Alderman Emily Norton wrote a compelling piece for Commonwealth Magazine arguing that, based on what we’ve seen from Gov. Patrick, a Democrat is likely to be better for the state on fiscal issues than a Republican. Even if you’ve made up your mind where your vote is going, it’s a nice reminder of what Patrick has accomplished.
Here’s an excerpt:
It is not that Deval Patrick came into office an impassioned reformer. It was public outrage over the abuses, and cities and towns clamoring for relief, that drove him to take on these thankless tasks. But Patrick was able to succeed where his Republican predecessors had not precisely because he is a Democrat.
It’s a very thoughtful piece, but I think it also demonstrates why we need more Republicans on Beacon Hill. Why should we be satisfied with getting reform only in the presence of “public outrage over the abuses, and cities and towns clamoring for relief”? The people of the Commonwealth deserve more than begrudging efforts to quell the masses.
Charlie Baker is reaching out to Democrats and independents, which is why he is getting endorsements from such groups. In that respect, the better presidential analogy for the next governor is not Nixon going to China, but instead Reagan working with Tip O’Neill.
I agree it’s a smart piece. And a good reminder of many of the genuinely positive things Gov. Patrick has accomplished. But I’m not convinced — and Alderman Norton offers nothing to assure me either — that this means Martha Coakley will be equally successful as a reformer.
Because a veto-proof majority in one of the most historically (and laughably) corrupt state congresses isn’t enough.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no huge Baker fan, but even my die-hard bleeding heart parents who plan on voting for Coakley admit that Baker is probably more qualified for the job… which in my opinion is the problem with politics in the United States in general. My guess is 90% of voters won’t know anything about the candidates and will just bubble in next to the letter. In my opinion, they should remove the party designation from the ballots.
Mike
@Greg: No one has a crystal ball so who knows if she would decide to be a reformer. All I can tell you is that Deval Patrick was decidedly NOT a reformer when he was elected either, which is why I actually supported Chris Gabrieli in the primary that year. Gov Patrick came to it out of necessity not personal interest, which to me speaks volumes about the pressure that any governor will feel to take on these issues… but that IMHO a Democrat is better positioned to carry off.
And please note, my argument is all in the context of a veto-proof Democratic majority in the House and Senate. With more Republicans it would be a completely different story… but it would also be an different reality than the one we are actually in. As a Democrat I cannot speak to what it would take to get more Republicans into the Legislature, and it’s “not my problem” as they say. All I can say is that as someone who is personally very passionate on the topic of not wasting taxpayer money, and wanting to see reforms actually get passed, I think there is more evidence that a Governor Coakley would get it done versus a Governor Baker.
Why would you vote for a candidate who has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for voters? Massachusetts voters passed the medical marijuana ballot initiative 2 years ago. As AG, it was Coakley’s responsibility to implement the will of the voters. Instead, she’s done just about everything within her power to block medical marijuana. If that’s not bad enough, her office went to court just a few months ago in an attempt to block a new pain medication for patients suffering from severe pain. I’m a lifelong progressive Democrat and I absolutely despise Coakley. I hope she gets her ass kicked on election day.
I will gently disagree with Emily’s conclusion about Democrats being reformers because Deval Patrick is no fiscal steward. Deval Patrick raised taxes by $1.3 Billion annually. Furthermore, he proposed nearly $2 Billion worth of tax & fee increases that were simply much too much for the Democrat controlled legislature to pass. Under his administration, Massachusetts has wasted another $2 Billion on various programs and projects due to mismanagement. He campaigned on cutting property taxes. Not only did he fail to do so, he signed legislation that ended up increasing local taxes (meals tax, hotel tax, 26.6% cut to unrestricted local aid since 2008).
http://www.tankthegastax.org/tax-dollars-wasted/
I will agree that Charlie Baker is not a strong steward of taxpayer assets. He refused to sign the No New Taxes pledge, he supported the override in his hometown, as well as the Community Preservation Act Tax Surcharge. Those are three of many reasons why I voted for Mark Fisher for Governor instead of Charlie Baker.
I think Josh may have just convinced me to vote for Baker!
Greg, you’re not the only left-wing Democrat or Unenrolled in Name Only that is voting for Charlie Baker this year.
A similar discussion could be made be made around the idea that Baker might be more effective on social policy reform — having gift to make friends across party lines I could see him working on concepts such as a right to die with dignity in Massachusetts, and advancing internet gaming in Massachusetts opening up the state for a very lucrative industry thastpiggybacks with our fine high tech talent We should at least be able to buy lottery gift cards, season tickets, etc via internet yet we can’t
This progressive Democrat is going to vote for Falchuk. Unfortunately he’s run a nearly invisible campaign, but he’s absolutely got it right when it comes to marijuana and casinos. In a “free” country, adults should be able to smoke what they want, or play games of chance for money. Continuing to suppress two major industries like marijuana and casino gambling, costs Massachusetts dearly in jobs and revenue. Get Big Brother out of the way–Let FREEDOM ring!
Mike Striar: Doesn’t it bother you to waste your vote when the race is going to be so close? I like Falchuk too, but I don’t vote to make a statement, I vote to make a difference.
gail – Imgine the lasting impact Mike would make if his vote is part of a total that bings falchuck to 3 percent . that is voting to make a difference
@Hoss: You’re right. I didn’t take the 3% rule into account, and that does make a big difference for future elections.
@Tricia: In theory, I can agree. But so many times people vote for what they feel is the lesser of two evils. It’s hard to call that conviction.
I do think the polls are suggestive that folks are not assuming Coakley is another Patrick. I’m an Independent but I think we need a strong executive in the governor’s office, and I’m not convinced Coakley fits t hat bill.
Any vote cast with conviction is meaningful. The only “wasted” votes are the ones that aren’t cast.
@Gail – I agree. But if there are only 2 candidates and I choose the person I feel is the lesser of 2 evils, at least I’m voting for the person I would rather see in office. If I believe that Falchuk is the best candidate, but I vote for either Baker or Coakley because I think Falchuk can’t win, then I’m not only voting without conviction, I’m reinforcing a two-party system that I believe is no longer working to the benefit of our country.
I’d love to see ‘none of the above’ on the ballot.
That said, i cannot really get behind any D or R until money is removed from the campaign process.
It’s a sad state that the choice is ‘wasting’ a vote on candidate you really support but will likely get crushed in the election or choosing between the lesser of two evils from parties that are 100% bought and paid for by big biz/special interests.
I really don’t mind that money is involved in the campaign process and my reason is simple: If you are too stupid to vote without the influence of money, meaning you really get your information from a candidates “campaign,” you are a fool and you reap what you sew. Unfortunately this is most Americans, so I am just along for the ride.
Mike. My issue with the money is what it does to influence legislation after these clowns are elected. Also, if there were no financial gain to be made and no insanely high financial barrier to entry, we might actually get some interesting people in the mix.
Now, the fact that the electorate only votes for ‘alternate’ candidates in the low single digit percentages is distressing and we are certainly reaping the results….
Just to follow up on Denis Goodwin’s comment about placing “none of the above” on ballots… I’m not sure if that would effect the outcome of any state-wide election, but I’ve been advocating a “none of the above” option on our local ballots for years. I don’t mean to steer this thread off-topic, but I’m sick of seeing school committee members and aldermen effectively reelecting themselves by being the only name on the ballot. Uncontested elections that give voters virtually no means to effect the outcome are not in any way reflective of democracy.