“As Democrats Target GOP, Baker Escapes Criticism” — Boston Globe
“At State Convention: Mass. Dems Focus National, Tread Lightly on Baker’s Beacon Hill” — WGBH
**********************************
During most of the speeches at the convention yesterday, I was tabling in the hall for Raise Up with Progressive Massachusetts (If you’d like to volunteer–which hopefully you do–you can sign up here), rather than sitting and watching the speakers. Following the speeches on Twitter, however, I began to notice a striking absence: direct criticism of Charlie Baker, our Republican governor.
When I decided to take a break from tabling for the day and head into the auditorium, I listened to party chair Tom McGee criticize anti-union Republican governors in other states (like Wisconsin), without so much as mentioning the anti-union governor in our own state. To my memory, McGee did not even mention Charlie Baker once in his speech.
I turned to a friend of mine and asked, “Have any of the speakers criticized Charlie Baker by name?” She paused for a moment to think: “Nope.”
Steve Tolman, the president of Mass AFL-CIO, was a pleasant change. He called out Baker’s Executive Order No. 562, one of the most dangerous things put forth by Baker so far, designed to roll back our state’s public interest regulations to placate Charlie’s Big Business buddies. His attack on the privatization agenda — of schools, of transportation, of services — had clear targets in both the State House and the governor’s mansion, even if names might not have been directly stated.
But this, as both the Globe and WGBH picked up as well, was a rarity at the convention. Democrats felt much more comfortable attacking national Republican boogeymen like Donald Trump rather than the Republican who has the most influence in shaping the future of our state: the governor.
When Senator Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats say, “Come to Massachusetts to see the future” without acknowledging the governor who is pushing us back into the past, they are engaging in political malpractice.
Jeffrey Berry, a political scientist at Tufts, said it well in the aforementioned Globe article:
“If the Democrats are to run a credible race [for governor] in 2018, they really need to start developing a counter narrative to the success of the Baker administration,” he said. “It’s never too soon to start it.”
And given the partisan nature of the audience, he said, “if you are talking about what the shortcomings of the Baker administration [are], [the convention has the] safest audience to do it in front of.”
Charlie Baker has sky-high poll numbers because Democrats are faint in their criticism in the rare times they even criticize him at all. And that refusal to forcefully articulate a contrasting vision for governance (not a “Promises Watch” that implies all of the promises are good) spells electoral doom.
One is left wondering if the reason why our elected Democrats do so little to push back is that they largely agree with Baker’s anti-tax, anti-regulatory, pro-privatization agenda.
Charlie Baker passed the anti-union bill with help from the DEMOCRATIC legislature.
The party has no standing to call out Baker on that issue, which is why they didn’t bring it up.
The Mass Dems are actively anti-union.
After all Mass. AFL-CIO President Steve Tolman was given speaking time on par with elected officials. This is where it would be nice if our Senator-Chair advocated for the platform with his colleagues. For reference our platform states:
I realize that you put a lot of time an energy into that document, but all one has to do is look at the people Democrats actually nominate and elect in Massachusetts, and what those people actually do, to realize that there are very few words in the world of politics that are as dirt-cheap as the words in the Mass Democratic party platform.
Not that I think it was your intention, but I won’t disparage Christopher for putting time and energy into that document or for hoping it wasn’t valued as cheaply as it is by the legislative leadership on Beacon Hill. His optimism is a helpful antidote to the pervasive cynicism and exasperation we sometimes express around here at the course of events.
That said, I strongly feel that the vast majority of Massachusetts voters who approve of the job Baker is doing are doing so in part because they buy into the balance argument, and they will always buy into that argument so long as what people see is Baker expanding the EITC at the expense of a crony capitalist film credit House Democrats scrambled to protect. The optics of that one confrontation really underline CMDs criticism and hollow out the words and good intentions of Christopher and his DSC compatriots.
I wasn’t sure. But if not, I think a significant majority of people at that time were on board with HMOs and municipalities joining the GIC. The comment doesn’t make much sense if not a joke.
Oh, I see. They’re significantly pro-union, except when they’re not, and then they can attempt a sneaky late-night restriction on collective bargaining power, but only if the unions aren’t completely on board with what they want to force the unions to do.
I didn’t note anywhere that they were pro or against union. It was just a dumb example.
But yes, thanks for your astute commentary, it must be Republicans that are pro-union. (see what I did there, I just made up something out of thin air like you just did in your comment).
Our legislatively supermajority is more concerned with self preservation than implementing liberal values. This has been the case for at least three or four decades around here, and it’s past time we fix it. Using the argument “but Baker is worse” doesn’t really fly when DeLeo is our highest ranked official in state government.
that’s why I lean towards non-lege D’s for the governor’s office.
DeLeo? Fiscal conservative sounds about right. The problem is that reps are lifetime appointments in some areas.
Plus, why can’t I blame Baker for policies that he’s pushing? That doesn’t make sense to me.
…like OMG, can you believe Charlie Baker attended a retreat with Republican Governors out of state last weekend? – oh the horror!
I’ve heard it speculated that with a party Chair who is a legislator he doesn’t want to be too harsh on a Governor he has to work with. Personally I think the institutional party’s job is to advocate for the platform and any other resolutions and LEAD legislators with Ds after their names to vote the party line rather than act paralyzed because Dem legislators have their own agendae.
It’s very problematic to have a sitting legislator as party chair. Legislators, by nature of their job, will be at least somewhat transactional. However, a party chair should be aspirational and combative. You can’t fulfill both roles at once.
Healy isn’t going to run and the institutional party is already preparing for collaboration and cooperation for the next 7 years Gov. Baker is in office.
Curtatone has been making very bold, statewide policy pronouncements on his Facebook page and will probably run, Driscoll has her hands full in Salem managing their schools and ensuring the crime rate stays under control, but she also is more than qualified and capable as a potential candidate. Healy ruled herself out, and none of the other statewide officeholders are interested or ready to make the leap in my opinion.
So it comes down to my two favorite Mayors if they get in, or Sen. Wolf or Eldridge who would be underdogs for the nomination and the general in my book. He is polling at 70% and is the most popular Governor in the country, it will likely stay this way if there isn’t an effective message to counter it, no matter who we select to run against him.
If Baker keeps playing the patrician and stays out of the culture wars, he’s probably safe unless the economy turns on him. I suspect if MA is looking at hard choices in a tight economy, Baker’s approach might be a bit too cleaver-oriented. That played a big role in Patrick’s 2010 win.
The other thing that could gobble up Baker is transportation and infrastructure. We’ve got, conservatively, 20 years of catching up to do in this state. We have failed to make needed investments. We let things go to near-rot. Baker needs to deliver on the Green Line extension, improve MBTA service, winnow the number of failing bridges in the state, keep our highways in working order, and work towards better regional transit in Sprirngfield, Worcester, New Bedford and Lowell. It’s going to require money that he doesn’t necessarily have.
Oh, and he needs to hold the line on state college prices. A big chunk of his voting block is parents with college-aged children. If they start to feel like they’re getting gouged and the Dems come up with a plan to lower your college costs, that could be trouble for Baker.
Don’t get me wrong it absolutely should be. It’s my number 1 issue, but the voters killed a modest gas tax proposal and apparently believe Baker when he says we can cut our way to a better T. Another catastrophic failure perversely aids his policy argument rather than ours.
It’s not like the Green Line Extension is going through the communities that elected him. I want to be less cynical, but unless we increase urban turnout drastically in 2018, I don’t see it. Part of the reason I want Joe to run is because he has been a drum major on this issue and it would at least force what passes for our local political press to actually cover the issue.
I agree about college tuition. If we start with the premise that MA swing voters are economically focused, that’s one area that will bring many of them home. What a lame campaign that would be though.
He is, after all, the chair of the legislative committee on transportation.
… Why aren’t our Dem Legislators leading the charge by SHOWING — legislating — the idea/ls championed at Convention?!
Hmmmm.
Who turned around voted against funding it. Hard to argue it’s been a big priority.
The big man in charge certainly isn’t going to lead that fight:
Will those necessary changes involve any additional revenue to fund them? Let’s ask Bobby again:
Right down to parroting Reagan Republican talking points on taxes hurting the working stiff, when in reality, those folks are getting squeezed by our regressive flat tax. Tom McGee is too small of a player to make a big difference, which is why he was chosen to be chair.
…because Legislative Dems have been governing (or following the Leader in Governing) like Baker.
If Baker’s not delivering on projects and getting overrun by highway/bridge costs, then that’s the opening. The issue wouldn’t be “he can’t do project x,” it would be “he can’t run the ship.”
Politically speaking, Baker has the power to keep Curtatone on the sidelines for 2018. If Baker works with Curtatone to deliver the GLX, then Curtatone probably has to put his city in front of his ambitions. He’s worked too hard for the GLX to jeopardize it by alienating the Governor.
As for the college costs, that would be one more issue than the 2014 campaign had. It really is amazing how the state party has swept almost everything that could be an issue under the rug. Too many in the party are the political equivalent of pro sports fans (only paying attention to national politics). Unless a Republican takes the White House in 2016 and/or the economy goes south, they’re not going to get overly agitated about the corner office on Beacon Hill. Meanwhile DeLeo tries to quash anything that looks like an issue, because unfixed issues reflect on his leadership, or lack thereof.
Yet I think you’re right about the necessity of a concerted effort to define what differences Democratic leadership in the corner office would make. I I had to guess, it’s going to come from some renegades in the state legislature and I’m thinking Eldridge will emerge as the gubernatorial candidate from that crew. It might not win in 2018, but it could at least draw some battle lines.
Is there any actual opposition to the notion of cutting our way to a better T? Did the Democratic Party actually put some effort into opposing Question 1 (Gas Tax), or did they just look at their shoes, and then point out that Scott Walker did something outrageous in Wisconsin?
…of efforts in a party context to oppose question 1, but again there were Dem legislators who weren’t on board.
Here are the numbers;
$98,448 – Supporters
$2,940,370 – Opponents
I’m at a bit of a loss to know what items might plausibly appear in a Democratic Party counter narrative.
This year’s commendable increase in the state Earned Income Tax Credit (the first increase in 15 years) was, after all, Governor Baker’s idea.
And any Democratic Party protests against Governor Baker’s proposal to shut homeless families out of emergency shelter are necessarily muted by his predecessor’s embrace of that same idea.
A persuasive Democratic counter-narrative on poverty issues would require that Governor Baker have a tough act to follow. He doesn’t.
In the US, there is basically one party – the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population.
McGee elects not to criticize Baker to not alienate the Baker Dems.
There is a reason the rules prohibit people who have publicly supported Republicans from being convention delegates, or state/town/ward committee members.
You have conventions every 10 minutes. He can be a delegate next time.
There is a four-year ban on anyone who publicly supported a non-Dem for President or statewide office and a two-year ban for other offices.
he isn’t going to lose barring a major scandal or administrative failure, might as well work with him… probably a tough pill to swallow but it’s the reality
It definitely should not be our attitude. I’ll back him on EITC and the Uber bill, but he still wants to cut his way to a better T, a better education system, and more infrastructure and the numbers simply do not add up.
I would agree that passing a progressive income tax is our most important local priority. We simply do not have the infrastructure yet to primary our way to a better legislature. I have hope a guy an experienced legislator like Wolf or able executive like Curtatone would be better equipped to govern than Deval. The last thing we need is another inexperienced outsider who’s cornered by the system on day 1.
…but the national Republicans resolved to make life difficult for Obama from day 1. I don’t advocate going to that extreme either, but isn’t the job of the loyal opposition to offer counterproposals?
My issue is, they have no incentive to do so. In some ways I think many of them prefer working with a socially moderate, business oriented Republican since they like working with people that think like they do! Deval had a far more difficult time working with the leadership than Baker, much of that self inflicted as Judy Meredith, Best Defense and Paul Simmons have pointed out, but a lot of that since the status quo benefits those already in charge.
The only difference between Beacon Hill Democratic leadership and Baker is that Baker is arguably more progressive when it comes to patronage laden rent seeking bullshit like the film tax or busting up the cab cartel.
When DeLeo said no new taxes were on the table after nearly every member of the ‘Progressive Caucus’ opted to make him Speaker for life, he was praised by Bradley Jones and Charlie Baker for his ‘fiscal leadership’. A DeLeo lieutenant was brought into the Baker cabinet. As long as ‘no new Taxes’ DeLeo is in charge we will see $dick counter proposals on transit since they are largely in agreement.
As CMD pointed out, the same caucus that knifed labor in the dead of the night will probably do so again on the Pacheco law. So far the only big fish they have fought for is the film industry and the cab industry, two industries stifling innovation and dependent on crony government to survive. Now the State Senate at least has fought for better healthcare, public education, and better transit. But one chamber doing it’s job isn’t enough.
What does DC have that Beacon Hill lacks or vice-versa that makes the former so partisan precious little gets done and the latter so chummy that precious little seems to get done in that environment too?
DC gridlock is due to partisan gridlock and split control. Here we have to reconcile the fact that the Democratic supermajority is a paper tiger that has been consistently led by conservatives on the House side. Even when DiMasi had a more liberal style of leadership, his allies were conservatives like DeLeo. In the 90s it was lead by a social conservative who stifled gay rights, abortion rights, and minority representation for which he was eventually indicted. He did so with the full support of progressives like Alice Wolf. It is now lead by a former social conservative, and forever fiscal conservative who knows he can throw a few bones to the progressive caucus in exchange for lifetime terms of power. I actually had one rep tell me that DeLeo got the transgendered bill to the floor ‘over extensive Democratic opposition’ so he ‘more than deserved’ to be re-elected for life.
A guy like DeLeo gets into politics to make a living, and maybe leaves it to make a killing if we don’t jail him first. Folks like us got involved because we want to make a difference, and the sad thing is, a lot of dedicated people burn out. Some like the old anti-Bulger leader Bill Keating move up, some like Carl Sciortino $move out, and some like Sam Yoon skip town. None of them stick around to gain allies and actually affect policy. So you either get marginalized like Hecht or have to cut a deal your freshmen year like Christine Barber, unlike Carl, she didn’t have the capital to vote against DeLeo.
The culture on the House side is so bad that Jamie Eldridge actually pined for convicted felon Sal DiMasi in a memorable post this summer. Remember that one? Sure he was a crook, but at least he was a liberal crook.
So that’s where we are. Your reps in Dracut and Lowell suck, I’ll campaign for you in a heartbeat, despite our occasional differences like pot or the British monarchy. Lynne still around? Maybe we can run her or her husband in Lowell. But that’s the kind of effort we have to have. Even if we lose, just by challenging we can win, as Steve Ultrino showed us in Malden. Though he still voted with DeLeo on the issue that counts. Like Michael Madigan in my state, he’ll come over to you and say ‘I just need you on one vote’ and promise campaign cash and committee seats. It’s how these guys operate-because they are in it to make a living.
Who was the last House Speaker who did not run the House as a fiefdom? Was it George Keverian?
Looking from a distance, and not being a close observer, it seems to me the way the Speakership functions has a lot to do with the way bills must go for approval through a shared House/Senate committee whose House chair is appointed by the Speaker.
No matter how raucous the State Rep, and I am sure many are secretly so, there’s a great disincentive in going against the Speaker…
But that does not mean the Speaker is not doing a good job holing the line on the tax & spending side of the equation. And I disagree that Baker should be criticized just for the sake of offering opposition. Instead, I would prefer to see Baker challenged with alternative proposals showing more long term vision – that is one of his areas where he has been lacking so far: progressive taxation & reducing college costs should be two winning issues.
…why can’t we get a Speaker more in line with party values. I guess it’s a vicious cycle. A right-leaning caucus elects a right-leaning Speaker who once elected they don’t want to upset. Of course, that may be what the voters want.
I think it’s a left-leaning caucus who elects a right-leaning Speaker…
With the explanation being that, to advance in the House ranks, one needs to be an ‘organization man’ rather than show ideological purity.
Let’s be clear here: under today’s rules, if you don’t vote for Mr. DeLeo, you are effectively disemboweled. My representative, Denise Provost, did and does the right thing anyway. Hence her banishment from the halls of power.
I don’t think it’s about “ideological purity”. I think it’s about something much more cynical — pure fealty demanded by Mr. DeLeo and granted by most. I get the “organization player” meme offered as an explanation.
I think the explanation is a lie. What we need is more representatives with courage and integrity as modeled by Denise Provost.
I nearly asked Carl Sciortino to run for mayor in Medford, but I imagine he’s much more likely to make a real difference in people’s lives now and happier.
Though if you meant andreiradulescubanu’s comment, it was also on the money!
Dan Wolf at the convention made it very simple. “Elect more representatives who share our values and that I can work with to accomplish these goals.” He was talking mostly about income inequality, progressive taxation, etc., but this applies to all progressive issues. Despite appearances, DeLeo won’t be speaker forever.
This convention was supposed to be centered on income inequality, widening wealth disparity. I was at the state committee meeting in Amesbury last month when they made the announcement. I was excited.
Then I attended the convention. A few of the speakers on the stage gave a mighty shout out against income inequality and widening wealth disparity. Yeah, that’s a easy call. It’s like shouting out against pollution and malaria. But what are we going to DO about it?
Then came the breakouts. Eleven of them and only ONE was focused on income inequality and wealth disparity. Fortunately I was able to attend and I was please to see it was standing room only.
And then it was gone.
Today it’s reported that wealth disparity and income inequality in Massachusetts it getting worse, much worse.
But few are willing to call for higher taxes and few are calling for laws supporting the formation of labor unions. Those are the keys to this.
Standard cynicism in Massachusetts holds out that if you turn over a few rocks, you’ll find House leaders committing some form of criminal activity. The temptation of easy money + low character = corruption. At least that’s the theory. DeLeo’s got a consolidated power base that operates like it fears nothing. Our new AG at least needs to be looking into potential corruption (I suspect our former AG gave it scant attention).
Somebody’s got to be willing to take on Beacon Hill. It’s not going to be the Governor or his party. They stand to gain more by working with DeLeo than vying against him. The state Senate acts as a check on the House, but it can’t change House culture. Like you mentioned, burnout factor claims too many of those who’d challenge DeLeo’s collection of lifers. If there’s a hammer to through that wall, I suspect the AG is the one who wields it. Fortunately, I think in Healey we may have an AG inclined to swing that hammer.
Forget Governor, Martha Coakley would be a Senator now if she bothered to lift a finger against DeLeo and his goons. People forget that Brown made his pitch hyperlocal, it was the ‘peoples seat’, not the Kennedy seat, and he ran against the ‘beacon hill machine’. Folks here laughed at that saying he was a State Senator himself, but it got the results. When he ran against a Beacon Hill outsider with an actual record of taking on tough fights on behalf of the working stiff, he lost.
So the best thing Maura can do is indict the hell out of the legislature, it will win her plaudits from independents and even conservatives like Keller, while also making the legislative caucus actually move left.
Like I said above, I got high hopes for Healey. That said, we can’t keep relying on the savior complex like we did with Deval. It will take a real, sustained, grassroots movement to take back the statehouse. The Nadeem council campaign in Cambridge got a lot of under-30s involved with local governance and the incumbents are shaking in their boots and running on a unity slate. I like many of them, and have some issues with some of Nadeem’s tactics and the inexperience of his slatemates, but it’s a real race. Imagine if we could replicate that statewide?
Millennials are the greatest untapped resource of the progressive movement in Massachusetts today. I shared the Raise Up Amendment and my blogpost with my network and it caught on like wildfire, that’s something that will get young people to the polls, even in an off year. It can also be used as a party building exercise if we play our cards right.
Let’s think twice before we start asking an Attorney General to “indict the hell out of the legislature,” lacking any evidence of criminal activity, because we want the AG to wage ideological war on our behalf. That sword cuts both ways.
If you have evidence of any criminal activity, make it public, don’t make it up.
Maybe keep looking into him and his team, somebody is bound to crack up.
Maybe stop defending these people in public as well.
But like I added, at the end of the day it is the voters who bear the greatest burden in changing the character of the legislature, which is why I made it clear that Healey alone won’t be enough.
The evidence that criminal activity is probable has been all around us for years. During that time, we’ve had an Attorney General with absolutely no enthusiasm for even investigating, never mind prosecuting, that apparent criminal activity.
I don’t think jconway is suggesting that anyone “wage ideological war on our behalf”. I don’t think anything needs to be made up.
There is an entire industry of attorneys, physicians, lobbyists, accountants, and all the rest that sustain the “disability” machine used by an enormous number of firefighters and police to enhance their compensation. It’s true that the earlier version of the Boston Globe occasionally ran high-profile stories of individuals who exemplified the pattern of abuse. It’s true that those individuals were dutifully disciplined. In my view, it’s also true that those individuals were the tip of the iceberg — a few sacrificial lambs whose public punishment allowed the machine to continue operating.
I’m aware of NO investigation by the AGs office into the network that produced those abuses. I have the strong impression that an aspect of that lack of enthusiasm is the continuing flow of money from that network into state government and state officials. I’m sure much or maybe all of those contributions were “legal”.
Too many good Democrats, in and out of office, still argue that there was nothing illegal about the behavior documented during the Probation Department scandal. I note that that investigation was NOT conducted by the AG’s office.
I think that an AG who demonstrates zeal and energy in changing the culture of corruption that permeates Massachusetts government will benefit greatly, and is an important step in dismantling that culture.
…and run for party chair:) My background is actually probably more suited to that.
I’m game!
The political power in the state rests in the House. I don’t understand why liberals wouldn’t be thrilled to cede the next few elections for governor if it meant that Democrats could seize a majority in the House.
I’ve been calling for it extensively. I honestly would prioritize a truly progressive legislature over beating Baker, especially since it seems unlikely the latter is going to happen before the former anyway.
Democrats (at least in name) already have a super-majority in the House. What’s needed is REAL Democrats — you know, from the pro-labor progressive DEMOCRATIC wing of the Democratic Party.
Perhaps you meant to write “… if it meant that actual Democrats could seize a majority in the House”.
I was attempting to be sardonic– that is precisely what I mean.
You don’t need to cede anything. Charlie Baker should have strong opposition and a hard fought battle in the next election. Period.
That’s doesn’t stop anyone who wants to primary anyone in the House. it’s not the the same group of people.
Electing a Republican governor does not make the democratic party stronger, that’s nonsense. if anything, it’s BMG who should place a bright light on all the tings that Baker does in office.
Electing a progressive Democratic governor did not make the party stronger in the long term either, as we saw Deval’s common sense transit and revenue reforms get sidelined by a Democratic supermajority that voted it dead.
I think I’m appropriating this either from Kos or Wellstone, but the solution is to elect better Democrats. No reason we can’t do both, I just feel like it’s really easy and all too frequent for progressives to pin all our hopes on one figure whether it’s Deval, Berwick or Obama and then get disappointed when they either lose or fail to govern the way we want. I’m not arguing it’s a binary choice, liberal house or liberal gov, but at the end of the day if it were I’d choose a liberal house since we saw how well a liberal gov did without one.
and it’s warranted.
But should we view Elizabeth Warren as a failure then. No? So what’s the answer, have less progressives? The answer is that there should be more progressives in all areas of the government. I don’t see the correlation that if for example a strong progressive candidate ran for governor that D’s won’t primaried House D’s.
How does wanting to elect more progressives to the House automatically mean I view Warren as a failure or want to elect less progressives over all? I really don’t get that barb.
We agree! Preferably in the House where there don’t seem to be as many as there should be!
Didn’t happen in 2006 or 2010, no reason to assume it will suddenly happen in 2018 if we just get the right candidate. My point, which you seem to have missed, is that it’s not enough to elect the right kind of Governor. Let’s have a progressive candidate for Governor run against Baker, I never said that wasn’t important, what I said was electing a progressive House that will elect a progressive Speaker is arguably even more important than that.
I don’t believe in the binary, I believe in building the party from the grassroots up in a more progressive direction. But if you want to run a serious primary effort you will need to target many more seats than you expect to win. Is there even one example of a progressive primary challenger at the House level beating an incumbent in the last decade? Carl Sciortino springs to mind, and that may be it. Ultrino scared Fallon off, but he also blew his cash on the Senate special Jason Lewis won.
We are talking about finding and fielding 20-30 Carl Sciortino’s to have a reasonable shot at unseating DeLeo anytime soon. It means primaries for real DINOs like Miceli and Garry but also folks like Jim Dwyer and Kevin Murphy, if we really want to change the culture of the House. So, that’ll take a lot of effort, and we will have to bat at least a .500 to really knock off enough folks to put the fear of the grassroots in the heart of the supermajority. We may even need to back Republicans who are nominally better, I’d argue the GOPer who ran against Miceli last cycle would’ve been a better ally on our issues (a 40% vote with the Prog Caucus rather than 15%) and one less vote for DeLeo. We have to think in those terms.
I wanted to make sure that I counter that the Governor’s office can be ignored. You can do both.
Yes, electing a progressive Governor does not mean that you change Beacon Hill. You change Beacon Hill by electing progressives in the legislature.
n/t
Which is why we need legislators who don’t give him one. I think we’re on the same page.
it will never happen. [derp]
… How might Party members request, suggest, enact a Chair change in the near future?
I can imagine a scenario whereby a legislator could be an effective Chair. When the legislators are caucusing to determine where they will stand on a bill the Chair can remind his colleagues where the party stands. Does anyone remember is this came up when Senator Menard was Chair.
I did hear from a couple of state committee members that a chair change in the near future was something they were interested in… Take that with a huge heaping helping of salt, though.