An true act of contrition or a cynical attempt to explain away a whooping mistake?
Clark Regrets Vote for DiMasi/The Time to Act is Now
It looks like at least one member of the House is recognizing her exposure in voting for the former Speaker and is trying to get out in front of it. I am unaware of any other member who has expressed any regret for his or her vote for DiMisi. I am wondering how other Representatives (especially progressives like Jay Kaufman who nominated DiMisi) will explain such a questionable vote. I assume the temptation is to simply keep quiet and hope things blow over in the next year or so.
What do you say Blue Massers?? Will any sitting rep pay a political price for supporting DiMisi for speaker? Is there any reasonable defense to voting for Sal? Do the people who voted for him really have anything to apologize for?
Innocent until proven guilty. I don’t think it was politically wise, but I don’t believe he had been indicted at the time of the vote.
This was a House leadership election, not a trial.
<
p>The stench emanating from Mr. DiMasi was nauseating since the Globe’s piece ran in 2006, and that was not the first indication of trouble. Let’s not forget the ticket resale fiasco involving the same people.
<
p>The support for Mr. DiMasi exemplifies the behavior that so alienates voters like me.
are never happy so aren’t worth worrying about.
…to not vote for someone who had the taint of scandal all over him? “It’s voters like (him)” that ask so much of electeds not to support Speakers that had clearly compromised their positions.
<
p>It’s poster’s like you set the bar at ankle level for members of the General Court.
The commenter has also decided to throw all the major statewide dems under the bus, taint or no taint, and he’s willing to replace them with republicans.
I cited the office holders for which I can vote in the upcoming election. I include effectiveness in my criteria for obtaining my progressive vote. This is a critical week for the leadership team. The lege has taken a position that outrages a great many voters in this state, including at least some progressive voters. The question on the table, in next year’s election (and more specifically, in the upcoming primary season), is whether or not this leadership team is the best of the alternatives. I’ve asked whether there are alternatives to the four holders of statewide officers.
<
p>Leaving aside Governor Patrick for a moment, are there no people better qualified than Tim Murray, Martha Coakley, and Tim Cahill for the offices of Lt. Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer?
<
p>It seems that, to at least some of the participants here, my daring to even pose the question constitutes attempting to “take down the current leadership team“, or “[throwing them] under the bus”. And you wonder why some accuse our team of arrogance?
<
p>In this thread, we are discussing Mr. DiMasi. My comment, to which you are responding, was specifically regarding those members of the House who re-elected him to a leadership post well after the events for which he has been subsequently indicted were public knowledge.
<
p>In my case, this is Mr. Smizik. Mr Smizik, described in this May 2, 2008 boston.com piece as one of “DiMasi’s top lieutenants”, was certainly aware of his “problems” — Mr. Smizik is quoted as saying “I think he’s worried about [the allegations], and if I were speaker, I’d be worried about it.” Mr. Smizik voted the wrong way, for me, regarding Mr. DiMasi.
<
p>Sorry, guys. I understand Mr. Smizik’s political calculus, as do a great many others. The demand for lock-step support of office-holders who have demonstrated their willingness to throw voters like me “under the bus” is arrogant and counterproductive.
<
p>In the current political and economic climate, comments like these from Cannoneo hurt far more than they help.
I will hold Mr. Smizik accountable, as best I can. He will not be receiving my vote in any primary or general election.
We probably differ in a well established way, between realism and idealism regarding officeholders and politics.
<
p>The idea of punishing reps who put in DiMasi, and your reference to voters like yourself as being alienated just pushes my buttons in that debate. The threat to reset your representation to freshman status, and even to take your ball and go home, strikes me as self-defeating and naive and essentially self-regarding.
If deciding not to vote for Mr. Smizik is “self-defeating and naive and essentially self-regarding”, what alternative do you suggest? It sounds to me as though you apply a standard of absolute party loyalty. You seem to apply the same standard to Tim Cahill, Martha Coakley, and Tim Murray. Is that what you mean?
<
p>My decision about Mr. Smizik is not a “threat”, it is simple and — I argue — legitimate choice. Given the actions of the current House, and given Mr. Smizik’s role in this debacle, resetting my representation to freshman status sounds like an excellent outcome. A freshman representative who understands why Mr. Smizik was defeated and what voters like me demand in exchange for our continued support is, in my view, a far preferable outcome than the perpetuation of the current mess.
<
p>It seems to me that another word for the “realism” that you offer is “cynicism”. The effect of the “realism” you advocate is evident all around us. In the midst of the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, and with those on the bottom end of the economic pie taking the most severe impact, your “realistic” legislature has just enacted the most regressive tax increase possible, while simultaneously punting ethics reform. In my view, a crop of new progressive legislators can and should do better.
<
p>How do you propose to change the misguided direction of the current legislature if not by holding them accountable for their votes by withholding my own vote?
Perhaps. Maybe that (being a DiMasi guy or gal) alone won’t bring someone down, but I can see it being a central talking point in a challenge against one of the many reps who have been content to go along with business as usual up on the hill.
than her predecessor Rep. Festa.
<
p>Nice way to lose respect of a good chunk of the membership Kate. So amateur.
<
p>I love how she starts out her self-serving patronizing letter. She was in a committee hearing listening to the downtrodden when she learned of the indictment.
<
p>You see, Katherine, a real “wait-until-they-get-a-load-of- me” candidate/rep if there evr was, is so wrapped up in doing good and pushing the far left agenda that she can’t be on top of everything. Besides the ends justify the means.
<
p>Hey Katherine, what are you doing legislatively to stop the Fells development project. You’re tight with Deleo. The must be some line you can stick in to some bill that will stop it.
When everyone here was on the DiMasi band wagon for supporting the “progressive causes” I posted that it would be prudent to hold the accolades as Trav and Sal were likely going to be targets of a federal grand jury. We all know that Martha wouldn’t indict or investigate anyone on the Hill, but the US attorney would.
<
p>Please spare us all the hapless indignation for all the reps that voted for him. Sal was noted far and wide for indiscreet behavior at the very least. The voters re elected him and the morons in the legislature voted for his return to the speakers position. Just goes to show you how chealy people can be bought. The entire Massachusetts legislature sickens me, and spare us the indignation.