Talking to the legislature makes you an insider, apparently

Submitted by ssachs on September 29, 2006 - 2:30pm.

Adam Reilly wants to know why no one in the blogosphere is taking Deval Patrick to task for talking to the legislature.

Point the first: we bloggers are all, so far as I know, volunteers. You're getting this milk gratis, bub, so don't complain if it doesn't show up on your doorstep on Friday.

More substantively: what's wrong with talking to the legislature? Reading through the Globe piece, what appears to be happening is that the Democratic nominee is gathering support from fellow Democrats for his election campaign. And this is a scandal?

Pardon me for not sounding the alarm and calling the fire department. Goodness gracious, the Democratic nominee is seeking help in his election campaign from other Democrats! Woe is our state! We will surely rue the day that we ever allowed two people from the same party to work together on an election.

Mitt Romney and Kerry Healey's four years in power has been all for the cameras. They did next to nothing to work with the legislature for four years, despite the obvious need to work across party lines to garner popular support for their proposals.

Deval Patrick, by contrast, has garnered the overwhelming support of the Democratic party rank-and-file, and the polls suggest he's about to capture the overwhelming support of the Bay State public. But even with that kind of a mandate, he has chosen to proactively set a positive tone for next year. He wants to get things done, not run for President.

But, to please the Phoenix, here goes:

For shame, Deval Patrick, for shame. You are working with fellow Democrats to win an election. You are reaching out to the legislature to make sure that your four years in office will be productive. You are, no doubt, discussing substantive policy issues with your future partners in governance.

I can barely take the disgrace of it all.

ssachs's blog | add new comment
( categories: Elections - Statewide )
Shai the distorter?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on September 29, 2006 - 3:29pm.

Shai, what I actually asked was why no one in the B.S. is *saying anything* about the Globe story--not why no one's "taking Deval Patrick to task." Also, while your post suggests otherwise, I specifically said that Patrick probably needs these guys to win an election. Finally, you totally ignore the fact that Deval will almost certainly hit with the same Gang-of-Three script that hurt Shannon O. four years ago. I'd love to get your take on how Patrick can guard against that. You could even outline it on my blog!

reply
Gang of Three
Submitted by ssachs on September 30, 2006 - 11:34am.

Adam,

I'm sorry about not properly representing your original post - that wasn't intentional. I disagree that Patrick really needs the legislature to win. The guy has a 30% lead in the polls! He has a monstrous grassroots operation buoyed by a nationwide mood which makes Democratic partisans extremely motivated to vote this year. He will have fundraisers with Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, not to mention the fundraising machinery of the MA Democratic party. He certainly doesn't need whatever meager ground troops Trav could offer, and he doesn't need Trav's lobbyist money. Consequently, I don't think it's such a big deal that he's visiting with the legislature. Which explains why the lefty blogosphere isn't saying much about it; it's just not that interesting that the presumed future governor and the leaders of the legislature are meeting to talk about the people's business. Most of this was implied, not stated, in the post, so apologies if it wasn't too clear.

I also think that the lefty blogosphere is just not as enamored with picking on the legislature. The legislature is democratically elected, and it represents the view of the people as such. Many of us in the blogosphere have earned our stripes working on state legislative races, and we feel some ownership over the legislature as a result. We don't see the legislature as out-of-control, in fact we see it as something which we can and do control, as well we should. If you are an elitist Republican who sees politics as the reign of weathy people, and you realize that many state legislators can't be bought because they belong to grassroots activists like the bloggers, then yes, the legislature is "out of control". If you are a grassroots activist who sees first-hand how relentless canvassing, phonebanking, poll-watching, and shoe-leather journalism can win a state house election, then you think the legislature is very much in-control, and that elitist Republicans are nuts. And they are.

So when Deval Patrick lambasts "Beacon Hill", we hear "Romney and Healey", and maybe a few bad apples in the legislature, like Eugene O'Flaherty. O'Flaherty, if I remember my facts right, was one of the few legislators who Deval Patrick did not reach out to, so I think that our impression of the anti-"Beacon Hill" ink blot is more or less on the mark.

As for the Gang-of-Three script, I think Deval Patrick's optimal response is fairly straightforward. If you want a check on the legislature, these Republican clowns have proven themselves incapable of that: Romney's vetoes are now routinely overridden, such that the only drama is when, not if, the vetoes will get overridden. Doesn't it make sense to actually work with the legislators to put together good bills, rather that have the governor sulk in his corner and whine about the legislature not working with him? For that to work, of course, Patrick needs to meet with the legislative leaders, which is what he's doing.

reply