CLT
UPDATE
Monday, July 21, 2003
Summertime clean-up
"It's the little man behind the curtain in 'The Wizard of Oz,'" said
Barbara Anderson, executive director Citizens for Limited
Taxation, who has worked with and against Finneran for more than two decades. "Once the illusion of power is gone -- and power here is really always an illusion -- anything can happen, even possibly real representative democracy. They see that he can be made to back down, that if they stand together on something, they can win."
The subject at hand Thursday afternoon was Finneran's decision to abandon his demand for authority to give pay raises to his legislative lieutenants. But it was only the latest setback for the speaker....
Fresh off victory on the pay raise, House Democratic Council members are talking about pushing a revolutionary change to internal House management: The elimination of extra pay for all committee chairmen, and a vast reduction of the speaker's power to dole out extra staff members and choice office space to favored colleagues.
Such moves would strike to the heart of the speaker's ability to keep members on his side through rewards and punishments ...
Over the years, Finneran has punished detractors with the loss of choice committee assignments, created extra-paying positions with which he's rewarded loyalists, and consigned his fiercest critics to remote basement and fifth-floor office space in the State House.
The Boston Globe
Monday, July 21, 2003
On Beacon Hill, a seed of doubt is planted
Finneran's setbacks shake image of power
Gov. Mitt Romney may have won his battle to block House pay raises, but now comes the fun part for Speaker Thomas M. Finneran: Payback....
Within hours of that defeat, Finneran squashed any doubt that he'd been humbled. As the House was completing a thorough thrashing of Romney's budget-cutting plan, Finneran engineered a blatant slap-down of two lawmakers who had publicly defied him on the pay raise by hobbling court houses in their districts.
"He hasn't lost any of his juice," one House member noted.
The Boston Herald
Monday, July 21, 2003
Pay raise flap may haunt Romney
In a move some lawmakers are calling political payback, House leaders adjourned abruptly for the summer after overriding Gov. Mitt Romney's funding vetoes for six district courts while allowing vetoes for courts in Natick and Ipswich to stand....
One source said the House will probably restore funding for the two courts as part of a deficiency budget later this month, but only after leaving Linsky "hung out to dry" for a short period.
Finneran did not directly respond to the accusations yesterday. But some House leaders pointed out that Brian Kearney, the husband of former Rep. Maryanne Lewis of Dedham, a Finneran loyalist, would lose his job as the Natick court's clerk-magistrate under the plan.
The Lowell Sun
Saturday, July 19, 2003
Speaker Retaliation?
Payback alleged on Finneran foes
The House and Senate wrapped up their business late Thursday night. With no formal sessions or roll call votes to take for the next six weeks or so, the state's so-called full-time lawmakers are practically free to come and go as they please....
"We're better off with them vacationing," said Barbara Anderson, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation. "When they are working, they're raising fees, killing voter-initiated petitions and spending our money. Someone once said, 'No man's life or property is safe when the Legislature is in session.'"
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, July 20, 2003
Lawmakers say break no vacation
Reforming government was the cornerstone of Mitt Romney's campaign for governor, yet the Republican businessman has run up against a roadblock of Democrats handing him one defeat after another.
His wide-ranging education reorganization plan was a complete failure, with none of its components seeing the light of day....
"No question it would be helpful to have on Beacon Hill two voices, and two voices with some muscle as well," Romney said. "Fundamentally, it would be important for the executive branch to have the power of the veto, and we don't have that power today. I do believe it does make sense to replace legislators who are not reform-minded with legislators who are in favor of reform."
Romney said he will continue working with legislative leaders to get his agenda through, but he'd also like more backup in the House and Senate to sustain vetoes. Romney needs 31 more seats in the House or eight in the Senate to sustain a veto.
He recently dispatched one of his top aides in the governor's office to assist the state Republican Party in recruiting candidates and generating excitement about the party locally.
The Berkshire Eagle
Monday, July 21, 2003
Romney's plans for reform are dashed by Democrats
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The Legislature's actions before taking off on their
six-week extended "summer vacation" are now being analyzed and
reported, but are seen pretty much the way I reported over the weekend.
Governor Romney is going to be trying to build the Republican Party to
provide more competition to the entrenched Democrat oligarchy; Speaker
Tom Finneran will be spending all his time plotting revenge, conniving a
way to amend the constitution again, and searching for another means to
get his Pay-Raise Power-Grab adopted; and I'm preparing to take two
weeks off, go sailing, and forget all about Beacon Hill denizens for as long as I
can!
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Globe
Monday, July 21, 2003
On Beacon Hill, a seed of doubt is planted
Finneran's setbacks shake image of power
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
The speech was vintage Tom Finneran, a quick-witted, self-deprecating discourse that wove from an aside about his laundry to his dream of taking piano lessons and then on to legislative procedure, all with a charm and ease that's become legendary on Beacon Hill.
But the message Finneran delivered to his colleagues was unlike any other he's brought to the well of the House in his seven years as its speaker.
Thomas M. Finneran was retreating. And his House may never be the same.
"It's the little man behind the curtain in 'The Wizard of Oz,'" said Barbara Anderson, executive director Citizens for Limited Taxation, who has worked with and against Finneran for more than two decades. "Once the illusion of power is gone -- and power here is really always an illusion -- anything can happen, even possibly real representative democracy. They see that he can be made to back down, that if they stand together on something, they can win."
The subject at hand Thursday afternoon was Finneran's decision to abandon his demand for authority to give pay raises to his legislative lieutenants. But it was only the latest setback for the speaker.
In recent weeks, the Legislature restored Medicaid benefits to 36,000 residents, over Finneran's strong objection. His economic development program is getting a cool reception in the Senate. And the House restored money to legal aid, after rank-and-file members demanded they be allowed to vote on the legal assistance program for the poor. Finneran has disliked the program since 1994, the year that welfare advocates delivered three baskets of manure to his office door.
Finneran has a long reach in Massachusetts politics, so any sign that his storied grip is slipping could mean a change in direction for the state. A socially conservative, probusiness Democrat, Finneran has proven to be a significant counterweight to Governor Mitt Romney's agenda, and he was viewed as the most powerful figure at the State House under previous Republican governors.
In Romney's six months in office, the speaker has successfully resisted the governor's call to eliminate the president's office at the University of Massachusetts, and even muscled through an expansion of authority for the Boston Municipal Court, which Romney had called for obliterating. Finneran and his Senate colleagues also overrode most of Romney's vetoes in the state budget, restoring some $155 million in spending that the governor had attempted to eliminate.
Yet, demonstrating that he has to navigate a new climate under a new Republican governor, Finneran agreed to go along with Romney's demand for a no-new-taxes budget, a year after proudly pushing through a $1.2 billion tax package.
And Thursday, he conceded defeat -- at least temporarily -- on the pay raise bill, which Romney also had opposed. In his speech on the House floor, Finneran tried to downplay the importance of any particular defeat, blaming the lack of support for his pay raise bill on distortions by the media and the intense focus trained on the issue by Romney. He noted that he's lost before as speaker, mentioning his idea for replacing annual budgets with two-year spending plans as one proposal that went nowhere.
"I've become accustomed to setbacks," Finneran told his colleagues. "Setback and disappointment is the lot of a legislator, including a speaker of a House."
"I'm oft-times amused to read in the press about how powerful I am, how influential I am," he continued. "If I say 'yes,' the sun will rise in the west rather than in the east, and if I say something else, the full moon that's scheduled to come out will not appear. What drivel, and what nonsense."
Still, Finneran has shown signs of concern about the perception that his dominance is dissipating. He avoided most public appearances in recent days, and even eschewed his traditional session-ending news conference. Last week, in one of his few comments to a reporter, he found it necessary to tamp down any speculation that he was leaving the
speakership, announcing that he will stay in place and run for reelection to the post in 2005. If he wins, he'll be in power through the entire first term of the Romney administration.
While Finneran isn't in real danger of losing his hold on power -- he remains widely popular among his colleagues, and no more than 60 of 160 of them were poised to stand up against him on the pay bill -- rank-and-file House members say the speaker's recent setbacks give them hope that things are changing in the House.
The pay raise measure was the most dramatic demonstration in recent memory of the ability of House members to buck the speaker if they feel strongly enough.
"It's a watershed moment because it marked the first time that a large enough group came together and stood up and asserted themselves when they disagreed with the speaker," said Representative Paul C. Demakis, a Back Bay Democrat who led legislative efforts to kill the measure. "I suspect you will continue to see this grow."
The dynamic is being driven in part by the fact that some Democratic House members have begun to fear for their jobs, with Romney promising to recruit candidates to take them on in next fall's elections. That sentiment contributed to a storm over Finneran's bid to grant pay raises to his lieutenants: Rushing to uphold Romney's veto was a coalition of the House's most liberal and most conservative members, joining with a newly formed group of reform-minded Democratic moderates.
Some House members hope that kind of demonstrated strength in numbers could force the iron-willed speaker to heed the demands of less prominent House lawmakers.
"It gives us a voice in the process," said state Representative David P.
Linsky, a Natick Democrat who helped form the moderate Democratic group, known as the House Democratic Council, which counts 17 members. "The speaker has to be responsive to collective groups of the membership. It might not mean success or failure on a given bill, but it might mean a bill can be changed in the amendment process, where we can start to get a piece of it."
Fresh off victory on the pay raise, House Democratic Council members are talking about pushing a revolutionary change to internal House management: The elimination of extra pay for all committee chairmen, and a vast reduction of the speaker's power to dole out extra staff members and choice office space to favored colleagues.
Such moves would strike to the heart of the speaker's ability to keep members on his side through rewards and punishments, thereby making it more difficult for him to shape the agenda on health, schools, or spending issues he chooses to target in the coming months.
Over the years, Finneran has punished detractors with the loss of choice committee assignments, created extra-paying positions with which he's rewarded loyalists, and consigned his fiercest critics to remote basement and fifth-floor office space in the State House.
Curbing Finneran's power over legislative perks is a long shot, but in the meantime, some members are looking forward to a House where their voices have a better chance of being heard. The lesson from last week's action over the pay raise measure should be that there's nothing wrong with an open airing of differences, said state Representative Mark J.
Carron, a Southbridge Democrat.
"It says everybody has a valuable part to play in the process," Carron said. "The body is really in control of the outcome, which is how it should always be."
Democrats in the House say all of this can happen with Finneran at the helm. They add that Thursday's speech, in which Finneran said his respect for the will of the members led him to withdraw on the pay raise issue, proves that point. But for those in the House who were looking for a new Finneran, the week also brought a taste of the old, carrying a blunt message that he's still in control.
A few hours after Finneran addressed his colleagues, Linsky and a Republican House member who had stood against the speaker, Bradford R. Hill of Ipswich, saw the House session end without funding for the courthouses in their hometowns. Finneran's lieutenants had helped close out the House's work 15 minutes early. While the speaker's aides said it was a coincidence that Linsky's and Hill's courts were ignored, Democrats and Republicans said they took it as a signal that standing up to the speaker comes with a price.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Monday, July 21, 2003
Pay raise flap may haunt Romney
by Elizabeth W. Crowley
Gov. Mitt Romney may have won his battle to block House pay raises, but now comes the fun part for Speaker Thomas M. Finneran: Payback.
Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said the governor and speaker have a good working relationship. "The governor has a great deal of respect for Speaker Finneran," she said, adding that each man had "positive things" to say about each other last week.
But State House observers say Finneran's view of Romney has taken on an edge far sharper than the usual jabs between political heavyweights.
"They have both gone out of their way to try and prevail over each other and send the message that they are the dominant partner," said Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry. "They need some marriage counseling."
The stakes are higher for Romney, Berry said, since he has so few fellow Republicans in the Legislature. While publicly tangling with Finneran will likely score points with voters, it could cripple the governor's agenda.
"For him, it's a choice between making some accommodations and working with the Democratic leadership or not getting very much done," Berry said. "He runs the risk of having the Legislature turn a deaf ear to him."
Despite the rare loss dealt him on the pay raise issue, Finneran is still firmly in charge, said a frequent critic of his policies, Rep. James Marzilli (D-Arlington). "The balance of power hasn't shifted," he said. "(Finneran) is still the dominant figure on Beacon Hill, bar none."
Within hours of that defeat, Finneran squashed any doubt that he'd been humbled. As the House was completing a thorough thrashing of Romney's budget-cutting plan, Finneran engineered a blatant slap-down of two lawmakers who had publicly defied him on the pay raise by hobbling court houses in their districts.
"He hasn't lost any of his juice," one House member noted.
During an uncharacteristic concession speech on the floor of the House Thursday, Finneran scoffed at the role the governor played in the death of his leadership pay-raise plan.
Romney, Finneran told lawmakers, had assured him early on he had no problem with the plan but later changed his mind. "So much for the initial position of the governor," he said.
The Romney camp has vigorously denied he flip-flopped, saying the governor was ready to support the plan as originally billed but could not after it became clear it would strip him and future governors of a say on legislative pay.
But lawmakers say Romney's explanation notwithstanding, his relationship with the powerful speaker has suffered immeasurably.
"When people perceive you've given your word on something and gone back on it, if there isn't that trust factor there anymore, then you've got a big problem," said Sen. Michael W. Morrissey (D-Quincy). "People won't pay attention to you, won't deal with you anymore."
Return to
top
The Lowell Sun
Saturday, July 19, 2003
Speaker Retaliation?
Payback alleged on Finneran foes
By Erik Arvidson, Statehouse Bureau
In a move some lawmakers are calling political payback, House leaders adjourned abruptly for the summer after overriding Gov. Mitt Romney's funding vetoes for six district courts while allowing vetoes for courts in Natick and Ipswich to stand.
The move late Thursday night was seen as a slap against Rep. David
Linsky, a Natick Democrat who opposed House Speaker Thomas Finneran on a bill that would have allowed him to hand out pay raises to a handful of House leaders.
Finneran reluctantly backed off the controversial measure Thursday, but some lawmakers said he resented some of the moderate Democrats who played a key role in opposing the plan.
At 15 minutes to midnight, the House voted 87-64 to adjourn rather than take up vetoes of the final two courts. The Ipswich court is in the district of a Republican, Rep. Bradford Hill.
Rep. James Eldridge, an Acton Democrat who has often bucked the speaker, said he voted against adjournment because Finneran was sending an obvious signal.
"I don't exactly know what the message is, but I felt it was definitely a punitive measure directed at
Linsky," Eldridge said. He said there was a "palpable sense of anger" after the vote.
Rep. Kevin Murphy, a Lowell Democrat, said he voted to adjourn because Lowell had fared well under the budget overrides that had been taken up.
"It may sound parochial, but I'm down there to serve the citizens of Lowell," he said.
Murphy said he was "not privy to any information about any retaliation by the speaker," and denied that lawmakers were pressured to take part in any punishment by voting to adjourn. He added that Natick "is a very small court and doesn't have a very large caseload" perhaps two criminal sessions per week, to Lowell District Court's three criminal sessions per day.
"This is not a town-of-Natick issue. This is a large issue that involves the entire court system being
underfunded," he said. "If Natick is draining resources that could be better used in Lowell, that's better for the court system."
Murphy was joined in voting to adjourn by Democratic Reps. Colleen Garry of Dracut, Thomas Golden of Lowell, William Greene of Billerica, Geoffrey Hall of Westford, James Miceli of Wilmington, and David Nangle of Lowell.
In addition to Eldridge, those voting to stay in session were Democratic Reps. Cory Atkins of Concord, Barry Finegold of Andover and Charles Murphy of Burlington, and Republican Rep. Robert
Hargraves.
Some House members complained privately that Finneran's message could not be more blatant: Nobody had argued that Natick or Ipswich's court was unnecessary. Further, Finneran had told the House earlier in the day that he wanted to withdraw the pay-raise measure, and was striving to be a better speaker and a "better listener."
But most moderate Democrats still sided with House leaders in the vote to adjourn, which under House rules does not require debate. Republicans, many of whom had changed their vote to oppose Finneran and sustain Romney's veto, voted in unison to stay in session.
Linsky said he had "no evidence whatsoever" that Finneran was retaliating against him.
"I don't do business that way and I don't think the leadership acts that way," he said. "I'm disappointed that the vote to override the cuts to the Natick court weren't taken up. I'm equally disappointed that the governor vetoed funding. If he hadn't vetoed the funding in the first place, we would not be in this position."
Romney reduced funding for eight district courts to virtually nothing, saying he wanted to shut down "underutilized" courts and fold the caseload into neighboring courts. Though the House restored funding for the Orange, Ware, Charlestown, Winchendon, Clinton and Uxbridge courts, Natick and Ipswich were left with $101,756 and $48,118 respectively just enough money to run for a few weeks.
One source said the House will probably restore funding for the two courts as part of a deficiency budget later this month, but only after leaving Linsky "hung out to dry" for a short period.
Finneran did not directly respond to the accusations yesterday. But some House leaders pointed out that Brian Kearney, the husband of former Rep. Maryanne Lewis of Dedham, a Finneran loyalist, would lose his job as the Natick court's clerk-magistrate under the plan.
And Rep. Arthur Stephen Tobin, a Quincy Democrat and the assistant majority leader who was presided over the Thursday session, said the House adjourned because most members were ready to leave.
"It had been a long eight days of doing overrides," he said.
Return to
top
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, July 20, 2003
Lawmakers say break no vacation
By Meredith Warren, Staff Writer
The Legislature's summer recess officially started Friday, and the schedule of state Rep. Brad Hill, an Ipswich Republican, includes lots of fun in the sun and some time off, but he says he won't stop working altogether.
His plans include taking in a few Red Sox games, enjoying some amusement parks, spending time with his family, and probably trekking into Boston from Ipswich to attend some committee meetings at the Statehouse.
The House and Senate wrapped up their business late Thursday night. With no formal sessions or roll call votes to take for the next six weeks or so, the state's so-called full-time lawmakers are practically free to come and go as they please.
But most Essex County legislators say it's no vacation. They say they will use the time to bone up on issues that affect their districts, attend informal legislative sessions and committee meetings, get to know their constituents a little better and spend more time with their families.
To the average working citizen with a two-week vacation, the job of a legislator -- with a $53,379 yearly salary, six-week break and the possibility to rack up another $10 to $100 a day for traveling expenses -- may be enviable or even maddening.
But some government watchdogs say the general public should be relieved lawmakers take a hiatus from making laws.
"We're better off with them vacationing," said Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "When they are working, they're raising fees, killing voter-initiated petitions and spending our money. Someone once said, 'No man's life or property is safe when the Legislature is in session.'"
Massachusetts is one of nine states with full-time, year-round legislatures -- Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and California have similar schedules. All nine usually take a summer recess, but can be called back at any time if important business comes up.
After months of sometimes late-night, tense debates over how to deal with the state's budget crisis, local lawmakers say they look forward to an easier summer schedule, but are quick to add that they and they staffs will not stop working.
"There is no summer vacation," said state Rep. Michael A. Costello, D-Newburyport. "But I've tried to schedule to spend five days -- if I'm lucky -- with my wife and two children."
Costello said there are also some pressing issues in his district to deal with, and said he already has meetings scheduled throughout July and into the first two weeks of August.
State Rep. Brian Dempsey, D-Haverhill, said he's planning to stay busy all summer.
"The House may not be in session, but that doesn't mean we're not doing legislative activities," Dempsey said. "I'll be working with the mayor, City Council and School Committee on issues regarding Haverhill. We don't just shut down for six weeks not doing anything."
Dempsey admitted he will probably take a one or two week break from the Statehouse. The rest of August, he'll make it into Boston three or four times a week, Dempsey said.
"I think my constituents like to see me in Haverhill working," said Dempsey, who also owns a Haverhill insurance company. "I don't think my constituents want me five days a week in the Statehouse. I think it's a mistake to think the job of a (representative) is just showing up every day at the Statehouse."
House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr., R-North Reading -- who has never missed a roll call vote since 1994 -- said he'll likely be in his Statehouse office four days a week and will spend Fridays in his district.
Senate Majority Leader Frederick Berry, D-Peabody, plans to come in two or three times a week and will participate in informal Senate sessions with Senate President Robert Travaglini. The rest of the week, he said, he will "reacquaint himself with the district."
And freshmen state Reps. Mary E. Grant, D-Beverly, and Barbara L'Italien, D-Andover, said they'll use the recess to study up on new issues they were exposed to in their first legislative session.
They have their work cut out for them. Early last week, House Speaker Thomas Finneran sent a letter to House members, with a section that read like a summer reading list, including asking them to "give some time and thought" to adopting a new form of budgeting.
"Representatives are never off," said Finneran spokesman Charles Rasmussen. "They get full-time pay for doing a full-time job. The time they actually spend in the building and chamber is a small part of what they do and get elected to do."
Rasmussen said lawmakers' attendance during the summer usually depends on where they live. Those who hail from Western Massachusetts are less likely to show up as often, he said.
It is hard to prove whether lawmakers who say they work during the summer recess actually do so, except by examining at the end of the break how many days a week lawmakers filed for a per diem -- reimbursement for traveling to the Statehouse.
According to the state Treasurer's office, Hill filed for a per diem an average of four or five days a week last August, Jones put in for an average of three to four days a week, and Dempsey put in no requests for the first two weeks of August, but asked for a per diem two days a week the rest of the month.
More colorful proof of lawmakers' attendance during the summer can be found in the Statehouse café, a lunchtime mecca for legislators, their staff and Beacon Hill visitors. The restaurant stays open during the August break.
"It just dies here in the summer," said server Tony Schneider. "You can practically go bowling down the hallways."
Return to
top
The Berkshire Eagle
Monday, July 21, 2003
Romney's plans for reform are dashed by Democrats
By Jennifer Fenn
Reforming government was the cornerstone of Mitt Romney's campaign for governor, yet the Republican businessman has run up against a roadblock of Democrats handing him one defeat after another.
His wide-ranging education reorganization plan was a complete failure, with none of its components seeing the light of day. Plans to merge college campuses, oust the University of Massachusetts president, create regional boards to oversee the UMass campuses, privatize some state colleges and create an education secretary were all shot down -- most before even making it in his final reorganization plan.
$155 million in overrides
The governor's plan to reorganize the court system -- including major changes to the operation of the Boston Municipal Court and the closure of eight districts courts throughout the state -- went nowhere. His proposal to merge the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the Massachusetts Highway Department and a plan to consolidate several state departments to create an Office of Commonwealth Development never made it off the ground.
He vetoed dozens of sections in the budget approved by the Legislature, including $201 million in cuts to programs and programmatic changes to the English immersion law.
But the Legislature spent the better part of the last two weeks overriding line item after line item to the tune of $155 million, something the Democrats can do at will with a 136 to 23 advantage in the House and 34 to 6 majority in the Senate. A two-thirds vote of each branch is required to override a veto.
After watching the House and Senate tweak the voter-approved English immersion law as part of the overrides, Romney acknowledged that he has little power over legislative matters other than a symbolic veto. It's something that he and Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey will work on before the 2004 election, he said.
"No question it would be helpful to have on Beacon Hill two voices, and two voices with some muscle as well," Romney said. "Fundamentally, it would be important for the executive branch to have the power of the veto, and we don't have that power today. I do believe it does make sense to replace legislators who are not reform-minded with legislators who are in favor of reform."
Romney said he will continue working with legislative leaders to get his agenda through, but he'd also like more backup in the House and Senate to sustain vetoes. Romney needs 31 more seats in the House or eight in the Senate to sustain a veto.
He recently dispatched one of his top aides in the governor's office to assist the state Republican Party in recruiting candidates and generating excitement about the party locally.
Darrell Crate, the chairman of the state GOP, said the party will do whatever it takes to give the governor the tools he needs to be successful -- including more like-minded lawmakers. Crate said the Legislature's refusal to consider Romney's reform proposals gives the party more ammunition with which to work.
'Status quo agenda'
"The Democrats are doing everything they can to help us when you see them overriding these votes and the arrogance for advancing their status quo agenda," Crate said.
Crate said the party thinks it can win the eight seats needed for a veto-proof Senate.
"We are tireless about meeting with folks,'' he said. "We built a Republican apparatus that will assist candidates, and we have a governor who is out there articulating a reform agenda."
The only Republican governor to have the votes to sustain a veto during the past 12 years was during Gov. William Weld's first two years of office -- 1991 and 1992. But since then, the Democrats have had total control of the Legislature, and the Republican Party has had trouble making inroads in legislative races.
Many activists blamed the former governors -- Weld, Paul Cellucci and Jane Swift -- for ignoring the grass-roots organizations.
Crate said Romney will be different.
"We have a party that's working, and a governor that's serious about getting legislative seats under Republican control," Crate said. "It's clear to us the public is serious about this as well. We're having folks call in every day and ask us what they can do to help because it's so obvious there is not a two-party system on Beacon Hill. The only way to solve that is for reform candidates to be elected."
Rep. Shaun P. Kelly, R-Dalton, said the election in 1990 proved that voters will elect Republican lawmakers. He said it took a financial crisis to convince the public to replace some of the Democrats, but the Republicans couldn't hold on during the next election.
Kelly is hopeful that Romney will get some help in November 2004.
"If Romney wants to push the envelope and make a case that we need a more balanced legislative body, and he wants to put the energy into it, I think it's certainly possible," Kelly said. "People forget the majority of voters are independent, they're not Democrats. The independents really rule the voting blocs, and there are certainly a lot of conservative-leaning independents out there. In my estimation, all these races are locally driven anyways. You get a good candidate who's articulate and passionate and has a message, then their chances are just as good as a Democrat."
Democrats say they aren't scared. They say they've heard the pledges from Republicans before, yet the party has failed to make up any seats in either branch for years. In fact, the number of Republicans has declined.
Jane Lane, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Democratic Party, said not only will the party fend off attempts to unseat incumbents, but it also will try to win back some of the seats held by the GOP.
Democrats prepared
"We'll be prepared," Lane said. "We always are. We're not going to sit back and wait to see if it happens. The strategy sessions are already starting in several communities, and we've been working with the House and Senate leaders to come up with our own Democratic strategy."
Lane said Romney's strategy of saying who the party plans to target has made it easier for the Democrats to identify races that may need extra help from the party. But so far, Lane said there is no evidence that the GOP will be any more successful in 2004 than in past years. She also pointed to a recent race in Braintree as proof that Republicans will have a difficult time even with the full support of the party, Romney and Healey.
Romney and Healey campaigned heavily for Republican Matthew Sisk of Braintree, who lost by about 400 votes to Democrat Joseph Driscoll of Braintree in a special election in the spring.
"We felt that was a test case for Romney's plan of attack, and we were victorious," Lane said. "Our mantra around here is 'Bring it on.' We're going to be ready. This is what we're devoting ourselves to -- maintaining our majorities in the House and Senate and adding to it."
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|