I’ve read innumerable articles about Democratic candidates for Congress coming out and saying they will not vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House. Some 50 at last count. I’m not here to debate whether that’s a good choice for each candidate or the nation as a whole.
I’m here to ask if candidates in Democratic primaries for the Mass. House of Representatives are being asked that. We all know the greatest obstacle toward a progressive Massachusetts is Bob DeLeo, not Charlie Baker. The House can override whatever Charlie wants, but seems powerless against Bob. So, is this a regular question of Democratic candidates in competitive primaries, does anyone know if any candidate has stood against Bob’s methods killing progressivism in the dark? It would be hard for me to vote for such a woman or man if I had an alternative in September.
As with Pelosi, this works better if there were an alternative we could point to. I don’t know if candidates are being asked, but I am aware of enough races with the potential for shakeups that the leadership fight could get interesting if someone were to step forward.
If Sanchez loses his seat it will be because he traded in his progressive principles to get more chummy with the Speaker. As a high ranking committee chair, it’s a powerful scalp. I know Decker’s and Garballey’s challengers are hitting them on their voting with DeLeo most of the time. It worked for Mike Connolly in his race against Tim Toomey. I cannot remember if our own stomv took a stance one way or the other.
That’s probably how it ought to work, especial in a one-party state–that there should be an obvious leader of the opposition.
But that is not how it ever has worked; it’s all insider stuff, just like the office itself.
I suspect Pelosi will simultaneously announce a re-election campaign with an end date for her Speakership to stave off the young rebels. I also see her backing a younger diverse challenger to Hoyer (a potential rival). That’s a good way to buy off Cheri Bustos who has been flirting with a challenge. We will see if Bernstein’s prediction that DeLeo hangs it up after 2021 is accurate (its when his pension would vest and a midterm retirement allows him to annoint a successor).
One of my friends has a very good chance of joining the legislature this year. She’s running on a very progressive platform. Like all state reps, she’ll have to balance the realities of the the speaker system with the interests of her supporters.
Representation is more complicated than we would like to think. As a Democrat, she owes something to the Party. As the beneficiary of a lot of endorsements and personal support, she owes some representation to them. As a representative of a District, she owes more to the people she represents.
Question: How should she, or any representative, balance what can be competing interests?
The party’s going to want her to win regardless of her speaker vote. I think everyone now recognizes DeLeo’s got to go if we want to do more progressive things. My suggestion is be open about it. The Speaker’s out of step.
It’s not correct to say has to go. He has to be replaced. Who will replace him? How will that be accomplished?
I’m all for a more progressive legislature, but I’m not sure DeLeo is out of step with the legislature, which is mainly from Eastern Massachusetts. Western Massachusetts has one third of the state legislature. As one of my local reps once said, DeLeo at least listens to us. Other would-be Speakers would be much less interested. I don’t know if this is true, it’s just what I’ve been told.
I have talked to a few legislators about DeLeo off the record. All three are staunch progressives and Progressive Caucus members. One who publicly opposed him and argues that its an iron clad top down system and he calls all the shots. One who publicly supports him, but privately opposes him who largely agrees with that assessment. The last one claims that DeLeo is a progressive leader who is moving a majority moderate-conservative caucus in the most progressive direction he possibly can. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but my guess is, if we knock off a few Democrats in primaries it will make a difference. Either it will force DeLeo left or allow him more flexibility to lead in a progressive direction.
“The last one claims that DeLeo is a progressive leader who is moving a majority moderate-conservative caucus in the most progressive direction he possibly can.”
Truth is not ascertained by adding and dividing by 2. Don’t hold the “truth in the middle” hostage to a ridiculous proposition like that above. The truth about DeLeo is closer to the first proposition you gave. Why not just say it?
James is providing data in addition to what I put forth. Together, we offered 4 data points. They could all be wrong, but tell us more than the data you offer, which is merely your opinion.
Why not offer some information instead of your opinion?
my experience with De Leo as Chair Third Reading, Chair of House Ways and Means and Speaker confirms JConways ‘ friend’s assessment that indeed “he is a progressive leader who is moving a majority moderate-conservative caucus in the most progressive direction he possibly can.
The body of the House is indeed a bunch of middle of the road moderate, cautious, conservatives and has been since Tom Finneran…. “We” – self identified Liberals/Progressive advocates – have never been able to muster more than 17 folks into a strong Liberal /Progressive caucus. since.
Previous Speakers David Bartley, Tom McGee, George Keverian and Charlie Flaherty , and later Sal DiMasi were “progressive ” and open to reform – even if they called themselves “lunch bucket” Democrats .
In my opinion anyway.
I don’t buy it. “Progressive” isn’t spelled p-a-s-s-i-v-e-a-g-r-e-s-s-i-v-e.
DeLeo has a decidedly more cordial relationship with the decidedly regressive Charles Baker than he even attempted with the clearly progressive Deval Patrick. suggesting an affinity for the ‘moderate conservatives’ whom you say make up a majority far more than it suggests any progressive cred.
If DeLeo was at all progressive he would have recognized that he had a partner and an opportunity over the 8 years of the Patrick Administration. I saw only that he pissed that opportunity away in spite and slight and needless adversarial posturing..
“Gosh, I wish I could be more progressive, but my hands are tied.” isn’t leadership. It isn’t even coherent . It’s more of the same as we get from Charlie Baker: excuses and blame-shifting, and rationales that are just more efforts to ricochet responsibility against someone else or something else, or some circumstance purportedly beyond their control.
The problem with both Charlie Baker and Robert DeLeo is that they are both so effing busy passing the buck the buck never stops and they wave their hands and pretend the constant busy work and movement of the buck is actual work. That’s a decidedly conservative cast of thought…