AUGUSTA – While not as powerful as adjectives in the world of grammar, conjunctions also can pack a real wallop – especially when the conversation is between Republicans and Democrats and the subject is the state budget.

Nobody was apologizing Monday, but Democratic Gov. John Baldacci made it crystal clear to reporters that he did not intend to signal his support for a Democratic majority budget during budget discussions with Republicans last week.

The four legislative GOP leaders and their staffers maintained Monday, however, that the governor’s unmistakable implication was that he would consider the majority option if Republicans could not embrace key elements of his $5.7 billion, two-year budget.

The remark in question was transcribed by a GOP staffer during the briefing as follows:

“I want [the budget] to be bipartisan, but I’m capable of engaging in whatever style you choose,” Baldacci told the GOP lawmakers.

Baldacci said Monday that he did not “remember making the statement,” adding that “if” he said it, his remarks had been misinterpreted – the unfortunate consequence of relying on “but” instead of “and” as a desirable conjunction. Instead, Baldacci said he meant to say he would seek “whatever style” suited the Republicans in order to reach bipartisan accord.

“I just want people to understand the importance to me of working on these things and getting this budget done,” he said. ” … I wasn’t taking the budget and saying we were going to do a majority budget; I was saying, ‘Here’s the budget. I want to work with you and that it’s up to you to engage also.'”

Republicans met with reporters early Friday afternoon and made no mention of their concerns over the governor’s choice of words regarding the budget. But later in the day, the House GOP office issued a statement claiming the governor had said he was open to a majority budget.

Republicans are still stinging from the last legislative session when Baldacci sided with Democrats to pass a majority supplemental budget. Because the budget revision needed to take effect immediately, the governor had to either attract two-thirds support for the bill in the House and Senate or accept a plan backed by majority Democrats. The latter option prevailed, and the governor adjourned the Legislature to trigger the 90-day timetable for the bill to become law before the state’s fiscal year ended on June 30. He then called the Legislature back into “special or emergency session” to allow lawmakers to finish their work.

While certainly not unprecedented, the mechanisms enabling a majority budget historically have been viewed by Republicans as Democratic hocus-pocus designed to create an “emergency” that doesn’t exist in order to fulfill political goals. Majority budgets nearly always poison the atmosphere between Democrats and Republicans at the State House. Last year, Republicans retaliated by refusing to consider any of Baldacci’s bond proposals that carry a constitutional requirement for two-thirds support in the House and Senate before the borrowing plans can be sent out to voters.

The governor’s recollection of that bonding failure was still quite fresh in his mind Monday, and he said he had no intention of signaling a repetition of the impasse by implying he would support a majority budget the very day the document was released to the public.

“The approach has got to be bipartisan because I want a bond package,” he said. “Why would I be talking about a simple majority budget if, in fact, I wanted a bond package that required two-thirds?”

Senate GOP leader Paul Davis of Sangerville and House Republican leader David Bowles of Sanford said they were glad the governor wanted to work with the minority party because all of the Republicans had left the meeting Friday believing Baldacci would support a majority budget if he could not reach an agreement with them.

“That’s the absolute inference that everyone got,” Davis said.

“I don’t know that we misunderstood what he said,” Bowles said. “He may not have been clear in his intent, and we’re willing to accept that.”