Why Political 'Change' is So Hard to Come By

[wintergreen48]

I went to law school in Boston. The person who is currently the Senator from what was my district (she was first elected in 1992, 15 years after I moved away from Boston) is Dianne Wilkerson. She has an interesting history. Until very recently-- like this week-- she was endorsed for re-election by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick; he withdrew his support only after she was arrested for taking a bribe (they filmed her stuffing the bribe money in her bra)

Spoiler

Mild Digression: this reminds me of my weird Aunt Agnes. She had trouble getting dates, and one of her lady friends told her that men are pigs, but if she really wanted to catch one, she should stuff her bra with Kleenex. She did this, but was still unsuccessful: her friend forgot to tell her take the Kleenex out of the box first.

Where was I... Oh, yes, Wilkerson lost the September primary and was running a write-in campaign, but today she finally agreed to stop that campaign; she has not yet resigned her seat, though, suggesting that it would be 'unfair' to her constituents if they did not have her fighting for them.

OK, everyone can make a mistake, and it is (probably) not (usually) the fault of the electorate that they happen to have a crooked Senator who takes bribes, and it is (probably) not (usually) the fault of a Governor that he endorses someone who happens to take a bribe while she is in office; stuff happens, and you cannot always tell that someone is a crook, at least, not until they actually do something crooked. But...

In 1997 she was convicted for failing to pay $51,000 in income taxes in the early 1990's; in 1999, the State Bar suspended her law license because of that conviction (she stills claims to be an 'attorney' by profession).

In 2001, the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission fined her for failure to report that a bank on whose behalf she lobbied AS A STATE SENATOR was also paying her $20,000/year as a 'consultant.'

In 2005, the Attorney General (who graduated from my law school, in the class behind mine, and is a friend of someone I dated in college, so I know she is on the ball) filed suit against her for failing to report campaign contributions and for refusing to explain (not just failing to account for) 'personal expense reimbursements' from her campaign fund; she settled this by paying a fine and agreeing not to take 'repayment' of $30,000 of 'debt.'

Earlier this month, the state bar initiated action against her for perjury-- not "it's just sex" perjury a la Bill Clinton, but lying in a criminal court proceeding, where she was trying to get her nephew off on a manslaughter conviction by claiming that someone else done the deed (the perjury involved her allegations of police impropriety, covering up for the other guy, so you've also got slander going there).

Seems to me that Governor Patrick-- who is a bright guy-- had enough reason NOT to endorse her long before her latest arrest; he says that it was OK for him to endorse her because she was the first public official in Massachusetts to come out for him when he ran for Governor in 2006.

Seems to me that her constituents had enough reason NOT to keep re-electing her long before her latest arrest (well, they did turn against her this past September, in the primary, but they did re-elect her after the other stuff).

When politicians in power keep supporting each other-- in spite of the obvious corruption of the person they are supporting-- and when voters keep re-electing 'popular' figures-- in spite of the obvious corruption of the person they are re-electing-- well, is it any wonder that politicians keep screwing up, taking actions that benefit them and their cronies and NOT the general public?

Not all politicians are corrupt like Wilkerson, and not all of them are back-scratching suck-ups like Patrick, but it doesn't take a whole lot of rotten apples to spoil a barrel.

This sort of thing vexes me. I am sorely tempted to send a sternly worded letter to someone-- a sternly worded letter, indeed-- but I don't know to whom I should send it. So I will post it here.

[etaoin22]

It seems to me (on historical grounds) that the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts' voters have often concluded they are better served with the crooks elected where they can be more easily monitored and probably steal less. If this is merely inaccurate romanticism from far away -- call it Orientalism if you will (it is the East Coast after all), well, so be it.

[gsabc]

It seems to me (on historical grounds) that the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts' voters have often concluded they are better served with the crooks elected where they can be more easily monitored and probably steal less. If this is merely inaccurate romanticism from far away -- call it Orientalism if you will (it is the East Coast after all), well, so be it.

Well, you're not entirely wrong. The example of James Michael Curley comes to mind.

It's not so much that we can monitor them easily. We often don't have a choice. The Republican party is so pathetic in this state that they can't even find candidates to run against the entrenched and moribund Democratic incumbents in 70-80% of the state's legislative districts. And they don't really support candidates in the districts where they do manage to scrounge one.

The Democratic leaders of the General Court (our pompous name for the state legislature) don't care who becomes governor, or from which party. They have a veto-proof majority, and so they are really the de facto leaders of the state. They know it. If they don't want a bill to pass, it won't.

[VAdame]

The "change" -- quite a large chunk of change! -- is in Senator Wilkerson's bra! Her story & pic showed up on Jay Leno the other night. Jay made the comment that it's a sign of progress; the women politicians are just as corrupt as the men!

Surveillance photo: