In the mid-90s, a similar battle was joined. When then-Ways and Means Chairman Tom Finneran lacked the votes to win within the Democratic Party, he turned to the Republicans for help, in a shrewd, unexpected, last-minute gambit. Finneran won.
The Republicans gained little from their stand with Finneran, but ultimately, the Democratic Party was the biggest loser. Finneran’s move, coupled with the harsh punishment he dealt out to all who has opposed him, led to ongoing internal split in the Democratic Party, culminating in Finneran’s moves to torpedo Democratic Attorney General Scott Harshbarger’s campaign for Governor.
Perhaps the time has come for Democratic City and Town Committees across the state to bring forth resolutions, instructing their legislators to only vote for a candidate for speaker who promises to uphold the Democratic Party Platform (a progressive document) and who forswears seeking or accepting Republican votes in the leadership battle.
What should we be doing?
Lets try to find a candidate for Chairman of a group who promises to disenfranchise a segment of that group.. because we don’t like how they think. Thats the kind of leader we need.
<
p>Yeah, them democrats are really civilized.. ain’t they.
You mean we can actually take their votes away? Now why haven’t we thought about that one before?!?
<
p>When did BMG become the first stop for all these GOP trolls? Are things really that slow over on RMG?
You are implying that all “Democrats” are Democrats. The Minority Leader of the House is probably less conservative than many “Democrats” that are fixtures there. The backbenchers need to show a little backbone.
Neither of which gets the juices flowing. Just more of the same. These contests are totally inside baseball, as the Constitution and the rules of the chamber prescribe. But that is a shame, as the House Speaker becomes a hugely powerful figure affecting every bit of policy in State Govt.
<
p>Maybe what we need to do is call for the leadership candidates to be more public in their agendas and aspirations for the chambers. It may not work, but it would seem that issues around openness and transparency are important so why not start with making their agendas more public as well.
<
p>I mean what is the difference between a Rogers and a DeLeo on the issues and on how they would run the place? Hell if I know.
<
p>Sal has been pretty progressive on a host of issues from gay marriage to health care. His pro-business position on tax matters and propensity to play those up in contrast to Patrick notwithstanding. That stuff matters.
<
p>And yet, I feel he did not sufficiently answer the ethics charges against him and while I have been happy to see him work for important progressive issues, I am ultimately not happy with how he has run the House. The question is, will any of his potential successors offer something different – not only progressive positions on key issues, but a commitment to making the House more open and accountable as well? Seems many of us feel the answer is no.
<
p>