In mad, dauntless pursuit of a conceit for his column today, Scot Lehigh trips over his own feet. How does one reconcile these consecutive statements?
In part it's because the governor clearly lacks the appetite for the bold, tough reforms bad fiscal times demand. The Legislature, mind you, has been even worse. Yes, DiMasi's indictment may finally spur action on ethics reform. But that should have been done months ago. Instead, lawmakers have been busy weakening Patrick's proposals.
Patrick's attempt to eliminate some of the most flagrant pension abuses has also gotten bogged down.
Wait, wait, wait … so Patrick “lacks the appetite” for reforms … yet, the legislators have been busy weakening his proposals? Who's doing what now?
Anyone can disagree on any individual part of these, but does this demonstrate a “lack of appetite for reform”? What if all of these things passed? Would that not be a damned impressive record of reform on which to run?
I mean, I've admired his work on many occasions, but Lehigh's comment is simply 180 degrees ass-backwards. Out to lunch. From the Bizarro world. Totally wrong.
Now, the governor's supporters should definitely be concerned about his approval ratings (although I suspect they have ticked upwards since the depths of Marian Walsh-land — but maybe not). And as Lehigh indicates, we should operate under the assumption that Baker is a candidate next year.
But that's no reason to simply mischaracterize the record for the sake of touting a good scrap for the governor's office next year.
UPDATE: Why did I bother? Ernie just dispatched this column for me.