Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Senate President

By

I’m told…I’m told

Could we not at least have the semblance that she is exercising her duty to thoroughly review the impacts of slots/casinos and express concerns for the increases in addiction, family disruption, bankruptcy, traffic (emisssions, air pollution, environmental impacts)?

Nope.

Let’s invite industry that brings corruption, money laundering, expansion of government, pollution, addiction and other woes so that we can still not deal with the structural deficit of the state budget that has been aided and abetted by herself and incumbents for years.  That will serve to perpetuate the illusion that there is economic development when the same CT study  cites the negative impacts on the regions with casinos and the abject failure of the CT legislature to mitigate those issues.

The 900 million revenues by MA residents going to CT each year is highly suspect as it is a figure from Clyde Casino Barrows whose ridiculous proposal for three resort casinos was swallowed by Governor Patrick and shot down by the tax-paid Spectrum Gaming report, the one commissioned by Patrick.  It has been estimated that the figure likely to be recaptured is closer to $500 million which would be taxed at a previously proposed 27% rate….um, chump change for the state budget.  Chump change for mitigation.

AG Coakley, don’t count on me to support your political ambitions if you are mute on this issue.  You made one appearance at the Spilka hearing on this issue.  Where are you?

With this kind of leadership who needs enemies?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. More balls than brains. Sensitive to slights.

    <

    p>You’re right to connect her with Coakley who warned about the need for regulation in the case of casinos. That’s the only reason she ever thought about regulation to begin with.

    <

    p>Her dislike of our hapless, innocuous governor is also disproportionate.  

    • Not so much. I’ve seen her in hearings eviscerate some very clever lawyers…who thought they could away with gaming her.    

      <

      p>And as for being sensitive to slights? Geez…sounds like Deval to me.  But that’s okay, right, as long as it’s Deval?

      • snark me, at least do me the courtesy of knowing my perspective on the governor. I have a lengthy track record here, you could skim my former posts or comments.

        <

        p>Mental midget may be extreme, maybe she’s mentally 5’1″.

        <

        p>Politically, she may be competent, hence taking a lawyer apart, but show me something intelligent she’s done aside from coining the term “reform before revenue” which was turned against her. The woman’s a hack. Show me an idea, show me a vision, show me something that guides her actions.

        <

        p>As far as sensitivity goes, her chief aide called me once due to a blog post I did elsewhere, not criticizing her or calling her names as I’m doing here, but merely saying she was less powerful than Sal DiMasi. The post was based on a Joan Vennochi column.  

    • When you can’t blame the Republican Governor(s) for the failures of government to curb corruption on your watch. Governor Patrick must be the demon.  She has practically endorsed Baker as have many other DINOs who will sit back and try to conceal their glee as Patrick goes through the gristmill toward his re-election.  Bad Deval, for standing up to the Queen, bad.

      <

      p>The Senate President has lost whatever internal compass she may have once had for “the people” and has morphed into the worst possible role model for women in politics.  Women who behave macho and try to prove they have the biggest kahunas have already lost….themselves.

      <

      p>I would not characterize her as a mental midget.  She is shrewd.

      <

      p>Choosing the wonkish liberal Senator Rosenberg (D-Amherst – where the really oppose slots/casinos) to have a leadership stipend and be her casino “point person” was brilliant in a devious kind of way. Geez, if Stan will roll over for her, why wouldn’t the rest of the progressives and anyone else who cares about the human and fiscal impacts just retreat?

      <

      p>Such an opportunity lost.   Sad, really.    

      • With all due respect….I am at a loss to understand what corruption happened on her watch?  Therese has been at the helm only two years.  Wilkerson’s ethical challenges began long before Therese took the helm.  Who could have predicted Jim Marzilli’s mishap with the law?  Are you trying to tie DiMasi around her neck, or Finneran?

        <

        p>I think Deval has more problems than with just Therese.  He’s been running against the legislature for a few  years now and he’s pissing off any number of people.  I just think it’s a little too convenient to blame Senate President Murray for Patrick’s foibles.  I thought it was kind of funny for YD to claim that Therese was sensitive to criticism when that is a very Patrick-like trait.  

        • Governor Patrick has more problems that with just Therese which is clear in my statement about Baker and DINOs.

          <

          p>It is my belief that all incumbents who committed sins of commission and omission supporting the Big Dig culture, turning a blind-eye to the pension approvals, slipping bogus pork projects into their districts and perpetuating the inequity between state and local governments should be held accountable.

          <

          p>Governor Patrick forced the Legislature to change practices that never should have happened and since they did, should have been stopped by would be leaders like Ms. Murray.  There are many incumbent legislators that have their collective panties in a twist because their lack of integrity and action was exposed.  The Dems have had a scapegoat with the “can’t get nothing done Republican Governors” for years.  Having a Governor draw a line in the sand and prevail was fabulous.

          <

          p>Except that she has just ignored what the public wants to see which is open, transparent government.

          Arrogance by another name is still arrogance by another name.

          • the senate president calls an inconsequential blogger to argue that she’s as powerful as the House Speaker, I see someone sensitive to slights.

            <

            p>I’ll credit Murray with being smart enough to bring Stan in on things. He’s one of the smartest and most hard-working people on Beacon Hill.

            <

            p>I’m baffled by her apparent support for Charlie Baker. Patrick may be politically incompetent, and not much better governmentally (the latter, I think, is the deeper source of his rift with the legislature), but I thought it was verboten to cede power to the opponents.

            <

            p>What’s the point of shooting Patrick down? He has no primary opponent. There’s No Draft Tough Talkin’ Terry Movement that I know of. My guess is that she’s just a bully. That’s how she got where she is.  

            • is probably giving Deval and his supporters a tickle.  If you don’t play nice in the sandbox, you can’t blame folks for throwing a little sand.  

          • You must have missed a few news stories.  

            <

            p>The appointment of James Aloisi is part of changing the culture, how exactly?

            <

            p>The near appointment of Senator Walsh? And that new position, Director of Real Estate Services…Dana Harrell

            <

            p>Contacting Citigroup on behalf of Ameriquest?

            <

            p>And my personal favorite….backdoor campaign financing:

            <

            p>

            (A Boston) GLOBE EDITORIAL
            “Campaign-finance doldrums”
            July 25, 2008

            CAMPAIGN FINANCE rules in Massachusetts keep on losing their bite. Under state law, an individual can contribute no more than $500 per year to a given political candidate. But as the Globe’s Frank Phillips recently reported, Governor Patrick’s political team is using an arrangement that allows contributors to give significantly more. The Legislature ought to fix this and other loopholes.

            But as the legislative session winds down, chances for major campaign-finance improvements look slimmer by the day. And legislation being discussed by the Joint Committee on Election Laws doesn’t address the fund-raising arrangements documented in the Globe.

            The governor’s Seventy-First Fund is an argument for reform, for it violates the spirit of the existing law. Contributors can give up to $5,500, of which $500 goes to Patrick’s campaign fund and the remainder to the Democratic Party. But the party used most of the money it received from the fund last year to pay political expenses for Patrick. In effect, contributors can give Patrick’s campaign more money than the law intends.

            <

            p>This isn’t quite what I had in mind when we talk about “changing the culture.”  They all have their issues, and Patrick isn’t a shining knight.  

  2. from the same Herald Story you quote that Senator Murray is NOT exercising her duty to thoroughly review the impacts of slots/casinos and express concerns for the increases in addiction, family disruption, bankruptcy, traffic (emisssions, air pollution, environmental impacts)?

    <

    p>

    Casino gambling in the Bay State is moving closer to reality.

    Senate President Therese Murray told business leaders yesterday that lawmakers are working with state Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office to craft casino regulations that would be ready by the time expanded gambling is approved on Beacon Hill.

    “We want to have a regulatory structure in place before a bill comes out,” she said. “I’m told that gambling brings certain types of crime, such as money laundering and gang activity. We want to make sure that we have the regulatory authority to oversee whatever comes out of the Legislature.”

    <

    p>As another person very much opposed to destination casinos, or slots at race tracks or any place else for that matter, I am looking at that statement by the Senate President as an opportunity for the anti-casino forces to mobilize ourselves  and any and all relevant arguments and direct them towards Senator Murray and the other 39 Senators. And the 160 Reps for that matter.

    <

    p>And for the record, Yellow Dog, she ain’t no mental midget and doesn’t need any of your stinky testosterone.

    • The article reveals that the meetings/discussions/decisions taking place are not in the public sphere.  It does not state that she is concerned or truly recognizes the myriad of negative impacts

      I’m told that gambling brings certain types of crime

      is about as detached as one can get.

      <

      p>On the heels of the ethics, pension and lobbying reforms one would expect a semblance of conducting legislative business openly with discussion and debate of the pros and cons of considering an industry that requires additional money laundering and gang activity protections for the citizens.  

      <

      p>It is another backroom fait accompli.  

Archives