About two months ago we discussed the coming opening for state Senate President. David S. Bernstein now posts, at Boston Magazine, that Sen. Stan Rosenberg (D-Amherst) is the current favorite to succeed Therese Murray.
Rosenberg, it seems to me, would be less problematic for progressives than, say, Brewer or Moore. But he’s no Jamie Eldredge or even Dan Wolf (who, if he has his way, won’t be in the Senate in 2015). I do recall something unseemly relating to casinos a while back, but otherwise I don’t have any particular knowledge of Stan Rosenberg. In particular, I don’t have much sense of what type of Senate President he’d be. Would he thwart progressive priorities? Would he be more supportive of them than, say, Therese Murray? Would he shy away from blocking progressive priorities because he represents a very liberal area, or is he essentially a Senator-for-Life no matter what he does? Is he too much of an old-school Senate insider?
For what it’s worth, the new Progressive Massachusetts scorecard for last term has Rosenberg voting for the progressive position (as they defined it) 23 times, against it 9 times, and not voting 5 times. The nine votes where Rosenberg did not support the “progressive” position (several of them being good-government “process” issues rather than “direct” policy)::
1. Posting roll call votes online (he voted no)
2. Creating an independent redistricting commission (he voted no)
3. Expanding EITC for low-income residents (he voted no)
4. 2011 sales tax holiday (he voted yes)
5. Casinos (he voted yes)
6.Three strikes crime bill (he voted yes)
7. Requiring tax increment financing data for municipalities to be available on publicly searchable websites (he voted no)
8. Override Gov. Patrick’s veto of a provision using RMV to search for undocumented immigrants (he voted to override).
9. To table the “bottle bill” (he voted yes)
While I would have liked to see some of these progressive positions prevail, this is a pretty standard record for Democrats in the Senate. For example, Senator Spilka voted the same as Senator Rosenberg on 7 of the 9, and voted against the Progressive Mass. position on two other occasions. Senator Downing voted against the Progressive Mass. position 8 times in 37 votes, again with a large overlap with Senator Rosenberg’s votes. Because on so many of these votes there is a large consensus within the caucus (as word goes out from on high), there are limits to how much a roll call scorecard can tell us except at the extremes (like Eldridge, 36 for 37 on the Progressive Mass. scorecard; he didn’t vote for the expanded EITC).
Welcoming thoughts on Stan Rosenberg — and whether his current frontrunner status will hold up — from those with better knowledge.
Do we know if it was a close caucus vote between Rosenberg and Brewer and were there any other names on the table?
Stan Rosenberg is a earnest legislator but he has folded on a some key Progressive issues. Since he has served his district well, he was able to get away with for instance becoming the casino point man for Queen Terry. He may be the first bald, gay, Jewish guy considered for the Prezidency which makes him what? Unique? But he has also proven that he is a true politician willing to compromise some level of principle to achieve his personal and professional goals…..which apparently include salivating (he was said to have smiled – a rare Stan moment – by SHNS in their weekly roundup) at the prospect of claiming the throne.
Here’s another view from the couch.
Don’t quit til you see the Kool-Aid Stan![]()
![]()
and was highly involved in the process all along the way.
He’s always been known as UMass’ best friend in the state government, but he’s also been good enough on progressive issues that most people here are willing to forgive his work on behalf of casinos. He responds thoughtfully to indivdual consituent emails, he’s always around where people can find him, and he’s believed (at least here) to have completely quarterbacked the right side of the legislative battle on gay marriage, which was a lot harder than it looked.
His vote against an independent redistricting commission is not surprising because he was in charge of the last non-independent redistricting commission, which appears to have done a pretty fair job.
Don’t let casinos be a dealbreaker. Otherwise you’re left with few if any realistic prospects. Plus there are plenty of progressives, most prominently the Governor, who are OK with casinos, so that’s the wrong litmus test to use unless you’re going for Tea Party style purity which is wrong and counterproductive.
While I can appreciate the Senator’s desire to wrap up the Presidency, Senator Murray has until March 2015 to leave that chair. A lot can happen in that time frame (noting that Senate Pres Murray may have tipped the Senator to her departure date and it could be far sooner then the real deadline)so I wouldn’t count the chickens just yet.
Maybe she is waiting on her last lobbyist interviews before she leaves Finneran style. Also how’d a guy this conservative get elected in Amherst? If we can’t elect a progressive in Amherst we really aren’t a liberal state at all.
Supporting gay marriage in MA was truly progressive back in 2005, now it is a cornerstone of the commonwealth, he’s got to do better on that. How about good votes for the poor? Anti-EITC and pro-casino is not a good sign there. Also terrible on transparency. Seems more of the same.
…but Senator Rosenberg and his staff did great demographic work, and were extremely cooperative around redistricting. (Ditto for Representative Moran).
The more convinced I am that this is Stan opening the door for Terry’s exit. She has very tight control of all the machinations in the Senate and would not have allowed this matter to go public if it were not part of a larger strategy.
There are key differences between Rosenberg and Brewer which do define the lines between a Progressive and Centrist/Conservative Democrat.
1. Choice: Brewer-NAY; Rosenberg-Yes
2. Gun Control: Brewer-NAY; Rosenberg-Yes
3. Stand Your Ground: Brewer-Yes; Rosenberg-I think Nay
4. Equal Marriage: Brewer-followed; Rosenberg-lead
5. Both work very hard for their districts
6. Brewer has been a strong Ways & Means Chairperson producing solid balanced budgets.
I take issue with Christopher’s statements about the casino votes not being a litmus test. One face value – I agree. However, the casino issue is a much broader issue than just opening slots in Massachusetts for many Progressive and policy minded people. It encompasses regressive taxation; government sponsored exploitation of lower income and addicted individuals; subsidies and special monopoly status to casinos over other businesses; government sponsored predatory business that does not pay for the costs of the impacts.
The behavior of both Rosenberg and Brewer with the casino issues was disappointing to many of their constituents – although not all. The fact that both served the establishment in leadership roles to bring the law to fruition is a litmus test in my mind that both are politicians willing to put principles aside when they perceive a greater gain for their aspirations.
Time to make the sausage.