Liberal gaming critics feel betrayed by Patrick plan
Governor Deval Patrick, who rode into office on a wave of liberal support, has antagonized some of his earliest and most ardent backers by advocating destination resort casinos for Massachusetts, according to several legislators and political activists.
"I'm very disappointed that our governor decided to go down that road," said state Senator Susan Tucker, an Andover Democrat and a gambling opponent who endorsed Patrick early in last year's campaign.
"He promised a new kind of politics, but casinos represent politics as usual at its worst, from backroom deals to scandals that permeate the whole industry, from [lobbyist Jack] Abramoff down to the Wampanoag tribe," she said. "I've heard a great deal of outrage across the state from his supporters."
Representative Daniel Bosley, Democrat of North Adams and the House's most vocal gambling foe, said many left-leaning legislators as well as Patrick's supporters in the blogosphere were dumbfounded by the governor's proposal.
David Kravitz - cofounder of Blue Mass. Group, the state's leading left-wing blog and a strong supporter of Patrick during last year's campaign - said the "overwhelming sentiment on Blue Mass. Group appears to be anticasino." The decision to back three casinos in the Commonwealth could hurt the governor, Kravitz said.
"I think people who were with him since the beginning and slogged it out in the trenches and happen to be strongly anticasino, and there are a number of them, will probably think twice, assuming he runs for reelection in 2010," said Kravitz, who does not oppose casinos.
Blue Mass. Group cofounder Charley Blandy said he was "definitely disappointed."
"I don't know if it was wishful thinking on my part, but I was surprised," Blandy said. "I was hoping he would take his election as an opportunity to reframe the debate about revenue and spending priorities and bring the public into the conversation."
Many liberals have historically opposed casinos because they say gambling generates revenue from those who can least afford to pay it: Middle- and low-income people are the heaviest casino-goers.
Many liberals also argue that casinos will create a new crop of compulsive gamblers and alcoholics.
Many of his supporters hoped that Patrick, who was noncommittal about the issue on the campaign trail, would decide against expanded gambling. He often cited his own experience visiting casinos. At one election debate, for example, he said he "sometimes worried if the person at the next slot machine could afford to be there."
As the race wore on, however, he seemed more open to the possibility of allowing casinos and offered gambling proponents an opportunity to plead their case.
Over the past several months, administration officials met with advocates on both sides of the issue, from casino developers to representatives of churches and of groups that try to help compulsive gamblers.
While Patrick may have lost some hard-core supporters, other loyalists, even some who oppose casinos, said they will continue to back the governor.
"I've never been a huge fan of legalized gambling, but I recognize we have some pressing needs in the state, from education to commuter rail to rebuilding our infrastructure," said US Representative James P. McGovern, a Worcester Democrat who endorsed Patrick back in 2005.
"At the end of the day. it will generate revenue to pay for things that will help people in my district and across the state," he said. "I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
"I trust Deval's instincts," McGovern said. "I think he's trying to do the right thing, and I'm as proud today as I was when I first endorsed him."
Former governor Michael S. Dukakis, who offered Patrick advice during his first months in office, expressed disappointment at the turn to casino gambling to shore up the state's sagging revenue base.
But, Dukakis said, he understands that Patrick has been frustrated in his efforts to get other revenue-generating proposals through the Legislature.
"I am not a casino gambling fan," said Dukakis, adding that he feared the social consequences of expanded gambling. "I prefer that he didn't propose this."
"I understand what he is doing and, given his decision to go forward, it is as creative and thought-out a plan as I have seen," said Dukakis, who as a state legislator voted against the creation of the state lottery in the early 1970s. 