First Speaker DeLeo, now Senate President Therese Murray. We are witnessing a “battle royale” while the scenery burns. It is the essential nature of political power that it will never be wrested away without a desperate fight. Some have called it a Clash of Egos, but it is better understood as a quintessential power struggle.
The “One Party” legislature of Massachusetts has the power (no question about that) and is bucking the executive office and its attempts to bring REFORM to our sorry state of affairs in these difficult times. Great effort has been made, and will continue to be made, to resist Deval Patrick’s efforts and initiatives and to marginalize him, to demonize him, to “Romneyize” him, if you will. Destructive words are spoken, desperate moves are made. The ship of state drifts toward the shoals.
It’s a tough spot for the Gov. It’s a tough spot for any chief executive, even in a good economy. But I hold out hope that the voters of Massachusetts are getting it. We’ve put up with so much crap, for so long, and as the going gets tougher, our patience will be growing thinner.
Here’s hoping that the citizens of Massachusetts will tune out the demonizing of the party regulars (Tim “Reilly Redux” Cahill in 2010!) and the carping of the Republicans (who, frankly, should be rooting for Deval, if they had the state’s best interest at heart) and give the Governor the popular support he needs to continue his mission. We are the source of his power. We must lend him our support.
As a proud Democrat all my life and a voting Democrat for over 20 years I find it absurd that a Democrat who disagrees with this Governor every now and then is accused of being a “demonizing party regular”
<
p>We brag about being a big tent party however, after reading comments on this site for the last few days i just am saddened to now realize that some of my fellow liberals are just plain full of it!
I think he does. That’s why he’s appealing to us. We’re the source of his power.
<
p>The US Congress, even with a healthy Democratic majority, is nothing like the Massachusetts legislature when it comes to intractability and working with the executive branch.
<
p>Do you REALLY want to lay the blame of a bad executive/legislative relationship at the feet of Deval Patrick? I know you’re a bit of an insider, but you have to remember, this is the Massachusetts legislature we’re talking about. I suspect they’d rank pretty low on anyone’s “progessive” scorecard. Our Governor is trying to make things happen. And the pushback is getting fierce.
and they all figure out eventually that in order to get any of their policy priorities accomplished they have to share power, share credit and share blame with the co-equal Legislative branch of government.
<
p>And starting out running against “the way things are done on Beacon Hill” is starting off on the wrong foot. Michael Dukaksis learned the hard way in his first term, suffered at brief interruption, came back and without violating any of his personal values or policy priorities was able to get a lot done in his next two terms and run for President at the same time. He put a lot of personal time and staff resources into building positive and productive relationships with Leadership and with rank and file and understood they had their own power bases and their own constituencies. As President Obama said
<
p>
<
p>Bill Weld ran against both the “Legislative Leadership and the way things are done on Beacon hill”, won with a veto proof Senate and it only took him 8 months to figure out that private policy conversations between him and Legislative leaders did not instantly translate into 198 other Members falling in line.
<
p>Both men fought hard for their policy ideas, worked the press, did town meetings, postured in the media about their moral superiority and won sometimes and lost sometimes.
<
p>And that’s the way things get done on on Beacon Hill, which has nothing to do with all the recent scandals around pensions and patronage, but everything to do with how the Administration and the Legislature work together to come up with effective and affordable proposals for reform.
And a wonderful lecture. Apparently “that’s the way things get done on Beacon Hill” is ok with you. But it isn’t with me. I guess you’d rather Deval Patrick capitulate in some fashion, like Dukakis perhaps.
<
p>You can’t see the forest for the trees. What exactly are you proposing? Business as usual? Maybe if Bill Weld or Mike Dukakis took the gloves off (hockey reference) we wouldn’t be in as big a mess as we are in now.
<
p>”Governors come and Governor (sic) go”. And the legislature remains the same. What role do you play in all of this? I don’t want this to sound like an “ad hominem” attack, but I think the question is an important one. Now is the time to shake the foundation. Kvetching about good manners or style doesn’t get us anywhere.
On May 4th last year I posted a diary Speakers Come and Speakers Go, which pretty much describes how advocates deal with who ever is Governor, Speaker or Senate President.
<
p>We know that the “Legislature (does not) remain the same”: the political and human dynamic changes regularly, especially during times of crisis i.e. when the foundation is shaken as it is now by the deepening revenue free fall.
<
p>And a successful resolution depends almost entirely on the style and manners of the key players and their ability to trust that the other party is not exploiting them for their political gain.
<
p>Neither Bill Weld or Mike Dukakis “capitulated” to the Legislature. Rather they engaged in long, lively, data driven debate around a host of issues, and as I said upstream, they won on the merits sometimes and lost on the merits sometimes.They vetoed bills and budget items sometimes and sometimes they got overridden and sometimes they didn’t.
<
p>I think Governor Patrick and his political supporters should be organizing hard in support for his proposals for ethics reform, transportation reform,and pension reform on the merits. I’m already there, along with lots of ordinary citizens, activists and advocates who have posted here urging BMG members to talk with their Reps and Senators in the district and at the State House.
<
p>Which reminds me I’m due back up to the state house for the budget debate, where, because of falling revenues they are considering cutting the programs folk need the most during a recession, rather than designing a balanced and adequate tax package. Something to do with the number of constituents they are hearing from about what.
<
p>
…is two things:
<
p>The dismissal of Bill Weld, the one person who was most successful in dealing with the Legislature in modern Commonwealth history. If I wanted to create change and not simply whine about it, I’d wonder “how did he get Legislators enough to sustain his vetoes, and how can we imitate him?”
<
p>The attack and focus on tone of debate, and not its substance. Kvetching about good manners or style may not get us anywhere, kvetching about the kvetching surely won’t.
Who’s demonizing the governor? Terry Murray smacked him in the paper yesterday, but it was hardly demonization. I don’t think Cahill has said a word about the governor in weeks.
<
p>It is not that we “must lend him our support.” He must earn our support.
<
p>
Instead of taking the time to point out why their sales tax proposal was the better deal, they immediately went to questioning the governor’s motives. That’s my beef.
<
p>In his statement, Deval outlined why he believes the reform packages need to pass and why the targeted tax increases would work better. I’ve seen something similar from one House member but from no one else.
Everyone can decide who “Started it”, but this stopped being about the message a while ago. The two branches have been attacking each other since it first floated that the sales tax would be passed, possibly by a veto-proof margin. The questions is how to end it.
The governor took a risk, though. He broke protocol and went over their heads to the press. To put it bluntly, he picked the fight.
<
p>And they fought back.
<
p>I agree with everybody that sound policy should rule the day, but if he governs by the sword …
It is not either or – it is both, and…at least in my view. The sorry history is of “me first”, “not in my town” and “as long as I got mine, who cares”. Kind of the same problem in Dave from Hvad’s post – it is not “us vs. them” – or should not be – between residential level care [title XIX] for those who need it and community care for those who need it – but proper support for both for the populations that need each of these modalities.
That might clear up your confusion.
It seems like the Governor is forced to negotiate with one hand tied behind his back. Legislators are more afraid of their respective presiding officers than of him. What does he have the power to do (in either the carrot or stick variety) that will encourage legislators to follow him? It seems the President is in a better position vis-a-vis Congress even with narrower or non-existent partisan majorities, which appears counterintuitive. This certainly disproves once and for all the GOP line that Democratic Governor plus Democratic supermajorities equals zero checks and balances.
When there is a Republican Governor, the Speaker and Senate President lead the state, and head the Democratic Party in the state.
<
p>A Democrat is in the corner office undermines their authority and creates a new avenue for rank and file legislators to gain influence.