Here are some links to refresh your memory:
I think you could look at any one or two or three of these items and think of them as a few aberrations, outliers. But a list that long? With so many players, in so many areas? To me, that’s a system of corruption. It’s a set of people who can’t tell right from wrong.
What sort of message will it send when DiMasi is re-elected? The message, loud and clear, is that it’s business as usual in Massachusetts. It doesn’t matter how cloudy your reputation is. All that matters is that you’re a Democrat with clout; it’s all you need to get by.
I think this is deplorable. DiMasi should not be the Speaker. He should step down; if he won’t step down, he should be voted out. The House should choose a new leader. He or she should be a clean as clean can be, and should be given the mandate to reform and reform again until the public trust is restored.
At least one State Representative agrees with me. State Representative David Torrisi (a committee chair even) has announced that he will not support DiMasi’s re-election.
I wish I could say that Torrisi was my representative! I’d be proud to have him. In my new home I’m represented by Jay Kaufman who is quoted:
“I don’t feel at all distracted,” said Rep. Jay Kaufman, the Lexington Democrat whom DiMasi moved from the back bench to the House chairman of the Public Service Committee and has defended the speaker. “I think I’m very focused, as are most members, on the challenges we’ve got by way of the economy and loss of jobs, an education system that still needs serious attention, etc., etc., and I’m sorry that David feels distracted. I don’t.”
What Kaufman does not appear to understand is that it is impossible for him to work on the economy and education while the government he supports is distrusted by its citizens. He can only succeed with the support of the citizens and tax payers. He will not have that support while the government declines to confront its image (and evidence) of corruption.
Some defenders of DiMasi will say that it is up to the courts to decide if DiMasi is guilty or not. I agree with the statement, but it is irrelevant. The only thing that is up for debate on January 7th is if DiMasi is the right person to be Speaker. At this point, it does not matter whether or not he is guilty. It is unarguable that DiMasi is in ethical trouble. It is unarguable that he’s declining to cooperate with investigations into alleged improprieties.
The bottom line: Do the Democrats understand the degree that the public has lost faith in their moral compass? Do the Democrats have a moral compass? Do the Democrats want to show the public that they’re serious about changing the culture on Beacon Hill? Do the Democrats have the guts to change leadership? In short, do they have the guts to follow Torrisi? Of course, I’m skeptical. DiMasi is going to win re-election this week, and he’s going to hold the title until there is an indictment.
This is one of those votes that shines a bright light on your representative. Are they willing to stand for change? Are they willing to step out of line? Are they willing to take a stand for an ethical government? I’m not suggesting that you call your representative and let them know what you think. This is where you find out if they know how to do the “right thing,” without a poll or a phonebank to tell them what to do.
Watch how he or she votes. Record it, remember it. And take it to the ballot box with you in 2010.
11 bullets above.
<
p>Six don’t involve DiMasi and didn’t happen at the State House.
One isn’t DiMasi but was at the State House [Murphy].
<
p>Got beef with DiMasi? That’s fair. Emphasize the four bullet items that are within his purview. Trying to staple the activities of Marzilli, Wilkerson, Buonomo, Murphy, Rogers, or Turner is outright silly. Mistah Speakah may have some puppet strings, but those other politicians made their own moves and nobody’s shown that DiMasi had any knowledge of their activities. Until they do, don’t bother with this guilt-by-they’re-also-Dem-state-politicians nonsense.
<
p> * Possible exception for the activities of Turner… DiMasi needs to keep the votes in line, and that includes making sure that policy and procedure is kept.
I’m quite comfortable stapling these non-House items to the DiMasi issue.
<
p>It’s a question of public trust. In 2008 the government demonstrated itself to be untrustworthy, from House to Senate to County to City to Town.
<
p>The House Democrats have a choice. Do they want to chart a new course? Or are they happy with the current one? I know my choice, and I hope my representative agrees with me.
<
p>Really, what’s your argument here? “Only four ethical issues affect DiMasi. You’re not being fair by talking about the other baddies.” In this environment, isn’t one ethical issue a disqualification? How many DiMasi bullet points do you want before you vote him out?
I too would prefer DiMasi not be Speaker; there are just too many questions. However, you bring up two Senators, a City Councilor, and a Register of Probate. I see no connection whatsoever among these various problems to the Speaker. My question is whether there is another candidate. My understanding is that Rogers and DeLeo were potential candidates IF DiMasi didn’t run, but I hadn’t heard that either is directly challenging him. Are the Republicans even putting up a candidate just to keep up appearances? If I were a Representative and there were no other Democrat running I’d be tempted to abstain; I believe constituents will understand even if it means losing clout. This is exactly why the power of the Speaker needs to be reduced. He should not get to decide which bills come for vote, who gets which office, and who gets which chairmanships. In other words, the rules have to be changed such that nobody is cowed into supporting the winner. Personally, I’d even tolerate a secret ballot for Speaker to eliminate the internal politics.
In a press conference when U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald announced corruption charges against Governor Blagojevitch, Fitzgerald said that Illinois was “in the running” to be the most corrupt state.
<
p> Unfortunately, Massachusetts is also “in the running”.
The question is whether we ever catch up?
A couple thou for a liquor license v. half a million for a Senate seat? The stuff they’re “uncovering” in Massachusetts doesn’t even qualify for a crime throughout much of the South. This is just another day in Louisiana …
Cognos?
<
p>Ace Ticket?
<
p>Vitale?
<
p>Sweetheart deals?
<
p>Loans?
<
p>Parking?
<
p>Business to your law firm?
<
p>Meals?
<
p>Travel?
<
p>Lodging?
<
p>Your committee chairmen to the Kentucky Derby?
<
p>Lucrative state contracts?
<
p>Lobbyists?
<
p>Richard McDonough?
<
p>None of it matterss. No one will remember!
<
p>Mista Speaka for another term or until an indictment is handed up.
<
p>By the way, the House doesn’t always win!
<
p>
The Speaker in MA definitely has too much power, but as far as the ethical problems with DiMasi go, it just looks like he has some sketchy friends is all. Nothing that he’s done has been proven or reported conclusively to be unethical or illegal. Albeit that’s a pretty low bar, but considering the accomplishments of last session and the big issues that need to be tackled in the upcoming one, let’s all hope that he can be an effective leader where it counts. And meanwhile, in relation to the poster’s musings, there is no guessing game here– he will be re-elected and maybe 5-10 Democrats out of 143 will vote present.