A few weeks back, Charlie Baker departed from his usual tough-on-public-employee-unions rhetoric by siding with the police unions on two topics near and dear to their hearts: details, and the Quinn bill. In fact, not only did he side with the unions, he criticized Deval Patrick for his efforts to reform those practices.
“We should fund Quinn,” the Republican gubernatorial hopeful replied. “I think the state should continue to own up to its obligation on that one.” …
[T]he Republican challenger expressed repeated reservations about Patrick’s policy of using civilian flagmen where practical on state-led construction projects.
I wrote at the time that this was
[a] clever, if highly cynical, move…. By casting his lot with the police unions on these issues, Baker is apparently gambling that the cops will throw their support to him, thereby allowing him to portray himself as the candidate who has the support of law enforcement.
But, as we know (though maybe someone should remind Bob DeLeo), sometimes when you gamble, you crap out. And about a week ago, Baker crapped out.
What [Tim Cahill] the independent candidate for governor currently lacks in fund-raising prowess and poll numbers, he is making up for in police endorsements. On Thursday, he picked up the backing of the Massachusetts Municipal Police Coalition and the Medford Police Patrolmen’s Association. They joined the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, Quincy Superior and Patrolmen’s Union, Springfield Police Union, and Hanover Police Union in endorsing Cahill.
But what’s really wonderful about this whole thing is the reaction over at RMG. Apparently, Baker enthusiast Mike Rossettie had forgotten about Baker’s naked play for police union backing when he wrote this nonsense in explaining why the cops backed Cahill:
Charlie Baker has campaigned on ending union control of government contracts and substantive pension reform…. Public sector unions are the single greatest obstacle standing in the way.
Charlie Baker will continue to take a political hit for choosing to fight this important fight. It is a hit worth taking, and it goes to the core of why Charlie Baker is running for Governor in the first place.
Precious irony — that RMG chooses to publish this stirring paean to Baker’s bold fight against the greedy public employee unions … on the most painfully obvious occasion of Baker’s kowtowing to public employee unions in the (futile) hope of obtaining their endorsement.
There’s a reason we use the tag line “reality-based” around here … and, perhaps, a reason why it’s missing across the way. đŸ˜‰
Kind of cute particularly with the smiley face at the end. You seem you use the word hilarious often. Is everything ok? đŸ™‚
My bumper proudly displays a “Dump Deval” sticker. Pretend that!
why not discuss the specifics of the post?
<
p>Baker did in fact suck up to the police unions on the Quinn bill and police details, going against Patrick.
Really? đŸ™‚
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
He argued we should either fund or repeal the Quinn bill.
<
p>It’s unfair to cities, towns and police to have the law on the books but only fund it sporadically.
<
p>Perhaps that was what Baker was trying to say – some of his staff can mis-speak from time to time.
supporting Cahill for a reason. They have to know his candidacy is a loser.
<
p>Would they offend too many Democratic allies by supporting a Republican? It’s puzzling.
<
p>2. Peter Porcupine is correct about the Quinn Bill at the local level: my town is funding the state’s portion until we see what happens with a pending lawsuit somewhere else in the state.
<
p>3. When experiencing cognitive dissonance, namecalling and red herrings are de rigeur for many of our conservative friends on BMG ;=)
of Baker supporting the Quinn bill. The Quinn Bill should be canceled or phased out and it’s too bad Charlie is wrong on this one (if in fact he wants it continued).
<
p>As for police deatils vs flagmen… I haven’t seen anything showing Charlie Bakers wants police details and does not want flagmen. I have seen some criticism of Deval that his flagman plan has not saved much money and that it is a joke.
<
p>Just to be clear… are you saying Charlie Baker’s positions are…
<
p>- He wants the Quinn Bill to remain in place as is.
<
p>- He wants MA to have Police details and not have flagmen.
is the police vote.
<
p>The police traffic details thing save a few million, but the regulations were written so it wouldn’t affect the state police too much. I remember talking to a local chief of police, and he said that the regs were written to basically protect the state cops. Details are required for traffic traveling over 45 mph and screwy areas means there’s still plenty of overtime to go around.
<
p>Local police unions write traffic details into their contracts and aren’t affected much by the state regulations.
<
p>It would be fun to see someone take on the staties, but it ain’t gonna happen. That’s union power, but no Republican governor/candidate is going to take that union on.