There were 30 Democrats including two chairmen, Dempsey and Costello, who voted against the budget.
We would have to go back well before my time to find chairmen voting against the speaker on a budget. These numbers indicate to the handicapper that a significant few who voted with the speaker didn’t come easy. Losing 30 Dems is also significant.
Deleo is in over his head. His leadership team is inexperienced and rudderless. Two chairmen voted against leadership and nobody cares?
Soo the question is not if, but when. As in when will Deleo be gone? There are rumblings of some members being seriously disappointed in how the budget was handled. (That’s different than disappointment in what was in the budget)
No communication, except of course the “one tax” vote. DeLeo did a half-ass job as The Speaker.
How many voiced their displeasure with the speaker? If they did, how did he take it? What was his response? Did he show leadership when challenged? Or weakness? How’s his temper holding up?
—————————————-
The Globe was a tad unfair to Deval today. I didn’t read it as Deval pushing a new gas tax, despite what the Globe wanted me to believe.
Besides, Deval can’t be that stupid to push for such a thing now. A broken clock is right twice a day but I think Deval showed some talent during the budget. But he was lucky too. Ineptness in the legislature gave him the opportunity.
———————————————
OK, Jim Aloisi now runs the Mass Pike. Just like he dreamed of back when he was pulling a red wagon on the side walks of East Boston.
Aloisi should be an issue for a Deval opponent. How much money has Aloisi made for himself and others over the years? A lot of money spent for one road.
Aloisi was/is the problem, not the solution.
BTW can the Herald now start printing the salaries of Mass Pike employees when they switch to the new Aloisi Total Control and Ego Stroke Agency?
——————————————-
Now is the time to start getting your head ready if you are thinking of running for state rep next year.
Especially if you want to take on an incumbent. A few can be beat.
Right now you should start thinking about it.
That comes down to thinking if you have the time to run and can afford to run.
You can’t win if you are committed to a full time job. You need flexibility in your schedule.
And you need to be out by 6:30 every morning and knocking doors in the evening until sunset.
And can you afford pay of $57,000 per year? You can work another job so factor that in.
OK right now just think about your time commitment and can you afford to run, meaning personal income during campaign, not campaign costs.
We complain when the Speaker maintains a vice-like grip over the legislature that ensures “his” members won’t vote against him.
<
p>Now you’re griping that in the current legislative environment the speaker “allows” 30 Dems to vote against the budget, including (gasp) two chairmen???
<
p>I’d much rather see other Reps – even those in leadership – allowed to vote how they want, even if that means things can be messy. Just because the Speaker is apparently allowing this to happen doesn’t mean he’s necessarily ineffective.
<
p>Maybe it’s a feature, not a bug.
<
p>I never complained.
<
p>Plus, this is about the 159 members who elected him. He has a duty to them. They know what it is and isn’t.
<
p>They may not be happy with this speaker and may not be afraid to show it.
<
p>Why would they be unhappy? because he is doing a lousy job. That’s why?
<
p>The House of representaives is one body of a two body institution which makes up one third of our separate but equal branches.
<
p>The House is made up of 180 members. By themselves each is worth shit.
<
p>A legislative body needs direction. Debate is fine. But direction is needed and leadership is where it comes from.
<
p>
Why does the fact that 30 Dems (including 2 chairmen) voted against the budget mean the Speaker is doing a lousy job?
<
p>I don’t judge the Speaker based on whether or not the House Dems vote in lockstep. I judge him based on what he prioritizes and what the House passes or doesn’t pass.
he’s the one with his pants down because of the speaker.
160 is large enough, don’t you think?
I liked it better when it had 240.
<
p>before the League of Women Voters said they knew best. Most now agree that it was a mistake.
* the days when you could call dames broads without them getting all offended
* Speaker McGee — now there was a man’s man, who knew how to run a Chamber!
* free weeks at tropical vacation spots with friends (who may or may not be lobbyists)
* smoke-filled back rooms
* wide lapels and paisley ties
* when state contracts could be given to guys who were “friends of ours.”
* when driving drunk just resulted in a free ride home from the constabulary
But with 240 members there was room for dissension and debate and factions that matter.
<
p>Now we have 160 and one-third of the members are in leadership. That’s why Speaker has so much power. It is in the Numbers.
<
p>I am not making this stuff up. The consensus is that the people lost out when the House was reduced.
<
p>BTW I stll call dames broads. Who cares if they are offended. They’re just broads.
all I hear about is how much people love him in the house…
<
p>BTW: How many of those 30 were people who never voted for him in the first place?