It came out in an open debate between state senators Brian A. Joyce and Stephen Lynch when they were both running for Congress that Lynch is a recovering alcoholic. This state may have been compromised to some degree in Senator Kennedy days of alcohol abuse whether he was called and alcoholic or not. Do we need to take chances again with someone who is untested under pressure that could affect the illness which it seems is thankfully under control?
Lynch may have done an adequate job as rep in Washington but is he up to the task of handling the pressure of representing not only the entire state of Massachusetts but also national and international issues?
The question is whether Steve Lynch is up to the task
lightiris says
a recovering alcoholic wear a sign on his/her clothing, a scarlet letter, say, like an “A” so everyone will know the scoop?
<
p>You are a piece of work.
atticus says
True or in the public domain?
<
p>Sorry, but Stephen Lynch does not look like Hester Prynne, nor Nathaniel Hawthorne for that matter.
davemb says
NARAL has his pro-choice record at 25%, according to his Wikipedia page.
lightiris says
The last thing we need is an effectively anti-choice senate candidate running as a Democrat.
peter-porcupine says
And once again, the progressives will vote party over their stated principle, and ditch the pro-choice candidate in favor of ANY Democrat!
lightiris says
Lynch is a parochial candidate and has virtually no statewide appeal. He couldn’t win running as an anti-choice Democrat no way no how.
kaj314 says
Counting Congressman Lynch out of anything seems to be something all of his opponents have done, yet he seems to win every race he runs. While this race might be different, it certainly isn’t out of the realm of possibility that in a race with 5-6 candidates (could happen) his base could propel him to victory.
<
p>Congressman Lynch will start with a loyal labor base to draw support from, as well as a voting record that appeals to many Unenrolled voters.
<
p>As for the recovery portion of this thread, I know it to be true, and the voters of the ninth knew it to be true when Congressman Lynch outlasted a Kennedy (true, not Joe) and many other progressive candidates. That 2001 special election saw multiple negative attack ads/pieces of direct mail and character attacks against then State Senator Lynch. He is a tireless campaigner who should never be counted out.
<
p>I am undecided in the race but would love for Michael Capuano to run. I find his style of politics refreshing. Stephen Lynch would be the last person I would vote for, but I wouldn’t count him out.
atticus says
mentality. Narrow, provincial, exclusive and at best a 19th Century view of the world.
<
p>Ah, those were the day………..
kbusch says
This is exactly the kind of thing conservatives expect liberals to say. I usually am able to write, “No one thinks this sort of thing.” Now here we have it in bold black and white for right-wing nudniks to look up, quote, link to, and confirm their prejudices about liberals. The fact that Atticus is clearly unrepresentative will be overlooked by the nuance-haters of talk radio and RedState.
atticus says
crazy right wing talk show hosts won’t know about it.
<
p>This is Exactly what I am writing about. The crazed likes of Howie Carr, Michael Graham “Crackers”, Jay Severin, Michelle McPhee ad nauseum have to be fought back fire with fire.
<
p>They will and are already playing hardball in hopes of destroying any progressive Democrat from taking Senator Kennedy’s seat now that they find it difficult – although not impossible to trash him in death.
<
p>So, play Tidilywinks if you want in your sandbox while the rest of us plan to do battle on the 50 yard line and win.
<
p>Talk Radio has become pure evil and we must stand up and fight back hard.
huh says
Atticus is to liberals as JohnD is to conservatives. The insults appear to be the important thing, not the belief system.
<
p>I’m ambivalent about Lynch, but am certain we didn’t need a blue JohnD.
atticus says
for your principles is important.
Miss that and you miss the entire strand of my rant of which even I am getting tired.
<
p>
joets says
just wondering…
tblade says
YES!
<
p>Make it happen.
peter-porcupine says
justice4all says
What, pray tell, would you know about principles, particularly Democratic principles, given the “Triumph the Insult Dog” method of debate you employ? How does that win anybody friends (which is what people in campaigns try to do) with the unenrolled? Didn’t you ever take any poli-sci classes at those fancy pants schools you went to?
atticus says
Do you?
justice4all says
Come on! That is the lamest excuse for bad politics via bad behavior I’ve ever seen. Mere supercilliousness doesn’t trump a challenge. You appear to labor under the impression that being loud and crude, and betraying all that we stand for, trumps being smart. I think you’re wrong.
<
p>And you crack me up when you castigate Lynch for “narrow D-Street” mentality when you display so much of it yourself. Give me one good reason why your insulting commentary is any different or any better than that heard in a bar in Southie?
atticus says
Loud and Crude.
Again, it came out in the congressional debate between Steve Lynch and Brian Joyce that Stephen Lynch is a recovering alcoholic. It also came out that during the busing debate then private citizen Stephen Lynch from South Boston physically assaulted a desegregation supporter.
<
p>Is this the kind of retrograde Pol you want in the Senate of The United States of America to replace Edward M. Kennedy?
<
p>As to D Street, I made no mention of any street in South Boston. However, to set the record straight Stephen Lynch lives on G Street not far from the major fights that took place during the busing crisis at South Boston High School.
<
p>More than that as a resident and native of South Boston I am free to criticize one of my own and the narrow provincialism of some of my neighbors of like Hibernian decent demonstrate on an on going basis.
justice4all says
that you didn’t write about the “non-essential values” of gender and orientation parity? You’re going to pretend that you didn’t write a less-than sly insinuations about Jeff Jacoby’s sexual orientation? I’d link to the lovely piece you wrote about Liz Cheney, but it appears that it’s gone missing. I wonder why.
kbusch says
Actually, huh’s comment is much more accurate than it seems. This is not a matter of just being annoying or contrarian.
<
p>The gentle reader will notice that there have been many exchanges on this thread of the form:
Us:You’re making unfair accusations that run against the liberal message and undermine what you’re sayingAtticus:I’m just standing up for the truth! Don’t be a wimp!
This studied point-missing is not so different from the exchange here where Christopher talks about government-run insurance and JohnD replies with a quip about government-run hospitals.
<
p>In both commentators, we also see a fair amount of argument by invective.
johnd says
Are you just uptight about the Superman (coal squeezed into a diamond) and your uptightness metaphor? Otherwise I thought it went pretty good (no poopy words).
<
p>And my counter to Christopher was not targeted at insurance vs hospital, it was targeted at government run vs. private run which I hope readers would see.
<
p>Do I really sound like a red-Atticus?
<
p>There is one point which I have to agree with Atticus. Coming from Dorchester and having many relatives still living in Southie… Steven Lynch really does have huge support there but his appeal stops at the South Boston border. My relatives talk about him like he is a saint and can do no wrong but I think his conservative views will sink him in this state.
kbusch says
Am I uptight about the uptightness metaphor?No, I am embarrassed for you that you would write that.
Was it a good exchange? There were no poopy words.
No, it was not. Tblade marshaled evidence. Your responses to tblade, not me, were all invective (How many moons? Are you serious?) That’s entirely appropriate for talk radio. This is not talk radio.
Do you really sound like a red Atticus?Yes
johnd says
I do you think you come across uptight sometimes. I am genuinely sorry if I insult you by saying so and sometimes… ok, many times I’m a little coarse. I’ll try to “tighten” things up and speak as if one of my kids were reading my remarks. But promise to be a little more “forgiving” on my remarks.
<
p>I still think the exchange was good. Last week Barney Frank asked “On what planet do you spend most of your time” and followed with “Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.” I thought they were pretty funny lines and not “invective” or appropriate for talk radio. We have different personalities KBusch and I enjoy the banter and ribbing and yes sometimes sarcastic remark. I promised the other day to reduce or remove the hateful or “over the top” remarks but I won’t stop being sarcastic sometimes.
<
p>The Atticus comparisons are troubling… truly. I’ll need to think about that and consider.
huh says
I think the best comparison is to a child not understanding why adults don’t think smearing excrement on the wall is art.
<
p>You may not have used “poop language” but you still managed to personally attack everybody in the discussion.
johnd says
Why don’t you just stop being so angry? Let’s see how it goes. I’m not saying I’ll agree and I’m certainly not saying I’ll be nice. I’ll abstain from “invective” and “profane” speech however I might add that can be very subjective. Think of me as a “recovering” troll (in theory so far).
huh says
Why do you consider your hateful rants “humorous” and people’s responses “uptight” and “angry?”
<
p>Classic trollery, IMNSHO.
johnd says
I just posted this
<
p>
<
p>Which I think is humorous as did many people (including here on BMG) however when I said…
<
p>
<
p>Why is Barney funny but mine is “invective” and a “hateful rant”. I think both Barney and my remarks were very similar (I said mine first BTW).
<
p>As for humorous… I’m sorry but I think I can be funny.
<
p>Like I said, give me a chance and don’t “want” me to fail otherwise I will always fail in your opinion.
<
p>PS My remark about moons… was a few days ago before I decided to “go easy”.
huh says
He was, in fact, trying to have a rational conversation with you. You choose to mock him instead of responding. You went on to belittle KBusch and threaten me. Hardly funny.
<
p>Here’s hoping you’re sincere in wanting to change.
kbusch says
If I follow your reasoning, Barnie Frank’s response to the crazed Larouche-follower is equivalent to your response to tblade. Tblade is equivalent to a Larouchian.
<
p>This is all part of your Campaign to Make Everything Equivalent to Everything Else. That campaign leads straight to verbal aggression and no where else — as you repeatedly demonstrate.
<
p>That may be the best you can do.
<
p>That may be all that you do.
<
p>That may be what you think is right.
<
p>It’s inimical to rational discussion.
johnd says
I also think your reasoning is faulted (popcorn makes me thirsty, peanuts make me thirsty therefore peanuts are popcorn…).
<
p>I was using a euphemism but I won’t argue about it anymore.
<
p>I will suggest your word “inimical” to Bill O’Rielly, thanks.
<
p>Isn’t it Barney Frank vs Barnie?
kbusch says
Spelling: I often misspell Rep. Frank’s first name. Sorry.
<
p>Vocabulary: As I said, you hate rational discourse. In this case, apparently, the machinery of rational discourse: words.
<
p>Semantics: The meaning and relevance of your first clause and its faulty syllogism elude me, but don’t bother. It’ll take you six long paragraphs that I’m not going to read.
<
p>Pragmatics: I don’t need to meet you halfway. We’re not equivalent.
johnd says
I will always enjoy talking about issues but indeed it is a rare occasion that I have EVER seen rational discourse (Rational discourse requires intellectual honesty, the suppression of ones biases and following the facts wherever they lead, taking care not to avoid evidence which may contradict ones preconceived views) on BMG from anyone (myself included).
<
p>But, as I have been reminded may times “this is a liberal blogging site” so I should not expect rational discourse and I will lower my expectations.
huh says
EPIC FAIL
<
p>
johnd says
If that is an insult then I believe you have set the bar too high for me. I’m going to be as even handed and civil as I can but it is a rare occasion that anyone here blogs without having a bias. Sorry if that is something you can’t accept or find insulting, it was not meant to insult you or anyone.
<
p>You can read blogs here about “Crowley-Gates” or “Interim MA Senator” or “Rush” or “Bush” or “same sex marriage”… and people’s biases are quite obvious. I think it’s pretty normal.
kbusch says
You have succeeded in developing a special JohnD Language.
<
p>Nothing means anything in that language. All words are drained of meaning.
<
p>Everything is equivalent to everything else.
<
p>”Bigot” doesn’t mean anything in JohnD-talk. It’s just an insult.
<
p>”Bias” doesn’t mean anything in JohnD-talk. It’s just a jab.
<
p>”Rational discourse” clearly doesn’t mean anything in JohnD Land. It’s only valuable to make accusations with.
<
p>That’s why there’s no reason to discuss anything with you because nothing means anything.
<
p>So what is language for for you?
<
p>For you, language is just a game. A your side vs my side game.
<
p>Words are not meaningful. They’re just weapons.
<
p>You use them to bait, to annoy.
<
p>You don’t use them to understand.
<
p>That’s why we accuse you of being a troll so often.
kirth says
It’s possible – in fact it’s better – to tell the truth without being loud and crude. Standing up to the opposition is not getting down on the floor with them and rolling around in the dirt, nor is it trying to drag them down if they aren’t already there. Keep telling the truth, by all means, but do it in a way that seems reasonable. People notice that. When one side is loud and crude, they lose, in the eyes of reasoning people. If both sides are yelling and hurling insults, people turn away.
christopher says
According to Project Vote-Smart Lynch has gotten both 0% and 100% from NARAL. On issues such as education and labor he definitely votes with Democratic allies, but also strikes me as someone who doesn’t look over his shoulder to see if the interest groups are watching, and I respect that. He seems to fall in the same category as Joe Lieberman – someone who has gotten a reputation for not being super progressive yet when the record is studied in its entirety still turns out to be much more a Democrat than a Republican.
justice4all says
(or perhaps not so recovering) prevented one from attaining elected office, I would suggest that most of Congress would have been disqualified. Likewise for Beacon Hill. But then, I’ve never actually heard that Congressman Lynch was a recovering alcoholic. Perhaps you can cite that?
<
p>As for “untested” under pressure…well, I guess that depends on how you define “under pressure.” In 2001, the guy gave half of his liver to his brother-in-law. I would suggest that 1) he’s behaved admirably under pressure and 2) what kind of “recovering alcoholic” can donate half his liver?
<
p>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05…
<
p>You may not like him and you may hate his politics..but Lynch is a good man. It’s not cool to smear him like this.
<
p>
metrowest-dem says
I’ve known Steve Lynch since we were in law school together — our Con Law professor enjoyed pitting us against each other, in part because (1) he knew we did our homework and (2) that one could just about guarantee that we’d take the opposite side on any argument. Whatever I think of his politics, I know that he is a decent person who has been kind to me over the years, and he’s certainly worked hard to pull himself up by his own bootstraps.
<
p>If we were to disqualify politicians from office based solely on their (alleged) history of alcohol abuse — well, you’d lose a large number of highly qualified and competent public servants.
atticus says
Lynch and state senator Brian A. Joyce from about 6 years ago when they both ran for the same 10th Congressional Seat.
<
p>As to the liver. Maybe it was well preserved which made it an easy transplant.
<
p>No, in all honesty, that gift speaks volumes about Lynch but it doesn’t make him qualified to be a United States Senator replacing Ted Kennedy.
kaj314 says
You mean the 9th, not the 10th. Bill Delahunt represents the 10th. Your comments are childish and thus far you have not based any of your nonsense on facts. Your argument against Congressman Lynch is weak and your name calling inappropriate. Tell us why Stephen Lynch has no chance based on facts, not your childish opinions.
atticus says
or not?
kaj314 says
I know him personally and know it to be true. The residents of the 9th congressional also knew it to be true when they elected him. Substance abuse is something to consider when voting for someone. I consider it a positive that a person had the courage to confront substance abuse at a young age, put himself through law school and get elected to congress. (with a lot more in between)
<
p>Stephen Lynch is a fine man and a good Congressman. I don’t agree with many of his social positions and will not vote for him in an upcoming special election if he chooses to run — but he is a responsive and hard working member of Congress.
<
p>I will stay on point as I have. You should consider staying with the facts.
david says
a problem with alcohol in the 1970s. However, there is zero evidence of its resurgence in the last 30 years, and I don’t see how it’s at all relevant to his potential candidacy for Senate.
jconway says
Being a recovering alcoholic makes him highly qualified to replace Ted Kennedy who openly admitted to being one himself. He and Orrin Hatch became great friends in part because Hatch got him into AA.
<
p>I think if he is no longer an alcoholic and is focused on his work than you should not besmirch the man for his past misdeeds.
<
p>A)There is no evidence he is one since you haven’t actually linked us to the transcript of this debate you mention
<
p>B) If if Joyce accused his opponent of alcoholism how does that make it true?
<
p>C) There are many recovering alcoholics in my family and you are simply an asshole for implying that since people had a problem they can’t move on with their life and must be branded with that problem the rest of their life.
<
p>D) Talk about the issues
<
p>Frankly I think Lynch is gonna have a hard time winning in such a liberal primary, his only hope is if 3-5 other candidates run and split the liberal vote or if Joe Kennedy runs and its him v Lynch and Lynch wins on the basis of an Anybody-but-Joe vote. Other than that he’s toast and not a threat to you or to the state.
<
p>And even if you disagree with him and think he’d be a bad Senator then say where you do and why. Lightiris thinks he’d be a bad Senator because he is pro-life, this is a position I disagree and has little evidence to back it up but at least its based on the issues and not a personal attack like your BS.
kbusch says
O’Reilly made similar claims against Kerry, i.e., that Kerry was too deliberative, not decisive, not ready for pressure.
<
p>What this overlooks is that the Senate is engaged in writing legislation, not playing paintball.
christopher says
Do you really have reason to believe that the majority of our federal and state legislators are alcoholics (recovering or otherwise)? Sounds slanderous to me.
justice4all says
are great places to people watch. Worth the price of admission.
christopher says
Maybe they sometimes drink a little too much in a sitting. You called them alcoholics, which is very specific chronic problem and disease. An occasional one too many or morning hangover does not make one an alcoholic.
justice4all says
and for the love of God, relax. We had a guy on here posting that Lynch shouldn’t be the Senator because he was a recovering alcoholic. Nice. And as the adult child of an alcoholic, I have a very keen sense for this sort of thing. This guy wants people punished for needing help, oh – 30 or so years ago. I merely pointed out that it’s a fairly common trait in this business. It might have been a tad hyperbolic, but there you are.
<
p>http://www.about-alcoholism-fa…
joets says
Obama liked bolivian marching powder, Teddy drank like a fish, Bush II drank and snorted, McCain had a girl problem (along with numerous other politicians haha!)
<
p>You say you don’t want a recovering alcoholic. That recovering alcoholic would probably want a blogger who can muster in himself the courage and decency to locate the comma key on his keyboard. Will either of you get what you want?
<
p>The world may never know.
hrs-kevin says
Lynch is my Congressman. I personally think he is too conservative and would much rather see someone else in the seat. However, the assertion that being a recovering alcoholic should disqualify him is absurd.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
I want a good old fashion functioning alcoholic.
<
p>That’s what this country needs more of. No wonder Lynch has become a bore.
edgarthearmenian says
christopher says
Word is he gave is best speeches when he was “in his cups”!
bob-neer says
“Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol than it has taken out of me”
<
p>Alcoholism might even be what one wants in one’s leaders, whatever the cost to the sufferers of this affliction and their families.
<
p>Just sayin’
judy-meredith says
But oh
<
p>now all we need if for somebody to do a little paper on great men’s addiction to sex
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Totally lit 90% of the time and never missed a call or slurred a name.
atticus says
christopher says
In response to a woman who commented he was drunk:
<
p>”And you, madam, are ugly, but I at least shall be sober in the morning1″
jconway says
The way you attack Lynch I question whether or not he made it with your spouse or killed your dog. There is simply no need to launch all these ad hoc attacks against someone’s personal life and character. Just none.
<
p>Frankly I think Lynch will likely go into the second-tier of candidates running unless Markey jumps in and splits the liberal vote three ways, or Joe Kennedy jumps in and he and Lynch go mano a mano.
<
p>Others have criticized Lynch as out of touch with the values of the state because he is pro-life. As a pro-life liberal I find that offensive and disheartening that any candidate should be disqualified because they believe sincerely that the unborn as well as the sick, elderly, and disabled deserve equal rights and treatment. Secondly I find that anyone who is a single issue voter to be less than educated about the issues. But at least those people on this thread are discussing issues and saying they will not vote for Lynch since he would not fight for their viewpoints in the United States Senate. That is a fair reason not to vote for someone and to attack someone’s candidacy.
<
p>But the slanderous, slash and burn personal attacks you use discredit you, frankly it discredits your fellow opponents of Lynch, and just does you a huge disservice. You really must be a pathetic man to just sit at your computer all day and launch invective at a guy you probably don’t even know and have never met.
judy-meredith says
could prompt so many progressives to leap to the defense of the likes of Stevie Lynch.
<
p>Of course the Congressman is quite used to the likes of Atticus, not sure what he’s used to the likes of BMG bloggers, but Southie is a different place these days.