Baker Wants to Cut Unemployment Benefits

His plan would have stripped more than 11,200 people from their unemployment benefits, in the face of the greatest recession this country has seen since the Great Depression, had he been in charge and got his way.

Charlie Baker Doesn't Think the South Coast Matters

I don't know what else to make of this comment:

Charles D. Baker, a Republican who is challenging Patrick in the race for governor this year, called South Coast Rail “yet another example of overspending and overcommitting at a point in time when taxpayers are desperate for the Commonwealth to live within its means.’’

Why is it that when this state wants to invest in economically struggling communities with hundreds of thousands of people, people like Baker think it's "overspending," but when the train's going through Newton, Needham, Beverly Farms and Concord, it's not? This state needs to face it: Charlie Baker just doesn't care about the have-not regions of the Commonwealth.

Having spent years of my life in New Bedford, I can attest to the fact that it's a vibrant, beautiful city with almost a 100,000 people living in it who all just want good, accessible jobs. With tons of things to do there, from the Whaling Museum to the art scene to Battleship Cove in Fall River to some of the most beautiful and picturesque beaches in the entire Commonwealth, there's also the possibility for a whole lot more tourism in the region that a rail could bring. The development of the South Coast rail system would be a huge boon for the region, linking it to both Boston and Providence, and would set the foundation for a new, bright economic future for the region that hasn't been seen since the turn of the last century, when New Bedford was the wealthiest city of its size across the entire country.

We can do this with what in the grand scheme of things is a modest investment, the size of which is made in the wars this country engages in practically every day -- but Charlie Baker wants to make a political sport of this and turn the election into full-scale GOP class warfare, trying to pit the rest of the state against people who are just asking for the pair of boots that could allow them to get some footing.

The thing is, I don't think it works. People want access to good public transportation. There are hundreds of thousands of people who use it from all over Boston, the Metro West, North and South Shores to get in the city for their jobs. We use it to visit the shops of Newburyport and Rockport. We use it to catch the big games. Those of us who don't use public transportation nearly every day probably know someone who does. It's time for Baker to get real and come up with solutions to bring Massachusetts forward, not excuses to send it back to the past.

Shocker: Charlie Baker's a Liar

Baker went on WEEI's Dennis and Callahan Show today to talk about his campaign and -- surprise, surprise -- lied about the campaign in spades.

"The third big thing you have to figure out is whether you think there's a message and a rationale for your candidacy, and for me the whole thing from the beginning was we're spending too much money, we're not reforming state government, and if we don't do both of those things, we're never going to create a climate here that's going to get people and businesses to invest in Massachusetts. And that from the beginning is how I wanted to frame this race."

Of course that's how he wants to frame the race -- because it's complete fantasy. Painting State Government in a bunch of lies is a great place to start a campaign from when you're the Republican opponent, because then Baker doesn't have to make the case against what's actually happened, but what he pretends happened. It's much easier to make your case when you make everything up -- until someone calls you on it, as people have been doing to Baker a lot lately. Yet, when Deval Patrick's creating 19,000+ jobs in a month right after (or still in the midst of) the worst recession ever, Baker's going to have to cling to the hope that no one's paying attention to all those people calling him on his lies.

And let's be clear: Lying is exactly what Charlie Baker's doing, and it's looking like a pattern. Baker says the state is spending too much, yet Patrick not only didn't increased spending, he decreased it significantly since the days of Romney. So, Baker's biggest complaint in his "message" for office is based on a lie. Right from the school of Dick -- Cheney. Really, Charlie, it's not even believable at this point. You shouldn't have quit your day job.

Furthermore, the notion that state government "is not reforming" is also completely false. It may not be reforming as fast as we want it to, but Deval Patrick's been at the forefront of pushing reform in office and has a lot to claim success about -- ethics, pensions and the Pike were all reformed in part by Deval Patrick. They were beginnings, but very good beginnings that Republicans failed at for 16 years.

Baker also had the audacity to bring up the repeated lie that the state isn't 'sharing in the pain,' pushing his ill-thought proposal to axe 5,000 state jobs that we all know is pure bullshit, a number with no analysis or foresight behind it, beyond sounding cool in a Republican campaign. Additionally, he keeps pushing the idea that this elite, Harvard-edumacated dude is some common man, which is pretty galling to the people who really struggle to pay their bills and put their kids through school.

"If I had to boil it down into one thing, it would be the notion that Beacon Hill plays by its own set of rules, meanwhile I'm out there living by a completely different set of rules, I have to suck it up, live with less, figure out how to pay my bills, pay my mortgage, pay my kid's education and Beacon hill is just running along on autopilot and I'm peeved about that."

First of all, Charlie Baker is living by his own set of rules, Baker's absolutely right about that: There aren't too many people raking in $1.5 million a year like Baker was at Harvard Pilgrim toward the end. I think he can spare us his complaints about having to "live with less," because that's not a credible complaint by him to most of the six million residents of this state who live with substantially less. Millions of people in Massachusetts would absolutely love to live with the kind of "less" that Baker's had over the past few years. No one begrudges success, but why can't the dude be honest about it?

Secondly, Baker went on to agree with the hosts' litany of lies made right after that quote, and included some of his own, for example:

• State employees pay only 10% of their health care costs. Bullshit.
• State employees retire with $80,000 pensions. Bullshit. Very, very few people in State Government retire with that kind of pension. Certainly less than 5%.
  
• Then Baker continues their lies and deception, saying people in state government, "Retire at the age of 50 or 55, and everyone else is going to be working ten minutes before they fall into the..." he was going to finish with ditch, I think. Of course, Patrick's pension reform bill has state employees retiring much closer to 65 than 50. Again, Baker lies.
  
• To increase the hypocrisy, Baker's trying to get buddy-buddy with the police unions, one of the few sets of people in public employ who can still retire at "50 or 55" under the new pension rules, sometimes even with pensions exceeding $80k, because of ridiculously expensive and unnecessary things like police details. Who's the reform guy, again?
  

It's utter nonsense.

One of the hosts asks how many people "will get the axe?" Baker says, "5,000 people." Then goes on to say, "My goal is to consolidate the executive branch."

It's just not true. There's no way he cuts 5,000 jobs from state government, after Deval Patrick cut more than 2,600. It would destroy state government, without solving any kind of problem (cutting 5,000 people wouldn't even come close to solving our budget problems, for example). It's just an empty promise, or, put in another way, another lie.

"You talk to the people who are out there and who are working hard every day... they all look at what they've been going through the past couple years, and they wonder why the state government hasn't been going through the same thing.... Let's face it, the taxpayers pay the bills, the taxpayers deserve a state government that plays by the same rules... and right now, the state government doesn't play by the same rules."

Wow. Just wow. What freaking bullshit. Patrick's cut 2,600 jobs in executive agencies since coming into office, and there's been 4,155 people cut from state government in total, according to the Boston Globe. Furthermore, people working in state government have had to take pay cuts and furloughs to avoid even more job cuts -- something that amounts to a hefty sum for many employees. How are these things not the state 'sharing in in the pain?'

Baker seriously forgot about being pwned by "Erica," not too long ago, on this very subject, probably on the same radio channel. Perhaps he needs a refresher?



Right before the first quote I used, Baker had the prescience to say this:

"I made my kids watch the whole end of the Brown-Coakley race and said, guys I want you to know that there's going to be days when you wake up and turn on the TV and wonder who that guy is who's supposed to be your father."

How true that must be for them. I wonder if it happened today?

Baker's Hypocrisy Continues

Lynne beat me to it, but I've been meaning to blog today about Charlie Baker's most brazen form of hypocrisy yet. From a MassEquality email:

At the Massachusetts Republican Convention on Saturday, April 17, gubernatorial candidate Charles D. Baker came out in opposition to H. 1728/S. 1687 “An Act Relative to Gender Identity and Expression,” (also known as the Transgender Civil Rights Bill), which would outlaw employment discrimination against transgender people. As CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, however, Baker presided over a company that has for many years had a non-discrimination policy that protects applicants and employees on the basis of their gender identity.

In addition to stating his opposition to the Transgender Civil Rights Bill to reporters at the convention, his campaign circulated a flyer to convention delegates stating that Baker opposed “the Bathroom Bill,” -- the misleading name opponents of the bill use -- and would veto it if elected.

The irony is rich, given that Harvard Pilgrim -- to its credit -- has one of the state's strongest anti-discrimination policies, including for transgender people.

“Furthermore, Baker’s use of the term ‘Bathroom Bill’ in the flyer he distributed to convention delegates was a shameful attempt to use this badly-needed legislation to pander for delegate votes,” said Edmondson. “As the head of a company that gave workers a level playing field, Charlie Baker knows full well that protecting transgender people from discrimination has nothing to do with bathrooms and everything to do with attracting a skilled and diverse workforce.”

“This is so disappointing. So many in our community had such high hopes for this candidate,” said Executive Director Scott Gortikov. “I fear this is the Romney-fication of Charlie Baker. It’s stunning to me that he would borrow from the playbook of the radical social conservatives and condone this language of marginalization.”

My questions for Charlie Baker:

1) Who do you think you're kidding? You can try to rabidly flip-flop, appeasing the wingnut base, but you're just not going to be taken seriously by anyone with at least half a brain.

2) More importantly, why did you see fit to institute a policy of protections for transgender people in your workforce, as CEO of Harvard Pilgrim, but you wouldn't be willing to sign those very same protections for the transgender community across the state? Are they somehow less worthy than the transgender people who work at Harvard-Pilgrim?

Where will the 5,000 jobs come from, Charlie Baker?

Perhaps Baker's biggest "issue" of his campaign thus far is his claim that we need to cut state jobs -- 5,000 to be exact. Not only can Massachusetts do this, he says, but he actually has the gall to say this will make Mass government work better. Chutzpa, you got to give him that. His only appeal thus far has been to people who want to drown government in their bathwater.

Well, it's easy to throw out a nice, round number like 5,000, with no meaning whatsoever, but much harder to sit down and say where those 5,000 people are going to come from. Where are they going to come from, Charlie? Which state workers are you going to give the pink slip?

It's much harder to discuss how cutting 5,000 jobs will improve the Massachusetts economy, so it'll probably be even more difficult to ask him where those 5,000 hard-working employees are supposed to find new work, or what 5,000 newly unemployed state workers with nifty resumes will do for the other thousands of people who have already been unemployed for months. Ready to answer that question, Charlie?

Baker also talks about how people in the private sector are taking gigantic paycuts, throwing out the number "20%" for the private sector, that he claims are way more than state government, without citing any sort of legitimate comparison numbers. Another question for Charley Baker: How many of those private-sector employees taking 10-20% paycuts worked for Harvard Pilgram? In times like these in which health care is what people (and towns) are struggling to afford most of all. Did Charley Baker take a 20% pay cut? He could have passed that kind of savings along to a city or town struggling so they could avoid laying off 2-3 teachers, just by his lonesome.

Well, I have to say this joke of a candidate keeps getting funnier. Declaring on the radio this morning that no one in state government's taken a pay cut, he asks Erica, a state employee, if she knows anyone in state government who's had a pay cut. "Absolutely," she says, "I took a pay cut." Not only pay cut, but furloughs, she says. "Well, you're the exception to the rule," he says.

And you know what? She's right. Governor Patrick cut 750 state jobs just last year -- and ordered 5,000 executive branch employees to take furloughs of up to 5 days each, many employees actually working through it (for the math impaired, a week's pay is 2% of a state employee's entire salary). Watch the whole radio clip below, in which Baker clearly shows he either can't remember or didn't bother to read about what was gigantic, above-the-fold news on the economic disaster that struck our state less than a year ago. Baker's title of "Smartest Man in Government" is quickly becoming the biggest gag in politics.

Baker's Political Farsightedness

BMG posted about Baker's awkward pre-state-of-the-state attack on Governor Patrick, which Doug Rubin admirably took on on BMG, but I wanted to make one comment about it, as well.

Baker, like Mitt Romney, is going to try to convince Massachusetts voters that he "saved" something. Instead of the Olympics, it'll be Harvard Pilgrim. It's BS.

While I'm sure Baker's done an admirable job at Harvard Pilgrim, he did not save it. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, when Harvard Pilgrim was in the midst of a death spiral, gave the company a massive bailout to keep the company alive -- mostly to save all its costumers. More than anything, that's what "turned around" Harvard Pilgrim.

As far as I'm concerned, Charlie Baker should be thanking voters at every stop and on every video for saving his company -- and providing him with the chance to go from making a middling state salary to becoming a millionaire CEO of that company. Maybe Baker's so close to the company that his vision of what happened is a bit fuzzy? And what would he then say about "big government spending," when that spending saved his very own company?

Baker's "Turnaround"

I forgot a lot of the details, which the Globe summed up nicely. Weird stuff -- and not terribly inspiring. Looks like Harvard Pilgram definitely would have died if the state didn't essentially take it into receivership -- Charley Baker didn't just come riding in and heroically save the day. All sorts of book-cooking to fudge the numbers *just* the right way didn't hurt, either. It could have all blown up in his face.

Also, what do people think about this?

Judy Meredith, a longtime human services lobbyist, described Baker at the time as “the most charming slash and burn artist that this human resources advocate has ever seen.’’ In a recent interview, she said Baker sent her a thank you note after reading the quote in the newspaper.

It's absolutely bizarre. Who does that? That's the kind of petty, overly dramatic bullshit I'd expect to see in an episode of Smallville, coming from the Luther mansion, not the person sitting in the Corner Office.

Different Perspectives on Charlie Baker

Here's what a former member of the Board of Education, who served during Charlie Baker's BoE days, thinks about Charlie Baker:

This moment has been years in coming.

One of my biggest fears about a Charlie Baker candidacy is the fact that his resume boasts extensive experience in these social service fields that are deeply cared about. HPHC CEO, HHS Secretary, Board of Education member, these are all roles Baker can use to market himself as caring deeply about people to counteract a cold businessman image.

One of my biggest fears about a Baker governship is the scorn he has shown to the people that use these services and the issues that affect their lives. As a Board of Education member, Charlie would frequently arrive late if at all and remain disengaged from conversations, even though he served during a period when the Board was deciding how to implement key pieces of education reform. In health care, he has occasionally been a voice of reason on cost control and quality improvement issues. But, when it comes to access to care Baker is every bit what you'd expect an insurance CEO to be.

Baker is a talented business executive. He is intelligent and charasmatic. He is tall, and he loves playing basketball even more than you'd expect. On face, he has excellent moderate credentials. At heart, he belives government is a business and fundamentally fails to understand the daily struggles faced by ordinary people. Baker is dangerously ambitious, as we all know from the years and years of plotting leading to this announcement.

I for one will work like crazy to re-elect Deval. It will be a hell of a battle.

Here's what I think of Charlie Baker, from when he was a member of my town's Board of Selectman:

The truth of the matter is that Charlie Baker was not a very good Selectman. Our town was very low on his totem pole of importance. None of this is to say Charlie Baker is a bad person. After all, he had the decency to step down.

But he didn't come in and save us. He didn't solve all our problems. He had a rather ordinary and somewhat vacant term on the Board of Selectmen. After his term was up, he stopped even trying to solve those problems -- problems that have become much worse as the years have gone by.

In the grand scheme of things, the only good thing he did was help secure matching funds for our town at the very period Mitt Romney shut them down. We were the last town to get those funds for several years, but it wasn't because of the folksy hero Charlie Baker, arguing the merits on the phone and taking the fight to the state, as the Boston Globe tried to spin put it, it was because Charlie Baker knew the right people at the right time. He was on the Board of Education, after all, to say nothing about his connections from his A&F and CoS days.

Anyone sensing any common themes?

Not Sure I'm Buying David

David's questions yesterday were intended on finding out if Charlie Baker can win on being the anti-casino candidate. Here's what he added today, to explain himself.

CLARIFICATION: Apparently, I was less than clear about why I want to know the answer to these questions, as readers both here and elsewhere have misunderstood why I posed them. So let me be clear: I am not saying that these three issues are what is going to drive the election -- they're not. I am trying to figure out whether Charlie Baker can win. As sabutai has explained, the math is not easy for him as long as Tim Cahill stays in the race. But one possibility that occurs to me is for Baker to pick off some liberals who probably voted for Deval Patrick in the 2006 primary but who hate casinos. If Baker appears solid on hot-button social issues (liberals will not support someone suspect on those issues) but says he will oppose slot machines and casinos, all of a sudden he becomes the last best hope for the anti-casino crowd to keep casinos out of the state. That could let him cut into Deval's base, and that could change the math that sabutai correctly notes is difficult as long as Cahill is viable.

A few things -- "best, last hope?" Um, last time I checked, 3/4 of the house voted against casinos. Between the new, pro-slots speaker and the state's budget woes, that could change this time around. But, still, the pro-slots side has a long way to go.

Furthermore, the #1 reason why there probably isn't slots in this state is because there is no one slot lobby -- there are many, competing slot lobbies. There are people who want casinos, people who want racinos and people (like Cahill) who just want to give out the damn licenses to the lowest bidder. They have never been able to get on the same page. Can they now? Tough to tell.

But here's what you can take to the bank: Deval won't approve anything that doesn't include a full scale, resort casino. DeLeo won't approve anything that doesn't "save" Wonderland and Raynham Park. Senate President Murray probably won't approve anything in which the licenses aren't given out to the highest bidder -- which would mean, if Wonderland and Raynham Park were to get slots, they'd need to be the highest bidders. That's three state forces with three wildly different concepts of how this state should engage in slot machines. They may as well all be anti-slots, for all the good their differing policies will work for them. Short of legalizing everything all at once, which seems unlikely, what kind of room is there left for "compromise?"

So enough with the newest reincarnation of the inevitability argument, okay? It's not inevitable, no matter who's Governor or Speaker or Senate President. Now, let's move on to the crux of David's argument. David says that if Charlie Baker supports marriage equality and a woman's right to choose, assuming he wins the primary (a rather big assumption, IMO), he could then be free to pick up oodles of former Patrick supporters should Baker come out against casinos. Doubtfully.

People who tend to be anti-gambling are often so because of small business issues or social costs. How likely are people who are concerned about social issues to defect to the Republican HMO CEO? Not many. Moreover, I'm not so sure Patrick's going to go back to the casino well anytime soon -- it nearly killed his first term. Should a bill he like pass, he'd probably sign it, but would he ever go back to the mat for another casino bill? I doubt it -- which makes my support for him an easy decision. There's undoubtedly many more anti-slot voters who feel the same way.

If Baker's the only candidate that opposes slot machines in Massachusetts, David's probably right in that Charlie Baker will get some traction from it. However, it won't be enough traction to win the race. The only way Baker can win is if he makes a compelling argument that Deval Patrick helped cause or is incapable of fixing these economic woes (neither of which is true) -- at the same time he convinces a majority of the state that he's the only person capable of solving them. Given Baker's background with the Big Dig, good luck with that.

Too Early to Tell

I honestly have no idea whether or not Tim Cahill running as an independent will hurt or help Deval Patrick. Some seem to think it helps him (assuming Baker's in), others seem to like Cahill's chances. Sab just seems to think everyone loses.

I could think of reasons why it could hurt and help -- this far out, it's honestly pure conjecture. We have no idea how Cahill will act as a candidate (I can't imagine competently), nor what his impact will be on the race. We don't know if continual chicken-candidate Charlie will actually grow a spine and run this time, or if he'll be a competent candidate should he decide to do so.

Here's what I know, though. The Democratic Party stands for something. It takes courage and ideas to win a primary. It's very easy to turn away from courage and ideas; it's very hard to win a General Election without the backing of the Democratic Party. We don't know if Cahill will help Deval win reelection or help get the Republican in office, but at the very least we'll have a new state Treasurer. Perhaps we'll have someone who knows what they're doing.

Charlie Baker's Really Competent!!

It can't be considered even remotely his fault that the Swampscott Town Republicans are not a legal entity. That's just not possible -- he's Charlie Baker! He's the leading Republican in that town, but why would he care about its Republican Committee? Actually, I bet he's just so competent that he wanted to teach Town Republicans a lesson in management! Baker FTW!

Charlie Baker and the Pike

Before Charlie Baker took his robust salary in 1998 to head Harvard Pilgram Healthcare, he served several high-profile positions in the Weld-Celluci administrations, widely regarded as one of the most prominent voices in state government at the time. One of those positions was as Secretary of Administration and Finances, a position he occupied in the midst of when the Celluci's MO on the Big Dig was that it was 'on time and on budget.' Yeah, right.

Joan Vennochi was not shying from this question in her recent column about Baker's latest quixotic quest for Governor, but how much blame should Baker get for the Turnpike?

Vennochi:

Baker served eight years in state government, first as secretary of human services and then as secretary of administration and finance. During the Weld/Cellucci years, Big Dig costs rose and the state borrowed money to cover them.

"When Charlie was head of A&F, the state borrowed against future federal highway aid. We're paying for that now," said Michael Widmer, who heads the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and supports a 25-cents-per-gallon gas tax hike.

If Baker runs for governor, Widmer said, it is fair to ask, "How much of what happened on his watch is what we're having to pay for now?"

While it's true that the MTA is an independent authority within Massachusetts and has a large say over its own finances, that rings a hollow excuse. It's not as if the administration didn't know what was going on and couldn't do anything to stop it. Baker and the rest of the administration could have exposed what the Turnpike was doing if it was so opposed to the practice. They didn't. Doesn't that speak volumes?

I think former State Treasurer Joseph Malone (R) would say so.

In November 1997, two months before he launched an ad campaign blasting Kerasiotes, Malone was visited by members of the Artery Business Committee (ABC) and other business backers of the Big Dig. Malone, who now oversees business development for a Cambridge dotcom firm, recalls what happened: “They tell me that when Bill Weld and John Kerry were running for the Senate, we got their word that they wouldn’t bring up the Big Dig as an issue. They both stuck with that promise. Joe, why don’t you do the same thing? I said, You’re in the wrong place if you think I’m going to let this boondoggle get further and further out of control. You mark my words. This is going to get to the point where everyone will say, How did we sleep through this whole thing?”

“Their whole message was, Joe, the federal government is picking up 80 percent [of the project’s costs] and that’s good for everyone,” Malone adds. “So the spin was that Malone is going to end up screwing up our federal funding…for his own political benefit.”

Far from retreating, Malone kept up his warnings, and Cellucci kept responding that the project was on time and on budget.

Are we really to believe that the Weld and Celluci administrations, who were trying to bury the Big Dig as a political issue and calling it 'on time and on budget,' bear none of the responsibility? If so, how does Charlie Baker avoid any of the blame when he was as one of the most influential members of the Administration? At the very least, Baker could have used his considerable respect within state government as a platform to expose what was going on. The fact that he didn't means he was either complicit in the arrangement or wasn't even paying attention to Big Dig and Turnpike finances whilst he was Secretary of Administration and Finance. Either way, those mistakes are damning.

The Turnpike is now likely on the hook for $400 million in surprise debt. They're paying $130 million a year today to pay for yesteryear's salaries. A lot of these things happened at the very time Charlie Baker was one of the most powerful people in state government, heading up A&F. Of all those who could be held responsible for these costly failures, Charlie Baker may not be the most guilty person of the bunch, but at the very least he must explain everything he knew and when he knew it before he ever considers truly pursuing state office.

Grow a Spine, Governor Patrick

I worked damn hard to get Governor Patrick elected, only to see him become a completely different Governor than he was a candidate. This is not acceptable.

Governor Deval Patrick will propose a gradual reduction in the state's corporate tax rate from 9.5 percent to 8.3 percent when he unveils his budget next week, a bid to win business support and jumpstart his stalled plan to tighten what he calls corporate tax loopholes, administration sources said.

As the Governor well knows, Massachusetts corporations and large businesses enjoy some of the lowest taxes in the country. We have tax policy that results in companies like Walmart costing us more money than we tax them. If I wanted a Governor who would cut corporate taxes, I would have voted for Kerry Healey.

It would have been nice to see Governor Patrick grow a coalition in the legislature to co-opt DiMasi's power, but instead we've only seen him introduce new policy after new policy, without the perseverance to stick with one. Now, we're seeing him bow down before DiMasi and plea for his proposals to pass, to the point where he'd actually give corporations a tax cut when our state faces a $1 billion dollar deficit. Like I said, this is not acceptable.

At the very least, if the Governor can't build coalitions, it would be nice if he had the guts to publicly spar with the Speaker, even if it meant shutting Government down. If that's what it would take to pass corporate tax loophole cuts and the Municipal Partnership Act, so be it. A huge percentage of the state would have enthusiastically supported him - and it certainly would have awoken the beast that was his army.

Yet, between his corporate tax cut proposal and casinos, I'm not sure if there's very many in his army left. He's supporting policies that are anathema to his base - why continue to support the home if it doesn't fit the foundation? Faith in the governor is quickly evaporating, like rain in the desert. Three years from now, Governor Patrick's seat is going to open up. If he continues along this path, Massachusetts will be welcoming Governor Charlie Baker. Sadly, at the rate things are going, I'm not sure if that's actually a bad thing.

Charley Baker's Game is Getting Old

BMG's Charley Blandy ponders whether Charley Baker, CEO of Harvard Pilgram, is planning a run for Governor. Of course, rumors of Baker's desired ascendancy to the top of Massachusetts's Republicanville have existed for quite some time - at least since I was a Junior in High School, when DOE administration officials told me all about it. When I was serving on the State Student Advisory Council to the Board of Education, Charley Baker sat on the very board I advised. Baker's also from my home town of Swampscott, serving a brief and very dull stint as a town selectman (the administration failed to mention any of the town's fiscal woes to its populace in good time, forcing an unexpected school closing: some of that blame must lie on the expert CEO/Selectman).

History has taught me not to worry about Charley Baker's plans (luckily, I don't have Harvard Pilgram). Up until this point, he's been too afraid to challenge the likes of Kerry Healey, Mitt Romney and Jane Swift in his own party - never mind a strong and popular Democratic incumbent. If Baker and his new found mud slinging thinks he's found the courage to take on a popular progressive, I look forward to defeating the CEO of the HMO. As quoted in Blandy's blog, Baker may not know why Deval Patrick won the election - but I can promise Baker the reasons will remain the same when he meets defeat come 2010, if he ever manages the cajones to run.