(Cross-posted from Blue News Tribune.)
I have mixed feelings about Joan Vennochi’s column today. On one hand, she said what everyone is thinking.
On the other hand, everyone thinking it does not automatically justify saying it. It’s not fair to compare anyone to Barack Obama, even someone as theoretically close to him as Deval Patrick.
Promising a different kind of politics as a candidate and delivering on it as a public official is a delicate task. The now-worn narrative about Patrick’s early missteps includes his choice of state vehicle – a Cadillac – and the expensive new drapes he ordered for his office. He ran as an outsider, then quickly started losing the inside ballgame to legislative leaders. He alienated his liberal base by pushing for casinos. He alienated the general public by backing a state senator for a $175,000-a-year job without explaining why and then leaving her to twist in the wild political winds that followed.
Communication is Obama’s great strength and Patrick’s great weakness. The Massachusetts governor is effective one-on-one. But, unlike Obama, he has trouble driving a cohesive political message and doesn’t seem to enjoy the mission.
This tidbit is devastating:
From the day he won election, Patrick did the opposite. In one of his first public addresses following the election, Patrick told a gathering of New England newspaper editors and publishers that they missed the story of his triumph because they didn’t understand his campaign. He periodically complains about media cynics; such critiques don’t win any media champions.
Missed the story? Was he drunk? You could argue that they missed it before the primary, but the only reasons the Globe didn’t declare him the winner immediately after the primary was that they wanted to appear objective.
It’s one thing to decide that, and another to annouce it to the press.
A running theme, which I disagree with somewhat, is that Obama enjoys the game and Patrick doesn’t. I think the guv looked pretty cheerful when he cornered the Legislature on its ethics bill. Obama campaigned cheerfully, but seems to be getting some Washington culture shock.
May each man be on his best game.
but I am thinking of actively working against Patrick.
<
p>My friend who was active on the last campaign and the Obama campaign and in Progressive Democrats asked if I would work for Patrick. I said yes.
<
p>After the Globe’s report that Patrick is planning school takeovers and violating the collective bargaining agreements of teachers in those schools, I can’t support him. The guy is dangerous.
If there’s someone better running for governor, I’d like to hear her/his name.
The governor is the best option.
<
p>If you think about it, that’s depressing. Not that the governor is bad, but that we have no real bench.
But nobody wants to get off the bench and into the game. I’m looking at you Coakley, and you Murray, and you Gabrieli….
or no one at all. I had planned to do a little work for him. One of my friends is working on the campaign at the community level and asked me to get involved.
<
p>I’ve been willing to forgive the Governor’s frequent political incompetence because I thought he meant well and tried to be honest about the state’s fiscal situation.
<
p>But if someone is going to start blaming collective bargaining and teachers for the effects of the culture of poverty on academic achievement, I’d rather have it be someone I didn’t vote for. Really, does it really matter that much who the state legislature runs over?
<
p>You’re right there’s no one else to work for, and my anger led to me overstating my cause. So I’ll just bow out.
<
p>I can picture the bumpersticker now: vote for me, I’m not very good, but the others are worse.
<
p>Mark
I have some fatigue with the “the others are worse” argument. The Democratic Party is not challenging itself enough, across the board.
The Governor wants to focus on thirty failing school systems. Your response? Collective bargaining, above all other things. I think the Governor’s priorities are in the right place.
But one would expect a Democratic governor to be supportive of unions. It’s called collective bargaining for a reason.
<
p>Deval, by virtue of being new, probably had less support than most Democratic governors when he won. But those of us who voted for him bring such expectations.
<
p>So, does he have to do everything every union wants? No, but unions are not a “special interest” and yes, collective bargaining deserves some deference.
<
p>
You think the Governor should support the unions that have now filed suit to block the pension reforms?
<
p>The same unions that represent the 29 firefighters who applied for “disability” payments this week — 25 of 29 claiming they were disabled while “filling in for” superiors?
<
p>Not me.
Welcome to politics, BT. Sometimes your allies do things you don’t like. But they’re your allies for a reason, and those reasons still matter.
<
p>Are you an independent voter? That’s a different story (and its own type of copout, in my opinion). But if you’re a capital D Democrat, your wagon is hitched to unions, and the upside of unionism that they represent (fighting for working people). Period amen.
<
p>
I’m a Democrat with a capital “D”, always have been.
<
p>There are lines that even a union should not cross. This week, they crossed them.
<
p>THESE specific union actions — the 25 firefighters claiming outrageous disability compensation, the lawsuit filed today — are unacceptable. With these actions, these two unions stabbed us in the back. Not every union. Not the teachers. THESE TWO.
<
p>They have betrayed an entire government that bent over backwards to protect them and advance their interests, and that is unacceptable. Period amen.
<
p>2. I just don’t see a lawsuit as betrayal. I see it as the union defending its position. I’m not saying they’re right, but that’s their position, and they have a right to defend it. So I can’t sign on the spousal abuse metaphor.
<
p>
I strongly support “working people”, and I agree that effective collective bargaining is a foundation-stone of protecting the interests of working people.
<
p>I also believe that all of us occasionally face situations where our core values are in conflict. These thirty schools are failing the children who rely on them — and most of those children are the children of working people. These failing schools are neighborhood schools in working-class neighborhoods. It seems to me that in this case were are, sadly, faced with trading off pain of working-class teachers against pain of working-class parents who see their children suffering.
<
p>I therefore disagree with a posture that categorically rules out changes to collective bargaining agreements because of our loyalty to a specific set of working-class people — particularly when the teachers in question are well-educated professionals who, as painful as these changes might be, are arguably better able to handle them than the children and parents who are also being devastated by the current situation.
<
p>I agree that the police and firefighter unions are defending their position. I feel that they are doing so at the explicit expense of allies who have fought hard and successfully for them for decades. Perhaps “spousal abuse” is over-reaching. They certainly have a “right” to take this step. Your argument that “Sometimes your allies do things you don’t like” is a two-way street. I feel they have betrayed us, in the sense that they have put their personal self-interest above the rest of us. In my view, that is betrayal.
<
p>Not every working-class individual is a member of a union. Union members are not the only people who fight for working people, and I feel that this action is an insult to an entire government already bending over backwards to protect working people.
<
p>I hope that these lawsuits are fought vigorously and successfully.
<
p>Isn’t changing the contract before it expires breach of contract?
I agree it’s a tough pill to swallow.
<
p>I think all of us have to share the pain, union workers included.
I’m sorry, Jim, but if a contract with one group of working-class people proves to be causing direct and grave harm to other working-class people, then it should be breached. You’re attempting to maintain an absolute standard in a situation that compels us to look deeper.
<
p>To pick a extreme counter-example, the union contract surely requires that only union members are allowed to move a train. Would you also sue for breach of contract if a non-union employee moves a train of passengers out of harm’s way in a fire emergency?
<
p>These children and their parents are suffering under the current contract. What do you propose we do? It sounds like you’re saying “screw the kids, the teachers contract stays as-is”.
<
p>Is that what you mean?
I mean find another way to fix the school. And if the contract is not sustainable, renegotiate it when it expires.
<
p>Yes, the situation compels you to look deeper. It does not require you to change the contract.
Maybe to you it doesn’t require a change to the contract. I suspect that you would sing a different tune if it was your children being condemned to a lifetime of hardship.
<
p>Sorry Jim, but I think compassion for poor kids who are already being screwed by a national economy and decades of me-first tax-cutting (by both Republicans and Democrats alike, sadly) here in Massachusetts trumps labor contracts for teachers in failing school districts.
<
p>I guess we just have different values.
…if the only way you can be a capital D Democrat is to support people retiring in their 40’s and 50’s; balking at reasonable measures like drug testing and cell phone bans for workers involved in public safety, or demanding more money for these reasonable measures…then expect a big drop in party support.
<
p>You seem to be advocating for a new wing of the Democratic party…it’s called the Suckers Wing…people like me who believe the government can make a difference and should be used to improve lives and things like the environment. But to allow–are turning a blind eye as you seem to suggest–policies that I find offense, counter productive and–most importantly–that are against my own interest (I’m ultimately responsible for 40 years of retirement pay for some one retiring in their 40’s), then count me out and call me an liberal independent.
<
p>I’m liberal…I’m not stupid.
Don’t call me a sucker, or stupid, and I’ll pay you the same courtesy.
<
p>I’m talking about honoring signed, legal agreements enjoined with taxpayer-funded legal entities. You think they can be ignored or renegotiated because of what you consider bad behavior? Congratulations, you’re a Republican.
<
p>When your workplace institutes drug testing and a cell phone ban, I’m sure you’ll accept it without complaint. Maybe you can post your drug test results on BMG.
<
p>My point is: being a political party bloody means SOMETHING! You don’t get to ignore the people who brought you there, and anyone — ANYONE — who runs under the Democratic banner has benefited from union help. Like I said — and you deliberately ignored — that doesn’t mean we do everything they want. But it does mean they can count on us when times are tough. They didn’t support us because they liked us, they supported us because we said we’d be there for them.
<
p>If that means nothing to you, fine, run for governor of Alaska.
<
p>
…when you feel unrestrained to call me a Republican and suggest I have a lot in common with Sarah Palin?
<
p>BTW, you set an incredibly high litmus test to be a supporter of unions. Do I favor the right of workers to organize (with the option of “card check”) to negotiate with “management” over wages and working conditions? Yes, I can easily punch that ticket. But you apparently have a stronger litmus test that demands that I support collective bargaining rights over the smallest details, like whether police or fire personnel be tested to insure they are sober enough to protect safety.
<
p>And for that failure of support, I earn from you the meanest and lowest insult that can be uttered on this site…that I’m a Republican. I’m going back to RedMassGroup now, where people like me are referred to as socialists and domestic enemies of the Constitution.
No you don’t. You feel free to break it later.
… do to unions that don’t support Democratic candidates? Off the top of my head, the Boston Police union embarrassing Dukakis is ’88 comes to mind. I do remember the state police union (and other police unions) supporting the Weld/Celluci/Mitt era…and Celluci got the Carmen’s union endorsement in ’98 after he agreed to the retiring in their 40’s provision.
<
p>THAT certainly made these unions Republican supporters…not me who voted for the Dems (except for Weld over Silber…that was a break in the space time continum for man of us.)
<
p>So why is it OK for unions to support Republicans and not label them weak kneed Democrats, but I question unreasonable positions by unions (after two fire impaired fighters die, after a train driver crashes while texting–preventative changes are demanded to be part of collective bargaining) and I’m called the Republican by you?
<
p>Like I said, I’m not a member of the sucker’s wing of the Democratic Party.
The whole idea of a union is supporting the good of the many. Unfortunately, this sometimes means closing ranks around members. The incidents you describe are indefensible.
<
p>But, in my opinion, the roots of the two movements, organized labor and Democratic politics, go deeper than that, or they should.
<
p>It’s clear that I really annoyed you with that Republican comment. Well, I admit I meant to, since you had just called me a sucker and stupid, but I’ll retract it.
<
p>My bottom line is: you have to take the good with the bad. Everybody wishes there were fewer abortions, right? But that doesn’t mean we stop defending reproductive choice. Nobody likes paying taxes, but we have to. And everybody wishes unions were more virtuous and never did dumb things, but they do, as do we. All these things are part of the price we pay. You call that being a sucker, I call it being realistic and paying party dues. It aint easy or convenient.
<
p>
…but When in the Course of human events…lines get crossed and people have to be reeled in and many public employee unions have crossed that line lately. Now instead of being positive influence in helping Dems get elected, they are having a negative impact. You apparently want to do nothing and let recent union actions hurt the Democratic Party. I fundementally agree with the mission of unions, but suggest that in the times we are in, their attitudes are hurting their long-term mission. Those of us being critical are looking at the long-term, as opposed to those who are enabling behavior that adversely impacts the long-term health of the Democratic party.
<
p>And today we have another example of anti-union backlash, caused by the tone-deaf attitudes that you call “paying party dues”.
<
p>(Which reminds me, you never directly answered why we, as Democrats, should blindly support whatever unions say or do in the name of “paying party dues”, yet it’s OK for unions to endorse Republican candidates? Why do we have to pay this “dies” and the unions don’t?)
No support should be blind, but support should be based on something, like a shared philosophy.
<
p>In theory, it is OK for a union to support a Republican, because in theory the Republican could have a better position on labor stuff. But we both know that is never the case; even a moderate Republican would be shouted down by the rest of his/her party.
My defense of and alliance with unions stops when they hurt my party and my community, engage in corrupt and dishonest practices, and act in such a way as to impede progressive reforms.
<
p>Your attempt to equate being a Democrat with unconditional supportfor unions, regardless of their behavior, is disturbing and wrong-headed.
I have stated repeatedly in this thread that I do not believe support of unions should be unconditional. I find your remark ad hominen and inaccurate.
My comment makes no claims about you as a person whatsoever – it takes issue with the upthread comments I’ve quoted below that state pretty clearly that you think being a Democrat means tolerating behavior from unions that a number of us on this thread have been criticizing.
<
p>If you would like to qualify these remarks, I’ll certainly commend you for it.
See above.
<
p>Here is what my argument amounts to. In the same way that the Republican Party is pro-business, and tends to support business, we are pro-labor. We support unions unless there is a compelling reason not to.
<
p>So, when things get tough, especially financially, we don’t cut and run away from unions. They are bigger than these few incidents, which (as I’ve noted repeatedly) are indefensible.
<
p>I also believe a little tough love is necessary toward unions at times, but not over contracts.
That may coincide with pro-labor union much of the time. But when unions are defending actions contrary to public safety (firemen on duty under the influence of drugs or alcohol, carmen texting while at the controls, firemen maintaining fire engines without the proper training) or unethical behavior (pension abuse) or unreasonable resistance to reforms that would help their communities in tough times (civilian flaggers, joining the GIC, reducing the Quinn bill), I think the pro-working people position does not coincide with the union position.
<
p>ALL institutions can be corrupt. I’m a Republican, but I’d never defend Ted Stevens, for example.
<
p>Cell phone bans and drug testing are REASONABLE, not draconian. Frankly, I don’t get why this is a fight the unions are even picking – do they want to DEFEND drug users among them, at the expense of sober members’ reputations?
<
p>There are too many examples of union corruption (Cashman, Teamsters, etc.) to blindly defend union status quo. You SAY not everything they want, but really – if you can’t buck them on this, what CAN you disagree on?
<
p>(OT – thank you for confirming the bias of unions. I remember how I was snickered at for bothering to even sit down with the MTA when I was a candidate. When I asked for at least a primary endorsement, they said they couldn’t risk diluting their endorsement of the Democrat – before they even knew who that candidate would be…)
And would do so again.
<
p>I don’t defend the indefensible stuff, but I’m OK with honest disagreement, and I presume most of his service was honorable. He was certainly a respected member of the Senate for many years, that ought to count for something.
Then the pensions go down, or away [except as guarenteed by a government] – keep an eye on what is happening and will happen in California.
<
p>And with GM. It is a problem, I absolutely agree. However, the discussion as to what we want from government, and how to pay for it cannot have one group enabled and pampered at the expense of all other groups and have a stable result. Cannot.
So, in your opinion, should the city’s contract with the electric company be null and void? After all, NSTAR employees and management are one group. Let’s not enable and pamper them.
<
p>See my “Certainly not OK” comment above. Respectfully, I think you’ve all forgotten the importance of unions.
“Failing school systems” is a pretty much arbitrary measure, and a few years ago the pass/fail line was raised significantly to get more schools on the failing side.
<
p>Aside from what is increasingly looking like a fantasy document (the “Readiness report”) and shuffling some state bureaucracies, how is the governor “focusing” on anything in education? He’s largely ignored the issue.
<
p>One way to improve schools might be to have the profession attract quality candidates. After factoring in all work and all expenses, a teacher with a Master’s will earn about $25/hour. If you break up collective bargaining — something the governor is amazingly eager to do — that number goes even lower.
What if we significantly raised teacher’s pay, raised teacher effectiveness, and reduced class sizes?
<
p>Recent research (such this and this) finds that increased teacher effectiveness has a dramatically positive effect on student outcomes (the first link claims a 50% improvement!).
<
p>Would you support an approach specifically targeted to significantly increase teacher pay, increase teacher effectiveness, and pay for this by increasing class sizes?
<
p>The approach I contemplate is to hold spending constant, hire fewer teachers, and pay them more — all done within a framework of collective bargaining. Please note that I don’t say “advocate” — I’m wondering whether you feel that this would or would not work and why.
<
p>
This would be similar to “safe staffing” bills that require a certain ratio of nurses per patient. Such bills would increase demand for nurses/potential union members while increasing quality of health care, meaning that both groups: unions and advocates could sign on.
<
p>What you describe is another such case, and I would expect a union to support it, and I certainly support because A-it improves public education and B-it improves my quality of life on the job.
The research I cited is still relatively new, new enough that I’m not sure it’s had a chance to percolate very far into school committees, PTOs, and collective bargaining discussions.
<
p>I hope we’ll be able to make progress in this direction. I think its crucial that we pay teachers significantly more than we do now. I suspect that increased class sizes taught by significantly higher-paid teachers is one of the likely alternatives we’ll all be considering.
Frankly, I think the best hope for a sane and fair approach to public service compensation is health reform. If costs are shifted to relieve government of the burden of paying benefits, and the savings are passed on in the form of 50% to government and 50% to worker via salary increase, things may be better for all involved. For as long as public service workers rely on taxpayer funds for their compensation, they’ll be easy targets for conservatives and progressives whose ideology stops at their wallet’s edge.
been covering themselves in glory lately.
<
p>Police union members heckling civilian flaggers.
Boston firemen opposing drug testing and abusing pension programs.
<
p>Clearly, for these unions and their members, it’s not about what’s right, what’s fair or what’s best for the community as a whole – it’s all about them and getting whatever they can for themselves.
<
p>I think it’s an interesting question for you and other teachers whether your priority and that of your unions is to follow the lead of these organizations and act on the narrowest concept of self-interest or whether your goals are broadened to also embrace ensuring the best education for kids and promoting the good of the community as a whole. The Governor is pursuing the latter.
<
p>
I’ll admit that.
<
p>But unions are supposed to get whatever they can for their members. That’s why people bargain collectively. Should they take a hit for the greater good? Sometimes. Should the MLB players association agree to drug testing for the integrity of the game? Sure. Are these decisions out of our hands and in their hands? Yes. Does society still need unions? I think so.
<
p>
In the context of supporting the overall health and well-being of their communities – and I think some but not all unions do see themselves this way – they’d do better in the long run than by seeking to get whatever they can for their members, the broader community be damned. When I read about a rush of firefighters filing disability claims before the pension reform bill’s effective date, about firefighters refusing drug testing, about firefighters maintaining firetrucks instead of mechanics because the union had negotiated for that, I see a myopia and selfishness that damages not only the reputation of the union and its members, but also harms the community as a whole.
<
p>A small anecdote: at a recent political meeting, several of us were talking about cities’ and towns’ budget woes. An active teacher spoke up, thrumming with outrage because her town was pushing to join the GIC (said in tone of absolute contempt). Two retired teachers and a retired county employee looked at her in amazement. “That’s what I’m on,” one said, “It has been wonderful.” The other two agreed. The same teacher then complained about contributing the percentage she paid into her pension. She seemed surprised to learn that the percentage was considerably less than the percentage I paid into a 401K with no guaranteed benefit at retirement whatsoever.
<
p>I’m sure there are many union members who appreciate the benefits they have and have an awareness that fewer and fewer people in the private sector enjoy the same benefits. However, I seem to be reading in the papers and personally experiencing union members – such as the surly, uncommunicative police picketers at the Governor’s town hall meeting in Arlington – with an unattractive sense of entitlement and lack of awareness that few in their communities would share their perception that they are getting a raw deal. Sorry, I think care for the disabled and health care for the poor is more important than police getting paid to hang out at construction sites or being paid educational allowances. I think public safety personnel should be happy to be drug tested, so that they know their profession is serving the public professionally and well. I think if a community can save jobs and services by joining the GIC, public employee unions should not stand in the way.
<
p>It’s not an either/or. Teachers have different priorities than their unions do, and I believe that’s how it should be. I don’t put a big chunk of money in my union account so they can go out there and make my life harder by latching on to trendy “research”. I’m not aware of any union working for their membership’s clients — they work for their membership. If the Police Union has gone to its membership with new restrictions because the people wanted them, not the members, I haven’t heard about it. Considering that unions are funded by their members and not other folks, it should work for their members…and not other folks. Frankly, there’s a lot more vocal activism on health care or immigration than on education. So it almost seems that some progressives (not you) think the union should do ed reform advocacy and activism regardless of their members’ interests they don’t feel like doing. With all due respect to the Nurses, it’s in their interest to get health care for all…that’s a greater need for nurses right there.
<
p>At the same time, I would aver that as individuals, teachers are more dedicated to getting better education to their students by working inside and outside the classroom than members of most any profession I’ve ever met. I don’t know anything about the life of firefighters or police officers, but the amount of time that teachers give freely inside and outside the classroom is astounding. I think it’s so instructive how crippling “work to rule” actions are in education. Basically, if teachers only worked the times and methods they have to work, the schools come to a grinding halt. If the main body of teachers were as selfish as faux-progressives tell each other, Massachusetts wouldn’t have the highest ACT scores in the nation…again.
<
p>Hmm…this may be more of a post than a comment…
What teachers do (often working their tails off in some unbelievably hostile workplaces) and wish for and what the teacher’s unions advocate for are quite often not the same thing. So spare us YOUR conflation.
<
p>Also, do you really think having the highest ACT scores in the nation proves anything about unselfish teachers? For the record, I think good teachers are the most underpaid professionals in our society. While we probably have the most qualified teaching corps in the nation, our high ACT scores are likely more attributable to our stocked gene pool than anything else. Conflaterrific!
You must have read a different post, because I made crystal clear “what teachers do (often working their tails off in some unbelievably hostile workplaces) and wish for and what the teacher’s unions advocate for are quite often not the same thing” and yet you seem very angry. They advocate different things because their role is to advocate for different things, and all these faux-progressives who only like labor organization that doesn’t hit their wallet keep demanding that unions try to make their members’ lives harder, and vetch about it when they don’t.
<
p>
<
p>The fact that you think that standardized testing results are a reflection of DNA is incredibly out of date, and leaves me rather uncomfortable with the implications of that line of thinking.
I don’t think there are any posting on this thread, however. I supported the local options taxes, worked to oppose Question 1 last fall, and advocated for an increase in the income tax rather than the sales tax to close the budget shortfall. I was in favor of the gas tax proposal. I am willing to pay more for services that help the whole community. I’d like to see some of the same public mindset and commitment to the greater good from the public employee unions. Not another headline about pension abuse and opposition to needed reforms.
I still think, to this day, communication is the governor’s best asset. A little lack of actual political experience has hurt him from time to time, but that’s about it. All in all, I’m much more pleased with the few years I’ve had with Deval Patrick than I am the few months I’ve had with Barack Obama. I’d take Deval any day of the week.
Deval, for all his faults, is light years better than Mitt Romney.
<
p>From standing up for gay rights, to being honest about raising taxes, to not bashing the state, …
I enthusiastically agree with you that Governor Patrick is light years better than Mitt Romney.
<
p>Is that the best we can do four eight years later?
I still consider myself a right Deval Patrick fanboi.
had no idea, Ryan…no idea…
I think Governor Patrick’s political tone-deafness grows out of his big corporation experience and sensibilities. The corporate world is a hierarchy where explaining things, at least to subordinates, is not the most important skill. Apart with not communicating effectively with the public, Patrick will sometimes project this attitude toward political actors with considerable power (e.g., the Legislature) and it back fires big-time.
She is the queen of snark, but never has anything to contribute to the understanding of our problems or the solutions. So the Governor took on pension reform, tax changes to prevent large companies from avoiding paying state taxes, enhanced ethics laws, GIC enrollment by municipal and authority employees, the Quinn bill, and private duty details on state construction projects. However, according to Saint Joan he is a failure because of new drapes in his office and his failed attempt to merge two state authorities. Spare me. She had nothing to say.
<
p>
Till she rights a column that compliments somebody in general favor around here, in which case it will be quoted extensively. See David’s front page post titled “Vennochi nails it“
Weak DNA
was a better Democrat than Deval Patrick.
But if I were Deval, I’d be getting tutoring on how to get a more agreeable legislature from him.
(watered down) pension reform
(watered down) tax changes
(watered down) enhanced ethics laws
(watered down) ethics laws
(watered down) GIC enrollment (nothing like the unilateral powers the state has!)
Quinn bill – I’ll give him
(watered down) private duty details on state contruction projects.
<
p>And he’s done more to close down facilities for people with DD, and the mentally ill than the worst Republican we have ever had.
Pension reform
Tax changes
Enhanced ethics Laws
GIC enrollment
Quinn bill
Private duty details
<
p>Not a bad list.
<
p>You complain that these accomplishments are “watered down”, presumably due to some necessary compromises by Deval with the legislature. Yet Sabutai complains that Deval, “maybe or maybe not” a better democrat than Bill Weld(?!?), needs tutoring on getting a more agreeable legislature. I suppose if he was more like that great democrat Weld, we’d have all the reform we would ever need by now.
<
p>I’m going to ask some our historians out there to tell me how much progress Bill Weld made on these fronts. Or, in the alternative, if some of these problems grew worse while he was playing “hale fellow, well met” at Loch Ober. That’s if anyone is still checking in on this aging post.
Citation here.
<
p>I liked Weld, even voted for him over Silber in a rare attack of bipartisanship. But no way was he a better Democrat than Tim Cahill, let alone Deval Patrick.