From Wikipedia
During his first term in office, Dukakis commuted the sentences of 21 first-degree murderers and those of 23 second-degree murderers. Due to controversy engendered by some of these individuals having re-offended, Dukakis curtailed the practice later, issuing no commutations in his last three years as governor.[7]
However, this performance did not prove enough to offset a backlash against the state's high sales and property tax rates, which turned out to be the predominant issue in the 1978 gubernatorial campaign.
Dukakis, despite being the incumbent Democratic governor, was refused renomination by his own party.The state Democratic Party machine supported Edward J. King in the primary partly because King rode the wave against high property taxes (along with the passing of a binding petition on the state ballot that limited property tax rates to 2 1/2% of the property valuation – known as Proposition 2 1/2), but more significantly because State Democratic Party leaders lost confidence in Dukakis' ability to govern effectively.
King also enjoyed the support of the powerbrokers at the MDC, who were unhappy with Dukakis' attempts to disempower and dismantle the powerful bureaucracy. King also had support from state police and public employee unions.
Dukakis suffered a scathing defeat in the primary. It was “a public death”, according to his wife Kitty.
Beginning to hear and see the more and more frustration from folks who are also pretty mad at the Legislature like Open Media.
If Mass. progressives are really serious about building a strong social justice movement and taking power in state government, however, it's becoming increasingly clear that they are not going to be able to do that through the auspices of the corporate-dominated Democratic Party. No disrespect to left Democratic formations like Progressive Democrats of America, but left Democrats have been trying to move their party away from domination by business interests for decades and have failed.
Doesn't it seem like it might be a better strategy to move away from the Democrats entirely? It remains the road less traveled in American left poltics.
And, while I did not take the time to even read the new Democratic Platform, I did watch the wonderful participatory process that was played out on this blog and in dozens of small meetings across the state. I was disheartened to hear from my progressive colleagues about the unsatisfying product . (Of course now that is hidden away somewhere, I really want to analyze it.)
I do not look forward to a nasty debate in Springfield in a few weeks.
The draft platform is in the “delegate guide” off the site. Alternatively, one can still access the old PDF file that remains unlinked on the party website:
<
p>http://www.massdems.org/docs/Platform%20(FFV).pdf
that it might be a better strategy for progressives to “move away from the Democrats entirely”. Maybe, but it doesn’t sound too feasible to me.
<
p>How about we line up firmly behind our Governor? Isn’t he the best hope for progressive politics in Massachusetts? Our legislature fiddles, while Rome burns. And yet, on this site, progressive posters, like yourself and the often wise Sabutai, consistently fault Deval Patrick for his approach to the colossal intractability of the Massachusetts Democratic Legislature.
<
p>Maybe we will witness a replay of the Death of Dukakis. I hope not. Maybe we’ll get a new Ed King (Tim Cahill?). I, for one, see a different outcome. I see a Governor who will ride a growing wave of broad based support, Republican and Democrat, to a second term where he will continue the good fight for the future of Massachusetts.
is to keep supporting and nurturing “our” progressive office holders in the Administration and the Legislature, including the Leadership (those that aren’t fiddling of course.) Finally we should encourage any and all progressive candidates for any office as Democrats, or maybe even as members of an alternative “progressive” party able to muster the money and the signatures.
<
p>My definition of nurturing includes pointing out mistakes and suggesting alternative behaviors. Surely as progressives, we should be able to expect “our” allied friends in government to listen carefully and hopefully respond to candid criticism from both the near and far left wings of the Democratic Party.
<
p>All of us brave few have strongly held and sometimes informed opinions about the highest and most achievable policy goals and best and most effective tactics to use to move toward those goals. And that includes the debate around which word to stick between reform and revenue.
<
p>You got three choices: before;and;with.
<
p>
<
p>Apparently the guy at Open Media doesn’t read American history. Left-wing third parties have a long and largely unsuccessful history in American politics. The “road less traveled”? I think not.
That’s certainly true as far as the Presidency and influential membership in Congress has gone. However, it is equally true that left-wing third parties have a long and sometimes very successful history in state and local politics. The Peoples’ (or Populist) Party in the South and Midwest at the end of the 19th Century, certainly. There are many others. Several have worked out interesting arrangements: the American Labor Party, which was active in the 1930s and 40s in New York City, endorsed Democrats like FDR at the federal level, but represented an even more left-leaning position for state and city politics, and appealed to voters, like some NYC blacks, who didn’t want to vote for Democrats b/c of that party’s association with Southern racists. They were largely successful in their place and political moment. There are many other examples: LaFollette’s Progressives in Wisconsin, the Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota, the Socialist Party in much of the Midwest and Great Plains through the early 20th century.
Anyway, the point is that third-parties, while poorly suited for national politics in the US, can be well suited for certain other arenas. I think that contemporary Mass, which effectively has one political party, and huge political disagreements within it, and an economic and political crisis, could be one of them.
It really did take a challenge for the left of Dukakis for Ed King to beat him…so I have to disagree with the comparison. Cahill can’t beat Deval in a primary…he needs his own Ackerman…and if he gets one, Cahill is no Ed King (and I mean that in a good way.)
<
p>I’m disappointed with Patrick becasue of the huge gap he created between the rhetoric and promise of his campaign and his medicore, selfish and cynical governing style. But right now he’s the best we got.
Where is the Barbara Ackerman of today?
I believe her name is Martha Coakley
I’m trying to figure out what happened. When I first read this comment I thought it suggested that King was Dukakis’ challenge from the left. King was rather conservative if I remember so that didn’t make sense. Who was Barbara Ackerman? Was she a candidate who challenged from the left, thus splitting the progressive vote with Dukakis and allowing King to get in? You’ll have to forgive me. I was born in 1978 and so needless to say, I wasn’t paying attention to politics that year:)
<
p>Pretty smart intuitive baby your parents produced in 1978. Yes indeed, Barbara Ackerman, the first Woman Mayor of Cambridge, challenged Dukaksis from the left.
The numbers from 1978:
<
p>
<
p>Give every Ackerman vote to Dukakis, and he still loses. This was not a Ralph Nader situation. Now, maybe the presence of Ackerman’s challenge affected the race in other ways, but this is not a traditional vote-splitting situation.