Professional lobbyists, and especially those working on what the BMG community would characterize as progressive causes, know that Speakers come and go. And for that matter so do Senate Presidents and Governors. And many of us have reasons to be thankful of recent changes.
As a matter of standard practice, however,the political and personal dynamics within and between each Chamber and the Executive Department is simply information to be collected, understood and leveraged to advance positive policy change. Not judged.
That’s what all lobbyists work for — to snatch a win out of the inevitable whirl of personal and political agendas. And not talk about it in public unless it’s to say thank you.
I have a hard time understanding folk, including many commentators on BMG, who stand outside the public policy arena counting up the character flaws and characterizing the misadventures of key players as criminal corruption in ways that really discourage community activists from engaging in advocacy.
Come on commentators! Get into the public policy arena for a while. You’ll find most legislators are regular hard working human beings who want, more than anything else in the world, to bring a measurable positive change to a critical mass of their constituents — and get credit for it. That’s the Hero Opportunity they are looking for, and maybe, if you can do the hard work of organizing and mobilizing a good campaign, you can provide it for them. The anti- casino forces, did, the gay marriage folk did, the anti death penalty folk did, the choice folk did.
I will leave it to others to list the good campaigns and victories of the forces of darkness and evil.
…no exceptions at all. Every single legislator has real problems they care about and are trying to solve. Truly. Every single one.
<
p>Legislators are also paid about at the level of public school teachers in most districts.
<
p>And respond really well to the words “thank you” [and can tell mostly if those thanks are sincere, I bet] – and to hard work on a cause by folk like you and I.
<
p>That all being said, the pressures and temptations and lack of privacy [what I call “the goldfish bowl”] and irregular – often long – often weekend hours do take a real toll. For example, the session on Friday 5/2/08 ended after midnight on 5/3/08. Ouch!
<
p>Ergo, the fewer problems a legislator or leader brings along in their persona, I expect, the more effective they are and will be.
<
p>So my wish list [The Perfect Speaker post] was not intended as a criticism of anyone, but rather focused on what kind of man or woman would have the least baggage and the most strength should they take upon themselves the tough, exciting, and important [to us all] role of Speaker. Which, by the way, pays $85,000.00 last time I looked – less than a high school principal, or a first year associate at even a mid-sized law firm [and WilmerHale starts them at $165,000 – or so I am told].
You have a long record of not only fighting the good fight, but doing it with a smart savvy campaign and winning.
Are they committed to their jobs, or committed to their jobs so long as it gets them a shot at the next level up in the government?
<
p>Are they advancing as far as they can to maximize their future lobbyist revenue?
<
p>Did they run for an office so that they can increase the reputation of the private business/practice that is their moneymaker?
<
p>Are they interested in doing good things in general, or is it that good things are a temporary match for their career goals?
<
p>Please don’t bother replying with examples of good legislators. I know there are good ones. I’m trying to refute the pollyanna argument that they are all good – it’s obviously untrue.
you’re not the first person who has spoken critically of legislators who may see a career after the state house. and i wonder, why shouldn’t legislators be as ambitious or career-minded as anyone else? if someone gets elected merely as a stepping stone to something better, but does a good, ethical and impartial job while they’re in the state house, why should we care?
To listen to some folk, if a legislator lists their profession as legislator – that is bad.
<
p>To listen to some of the same folk – if a legislator serves as a legislator then moves on to something else – that is bad.
<
p>This kind of thinking is called “no win”.
<
p>These folks are just plain too critical! As far as they are concerned, whether a public servant is committed to public service for life, or is willing to work under extreme pressure, with no privacy, and a modest level of payment for a set time, and then moves on – THESE hyper critical folks will attack them – either way!
<
p>I admit to finding the willingness of some to attack everything, and have nothing positive to propose ever hard to understand, and not at all admirable.
William Delahunt and Marty Meehan. The poster boys of sleezy politics.
<
p>Now Mr. Meehan has his Billy Bulger job for life and Mr. Delahunt is just waiting for the big pay out. The two of them make you wanna go take a shower to get the crud off.
<
p>The problem on Beacon Hill is that you have a one party system. It is the speakers way or the highway. Quid pro Quo, and what’s in it for me. The only speaker that ran things with a pretty eaven hand was George Keverian, and they squashed him like a bug, albeit–a big bug. Massachusetts politics has been so corrupted by unions and special interest groups that no one is safe. But that is the government we put in power and that is what we deserve.
Marty Meehan has served as quite well, thank you very much! If he still wanted to move back into politics for a US Senate seat or something there is an excellent chance that I would support him.
From Wiki
<
p>”Meehan made a pledge not to serve more than four terms. On the House floor in 1995 he scolded members who might go back on their promise to limit their tenure in office. “The best test of any politicians’ credibility on term limits,” he said, “is whether they are willing to put their careers where their mouths are and limit their own service.” Despite his pledge, Meehan again ran for Congress in the year 2000, exceeding four terms.”
<
p>Nuff said.
I believe his mistake was to make the pledge in the first place, but everyone has the right to change their mind. He did run in 2000 and term limits was an issue, but Meehan won by a signficant margin. Ditto for 2002, 2004, and 2006. The voters clearly have decided it was a nonissue. I believe that issues are no longer valid once voters have repeatedly and clearly said they don’t care. It’s like going after Ted Kennedy for Chappaquidick even now after seven re-elections since then.
doesn’t make it right. It says as much about the voters as it does Mr Meehan. I’ll assume these are the same voters who never let us forget George H W’s “no new taxes” pledge. They’ll let their own guy do it, but not anyone from the other team. Hypocrites all.
I for one also believe that Bush’s bigger mistake was making the pledge in the first place rather than breaking it later, just like I said for Meehan. I’m sure MA would have gone for Clinton with or without that particular pledge. I’m glad Bush made the compromise he did, but have other reasons to favor Clinton.
He’s the kind of Guy that your sister marries and you and your brothers just want to beat the crap out of him from the day you meet him to the day the last guy dies. Every holiday and first communion half the conversation is how much he sucks, he standing in the next room, and he is clueless. So isn’t your sister. Because we love her. We hate him. And we love his kids. and he’s a good father. And bblah blah.. And we still hate his freakin guts.
And himn being a congressman or any kind of big shot make us hate him more. Not because he’s a big shot. But because he is the worse kind of guy t make a big shot out of.
<
p>And he has no clue. He thinks they all love him.
This is one of the most childish comments I have seen on BMG, hence the “worthless” rating. For what it’s worth he always polled quite well.
But I mean it.
And you deserve to be commended for reminding us of the good things and good people that do them on Beacon Hill. Most legislators are hard working, committed and well intentioned – at least the ones I’ve known.
<
p>You are right that Beacon Hill is not the black hole of doom for good works some portray it as (think health care) and that those legislators and legislative leaders that find themselves in the media headlights for negative things, can’t be defined by those actions without considering the many positive issues they have led on. The media and blogosphere in many instances focuses too often on the negative side of life under the Golden Dome.
<
p>That all said, and considering the House in particular, there is a huge power imbalance between leadership and membership. While we progressives exploit that imbalance when it suits our goals (we shouldn’t naively be purist about achieving our ends), we should also recognize that the imbalance exists and that the concentrated power of leadership can have some severely negative consequences that work against our aims.
<
p>One of the biggest downsides is that it (like all the recent Cashman stories) contributes to a negative perception of State Govt in general. We can snidely dismiss this as ignorance or narrow-mindedness, which is all somewhat true, but for progressives, who believe Govt is vital for change, those perceptions likely do more to hurt our causes than others. Public perceptions about corruption, waste and pork barrel politics diminish public willingness to support needed investment and if we can’t get the people to be willing to part with some cash to make those investments our aims will suffer. Maybe you know how to win an amendment for a client, undoubtedly a client who will use their extra funding for positive aims. But, if the pie is diminishing (and it is) and we can’t convince the public to expand the pie because they don’t trust the legislature to spend the money well, then while you may have a happy client, the cause of progressive government overall may be no further.
<
p>So while progressives should never shy away from getting our hands dirty and be willing to work the system to our advantage (there is no excuse for us to stay on the sidelines because we don’t like the rules as they are) , I do think that part of being a progressive is caring about how the game is played as well as whether we win or lose. We can play to win and work to improve the game all at once.
<
p>Maybe that is the difference between a lobbyist, who excepts the system as it is (they do get paid for their experience in that system) and works within it, and an activist, who get’s involved for the cause, which often maybe to reform the system itself. Or maybe that is a distinction all in the eye of the beholder.
Thank you lanugo! I agree wholeheartedly with your comment:
<
p>
<
p>Lobbyists are indeed a central part of political life and some do facilitate good results. But there’s a BIG problem when the system becomes so extremely dysfunctional (like our current lege has become) and the very people who know it and who call themselves progressives and “the people’s advocates” do not speak out about it. Our standards are so low that this insight from Gandhi, and others, I’m sure, almost seems like it comes from another planet:
<
p>In the interest of disclosure and to provide context for this original post, it’s worth noting that Judy Meredith spent her career as a lobbyist and continues to earn her income creating “hero opportunities” for politicians and advocacy groups alike.
<
p>These groups Judy has had and continues to have close relationships with include MA Health Care For All (HCFA). HCFA has a long track record of unethical back-room dealmaking that intentionally undercut and sold-out grassroots progressive health reform causes.
<
p>Many many people are fully aware of the facts of HCFA’s unethical track record and of the huge amounts of money they take from insurance companies (BCBS), HMOs, and state hospital association (all this is on record at the state AG’s office). This record includes undercutting citizen ballot initiatives that sought to cap insurance co. admin. spending at 10% and to set a date of July 2002 for statewide universal healthcare (collaborating w/Finneran they helped kill that initiative in 2000 then assisted BCBS to advance the individual mandate law), HCFA also played a pivotal role in the death of the citizens health care constitutional amendment that was brought about by entirely illegal means (they did that in 2004 through 2006 collaborating with Finneran then DiMasi as well as the industry operatives, of course), and HCFA continues to provide essential political cover for the extremely unfair individual mandate insurance law and its implementation that is hurting thousands of people and worsening the enforced poverty of those who must rely on subsidized products or be fined.
<
p>Our state and our country have become such a dysfunctional mess b/c we the people do not take active responsibility for the mess around us. I have no desire to fight other “progressives” but if they’re acting as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, that is hurting people and cannot stand. It’s time for a change! How to begin that change?
Thanks…..just trying to lend a balanced view. I am deeply concerned about the lack of public confidence in our government. And trying to do something about that with ONE Massachusetts.
And as someone who also considers myself a fan of the role and history of the legislature, I guess I just worry about the place and wish it could be more than what it is. Their is a lost of talent up there that is not used effectively and members are, I think, too quiescent in letting leadership serve as judge and jury, particularly in the House.
<
p>No doubt there is long way between the wholesale negative perception people have of the legislature, fed by the media, and the reality. On the other hand, I just think the legislature could be more empowered, more innovative, more democratic and more accountable and still be an effective institution. I don’t think its necessarily performing any worse (or better) than it has in recent memory but I think it performs (and has for a long time) much worse than it could. But, to do so, power needs to be shared more, skills and capacity must be improved and transparency and public engagement dramatically enhanced. Maybe I’ll post some ideas on that later.
who are concerned with civil rights, homelessness, poverty, or even education is one thing. Enjoying free vacations, nice dinners, tickets to ballgames, special favors, generous mortgage arrangements, and generally having a wicked good time due to the attentions of big corporations, banks, and assorted affluent individuals and entities who have business before the state and who are accostomed to things “going their way” is something else. This is what I see a lot of legislators doing- having a great time at a party that the vast majority of us poor slobs will never be invited to. Government for sale to the highest bidder, to the everlasting detriment of anybody who can’t afford a $500 plate at the “Who’s Who in MA’ annual brunch. This is how Cheney, Bush, and all those scumbags at the national level operate, and when Democrats try to pull the same tricks it’s just as wrong, even if they throw your own little club (whatever that happens to be) a bone from time to time.
Any legislator accepting anything worth more than $50 has broken the law. So the mortgages, trips, etc., to which you refer are banned.
<
p>That said – I have never understood the progressive’s hatred of lobbyists. They are useful people. They have specialized expertise, and can explain why and how a law or regulation will help or hurt them. Also, there is generally another side to every argument, so a complete cadre of lobbyists contributes to a well informed legislator.
<
p>All of them want to influence legislation or policy. It is immaterial if they represent the banks, the blind, the realtors or the rehabilitation industry. You remind me of how you all screamed for the closure of corproate tax loopholes, and then praised Deval for giving the biotech industry a billion in…corporate tax loopholes.
<
p>It isn’t good or bad just depending on if you agree with it. And intrisnically, I think lobbyists are good and raise the overall IQ of the legislature about ten points.
themselves about public policy alternatives, not merely listening to various mercenaries, since making laws is supposed to be their full-time job. If they don’t have the energy or inclination to do so then what are they doing in government to begin with? Of course, their fate ultimately rests with the voters so it’s dumb to complain too much, I guess.
No legislator can read it ALL or be an expert in everything. Plus, as a back bencher you get one staffer. That would still make it 4000 proposed laws each!
<
p>As a volunteer legislative liaison, I knew that my job was to provide accurate information, which was concise, to explain the legislation I was supporting.
<
p>If a lobbyist provides info that turns out to be bogus, then he or she becomes totally ineffective from then to forever.
<
p>What lobbyists are, in a way, the good ones anyway, are researchers who digest and write about their research for their clients. Yes, the professionals do this for pay.
<
p>And yes, some lobbyists pitch laws and changes I personally find disgusting while others work for changes I happen to want.
<
p>I continue to put what time I can afford into influencing change that I care about, often in areas of law where there are no paid lobbyists because no one would pay them to care [such as the work I am doing to try and open juvenile court proceedings unless there is a sufficiently supported reason to close/impound] – no one has money out there for trying to help poor kids in a way that doesn’t lead to money for an industry such as adoption or group care or incarceration.
<
p>Incarceration is one of the largest employers and industries in our state by the way.
<
p>So? What issues or changes do you advocate for?
Those troublesome areas of law “where there are no paid lobbyists because no one would pay them to care.” The Big Money pays the lobbyists, the lobbyists devise “technical objections” to laws that might hurt their corporate clients in the interest of helping the common folk, the legislators listen to the lobbyists’ objections, and quietly vote against progressive legislation. Meanwhile, there’s nobody except volunteer do-gooders to advocate for the poor and the chronically screwed. So bills that might address (for example) imbalances in judicial outcomes, sentencing reform, or increasing funding for public defenders get ignored and die a quiet death. Money buys you a voice, a seat at the table, which in turn leads to laws that protect and augment your supply of money, thus lending you the ability to hire more lobbyists, facilitating the accumulation of more influence, and so on ad nauseum.
That said, I don’t know what the answer is, and you can consider this post merely my own form of lobbying for politicians to pay less attention to business interests, the correctional officers’ union, the prison builders’ association, etc. I’ll have to compile a more complete list of my likes and dislikes for you when I get a chance.
Farnkoff, You’ve done a valuable service laying out the dynamics of moneyed-interests that have almost thoroughly corrupted our political process and made it such a depressing farce (farce: ridiculous or empty show; mockery).
<
p>With DiMasi and “the political process” (ie Rep. Callahan’s report of the unprofessional behavior of fellow legislators, that we learn is all too common) put under the public microscope a bit more of late, it would seem a good time for progressive leaders of groups such as Common Cause and Mass. Voters For Fair Elections to launch another push for a law to provide public funding of political campaigns so that ordinary concerned citizens can run for elected office and serve their constituents without being beholden to big money interests.
<
p>Public financing of elections is a crucial policy to enact if we are ever to begin to make significant progress in replacing the worst of the industry-puppet and leadership-puppet politicians, and to make real progress in reclaiming the democratic processes of our government. (Otherwise, the notion that we the people have any “real clout” is also largely a farce.)
<
p>Many of us and on this site have taken our civic and moral responsibilities very seriously and have been actively engaged in “the process” for years. We have witnessed it get steadily more dysfunctional. We were there in the 1980’s and ever since working for real universal healthcare reform; in the 1990’s working our butts off for campaign finance reform and other fundamental progressive change.
<
p>Citizen activists played by the rules. The legislature did not. Repeatedly. Here are but two examples of this sordid history:
have lobbyests too Farnkoff. Just like the mob has accountants and plumbers. You just need them at certain times.
The only concern I have with lobbyists is that I don’t have one.
<
p>Seriously — who lobbies for the People? Not just the blind or handicapped or bankers…
Which requires self education.
<
p>Taking time off from work.
<
p>Learning how it works.
<
p>Studying issues, drafting white papers and rounding up letters and calls and testimony.
<
p>NO one taught me that. I taught myself.
<
p>It used to happen more, I am told. It is tiring and sometimes pleasant, sometimes not.
<
p>So? Either stop whining or get involved and just learn how to do it. I will be happy to provide you a list of what to read and what to learn…and even answer questions esp. HERE.
about the various people who do what yopu do for various things.
where you could get the complete list of registered lobbyists and their clients and their fees. Meanwhile you can check our lobbyists by subject area or last name at the Secretary of State's Lobbyist Search site.
There’s a not-so-subtle difference between Bush and Cheney vs. your local representative. Your local representative probably may not be recognized at her own supermarket; it isn’t nearly as glorious as you’d think. Your local rep also has to deal with his or her name being yellowed in the papers, and with callers every day both sane and not. Oh, and they have to run for reelection every two years – which means campaigning never, ever, ever truly stops.
<
p>I’m not saying that everything you said is wrong – certainly, there are enough vain members of the House that they screw things up more than we’d like. Certainly, there’s plenty of room for change. But this isn’t a glamorous position. They’re not invited to a party none of us could ever get in: usually, they’re the ones desperate to get into your party, if it’s in the district and with plenty of voters, and many of those are free!
Nonprofits often do good, but sll too often their staff and executive directors do very well!
<
p>
Grants and government subsidy’s for essentially doing nothing. The exceptions are the Home for Little Wanderers and two or three others. The remainder are nothing but parastic LICSW’s, MA’s, and Phd’s who couldn’t make a real living if their lives depended on it.
which is probably part of the problem. There should be term limits for the Speakership and Senate Presidency, lest people become too comfortable and forget that they work for the People of Massachusetts.
To explain me would take a book. Born here, raised here, Boy Scout, patent holder, private pilot and current observation officer of the Biblical End Times.
The rhetoric does turn people off as I try to convey to the widest audience possible that whole institutions have been compromised and it is more than people and political ideologies.
<
p>My confidence level in federal, state and filtering down to local government is less than zero. The only thing which prevents me from getting further involved are the daily confirmations that such activity would be a waste of time.
<
p>In this very short venue I may have some wondering why I am not on prozac or something and some are saying no make that something far stronger.
The latest key in the information war is David Rothkofpt and the book Superclass. It is about globalization and it’s effects. He may turn out to be the establishment’s Al Gore of global government. Not sure yet but I don’t think this will be a good thing.
<
p>If said prophecy does come to light I want it digitally recorded in the blogosphere that some raving lunatic tin foil hatter who claims he wants a horse ride before the Biblical Apocalypse said so.
<
p>”Good” vs “evil” remains in the eye of the beholder.
<
p>the policy arena will just go on missing your penetrating and informed opinions. Might have been helpful in persuading a policy maker or two to make an informed decision you agreed with.
Perhaps your belief is that those who post here do little work on Beacon Hill, and that we just sit off to the sides and throw bombs, and that we should appreciate that law-making is a dirty business, in which we should all engage.
<
p>Many of us are engaged. We go to Beacon Hill. We make phone calls, we lobby. We try to provide our solons with their opportunities to be heroes. Don’t talk down to us.
<
p>The truth is, we can do that, we can work hard for change, and we can still recognize our legislature for what it is: a dysfunctional frat house.
<
p>This is not to say that all legislatures are this way. I would point to the legislatures in Maryland and Minnesota, or the US Congress as counter examples. While I do not always agree with the policies created by those bodies, they are more productive and more accountable, and their outcomes are less driven by cults of personality and the whims of their speaker and senate president.
<
p>The truth is that even while we work for progressive victories in elections and on issues, striking compromise pragmatically and thinking strategically, we should also be dedicated to the long term project of working to change the culture of Beacon Hill. Not to a hero worshipping culture of the Governor (that would just replace one culture of personality-driven politics for another) but a meritocratic, responsive, small d democratic system. If we do not, in ten years, we will still be engaged in the same stalemated battles we are in today.
<
p>We can have many opinions about the legislature, but one fact is clear — the vast majority of legislators, year after year, face no challenges to reelection, and the their leaders face no chance of losing partisan control. Translation: they are largely unaccountable, except when embroiled in illegality or major scandal.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know well that they must give their members a series of wins to run on. If they don’t, they may lose their majority. This provides a powerful incentive to perform that is simply missing in Massachusetts.
Frustration is understandable, but check the scorecard. In the past few years alone, our legislature passed a health reform that has provided insurance to about 300,000 more individuals, protected gay marriage, raised the minimum wage, and named hundreds of bridges and gazebos after people we’ve never heard of.
<
p>Yes, it’s dysfunctional. No, we don’t get everything we want. But, we are ahead of most of the country. We owe it to intelligent progressives like Judy who know how to work this ‘broken’ system for the greater good.
<
p>If we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, then we won’t get anything done.
<
p>So the civil rights movement activists should have settled for equal rights limited to light-skinned blacks and not pushed for the “perfect” goal of equal rights for all? GMAFB.
<
p>The fact that we do not have a national health insurance program that is based on equity is deplorable. We are the ONLY industrialized country that tolerates this immoral situation.
<
p>So don’t keep shoving “If we let the perfect be the enemy of the good, then we won’t get anything done” down the throats of health care activists and the people who are DYING because they do not have access to timely affordable health care.
It’s not about settling Ann. It’s about continually moving forward. Get what you can now and go back for more. That is exactly how the civil rights movement pressed forward over a century and through tremendous setbacks.
<
p>Also, I have to say I take tremendous offense at your tired hyperbole and fanatical grudges. As someone whose family uses Commonwealth Care, whose hometown is one of the Commonwealth’s more struggling communities, and who has faced serious economic struggle, I can’t take getting lectured on poverty by someone with five initials after her name. Please, please keep fighting the good fight and let off trashing others.
And I, too, take offense at your comments branding me as an elitist and out of touch just because I have a Master’s degree (in Oncology and HIV/AIDS nursing). Do I need to “prove” my right to being outraged by our current murderous healthcare system? One person’s hyberbole and grudges are anohter’s moral outrage and infuriation about corruption that kills people and is aided by so-called progressives and health reform “advocacy “groups”.
<
p>btw I was raised by a single Mom with 3 small children and no job skills. I wore hand-me-downs from friends families and my older sisters most of the time. It took me 10 years to finish college b/c I was working full-time (from the age of 17) and taking courses at night. When I decided to pursue nursing I was fortunate to get a generous scholarship to the MGH Institute of Health Professions where I obtained my RN, MSN (the “alphabet soup” of nursing annoys me, too).
<
p>My outrage is a reasonable response to life experiences and it is discouraging that you, a seemingly caring person, would so easily dismiss it as hyperbole. I’ve been a nurse for 15 years now and have borne witness to unimaginable poverty, suffering, and premature death of my patients from entirely preventable severe illnesses (due to no insurance and no timely care) while working as a home care nurse in the inner city for 10 years.
<
p>My outrage comes from my life experiences that include having a sister who developed schizophrenia when I was 19yo. She had such a severe psychotic episode that her life was in danger and she was hospitalized to undergo intense medication adjustments (Stelazine, Thorazine, Haldol combos) with horrible side-effects. Despite the meds she remained very psychotic. Totally unbeknownst to the family on the day her private insurance “mental health benefit” coverage ran out, McLean’s discharged her by shoving her in an ambulance to be taken across town and put on a mattress on the floor of the dayroom in a squalid state hospital. (They had no beds available but that didn’t stop Mclean’s.) I have advocated to no end for my sister, watching her suffer as much from “the health care system” as from her horrible illness, at certain times. Thankfully, she’s better now. But I know that her situation is not at all unusual, just one of thousands and thousands like it, some much worse.
<
p>So I am exceedingly offended by your term “fanatical grudges” used to dismiss my attempt to speak truth to power and remove known obstacles to achieving an equitable healthcare system that will save lives, prevent suffering, and that will save us all a lot of money.
<
p>Re my “grudges”, it would do a lot to restore people’s faith in the group Health Care For All MA if a public commitment was made by its leaders to put patients before profits in health reform and enact social insurance on the state level with SB 703 (see http://www.masscare.org ) and ultimately on the federal level with HR 676 (see http://www.healthcare-now ).
It isn’t a frat house? I’ve been around for 63 years. I beg to differ with you and I believe Mark Twain has some apt observations re our congress. The present congress is an absolute joke. Since Pelosi too over—USA has been in freefall.
Are you high?
I would add that so often objections are raised to the means, when really they’re objecting to the ends. Take DiMasi’s two high-profile victories over the last year and a half — marriage equality and casino gambling. We both applauded those victories because we agreed with the outcome (a good number of us, at least). But geez, there was a strong core of support for marriage discrimination and for state casinos, yet the issues went nowhere.
<
p>The same exercise in arm twisting, influence peddling, and gamesmanship that killed those bills is now killing a lot of things that folks around here like. Suddenly, the same MO that protected equality is verboten because it’s protecting something commentators don’t like. To be an effective speaker takes some unsavory characteristics, I would wager. I’m not saying Denny Hastert is an ethically admirable man, but he was a Speaker who didn’t do much in terms of building and selling “the deal” — which is to say, he was speaker in name only.
Ms pelosi on the other hand is lsot. personally, I think a speaker should have an agenda like a presidency and a governorship. Make it know up from what your agenda is up front and what you want to accomplish. Advise whips, minority leaders etc what you are looking for and what doesn’t really turn you on. That way everything isn’t a guessing game. Stuff that is middle of the road or mundane can get taken care of when the time comes.
<
p>Right now, the US Senate and House of Representatives have been at a standstill for a loooooong time and now the MA House is in civil war. Doesn’t make the elecorate particularly enthusiastic. Speaking for all aforementioned, it speaks volumes that so many people are retiring or simply bailing out.
It seems incumbent upon me to remind myself that Legislators are human beings with assets and faults galore, just like the rest of us. Watching the drama around Patrick, then DiMasi and the expediency in which they are criticized (which is different than being “held accountable”) is really breathtaking.
<
p>I am not inclined to throw either under the bus, although I have grave disagreements with some of the Governor’s policies and actions and reservations about the absence of a pristine public image by the Speaker.
<
p>I love both of them more than Romney and Finneran. How soon we forget.