If you want attention in politics … start a fight.
I think Setti Warren’s basically got the right idea here: Go bold. In Kyle Scott Claus’s Boston Magazine interview he lays out a quite bold progressive agenda — quite close to the Bernie Sanders agenda. This is what will get progressives excited, and may get some people off the sidelines — even those who otherwise approve of Baker’s rather stolid bureaucratic stewardship.
Mayor Warren has hired friend-of-the-blog John Walsh, who in one of his last acts as MassDems chair, challenged Democrats to use their power to effect big change in education and infrastructure.
Warren really hits a number of the sweet spots discussed on BMG and elsewhere: Inequality. Cost of living — housing, health care, higher education. The T, and transit beyond Greater Boston. And … the Fair Share tax. Massachusetts is treading water on all of these things, not making discernible progress, and hardly anything being proposed by the current Governor nor the Speaker of the House.
Some excerpts:
… It’s also clear that people are working incredibly hard out there, some with two jobs, three jobs, and they just can’t afford the cost of living—things like education across the board, health care. The issue of economic inequality is the issue of our time.
… When I hear from the people of this state, and I’ve been to every region, I hear the crushing debt that students are taking on. I hear the choices have to meet in order to get accessible, affordable health care. It’s clear to me, not only to do I feel strongly about running, but we put in place free public college and single payer health care.
… We have to raise revenue. It’s why I support the “fair share” tax amendment. People making $20,000 a week can afford to pay a little bit more in taxes that will go toward education and transportation.
There’s more. Give it a read.
I’m thinking that 2018 #magov will be more interesting than most observers are imagining. Even considering Baker’s daunting popularity, there are major choices to be made, which the Baker/DeLeo duo actively avoid. And Setti Warren (e.g.) has a chance to be formidable — particularly if in 2018 the Massachusetts electorate doesn’t see Baker as providing sufficient buffer from federal Trumpism.
I say it’s a race.
Setti is a good guy. I’m glad he’s running. Newton is a tricky place to be mayor. David Cohen was one of the smartest guys in the legislature, but he was not a big hit as mayor of Newton.
I also agree that running as a progressive (as much as I hate the label) is the best strategy. For one thing, it goes at Baker without going at Baker.
I still say Fair Share is our top priority-but I am glad he is running a smart campaign with a disciplined message. A big challenge of his will be getting the media to take him seriously and the grassroots to pay attention to the local races. The convention will definitely be really interesting.
I noticed on Jon Keller’s Sunday show that the Speaker is not committing to supporting the eventual Democratic nominee for governor yet.
What should Setti (and others) be hoping for?
Wow. What was his rationale?
He likes a Republican Governor. Straight out of the Mike Madigan playbook. It allows him to argue his strong speakership is needed to serve as a check against those ‘Trump Republicans’ while also shifting any blame from the base to Baker for anything that doesn’t happen. It’s worked out pretty well for Michael Madigan, who was able to amass so much power due to 22 straight years of Republican Governors in IL, and then did all he could to undermine the last two Democrats before Rauner came in. Now all the possible nominees are pledging fealty to him first before he runs. Even Mad Mike endorsed the Democrats he didn’t like-but he’s also State Party Chair so he sorta has to. IL is a cautionary tale for what an emboldened Speaker for life can do to a state when he puts his personal financial interests ahead of his party’s and his state’s.
Sorry, Mike who?
Madigan Illinois speaker for life
Where?
Oh and expect zero punishment from the anemic state party and zero pushback from his caucus. Walsh and DeLeo will sit on the sidelines like Menino and Finneran did for Weld and Brown.
I’ve defended DeLeo here, but if he’s not willing to support the nominee then his leadership should be challenged. In fact he should be primaried for that.
We got really close to running a UIP challenger against DeLeo and he wigged out at the last minute because his liquor license was up for review and ‘I can’t afford any trouble right now’. DeLeo is the closest thing we have to a Chicago pol in Boston with the way he operates. Our guy wouldn’t have beat him but definitely would’ve been a lot of fun to watch. But sure if you recruit an East Boston Hispanic they could probably give him a real run in that part of the district. The only way to beat him in Revere and WInthrop is with a Republican running to his right-but I’d be fine with that trade.
You would seriously prefer a Republican to DeLeo’s right? Sorry, we part company here!
If that’s what it takes to get a progressive speaker-sure. We can risk some seats for a more progressive caucus in aggregate
No that’s too far. The whole point of DeLeo’s (not yet committed) sin is “Party matters.” It’s more consistent to say he’s preferable to a Republican (it’s also more accurate).
There’s a difference between not being enthusiastic about the Dem nominee and openly supporting the opposition. Really, the only way the state party can punish him is yank his convention credentials, but it remains to be seen if we want to treat the Speaker that way. Again, you’re stuck with a state law and election system that doesn’t give parties much authority to punish people so don’t blame us for anemia. Any challenge would probably have to come from his district which probably likes him. Besides, I’ve never been persuaded that DeLeo is THAT bad anyway. It’s not like he’s a Nangle, Miceli, or Garry.
What if he doesn’t endorse or endorsed Baker? Why would the party he’s effectively taking a dump
on care about upsetting him in that circumstance?
I agree with all of that, but failing to support his party’s nominee for Governor should be disqualifying. If he were an obscure rep in a swing district, that would be one thing, but the Speaker is supposed to play ball.
Also worth noting — this hasn’t happened yet. Maybe he just doesn’t like the current choices and is waiting to see if anyone else jumps in,
Single payer in Mass.? Just in one little state?
Part of me thinks this is a throwaway to the base that he will not be too distressed to lose on.