Our miniscule state GOP has done the expected and filed ethics complaints against Speaker DiMasi for the ticket thing, the loan thing, and so forth. Sal is striking back with a letter direct to the press:
As a state representative, member of the House leadership and, for nearly four years as the Speaker of the House, I have made many decisions based solely on the interests of my constituents and the people of the Commonwealth. I have never, ever conducted myself in a way that would favor the interests of any individual.
I would find that difficult to believe from even the purest of public servants. But there it is.
Now, I think the Speaker makes his best case in this paragraph:
As legislators, we are often called upon to make difficult decisions that affect the people of the Commonwealth. We all know we make these decisions based on our knowledge, our experiences and our best intentions. We also know our actions can still be scrutinized and criticized along the way. Some of our votes have put members at odds with their neighbors and friends. Some of us stood up to our church on same-sex marriage and stem cell research, to organized labor on casino gambling and to business leaders on corporate taxes.
Each and every decision we make can be construed to help or harm certain segments of our population or even certain individuals. But we must continue making our decisions the way we always have, based on the best policy.
Well OK … but was the ticket-reseller law really the best policy? Was the Jay Cashman deal in Fall River really the best policy? A specific defense of those decisions would be useful, because there's the perception that it's otherwise. It's not that DiMasi is incapable of standing up to special interests; we want to know what happened in these particular cases, and why.
As the Speaker says, “[I] should only be judged by what I have done or what my conduct or actions were and I should not be judged by those of anyone else.” OK, let's hear about his “conduct and actions”, then. That's what matters to us.
besides Deval Patrick?
From the Cashman article:
<
p>
Emphasis added.
Sal has absolutely zero worries.
<
p>Massachusetts is a one-party state. The Democrats will get away with pretty much anything they want to get away with and nothing can or will be done. That’s the way it’s been for decades and that’s the way it will always be.
<
p>Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
is about as useful as a Republican’s ass on an Elephant’s elbow. At worst, Speaker DiMasi may have to say “oops, my bad.” In reality, he won’t even have to do that.
Did you know that the Ethics Comm. hsn’t found anybody in violation of ANYTHING since 1991?
The commission has fined a number of individuals just this year. If you go to their website you can look under “enforcement actions”, I believe. So what are you talking about? Jail time?
ethics “Committee” of the house of representatives in general court. That is the body that has found no wrong doing since 1991. Not the State ethics commission.
But, I can’t say that I’m going to push for the Speaker to answer any of those questions, either, because I doubt they’re answers anyone wants to here. Because he’s heads and shoulders better than what is likely to come if he leaves, I’m biting my tongue on this one, content with the satisfaction in knowing that there isn’t a person on Earth who’s capable of taking DiMasi down. As my good friend recently said: ‘When DiMasi leaves, it’ll be because he wants to, not the other way around… Too many people owe him favors.’ I can’t argue with that, and I can’t say that’s a bad thing either.
of possible (note: possible) corruption? If this guy was a Republican the hate you’d spew would burn my computer screen. Come on Ryan!!!
Of course he should answer the questions, I just don’t like the tendency of newspapers to convict people in the court of public opinion. I doubt DiMasi has broken any laws; the Government should feel free to investigate him, but they shouldn’t make it a witch hunt and there shouldn’t be any leaks of information. I’d be saying the same thing of a Republican – for example, a certain US Senator who did some toe-tapping had his entire case protected (read: no leaked info) until after the investigation was over, and I thought that was a good thing.
This is a surprising post, Ryan.
<
p>
<
p>I’ll take the truth, no matter how uncomfortable, thank you very much.
<
p>
<
p>Everyone leaves eventually. And the world goes on. And it doesn’t always get worse.
<
p>
<
p>This would be a very dangerous attitude if it were held by someone holding a postion of power. Having that belief is what leads powerful people to end up having things said about them like “how could they be that stupid? Did they really think they could get away with that?”
<
p>The Speaker holds a lot of power, Ryan. That is true. But there are two people–one who is even loyal to him–that have not heeded his repeated warnings. And not about a piece of legislation. About rounding up enough votes to take over his position. Brings to mind a saying about not waiting for the body to get cold.
<
p>The real red flags to me that Sal is worried:
They had Vitale register and had Sal pay off the loan.
Someone hired George Regan.
Someone hired Richie Egbert.
For Ryan it all goes back to the marriage amendment. Sal was a no so he is absolved on all other matters in Ryans take!
A single issue poster.
“A single issue poster”? Ha!
everything Ryan posts gets tied back to whether or not the subject of his post was for “equality”. Ryan has a habit of overlooking things if those that are doing them support his idea of marriage. This comment by him shows that perfectly.
Should he?
Could you believe Jay Kaufman’s comments in the Globe today?
<
p>Another one who thinks he is working for God and quick with accusations.
<
p>But now. He’s all about Sal. What a fraudo.
I actually filed an ethics complaint against DiMasi a while back, because I thought he wasn’t properly disclosing his donors’ affiliations. Since then he has fixed his OCPF filings and nothing came of my complaint. I don’t like him, but it would be horrendous to see the anti-gay marriage movement slither back to life as a result of Sal’s wink-nudge-clap-on-the-back style of governing.
<
p>When you say it woud be horrendous, where would you place the blame for such horrendousness; people that would remove Sal for this OR Sal for doing it?
to hell with the Right if they try to resurrect that mean-spirited and desperate campaign again.
All the GOP has done is lick a few envelopes- cripes, they may have even filed their ethics complaints electronically, with href’s to Boston.com.
… factually wrong, but easily verifiable.
<
p>Taking a casual look at his profile one finds that on the whole page of his posts, only one deals with marriage.
<
p>Stereotype much?
Keep that kind of garbage at RMG, EaBo.
Ryan’s blind eye to what Sal is doing typical Democratic garbage now?
nice to see there’s an honest gooper on this thread!
you two seem to share the same brain cell when it comes to reading comprehension. and you in particular, eabo, seem to have a severe honesty problem.
for defamation on top of willful lying.
<
p>don’t you have a commandment about bearing false witness? or does it apply only on sunday?
I haven’t been to church save a funeral or wedding in 20 14 or so years.
I don’t think they even had church back then.
if i’ve confused you for a professed christian and you aren’t one. i didn’t realize there was anyone not christian in the gop. my bad for making that assumption.
I think I’ve explained my opinion on this well enough, if you actually kept track of the board (a forgivable offense, if it weren’t for your sweeping generalization).
<
p>Sal’s been good on a number of issues, marriage equality just being one of them. Health care is another. He’s now pushed and passed a renewable energy bill through the house. He blocked casinos (which I wrote as many blogs on as I did marriage equality).
<
p>There’s a ton of issues where Sal and I agree, many that I don’t; I just fail to see how the next guy will be better, especially given the fact that most of them are much worse on the issues and come with their own ethic problems.
Short Term and Long Term
<
p>The Short Term View: We’re not going to get anyone better than Sal as Speaker. He’s more progressive than the people competing to be next in line, and it’s not as if the future Speakers don’t come with their own ethic problems. Furthermore, he’s shown a recent willingness to both work with the Governor and to compromise. Lastly, I have the sneaking suspicion that most of these issues are driven by pro-casino forces trying to smear and weaken him, so I’m not about to condemn him before his day in court. All of that means that in my short-term, pragmatic view, I’d prefer DiMasi to those struggling to get in line behind him.
<
p>The Long Term View: Of course I want a more transparent governor and a Speaker that is more in line with my viewpoints and priorities. In fact, I’ve written at length here and elsewhere about how we’ll get our perfect speaker – and it mostly has to do with us electing better leaders across the state over the next 6-10 years. After we’ve laid the groundwork for a more transparent government and better speakers, I promise to be the first in line to lead the effort to oust a current speaker in favor of a better one.
<
p>All that said, perhaps I went a bit far in my initial post: no one should be excused for breaking the law. But has DiMasi? I’ve always taken the view that people are innocent until proven guilty. If the Government sees fit to investigate DiMasi, hopefully they’ll do it with as much respect as anyone would deserve, so we’re not convicting the guy in the court of public opinion, which is as far as any of these charges are likely to go.
hope you accept my apology. We see the world through two completely different sets of lenses. You want government to help all. I want them to get the heck out of my way.
*a more transparent government(second paragraph).
<
p>Ryan, what possibly could justify your view? And what will happen when the shoe is on the other foot? I haven’t followed this story closely enough to form a strong view on whether DiMasi has crossed the line, but your comment suggests that you believe he has. Since that’s so, I think you should know better than to take the position you’re taking.
<
p>TedF
<
p>What could justify my view? I prefer the current Speaker to the men fighting to be next in line. As a personal choice, I haven’t gone after this current speaker because it’ll make him that much weaker. Of course, his actions deserve scrutiny, but that doesn’t mean that scrutiny has to come from me. I’ll let it come from other people.
<
p>None of that is to say I don’t think the Speaker should be free from investigation. If he’s broken any laws, he deserves to pay the penalties. However, that’s neither here nor there, because I was talking about my own personal viewpoints and how I approach the situation. It’s just not something I’m covering in my writing, as pure and simple as that.
<
p>
<
p>It depends on which line you’re talking about. Do I think he’s broken the law? Probably not. Do I think he’s had a few shady actions? Of course, but none worse than any of the people trying to be next in line. The reality is, given the current situation, we’ll get no perfect Speaker. We won’t even have one we can be happy with 85-90% of the time. I’d give the current Speaker about a B- or B in how he’s advocated issues I care about, but those struggling to replace him would be getting a D or an F based on the same issues. And they aren’t ‘clean’ politicians either – until we change the situation on Beacon Hill, I doubt any Speaker will be… so I’ll stick with Sal and be pretty happy with him in the meantime.
<
p>I hope that answers your questions…
Thanks. My questions were meant to be rhetorical–I just don’t think it’s principled to say that a politician shouldn’t have to answer questions about his misconduct because we want to have him in office for political reasons. That’s what I took you to say, anyway, although in your more recent comments you seem to say that of course you want him to answer the relevant questions. So maybe we don’t disagree after all.
<
p>TedF
Of course, I shouldn’t have said anything to the effect that ‘people don’t want to hear it.’ I should have said ‘I don’t want to hear it,’ because, really, I’m not interested in these kinds of stories and their anonymous sources – people who I believe are motivated by revenge for DiMasi’s stance on casinos. Furthermore, I’m just so sick of people being convicted in the court of public opinion on these kinds of mini scandals that I think I’m just going to try my best to tune them all out from now on, no matter the politician.
…if you guys really think that this is serious stuff against DiMasi? You should take a look around at what happens other places.
<
p>Or maybe even in the Commonwealth. Did any one look at the recent State Committee fundraising dinner to see how many lobbyists bought tickets? Or how much lobbyist money goes to the Republican leadership for their votes in favor of corporate interests? Do the Republican leaders have business interests that may pose conflicts? Senator Tisei owns a real estate agency. Who are his clients? Both Brad Jones (House Minrotiy leader) and his wife work for Tisei’s agency. Unless we have public servants willing to work for low wages (by professional standards) you are going to have these uncomfortable situations. But why is anyone else have cleaner hands than DiMasi?
it would facilitate their feeling the pinch like the rest of us. Now they kiss the ring and get another 20K for a committee chairmanship etc.
Sure their legislators are part-time, but there are more than twice as many of them.
<
p>If we had the same ratio of legislators to people, the General Court would be over 2000 members in size.
The League of Women Voters made it happen because they too were working for God.
<
p>Go in the Kitchen and make me some bacon and eggs. Quack Quack
and I’d like full time legislators please. I’d also like legislators who, because they can put food on the table thanks to their job as legislators, aren’t nearly as tempted to get a taste of action somewhere because their job isn’t paying the bills.
<
p>I think the NH model is terrible — I want legislators who come to work every day focused on helping MA become a better place for her citizens, and I don’t believe one can do that if he has a second job that pays the bills.
All the time is fertile ground for wasting time and resources, such as the vitally important regulation of video games and fluffernutter sandwiches.
<
p>If I were the grand pooh-bah of the Commonwealth, I would limit the session to 100-150 days. If it isn’t important enough to complete in 6-8 weeks each year, it is probably better left undone.