Living in Swampscott all my life, including the period in which Charlie Baker moved into town and started (though quickly stopped) being involved in town politics, I’ve grown to know a little bit about Charlie Baker, both the myth and the man.
In today’s Boston Globe, we get to know a lot about the myth. When Charlie Baker moved into town and then, later, decided to run for Town Selectman, he was going to solve all our problems. He was going to take our structural deficit and fix it. He was the former A&F Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, after all — and he single-handily saved Harvard Pilgram! Solving Swampscott’s problems would be no problem at all.
He won his spot on the Board of Selectmen in a cakewalk, one of the most dominating performances ever. People really did buy into the myth. A lot of people in town still believe in it.
And yet, in Baker’s three-year term, from 2004 to 2007, there are hints, broad-brush strokes, of the kind of gubernatorial candidate he may become.He was, his colleagues on the Board of Selectmen said in interviews this week, inclusive and collaborative. He was a stickler for budget issues. His style was low key. He was not prone to sponsor many motions or to champion many issues.
“His major strength was preparing the budget,” said Reid Cassidy, a former selectman who served with Baker. “He was on top of things at all times and he did go through a budget in a matter of minutes where most of us wouldn’t know where to begin.”
And what about the man?
According to records in Town Hall, Baker missed 12 out of 74 selectmen’s meetings, including three held during the annual Town Meeting where the budget is set. According to selectmen’s minutes recorded during his term, the few motions he sponsored, such as asking the board to approve overhanging signs, restaurant licenses, and bills from law firms, were generally rubber-stamped….
“He had a minimal impact on the government in this town,” said Bill DiMento, a Swampscott lawyer and former School Committee member. “He didn’t take hold of this government. He was just another selectman who missed a lot of meetings.”
The truth of the matter is that Charlie Baker was not a very good Selectman. Our town was very low on his totem pole of importance. None of this is to say Charlie Baker is a bad person. After all, he had the decency to step down.
But he didn’t come in and save us. He didn’t solve all our problems. He had a rather ordinary and somewhat vacant term on the Board of Selectmen. After his term was up, he stopped even trying to solve those problems — problems that have become much worse as the years have gone by.
In the grand scheme of things, the only good thing he did was help secure matching funds for our town at the very period Mitt Romney shut them down. We were the last town to get those funds for several years, but it wasn’t because of the folksy hero Charlie Baker, arguing the merits on the phone and taking the fight to the state, as the Boston Globe tried to spin put it, it was because Charlie Baker knew the right people at the right time. He was on the Board of Education, after all, to say nothing about his connections from his A&F and CoS days.
As Governor, should Charlie Baker be elected, we will decidedly be getting the man, though we’re almost certain to hear far more about the myth. Like Mitt Romney, we’ll hear a lot about how Charlie Baker saved something. And like when Charlie Baker ran for Town Selectman, not everyone will be rushing to bridge the gap between man and legend (Governor Patrick will have to do that).
Regardless of the credit Charlie Baker deserves (or doesn’t) for Harvard Pilgram, he can’t possibly save state government. He can’t wave a wand and double our revenues. He can’t find mythical cuts to be made that will “solve” our budget. He won’t support the kind of investments we’ll need to make as a state to save our budgets in these bleak times. He won’t favor the kind of expansion in services we need to make as a state if we’re going to grow jobs and share the economic prosperity beyond the Metro Boston region. It’s important for Charlie Baker, the myth, to be broken before people decide whether or not to vote for Charlie Baker, the man.
appreciate your insights. Your conclusions are probably correct; the republicans are becoming notorious for promising to fix our problems by not spending any money.
“[He can’t possibly save state government”??! Such a defeatest attitude. Indeed, it IS possible to “save” state government, if saving state government means escaping the false choice of tax increases or service cuts. Without much effort, and consistent with the focus of representative democracy, we could balance the budget, stem the draining of the rainy day fund, enhance job creation for workers, decrease the costs of living in Massachusetts, improve the quality of life and the beauty of our communities, encourage responsible government and delivery of quality government services to persons truly in need. We just need to elect legislators (and Governors) willing to stand up to the vested special interests and engage in new thinking and problem solving.
Charlie Baker can’t single-handily save Massachusetts state politics. No one person could. That is not a defeatist attitude. It is unrealistic — and setting ourselves up for failure — that one person can wave their wand and save government.
<
p>We’re not going to balance the budget without more revenue. Period. We’re not going to create many more jobs in Massachusetts without a superior infrastructure, particularly in the 95% of Massachusetts that isn’t serviced by the MBTA. I believe we currently have a Governor working on these problems; it is not in the Republican tradition to do so.
This is certainly more than 5% of Massachusetts
<
p>
<
p>which isn’t to suggest that I disagree with the rest of your post.
I’ll give you the commuter lines.
“Without much effort” you say…the budget could be balanced, and the “rainy day fund” not even tapped! This can be done, you impute, without even breaking a sweat.
<
p>Now, if you had said “With sufficient effort, good reality contact, and collaboration…” maybe you would have been at least believable.
<
p>The reality is that real work – and job creation planning, reducing cost of living, and balancing the budget without service cuts take effort – and honesty. Your post is not honest. The “special interests” that need to be stood up to include the pharmaceutical giants and their extraordinary profits, the neo-barons created by deregulation, and facing the fact that having good public education, safe and effective infrastructure, and health care must be paid for, indeed.
<
p>Oddly enough, deregulation led to the rape of the American financial landscape – and the destruction of secure jobs and benefits.
<
p>I would say we need legislators and executives who engage in honesty, clear thinking, and open communications.
<
p>I have had more than enough elitism, secrecy, and the continuing concentration of wealth from both parties.
I say “without much effort” and you say “with honesty, clear thinking, and open communications.” All virtues that don’t take much effort in my book. I promise you we could assemble a people’s budget, or a series of alternative people’s budgets, in a mere week that accomplish all the aims I’ve identified. That’s the easy part. The hard part is having our elected officials vote “aye” in the face of special interests and lobbying. It’s not a D or an R problem, it’s a lack of political competition, transparency and accountability. Perhaps that will change in the 2010 elections.
You just rattled off a host of special interests.
<
p>”Without much effort” – the lazy
<
p>”Escaping the false choice of tax increases or service cuts” – the intellectually dishonest
<
p>”Decrease the costs of living in Massachusetts” – Dangerous deflationists
<
p>”Delivery of quality government services to persons truly in need” – program cutter for the poor, disabled, mentally ill, and every other vital service that doesn’t serve your definition of need
<
p>”Improve the quality of life” – ignorer of Massachusetts standing at or near the top of every quality of life measure – fewer divorces, fewer suicides, higher education standards, etc. etc. etc.
<
p>You are a walking special interest, as am I. Your special interests are not mine, and I continue to work to be sure that we do not elect legislators or governors who have such a simplistic, selfish and small-minded view of solving the problems we face
So we disagree. But I like your post.
I think “myth” might be putting too fine a point on it at this stage, but thanks for the information.
thoughtful post.
<
p>In my own small town’s politics, I’ve witnessed business people who didn’t understand the difference between democracy and business.
<
p>One well-intentioned exec I know suggested the select board and finance committee sequester themselves and not leave until an issue was resolved. He wasn’t aware of the the open meeting law.
<
p>Still other well-intentioned people don’t understand that however intelligent or effective a policy or decision might be, it’s usually up to the voters to approve the project, the override, or whatever. Seatbelts, anyone?
<
p>Similarly, Patrick found out the hard way that he can’t just implement decisions, even if they are the best thing to do. Remember his first budget that recommended local option sales tax and taxing telephone poles?
<
p>In a democracy, power tends to spread out. Although there are exceptions, there is no top for top-down. The skill set Charlie Baker would bring to the table is unlikely to help much in the governor’s office in Massachusetts where the legislature has at least a much power as the governor.
As opposed to Deval Patrick the man?
<
p>Deval Patrick the man who skips town when extremely important votes go down?
<
p>Deval Patrick the man who collaborates with the lege as good as any Republican?
<
p>Deval Patrick the man who got a Caddy and drapes that confound me with their price tag? (the drapes, not the car)
<
p>Deval Patrick the man who didn’t even TRY local politics before jumping into the big pool?
<
p>Ryan, nobody is a myth. Everyone is a mere mortal. Charlie Baker would probably be the first guy to tell you he’s not going to walk into the State House and wave his Harry Potter wand and make everything all better.
<
p>The only person I’ve ever heard use “myth” and “Charlie Baker” in the same breath is you.
I don’t need to set my watchtwice a day.
<
p>I know you guys tend to see the world in black and white (monochrome, not race), but the governor’s shortcomings are well-known and have been discussed here and recently. We don’t need to bring them up in every thread.
<
p>Is it a knee-jerk reaction with you, or just mere neurosis, that any time a conservative is criticized you have to argue that the same is true for the Democrat? What’s your point? Seriously. Two wrongs don’t make a right, not generally anyway, though in your intellectually pathetic way you guys seem to think so. What’s the point of pointing out that the myth of Deval Patrick in the context of a discussion about Charlie Baker? Put your thinking cap on and try to think of a big boy answer.
<
p>You guys fight like five year-olds and bring discourse and the country down with you. When are you going to grow up intellectually?
<
p>And before you ask, I’ll do it for you: Do I mean as opposed to Democrats? (Thought I’d save you the typing).
to point out that if I’m a supporter of Candidate A, and I think that you shouldn’t support Candidate B because of criticism X, when in fact Candidate A is guilty of the same, then my argument is pointless.
<
p>Since I’m sure you’re scratching your head, here’s the answer key:
<
p>A: Deval
B: Charlie
X: Being a human being and not some infallible demi-God of politics.
you’ve made the same “two wrongs make a right” argument.
<
p>You did it earlier when I commented on Free Republic people calling the President’s 11 year-old daughter a whore (if you followed the links). You brought up David Letterman. Personally, I didn’t think Letterman’s comment was appropriate. It was tasteless, unfair, and not funny. I don’t like or watch the guy.
<
p>The argument issue, which you miss, is your repetition compulsion to counter every conservative or Republican bad act with a liberal or Democratic one. Yes, both sides do things that are objectionable, not exactly a newsflash. The thing is you don’t advance the conversation or anyone’s thinking with your two wrongs thinking.
You know your persuasiveness here is close to nil.
<
p>So why use the strategy (twice today)? It’s a red herring you guys rely on. Another conservative red herring is namecalling, though I can’t tar you with that brush. The point is to stop talk about the topic at hand, or make intelligent discourse next to impossible.
<
p>The topic was Charlie Baker. There was no way you could hear his faults without bringing up Patrick’s. There was no way you could hear about Free Republic’s nastiness without bringing up David Letterman. It’s a conservative knee-jerk reaction.
Your comment:
<
p>
<
p>Stomv responded with specifics on Letterman. Perhaps you meant someone else.
<
p>Regardless, my charaterization of your two wrongs rhetoric stands.
<
p>And after your last comment, we can add another red herring on your part: seizing on a detail that doesn’t affect the actual argument.
I have not mentioned Letterman on this thread. Perhaps you meant someone/where else.
I was calling JoeTS out on the fact that he brought up the “liberals do it too” red herring twice in one day.
Isn’t getting past the convention. Sorry dems, we Republicans are not choosing who you desire as your patsy.
which means “you” Republicans, who are outnumbered something like 3:1* by unenrolled MA voters, may not get to choose who you desire as your patsy.
<
p>
<
p> * 3:1? 4:1? I don’t remember…
which means “you” Republicans, who are outnumbered something like 3:1* by unenrolled MA voters, may not get to choose who you desire as your patsy.
<
p>
<
p> * 3:1? 4:1? I don’t remember…
Unenrolled voters can also choose the democratic party ballot and decide YOUR candidates. all politics being local, I think unenrolled voters would be more inclined to vote in a local democratic race or races, than one Republican primary for governor. I voted in the democratic primary when I was unenrolled. More contests.
and I’m no fan of the open primary system. But, there’s an important difference: the number of D is much higher than the number of R, which means that unenrolled don’t have nearly as big an impact on the D primary because there are more Ds. The same isn’t true on the R side because the U’s so vastly outnumber the R’s.
So I think the U’s impact the d’s much more.
Tim for Gov is an indie. My understanding was that Baker and Mihos were gunning for GOP. So in this election, it seems like the Us will impact the Rs but not the Ds in the primary. Yes/no?
Will not be the only primary on the ballot. Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney General, Auditor, State Representative, State Senate. I have been more inclined to vote in a local race or races, than one contest for a statewide office.
For unenrolled primary voters, their motivation is almost always the governor’s race. That’s my conjecture, and I suspect that most would agree. I’m not talking about died-in-the-wool party members; I’m talking about unenrolleds who show up to vote in primaries. Sure, maybe there’s some local race or maybe they give two squats about the treasurer. I doubt it. The governor’s race will dominate the media, and it will dominate the priority list for unenrolled primary voters.
<
p>If there’s a GOP primary race, you can bet that will be drawing their attention in 2010.
I don’t think he’s a bad person — which is a helluva lot better than most of the Repuglicans on the national scene. But people in this town believed he’d fix things and he barely tried. Deval Patrick, meanwhile, has helped keep this state afloat during the worst economic period in the history of most people who are alive today. Most of the things most pressing on his list in year 1 have already been accomplished. I don’t think it’s flashy and he’s had more than one bad day in the press, but the fact of the matter is he’s actually done a decent job. I don’t think Charlie Baker can do better — in fact, I think his priorities will make things worse.
I don’t think he has the gall to jump ship for national office mid-term. Is it a particular policy stance?
<
p>I just hate getting into the policy debate right now, because he hasn’t clearly explained those positions yet where we can pick them apart and find merit or criticism in them.
<
p>I also wonder about the article you linked. Granted, I don’t live in Swampscott, but you don’t address all the positives in the article. You just brush it off and say he wasn’t that good, and quote one of the few criticisms in the article.
<
p>I see that he missed a bunch of meetings, and frankly that kind of stuff is a non-starter for me, because I’m anal about being on time, so I’m open to the criticisms, but you gotta give me more than “in reality he wasn’t” to respond to an article about him generally being a good selectman.
<
p>PS: Javelin was amazing.
to the people who get him elected, should he win — most assuredly not urban communities, but to the suburbs and exurbs. I think he’ll be too focused on the bottom line, maintaining a very narrow focus when we need big, broad solutions if we’re to make Massachusetts a better place. I’d like more public transportation, better schools, affordable higher education (and more of it), more smart growth and the general prosperity of Greater Boston to be shared throughout the state. That’s important to Deval Patrick, who’s been present in more communities than any Governor in my memory. I don’t think it’s going to be important to Charlie Baker.
<
p>Are there any particular “positives” addressed in the article that you would like me to address? I believe I covered the gist of it. He came in to much hoopla, was eminently polite and friendly, didn’t accomplish all that much and left after a term, realizing how tough and time consuming the job was — a good decision for both he and the town.
<
p>A lot of people do still like him, he’s an eminently likeable guy, but it doesn’t change the fact that his one term as a Selectman was lackluster at best. My guess is even he realizes it and his days as a Selectman won’t really figure into his campaign one iota, while he instead focuses on his days as a health care exec (eek) and time spent as A&F and CoS in the worst days of the Big Dig scandals (double eek).
<
p>Who “he”? Ya’ll have gone and confused me by first talking of Baker, then Patrick, then Baker and back to Patrick… It’s all so much…
<
p>If you’re talking (now) of Baker, my question becomes “why does he need either gall or national office to jump ship?” Weld and Celucci jumped ship pretty much outta boredom. Romney jumped ship in all but title… Who knows why Palin is jumping ship… Seems to be a rather republican trait to ‘jump ship’ midway…
Is on Friday.
I don’t think he’s a bad person — which is a helluva lot better than most of the Repuglicans on the national scene. But people in this town believed he’d fix things and he barely tried. Deval Patrick, meanwhile, has helped keep this state afloat during the worst economic period in the history of most people who are alive today. Most of the things most pressing on his list in year 1 have already been accomplished. I don’t think it’s flashy and he’s had more than one bad day in the press, but the fact of the matter is he’s actually done a decent job. I don’t think Charlie Baker can do better — in fact, I think his priorities will make things worse.
good insight.
<
p>Noticed that the article was written by Steven Rosenberg. The same person who a week earlier wrote another Baker puff piece called “Baker tempers dazzling achievements with down-to-earth goals“. I wonder if this is going to be a weekly series. Something to keep an eye on.
<
p>But what I noticed from the article is this little nugget:
<
p>
<
p>Now I’m not saying this is bad or without merit, but what is interesting here is that the Republicans are probably going to come in saying they will cut costs, how will they reconcile the fact that when Baker was in charge of the budget they actually spent 16% more than they did before he arrived.
Charlie Baker won a local election; I assume he voted for himself.
<
p>If memory serves, Deval didn’t even bother to vote in most, if not all, local elections before he decided to run for Governor.
<
p>I’m hopeful the Governor participated in the recent Milton override vote….
On Charlie Baker, I see.
<
p>Seriously, I’m talking about Charlie. I’m plenty willing to defend Deval’s term — he’s done a pretty good job. I think it’s a little silly, though, to be forced to defend what Deval did in politics before being elected. We already had that election in 2006; feel free to read my posts from then at ryanstake.net.
Joke day is on Friday. How about what he has inflicted on us SINCE his election.
Because balanced budgets in crushing fiscal times, major reform efforts surrounding previously untouchable issues (pensions, GIC, ethics, etc.), protecting marriage equality, getting rid of hard-to-stomach corporate tax loopholes and keeping our health care bill affordable for thousands of people who would otherwise not have health insurance is all such a terrible infliction.
Ethics? When does it take effect? 2015? Plenty of time to water a watered down bill more.
Marriage equality? Why can’t we have a popular vote on the issue? It’s becoming a non-issue to me.
Helth care: Is not exactly ffordable for a lot of people. You need to come downstairs from the ivory tower.
I am happy to let the governor run on his record.
It’s like running for President when all people want to do is talk about the lame duck.
You “bet” he did, with no proof – and feel so strongly about your conviction, that you make it a point to write it in a post.
<
p>Awesome.
<
p>BTW – Congratulations for joining the ranks of people who have absolutely no thoughts on Charlie Baker. Can’t defend him, so (feebly) attack the other guy (with lame-ass, ancient battle cries).
Can be so bothersome.
<
p>He’s been around for 26 total elections, voted in 15 of them. He voted in 2 out of 9 local elections, one of them being the election he ran in. So I guess he ‘can be bothered’ about half the time, but when it comes to local elections, pretty much never.
<
p>Note: This critique is more for you than for him. I think people are truly flailing when this is the best they’ve got. Even you can do better than this, MCRD — can’t you? What do you have to say about Charlie Baker?
Voted in 3 of 10. “together we can” = “you do it for me, I’m too imortant!”
Thanks Ryan. I was wondering when you would bring your Swampscott insights to bear on Baker.
<
p>I may do a similar write-up on what I witnessed on the Board of Education. For starters, let me just say that his attendance there was about as good as it was on the Board of Selectmen. We can hope he won’t pull a Romney and decide Massachusetts is not worth his full effort, but we know he did just that with both Swampscott and the Board of Ed.
…being a health care executive (or recently resigned one) in this day and age and running for office will not be fun. Harvard is just as bureaucratic and inefficient as most mediocre service organizations (my current insurance company after BCBS for many years) which means there are lots of people out there with bad experiences. He also has the baggage of state government around his neck, from the bad old days before pension, ethics and transportation reform.
<
p>Serious question though…where was Baker when the Big Dig Debt was assigned to the Turnpike and mitigation to the MBTA?
Ryepower, what is it with this holier-than-thou phobia that engulfs you? Charlie Baker can’t win. He’s going to own the “on time and on budget” Big Dig catastrophe. Between casinos and Baker, you’re all pent up!