Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Warming to Senate President Murray

By

I have to say that I love this story about the infamous Faneuil Hall signing ceremony for the health care bill.

[Senator Therese] Murray had privately fumed over Governor Mitt Romney’s elaborate ceremony, as did other Democratic legislative leaders who perceived the event as being staged for a future Romney presidential bid; they resented what they felt was his attempt to use them as props for upcoming campaign commercials. When Murray walked into the holding room and viewed the document showing the seating arrangement on the stage, she picked it up and tore it in pieces. “This is what I think of the seating chart,” she said, according to two sources who were present.

As others in the room, including several top Romney aides, stood stunned, Travaglini took Murray aside and spoke to her, according to the sources who were there. He told one of the sources later that he advised her that if she wanted to be Senate president, she would have to curb those sorts of outbursts.

As the guy who asked, on the day the health care bill was signed, “Who are the biggest rubes in Massachusetts today,” and answered his own question thusly …

… I’ve got a lot of sympathy for what Murray supposedly did backstage at that event.  Frankly, Beacon Hill could use a few more sharp elbows, and a little less of the go-along-to-get-along spirit that endears one to one’s colleagues, but that tends to result in an excess of backscratching and a dearth of bold policymaking.

So sure, Ms. President — let the current committee chiefs keep their positions, as today’s Globe story reports.  That’s smart politics and a good investment in enhancing your ability to drive your agenda.  But when push comes to shove, here’s hoping you don’t forget why sharp elbows are designed the way they are.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Bay Windows had an interesting commentary recently on Sen. Murray.  The writer, who has worked with the senator over the years, depicted her as a savvy and stalwart advocate.  Not surprisingly, he was stunned by her “we shall vote” stance regarding the amendment, but concluded with this

    […]I’m hoping that she’s even savvier than I ever believed and has something up her sleeve. As much as I wanted her to just come out and say to the reporters asking about the marriage amendment something like, “My belief in civil rights for all people tells me that the ballot box is not the venue for proscribing the personal freedoms for people in the Commonwealth,” I know that she can’t.

    At least she can’t this week. But she sure can say it after she’s killed the amendment. And the Terry Murray I know, the Terry Murray I hope is still in office, despite her change of title, will do just that.

    Well, here’s to hoping!  But I’m glad MassEquality hasn’t slackened their lobbying pace, because hope may spring eternal, but justice never seems to.

    • I have to say that I think the author makes a category mistake.  The tax rollback initiative is a faulty analogy.  That initiative question enacted a law.  But there is no legal obligation, constitutional or otherwise, for a subsequent legislature to refrain from altering any law on the books, whether it was enacted by a previous legislature or by the people via the initiative.  Laws are amended all the time, and the tax rollback is no different.  We can argue about whether the legislature should have paid closer attention to what “the people” said they wanted, but that’s different from arguing what the lege’s legal obligation is.

      <

      p>
      The right analogy would have been the 1990s term limits initiative, which was killed by procedural maneuvers, or last year’s health care initiative, which suffered a similar fate, since those, like the anti-marriage initiative, were proposed constitutional amendments.

  2. I for one welcome our new Plymouth overlord.  Seriously though, one good effect of her promotion could be the realization among lawmakers that some of us actually live south and east of Rt 128.

    <

    p>
    The bill signing was pure theatre, the type that happens all the time in politics.  That said, it’s further proof of Mitt’s tin ear that he thinks that photographs of him signing a bill in front of a beaming group of libruls including Ted Kennedy will help him.

    <

    p>
    As for this:

    Frankly, Beacon Hill could use a few more sharp elbows, and a little less of the go-along-to-get-along spirit that endears one to one’s colleagues

    <

    p>
    I’m sure people here will still feel this way the first time one of those sharp elbows pokes Governor Patrick, and we won’t get a host of comments along the lines of “she’s just as bad Trav…we need to tell them the people support Deval!”.

    • Oh, we’re past that.

      <

      p>
      Everyone expects legislators to poke the Gov in the eye every chance they get — that’s been the pattern for years, and there’s no reason to think it’ll to stop now.  But Murray has a reputation for being pretty tough on pork, and pissing off her colleagues in the process.  I’m hoping she keeps, and extends, that practice.

  3. and as I read I was envisioning David’s BMG post photo w/the read arrows.  Precious.  Too bad TM voted to kill the HC amendment by illegal manure maneuver; I don’t think highly of her.

Archives