Governor Patrick urged, he cajoled, he negotiated. But in the end, he signed it: a three-strikes-and-you’re-out felony sentencing bill that he believed was too restricted. He’d been cagey about a potential veto; he’d proposed changes that were rejected by his fellow Democrats in the Legislature. And the week of July 30 he backed down, quietly signing the bill in private. The outcome fields speculation that he’s a diminished leader with one foot out the door.
That isn’t surprising given Massachusetts’ recent history. Over the past 20 years, no Massachusetts governor has completed a second term. Paul Watanabe, a political science professor at UMass Boston, points out that Patrick’s immediate predecessor was the poster boy of diminishing power.
“Mitt Romney, who only served one term, effectively made a lame duck of himself before his term has expired by saying he was not going to seek reelection,” Watanabe said. “And then very quickly, for the presidential election of 2008. Using him as an example, I think the general jury is that Mitt Romney became very ineffective, very inconsequential, very unpopular, when he made that decision to again essentially become a lame duck.”
Is Patrick a lame duck?
Print and television reporters have been calling Patrick a lame duck for at least the past two months. And Patrick hasn’t been seen around Boston as much as usual these days. He’s often out of state campaigning for his friend, President Barack Obama. He’s been to ten states this past year, including battlegrounds like Iowa, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. The travel, combined with number national television appearances and a book deal, demonstrate he remains an ambitious man.
Some Capital Hill and Beacon Hill insiders think Patrick is gunning for a post in a second Obama administration, perhaps as attorney general. Others are predicting a 26-team presidential run. All this, despite Patrick’s repeated statements that he intends to serve out the remainder of his term.
But if he plans to stay the course, what’s his agenda?
The governor declined to be interviewed for this story, but Lt. Gov. Tim Murray outlined some priorities.
“Transportation is going to be front and center in terms of how we create a strategy that’s a a long term fix and continuing to do everything we can around strengthening the economy and creating jobs,” Murray said.
From effective results to mixed results
Right after Patrick won his second term last year, he demonstrated new effectiveness on Beacon Hill: He signed a casino gambling bill into law. And it’s obvious he’s proud of his record so far, as reflected in his most recent State of the State Address:
“We made the kinds of meaningful reforms in the pension system, in municipal health benefits, in our schools, in transportation, and so much more that had alluded us and our predecessors for a long, long time.”
But in 2012, Patrick has more of a mixed record. He’s moved some of his issues: lowering mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, boosting funding for community colleges and pension reforms.
The victories aren’t as clear-cut as they were at the height of his influence. Lawmakers rebuffed his proposal to establish a centralized planning board for community colleges. They prevented him from closing the Taunton State Hospital. They ignored his objections to a measure requiring immigration checks at the RMV. And Patrick ultimately accepted the three-strikes measure without the judicial safety net he wanted.
The governor’s spokespeople point to a bill that aims to bring down the cost of health care in Massachusetts as his main legislative achievement this year. He signed the measure this week, to much fanfare.
“Massachusetts has been a model to the nation for access to healthcare. Today we become the first to crack the code on costs,” said Patrick, after signing the measure.
Governor Patrick’s future
But many health care experts in the state say it’s not clear whether the measure will actually slow the growth of medical costs. Much will depend on Patrick’s ability to implement the complicated measure and his willingness to stand up to special interests, like Massachusetts hospitals and universities.
Tufts political science professor Jeff Berry said Patrick does have his hands on some important political tools. “He still has the power of the bully pulpit. He has good relations with the state Legislature. He’s in a state that’s overwhelmingly democratic like he is. And he’s very popular.”
But it’s unclear whether Patrick will aggressively pursue bold initiatives in the state in the two years to come. And despite Patrick’s denials, voters may reasonably wonder whether he’ll end up doing what three out of his last four predecessors did: walk away from the job for a turn in the national limelight.
