Baker, the former A&F chief for Weld and Cellucci, now CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, seems to want to run against Gov. Patrick. Fasten your seatbelts: This is plainly the matchup that everyone's been spoiling for.
Firstly, Baker is not a moron, which is the best you can possibly say for most people running for office under the GOP banner. Harvard Pilgrim has done very well under his watch, being named one of the best health insurers in the country. That may go well in some political circles; to me, it sounds like being named “the nicest of the damned.”
But frankly, I've really found our state level politics to be quite bewildering lately. In light of what's happened just in the last three years, the ideological lines will not be clear this time. Mitt Romney and George Bush have burnt through whatever electoral potency “conservatism” had in the Commonwealth. Patrick won't be running against a Romney/Healey clone simply repeating the national party's talking points. (If Baker continues that pattern, he's toast right now; and I don't expect he will.)
Furthermore, the fiscal crisis has pulled the rug out from under Gov. Patrick's vision for certain expanded programs: Where is the Readiness Project now? Will we ever get universal pre-K? Expanded school days/years? Instead of finding new revenues for glam new programs, the Gov is now relegated to making deep cuts, and trying to find new revenue for existing services. It's ugly right now; but even more to the point, the fiscal crisis has obviated the big policy debates we thought we'd be having back in 2006.
Instead, we're back to the Big Dig Culture, and who's best equipped to deal with it. The big question of state government is restoring trust — instituting transparency, accountability and efficiency, where all have been sorely lacking. But who knows what the best plan is for reorganization of the transit agencies? What does real pension reform look like? And even if Baker had better ideas, how would he get them through the legislature? Does his experience as head of Administration and Finance in the Big Dig era hurt him, or help him somehow?
The election may end up being the most technocratic we've ever seen. I simply cannot imagine that the usual social issues will get any play at all. Instead, Baker will have to provide strong and clear alternatives to Patrick's proposals.
At the very least, this should light a fire under Gov. Patrick's office. Their proposal for reorganizing the transit agencies has supposedly been slow in coming. However, if the governor can pass legislation that improves transportation on steady footing — even through a gas tax hike, I think — while reforming state and MBTA pensions to something recognizably fair and normal, he can genuinely claim to have taken on the Big Dig Culture and won some major victories. People won't remember the messy process stuff and finger-pointing that we're enduring right now; the process is always messy. If Patrick pulls it off, he'll be very, very formidable — even against the formidable Baker.
old-scratch says
Even in flush economic times, he would have had a terrible struggle passing all those pie-in-the-sky things liberals wanted back in ’06. He’s welshed on basically everything he promised. He’s done absolutely nothing to restore trust in government, restore accountability, or introduce transparency . . . in fact, if anything, he’s made things worse in all three areas.
<
p>A formidable candidate? Honestly, I want some of whatever it is you’re smoking.
paddynoons says
Gov. Patrick’s administration has overlearned the lessons of the Romney administration. Romney was, in essence, government by press conference. He disdained the Beacon Hill leadership and cared more about whacking them in the Herald than in getting something constructive accomplished. This was especially the case after 2004 or so, when he became a full-time presidential candidate. Moreover, he elevated the symbolic over the material. He probably spent more time on gay marriage than education and the economy combined. He loved stupid fights like what to name the I-93 tunnel. Gov. Patrick, on the other hand, wants to work with the Beacon Hill leadership to the point that he turns the other cheek when one of them takes a swing at him through the media. He seems to avoid symbolic politics to the point of not recognizing potential pitfalls (see, e.g., drapes, cars, hiring neighbors). If he has ever gone after a person or interest group, I’ve never heard of it.
<
p>Now, if I had to choose, I would obviously choose the Patrick model. But I think this is a false dichotomy. I think we could have a standard bearer who focuses on substance but who can play the political game on occaision — especially where it’s necessary to move institutional players. Sometimes in politics, you have to set up and knock down a strawman. Sometimes you have to make an example of some person or group to show the public you’re serious about their concerns (demonizing Jack Brennan or going harder at police details would have been good ideas). Symbolism, thus understood, can be beneficial politics.
<
p>Sometimes you need to respond when some schmuck takes a swing at you through the media… or pretty soon you end up a) looking weak to the public and b) fostering a free-for-all atmosphere. Legislators fear the House and Senate leadership, but think the governor is a wimp. Making an example out of one of them might help you get things done. As the lawyer in Office Space might have said: Beacon Hill is no picnic… the trick is: kick someone’s ass the first day, or become someone’s bitch.
bostonshepherd says
that most people running under the GOP banner are “morons.” We have an entire state house on Beacon Hill filled with morons, virtually all of whom are democrats. I’m sure you agree.
<
p>Furthermore, you link to a story from the UK about the CA GOP senate leader being deposed because he voted the wrong way.
<
p>This is EXACTLY what happened to John Dingell (D-MI) when he got voted out as House Energy and Commerce chairman by Henry Waxman (D-CA) because Dingell was an insufficiently extreme wacko environmentalist, opposing often CAFE standards to protect the auto industry. (Of course, thanks to the UAW, GM and Chrysler are toast anyway.)
<
p>I’d say this is proof that Democrats are morons.
stomv says
I’d argue that Dingell undermined the US auto industry precisely because he opposed CAFE standards.
lovable-liberal says
Here’s the logic from the right:
<
p>Yet another reason to agree that GOPers should have the initials BS.
jimc says
Charley, maybe this is so obvious that you don’t need to link (in other words, maybe I’m dense), but I’m wondering how you reached this conclusion.
charley-on-the-mta says
Use Google News yourself, man!
<
p>JK, JK. Sometimes ‘BUR’s briefer stories don’t have links … but I should have scoped for one. Here’s a link, with an absolutely mind-boggling quote …
<
p>
<
p>”Including people who are relatively healthy”??? So only the sick or plan-to-be-sick should have health care? Wow, Charlie Baker absolutely hearts adverse selection. A guy in the health insurance biz. Zany.
<
p>Yeah, we’ve tried that in the US, and it works real well: 47+million uninsured nationwide.
<
p>You basically have two choices if you think everyone should have health coverage, as is only decent: You can a.) make everyone buy it, or b.) cover everyone automatically*. Baker shouldn’t get a free ride on this: Just answer the question, HMO man.
<
p>(*This is actually a simplification: You could also guarantee a floor and have a free market of supplemental insurance.)
<
p>Shoot, I’m just going to front-page this. Sorry everyone.
charley-on-the-mta says
scratch that. He’s saying something else — that there needs to be fewer mandated benefits of the health insurance products approved by the state. I don’t agree on the limited point of Rx drugs, but there it is.
<
p>Carry on. Fire drill called off. :4a7d3d609129a9296bf7ac0608c2097
sabutai says
Remember, the 2006 Deval campaign was basically a dry run for the Obama campaign in ’08 (except Reilly was not Hillary). Aside from Plouffe taking over the GOTV setup from David Walsh, it was in so many key areas the same people, as well.
<
p>So now we have to see what happens when “together we can” becomes “together, turns out we couldn’t…but“. Will it be another case of Obama’s people doing a dry run, this time of their own re-election adventure in 2012, or will they try to put in some distance? How much will people still have?
<
p>Of course, I can’t see the Mass. GOP producing a candidate as credible as the national GOP. I’d say Deval is still favored in 2010, though the primary could be a bigger challenge than the general, as it often is around here…
peter-porcupine says
Hey! I hear Bob Shrum is available! Maybe Kerry can make some calls! >:~)
<
p>(And Axelrod is too smart to come anywhere NEAR the enchanted disaster this will be, esp. while Obama is still President…)
johnk says
The state GOP begs and he flirts with the idea, yup seen this before. But I’d be interested in getting some details as to why being a Selectman in Swampscott was too much for him and his accomplishments for the town during his tenure. Running for Selectman by a former state cabinet member is not just something someone does on the fly. A little background would be interesting.
jconway says
For a Democratic Governor in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, Deval is not looking too good. According to the most recent SurveyUSA poll he is under 50% approval rating, a very dangerous metric for an incumbent, with a 45% disapproval rating.
<
p>Whats worse is nearly 40% of Democrats are disapproving, Republicans united in solid opposition, and the most telling sign, a majority of independents disapproving at 51%.
<
p>Remember the biggest party in MA is ‘unenrolled’ and if Baker can win over all of his party, win over those independents he is in good shape to challenge Deval and make it close, much closer than Healy made it.
<
p>That said Mihos is going to run which hurts Baker, and Baker in order to become the favorite would need Cahill to risk his political future on an ugly campaign for the nomination, if he defeats Patrick he will still lose to Baker since it will be a repeat of Weld v Silber with disaffected liberal Dems favoring the liberal RINO over the conservative DINO.
<
p>Also if Brown or Rappaport run against Baker it could be a costly primary and the GOP could foolishly nominate a right winger to run in MA which won’t do them any good. What is more interesting is that Tim Murray is outraising Deval who has only 600k in the bank and has not held a fundraiser in quite awhile. That plus the book tour and traveling out of state seems to indicate he is either not taking his re-election seriously enough or might not be interested in running.
<
p>I was a big Deval fan in 06, I would currently count myself in the disapprove category, though I am reluctant to vote for Cahill who comes from the hack wing of the party or for a Republican I know little about. On paper Baker seems good, I like his blog, but Romney was a pro-gay moderate in 02 and then completely shifted into something else, Baker could be a stealth conservative as well. here is hoping the economy gets better, Deval can spend some of that stimulus money on saving the state, and we can look forward to a really wonkish ’10 race.
mr-lynne says
Your warnings are well taken, but keep in mind two things – (1) any governor that actually governs in these current conditions is bound to piss off enough people to garner some unpopularity, and (2) he’s not really campaigning right now.
david says
If Baker runs, he will almost certainly run closer than Healey, who ended up being a surprising awful candidate who ran a terrible campaign. However:
<
p>under 50% approval rating, a very dangerous metric for an incumbent
<
p>This may be true, but these numbers fluctuate rapidly, and as Mr. L notes, (1) there’s no campaign going on now, and (2) it’s an economic downturn, making life difficult for any incumbent — he’s raising taxes and cutting services, of course that’s unpopular, yet it has to be done.
<
p>Mihos is going to run which hurts Baker
<
p>I doubt it. Mihos may run, but he’ll be even more of a non-factor this time than he was last time. With the Turnpike Authority likely dissolved by election time, he just won’t have much to say of any interest. One-trick ponies like him get one shot to win, and he’s had his.
<
p>it will be a repeat of Weld v Silber
<
p>Not even close. You’re too young to remember Weld v. Silber, but I’m not. Silber was one of the least appealing major party nominee in decades anywhere in the U.S. Dems and Indies ran screaming from him not only for his DINO-ism, but for his incredibly abrasive and off-putting personality. Cahill is more liberal than Silber, but perhaps more importantly, he’s far more appealing personally. There will be some crossover, but it’ll be nothing like Weld/Silber.
<
p>Baker could be a stealth conservative
<
p>There’s nothing “stealth” about it. Baker is a conservative, though perhaps not so much on social issues (we really don’t know). But in general, he is a very conservative guy — that’s where all of his instincts are. What makes him interesting is that he’s genuinely open-minded, and while in state gov’t he was persuaded to change his mind on more than one occasion. But make no mistake — he’s no “liberal,” and he’s no RINO. He’s an R.
jconway says
My parents were big Weld supporters, only Republican they ever voted for, and true enough Cahill is too much of an appealing personality to have a Natalie Jacobs moment. That said he would be running to Patrick’s right during the primary as the more fiscally conservative option and comes from the DeLeo-DiMasi-Reilly wing of the party so progressives could crossover to Baker if he is, as I suspect, a Weld Republican that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. All indications are that he is a Weld Republican considering who he has worked for in the past.
<
p>He seems more like a libertarian paternalist, essentially a technocratic candidate focusing on giving citizens the proper incentive structures to behave optimally and for government to run efficiently rather than a true conservative. There does not seem to be an anti-government anti-tax orthodoxy in his blogposts but rather a push for what works and whats efficient similar in some respects to Obama but perhaps more conservative since its coming from a CEO.
<
p>In any case he won’t be a pushover, and as Charley said it could be a very wonkish general election.