the permitting bill, however, the whole point is that the House rejected that version and then when it came down to it, the Senate didn’t want to send it back to be playing tag with it all night on the second-to-last day of formal session. That’s why the filibuster happened.
<
p>
And yet couldn’t she have spoken for one hour, and then let someone else speak for one hour, etc? That would show it had broader support than just her.
<
p>
Perhaps you could provide greater elaboration on Wilkerson’s objective in terms of defeating the bill or delaying the vote, any support she may have had, and how the rules shaped her tactics. Otherwise, it still doesn’t add up.
Like I said in the first post: “Wilkerson could not yield her time or she would lose her turn.” To clarify, this means that Wilkerson would lose the floor if she yielded her time to someone else to speak, and the chair could choose to recognize that other person (who presumably would be in support of the issue and would also speak to it giving Wilkerson a rest or showing more support as you seem to think of it) OR the chair could just as well recognize ANYONE ELSE and thus end the filibuster right there. (i.e. she could not say “I yield my time” .. it was up to the Chair to the decide who spoke next, AND obviously the Chair/Leadership did not want her to keep talking.
<
p>
I can’t speak for Wilkerson, all I did was watch the thing. However, it seems to me that she knew she was going to lose, so did the other 11 people who voted with her (not insignificant mind you, they all voted against leadership). The whole point was to make a point. It was to talk about the issue of environmental justice and against a bill she thought was wrong. Whether you agree with her or not, she was exercising her right as a Senator and was speaking as she believes for her constituents. Just because the matter didn’t pass doesn’t mean she didn’t have support, or that
<
p>
I didn’t see any of the news reports mention this, but I talked to people who’ve been in this building upwards of 20 years, and they’ve actually never seen a real filibuster like this one, which ended only because the rules stopped it, not because the person collapsed etc. I actually think it was a very emotional and important thing to watch actually. It’s obvious you don’t like Wilkerson, and that’s your prerrogative (heck, I’m quite ambivalent about her and have a very high opinion of Sonia Chang-Diaz). However, you didn’t ask questions about what happened, you made assertions without asking first. I hope this has clarified things a bit.
I made a judgment, not an assertion; whose gist was, “Get things done; don’t waste time.” Whether Sen. Wilkerson was sincere or not is interesting to examine in the comments, and I thank you for your input into procedures. However, even if the move was sincere, it was still a defeat. I dislike her action because it places form ahead of results.
Look at all the discussion her action has generated, both here and in the MSM. If she hadn’t done this, the enviro-justice piece would just have been another piece of legislative cellophane that got left on the cutting-room floor. (Oh, I’ve just OUTDONE myself with that metaphor!) She’s gotten a whole lot more people to think about this issue than she would have otherwise. I’m sure she pissed a lot of people off doing what she did. Sometimes that’s what it takes. I’ve never been a big Wilkerson fan, but I don’t fault her for this one.
That was an international conference, not a ski vacation. And if there had been enough votes for a filibuster, I’m sure Harry Reid would have called it. The reason Kerry was the one to call for the filibuster was, basically, that there weren’t enough votes for it to actually happen, so only someone desperate to impress the “netroots” was going to call for it.
…Senator (NOT MS.) wilkerson is no Janey-come-lately to this issue. She has actively worked for at least six years to get legislation passed that would take into account the economic makeup of the neighborhood when siting utiities and waste plants, as she believes it is an indicator of racial injustice.
<
p>
Now, I don’t happen to agree with her – IMHO, poor people of every color tend to live near such faciliites, as the facility automatically make surrounding land less valuable, and presto!, affordable for the poor. In other words, she believes in the chicken of siting facilites in poor neighborhoods, and I believe in the egg of facilites depressing land values. People can disagree about this.
<
p>
My State House friends tell me her filibuster was triggered by her realization that there is an EXCELLENT chance that she will not be there to continue this fight, and she has few allies in her cause. Again, she has worked on this long and hard, she just hasn’t convinced many.
<
p>
This wasn’t like her amendment to protect Amorello. It’s not a gracious way to go out, but I do think sincere.
Because honestly, while I can understand being frustrated, and wanting to hit your fellow Senators with a public guilt trip over an issue of moral conviction, that’s not why our pol’s are there – again, they’re there to get the legislation they believe in passed. And I’m pretty sure Sen. (!) Wilkerson’s speechifying didn’t do much if anything for her cause.
1: Sincere/ineffective
2: Insincere/ineffective
3: Sincere/effective
4: Insincere/effective
<
p>
Ms. Wilkerson, with respect to that particular issue, is fortunately, by all accounts sincere but ineffective. That’s ok, because a bit of time was wasted but no harm done.
<
p>
Same too with the insincere/ineffective. They’re efforts may be ill-informed, self-serving, based on lazy thinking, etc….No harm because they’re ineffective: no one listens to them.
<
p>
The Sincere/effective folks are elected and deliver their promises.
<
p>
The problem group is the insincere/effective who actually deliver and make change based on their wrong-headed thinking.
I wish it were as simple as a few hours (of our State Senators’ time) wasted. But moves like Ms. Wilkerson’s exact a real fee, by bringing grandstanding more towards the “norm” in Statehouse discourse. When one legislator gets up and scores cheap points, it makes it more difficult for others to engage in good-faith discourse – they are more afraid someone will be sniping at them next.
<
p>
How about this: why has the Big Dig gone so awry for so many years? Because the communicative process in the Statehouse suffers a severe breakdown in the face of a difficult issue. Grandstanding dialogue is a huge contributor to that sort of dysfunctionality. Still think no harm is done by Sen. Wilkerson’s tactics? No way.
’cause a veto proof majority Legislature talking ‘mongst themselves isn’t really discourse.
<
p>
Certainly I disagree with her very wrongheaded ‘economic justice’ bill.
<
p>
But, if you think her grandstanding contributed more to the inadequacy of the ‘I Wish They’d Do Nothing’ Congress, then, sure, I’ll accept your point of view and agree to place her in the category of insincere/ineffective long with most of the Legislative majority members.