We haven’t spoken much about the Tisei/Tierney race in MA-6. We’ve been all-consumed with the Senate race, and MA-6 has been slightly uncomfortable because of Tierney’s tax questions. And today a poll comes out showing that Tisei is ahead. Not surprising, actually.
But I think the choice is quite clear, for people who care about progressive things and for people who care about the 6th district: You gotta vote for Tierney.
Let’s deal with the ethical question first and foremost. I am not an expert on the Tierney tax case; I am not an accountant. I am happy to hear from, and be swayed by the opinions, of either. But as far as I can tell, there is no clear-cut case that shows that Tierney must have known that his brothers-in-law were engaged in illegal activity. Is it plausible that he knew? Sure it is. Is it plausible that he didn’t? Also yes. He can’t prove his innocence any more than his brothers-in-law can prove his guilt. The prosecutors didn’t try to nail him. So there you have it.
But the elephant in the room is control of the US House of Representatives, which is now in play. If Richard Tisei is elected, the first and most important vote he will take is for John Boehner as Speaker of the House and Eric Cantor as majority leader — which also means Republicans in control of House committees:
- Budget: Well, that will be chaired by Paul Ryan, if Romney loses and Ryan wins his Wisconsin seat. More attacks on Medicare and more “math” that isn’t math.
- Energy/Commerce: There will be no action on global warming, with a committee dominated by deniers and crackpots like Joe Barton of TX.
- Oversight: More crackpot investigations from that paragon of integrity, Darrell Issa.
And on and on. Tisei has doubtless said and will continue to say, “You’re not running against John Boehner and Eric Cantor; they aren’t on the ballot in Massachusetts.” Well, yes they are. And their proxy is Richard Tisei.
Furthermore, Tisei has not adequately distanced himself from the GOP’s national agenda. Like Scott Brown, he inexplicably wants to repeal the national version of the same health care law he supported in Massachusetts. That’s not moderate: The moderate line would be “mend it don’t end it”, not “repeal and replace” (and replace it with what, after all?). Tisei is also using Paul Ryan’s sleazy line that the new health law is paid for by Medicare cuts — when not reforming Medicare payment would make the program insolvent by 2016.
And unless Tisei makes it clear otherwise, we should assume that his victory will make government shutdowns and debt default more likely. Last year’s debt ceiling debacle hurt our fragile recovery. What would he have done in that situation?
I will stick my neck out and say that in a different year, this race wouldn’t be as critical. Back in the 1980’s and before, there was less ideological rigidity on the right. I remember hearing the story (apocryphal?) that Reagan’s White House sent NYC’s liberal Republican rep S. William Green a card saying “Thank you for voting with us when you could.” In 1994, Chicago voters sent their powerful but disgraced Congressman Dan Rostenkowski packing — to be replaced by an amiable moderate Republican, Michael Flanagan. (In 1996, Flanagan was replaced by … Rod Blagojevich.) One wouldn’t have known at the time that a vote for Flanagan was a vote to install Newt Gingrich as Speaker — and in the context of the 1994 wave, it wouldn’t have made any difference.
Tisei may be a nice moderate fellow. Or not. But it’s absolutely beyond question that he will vote for and enable people at the national level who are not nice or moderate at all. And if he’s not distancing himself now, he sure as hell isn’t going to do so when he gets to Washington.
Keep the crazies out. Vote Tierney.
stomv says
and have no intentions of donating money or working on that district’s race. As such, with a limited time drinking from the Internet’s fire hose, I haven’t been following the Tierney debacle much at all.
That written, charley, I disagree.
1. “He can’t prove his innocence any more than his brothers-in-law can prove his guilt.” As we all know, the standard for guilt in various courts of law need not be the same standard for voters. Voters are perfectly entitled to demand a higher standard of behavior, and a lower threshold to determine guilt. I find that behavior perfectly reasonable.
2. Politicians in dark colored districts need to be reminded that the voters can turn on them, too. Being in a very liberal or conservative district isn’t license to rely on the benefit of the doubt.
3. The odds that the House finishes 218 R -217 D is extremely small. The odds that it stays that way for an entire two years even smaller.
4. It strikes me that the odds that Tisei gets reelected if he wins in 2012 aren’t high either.
I’m not in the district, so it ain’t up to me, but personally… I’m not willing to overlook bad behavior of a Congressman, even it it might mean another two years of Boehner.
So yeah, keep the crazies out… but not if it means reelecting those who turn a blind eye.
*And if I wasn’t abundantly clear, I have no idea if Tierney is a stinker in this issue or not. I haven’t been following. I disagree with charley’s premise, regardless of present facts of Tierney’s case.*
Charley on the MTA says
Perhaps we agree that’s the whole game right there. I am calling for a “preponderance of the evidence” judgment, not a “beyond a reasonable doubt”. As I said, I’m happy to listen to someone who has a really convincing case against him, but I don’t think his brothers-in-law have made such, from what I’ve read. Until I hear it, I’m with Tierney.
I think we would agree that you’d want to be fair — that simply an implication is not enough.
stomv says
You don’t choose your brother-in-law. You do choose your wife. I think that distinction’s important.
Again, I don’t know the details. I do know that my standard for “won’t vote for the guy” is a hell of a lot easier to attain than “would convict the guy.” Not just a little bit easier. When the issue isn’t political but simply criminal, I’m inclined to err on the side of not voting for a guy.
If for no other reason, I don’t want to end up with the incredibly long list of unethical politicians wearing the Democratic colors, the way the GOP racked up lists in the early and mid 2000s.
Ryan says
You said this issue is criminal.
And should we all be ineligible to run if we have shady members of the family?
Laura Bush ran a stop sign and KILLED someone, yet we never held George Bush to that standard. In fact, the press never even talked about that.
Ryan says
It would make a prosecutor’s career to nab himself a Congressman. This case has been exhaustively investigated for *years* now — and Tierney’s been cleared. The only person saying Tierney knew anything is the disgruntled and convicted brother-in-law, hardly someone who deserves anyone’s trust.
So, while voters have every right to have a different ‘standard’ than the law, do we really want to be in a society where the standard of guilt or innocence is determined by the guilt or innocence of members of your family? Guilt by association? I hope the answer is no.
Finally, your last sentence makes it seem like you don’t want to be held accountable for your very specific views — up to and including not being willing to help in the race because you think Tierney should be considered guilty because his family. It’s a cop out.
Lot’s of voters will vote ‘Tisei’ thinking the same way. Yet, every two years we’re asked to make a vote. In addition to jury duty and paying taxes, it’s one of the few things we’re asked to do as citizens of this country.
While I’d normally overlook someone’s admitted ignorance were they not in the district, as a commenter, you decided put yourself to a similar standard that I’d hold any voter to: to be well informed about what’s going on in a race as important as their district’s Congressional seat, or in this case, the race they’re going to make a moralizing comment on.
People shouldn’t condemn someone for something they admittedly haven’t been following and don’t know much about, like you’ve done here — especially when your standards of being well informed are normally so high.
stomv says
The prosecution of a politician is inherently political, so that Tierney hasn’t been prosecuted doesn’t, in my mind, preclude inappropriate behavior on his part. Heck, we’ve seen plenty of times when a GOP politician gets accused, stinks to high heaven, resigns to “spend more time with his family,” and never gets prosecuted. Doesn’t mean he didn’t stink either.
My beef with charley’s post is the idea that (a) Tierney’s innocence or guilt is unclear, plus (b) GOP su><0rs, means "gotta" vote for Tierney. I call balderdash. I think that it's perfectly reasonable for voters to apply a "gut sense" to an issue like this. It isn't appropriate for jurors, but voters? Sure.
Now, I make clear over and over again that I don't have a gut sense on Tierney because I haven't been following it closely. If I lived in his district, I would be following it closely. There are 435 Congressional seats, and I'm really only paying attention to one.
As to members of family, there's a huge difference between the relationship one has with one's spouse and with just about every other family member (except, maybe, minor children). I interact with my brother a few times a month; I interact with my wife dozens of times each day. My brother and I are loyal to each other; my wife and I are interrelated in every thing we do. It seems to me that if one's spouse is up to lots of funny business, then yes, it does reflect on the other spouse. Enough to vote for or not vote for? Depends on the details to be sure. This isn't about standard of guilt or innocence. This is about standard of earning a vote. I personally think that standard is a very different threshold, and I personally think that spouse is a very different story than the rest of one's family.
Not willing to help in the race? You betcha. I got other fish to fry.
Finally, as for "people shouldn't condemn someone for something they admittedly haven’t been following and don’t know much about, like you’ve done here" — you show me where I condemned Mr. Tierney. I contested charley's general concept, and went out of my way to avoid commenting on Mr. Tierney specifically.
P.S. Thanks for the compliment at the end there! 🙂
fenway49 says
Not every marriage is the same. I worked at a large law firm with plenty of partners who speak to their spouses for about an hour total a week. I know a guy, someone I went to high school with, who got involved in a major scam and went to prison. He did NOT discuss that with his wife while it was ongoing.
My own wife and I are very close, but just a couple of days ago I found out she wasn’t aware of some basic details about our monthly budget.
I don’t know what Tierney knew or didn’t know. I do know that I would never vote for a Tea Party Republican over a reliable Progressive without actual proof of serious wrongdoing. This “where there’s smoke there’s fire” argument is not compelling to me.
stomv says
not all marriages are partnerships quite like mine.
Note that I never argued that one should vote for the the opponent. There’s lots of room between not voting for the guy on Team A and voting for the guy on Team B.
fenway49 says
people in the district should just sit this one out?
stomv says
I’m saying that *if* someone from team blue thinks that their candidate’s non-guilty-in-a-court-of-law alleged behavior stinks in reality… that they need not hold nose and vote for that candidate, especially in the House, especially in a PVI district of D+7ish. They can vote the team red candidate, they could vote the team green candidate, the team libertarian candidate, or submit a blank ballot, or not vote at all. All legit choices in my view for a member of team blue if the team blue candidate is perceived by the voter as stinky.
Does Tierney stink? Dunno. Don’t have enough info, haven’t followed closely, not my district. Again, I was responding to the general idea, not to Tierney in particular.
Charley on the MTA says
Of course there are reasons short of indictment to not vote for someone. I get that.
But there should be criteria, no? And if by one’s own criteria one can’t get to the point of “stinks”, then don’t national considerations come into play?
Here’s the Wikipedia precis of the story, surprisingly clear:
That’s as much as 99% of the voters will ever know about the case, and as much as I know. What do you think? Stink or no stink?
stomv says
Well, responding to both the above post and the Tue 2 Oct 8:59 PM post…
the wiki post certainly makes clear that there’s a lot of room for what actually happened between the facts. If we just use facts, no, he’s not guilty. That’s kind of my point… that it’s ok to use one’s gut to fill in the facts when it comes to voting for politicians. It’s certainly acceptable to base one’s decision on facts, but the problem is in a case like this… there’s a gap. He wasn’t found guilty, but to twist the role of the court a bit, he wasn’t exactly found innocent either. It’s a he-said he-said between a convicted bad guy and his brother-in-law (Tierney), who may or may not have known, looked the other way, or helped.
As for me, I think I’m hung up on the relative being involved being his wife. While my wife and I don’t share every little detail, we don’t skimp on the important stuff. But then, maybe his relationship with his wife isn’t as tight, and maybe being a Congressman requires losing some of that kind of closeness due to travel, etc. I don’t really know.
I don’t fault anybody for deciding that Tierney isn’t at all involved, and therefore the entire issue is irrelevant to his run for Congress. I think that’s a perfectly responsible outcome. Where I bit was the “gotta vote” part. Either you gotta vote for Tierney because he’s a good Dem pol and the gambling stuff doesn’t tie to him, or you gotta not vote for Tierney because despite being a good Dem pol, he’s unethical/illegal. My reading of your post was something in between — that even though he well might be unethical/illegal, it wasn’t proven in a court of law and therefore you reset to the good Dem pol argument. My reading of your post didn’t allow for the gray area in which I think this particular case sits.
But, to answer your question, based solely on the wiki post and to my knowledge no other ties to stink, it doesn’t stink. Eyebrow raiser to be sure.
fenway49 says
that a federal judge already has stated, on the record, that Tierney was not implicated in any way. Tisei has accused Tierney of distorting that statement, but it speaks for itself. I worked for a federal judge for a year and can’t imagine one saying “he’s not implicated in any way” if he was, in fact, implicated. The Judge’s comment was not an exoneration of Tierney, but is a clear statement of fact. There is a case involving Tierney’s wife. There is a case involving her brothers. There is no case implicating John Tierney in wrongdoing.
I don’t live in the district these days but I spend a lot of time of there, and it galls me to think of the North Shore being represented by someone with Tisei’s views, even if it were only for two years. Frankly, I just don’t care about this pseudo-scandal as much as a care about keeping more Tea Party types out of Congress. The GOP has their narrative that all Democrats are borderline criminal, in bed with Acorn on rampant voter fraud, whatever. And completely ignore the massive Republican scandals. Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Because it doesn’t fit their internal narrative.
I was up that way not long ago. If giant campaign signs could vote, Tisei would be a shoo-in. But I’m not ready to write off a decent Democratic Rep, in favor of someone like Tisei (who has his own troubles paying taxes and has been in the 47% his party so decries) on a case as flimsy as the one against John Tierney. I wouldn’t believe a word his brother-in-law says.
merrimackguy says
He just said he thought it was legal.
He also acknowledged that they got $200K in gifts.
It’s up to the voters if they think that his judgement is in question and maybe he should have been more skeptical about offshore gambling (especially as the brothers has already had run-ins with the law) and maybe telling his wife to stay clear.
They will also need to draw their own conclusions about in-laws giving you $200K in gifts. My sister-in-law has some dough, but when gifts to her sister (my wife) reach the mid three figures I perk up.
Ryan says
I’m with you in being uncomfortable taking big dollar gifts, but everyone is going to have a different moral answer on that. For example, I have some uber wealthy family in Texas who have at various points taken my little sister to big dollar trips to Europe and Asia, the trips no doubt costing in the five figures. Was my father and step mother wrong to allow that, despite the quite possibly once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that was presented for my sister? My father wasn’t exactly thrilled with it, but thought the opportunity was worth it.
Similarly, while the $200k was in gifts, the Tierney family was also taking in the brother-in-law’s child. So, while the money received was a “gift,” in the legal sense, I think it’s inherently more reasonable to accept funds from someone if you’re housing and feeding that person’s kid.
dracutfire says
Do yo mean the mid-6-figures?
merrimackguy says
My sister in law gave my wife a $500 gift, which is high for us. Most family gifts for us are in the $100-150 range. Point is that I went “Hmmm” instead of “uh-huh.” If someone gave Romney $200K, he’s be like “yeah, just drop it over there” but at Tierney’s wealth level it’s a good size number.
I don’t think the Tierney’s ever mentioned that the money was childcare. Why wouldn’t they have done it? A trip to Europe is a little different that someone handing you cash.
Everyone here can have their own opinion. I just want to reiterate that it’s fair game for a campaign.
Ryan says
Tisei was also a huge proponent of the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed any employer or insurance company to block any form of treatment or medical expense, for any moral reason whatsoever.
Yes, it was also first and foremost billed as a means to strip women’s rights to contraceptives away, but it also did all of the above, too — and Richard Tisei supported that.
One last thing to point out: House seats are more difficult to poll, but the last poll I saw had Tierney up big, and it wasn’t that long ago. Now, the right’s been spending *million* in negative ads, so maybe the race really has changed, but let’s not all lose hope… and make sure to get out there for a day of canvassing or, if you’re too far away, a couple hours of phone banking.
mandeville says
Tierney is not just a reliable Democratic vote. He is a very solid progressive Democratic vote. Whether it be on social issues, economic issues or labor issues he can be counted upon to do the right thing. Remember, he was one of a handful of courageous Democrats who voted no on authorizing military force against Iraq in 2002. Recall how wildly popular the war was at that time. That vote alone earned him my support as long as he wishes to represent me.
As far as the legal action against Tierney’s wife is concerned, I am appalled at Tisei’s willingness to go into the gutter with this. After all, what is Tierney “guilty” of? Having the wrong in-laws? Tisei has to go into the gutter because his record in the state senate is one characterized by, well, nothing. He has to do it because he would be another reliable Republican vote to dismantle the New Deal except when leadership gives him a pass so he can bamboozle Massachusetts voters (think Scott Brown). Tisei can’t run on his record and he can’t run his policies. What does he have left.
johnd says
bcal92 says
Us Dems haven’t done well on the decade since 1990. (and yes, we are just as guilty of gerrymandering as you are, it is just that technology made it that much easier to gerrymander well.)
Ryan says
Show me a state that’s as bad at gerrymandering as Texas or Florida?
Florida is a state that’s viewed 50/50 statewide, yet through gerrymandering has locked up a permanent majority for the Republicans. The people of the state even passed a constitutional amendment to try to fix that, but it’s been one that’s been ignored (as much as possible, anyway), by the state’s GOP.
Contrast that to Massachusetts, where we went out of our way to create fair, contiguous seats, and I think it’s fair to say the notion that ‘they both do it’ is a false equivalency, at least. Yeah, sure, some Democratic states do it, but it’s *nothing* like what the Republicans have done across the country.
fenway49 says
there’s nothing approximating an equivalency. Here, our overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature somehow managed to create multiple districts that make it harder for Democratic incumbents in the U.S. House (see Frank, Barney). Even the Mass. GOP had nothing to complain about with these districts.
The Republicans would have made every single district super-safe no matter what they had to do. In Texas they re-districted the state legislature, then did it again after they did well in 2002 and could ram a better plan through. Same thing in Colorado. The Pennsylvania redistricting post-2000 was notorious.
Here our legislature has been more concerned with screwing minority voters in redistricting (see Finneran, Tom) than with making progressive districts.
merrimackguy says
I think the MA redistricting did go well when it came to the Congressional districts, and the legislature definitely did not succumb to the pleas/pressures of the Washington delegation.. I do have issues with how Andover was handled (we’re split now).
Even the GOP is not happy about Texas, but as we know they are in their own world. Excellent article on national Congressional maps:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-league-of/309084/
suffolk-democrat says
Here our legislature has been more concerned with screwing minority voters in redistricting (see Finneran, Tom) than with making progressive districts.
Finneran’s redistricting plan was 10 + years ago. Under Mike Moran, Stan Rosenberg and the leadership of the Legislature Minority-Majority seats were doubled in the House (from 10 to 20) and increased 50% in the Senate (from 2 to 4). I think the Legislature did an excellent job righting that wrong last year.
Ryan says
Going from 2 to 4 is “doubled,” too.
If it went from 2 to 3, that would have been increasing it 50%.
I completely agree with your argument, though.
fenway49 says
Two in Boston area and a new one in Springfield/Holyoke area.
The “4” may have been typo by suffolk?
Alex W. says
I hit the minus, and immediately changed my mind, but can’t undo. Sorry, fenway.
I don’t “disapprove” but I do disagree. I thought the 2010 redistrictng in Massachusetts was excellent. The only district i had complaints about was Barney Frank’s, as it stood out as the only gerrymandered district designed to help the incumbent instead of creating a coherent community-based district. It would have been nice to know he was retiring before they created that district for him.
fenway49 says
He retired because he thought the new district was not as good for him. Less New Bedford, more Attleboro and Wrentham.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/11/30/barney_frank_says_new_voting_districts_influenced_decision_not_to_run/
http://blogs.wpri.com/2011/11/28/new-look-4th-district-likely-pushed-barney-frank-to-retire/
Here are my problems with the Congressional redistricting:
1. 4th district less favorable to Democrats. This is my district so it jumps out at me.
2. No boost of Democratic support in new Tsongas district (5th).
3. No boost of Democratic support in 6th, with Tierney facing challenge.
4. Keating has to move and gets many more Scott Brown towns in his new South Shore and Cape district.
All this to protect Markey, who likely didn’t need the help, and Lynch, the least progressive of the bunch.
As for the state legislature, I know the Finneran situation was 10 years ago. But I worked on the case, in small part, so it stuck with me. I know they did better this time, but that’s hardly surprising since their failure last time ultimately landed the Speaker in prison.
The Finneran situation is still a relatively recent example of Democrats not redistricting in a progressive way, while the GOP in many states has done a bang-up job of increasing the number of conservative districts via packing and cracking. That was my only point.
fenway49 says
I never would have noticed!
centralmassdad says
Democratic bigshots are presently in prison for the “fair” way they did it.
California.
The Governator made a big issue out of trying to remove the redistricting process from the legislature; the plan was scotched by Democrats, who were more interested in benefiting Democrats than in benefiting California.
kbusch says
However, the district-by-district breakdowns generally show the Republicans as overwhelmingly favored to retake the House. Wong’s analysis is the first ever I’ve seen that would indicate there was anything like a possibility that the Democrats would take the House.
Ryan says
This last round of redistricting has made it enormously more difficult to retake the House. I’m not sure if it can even be done, short of winning back all the state houses in time for the next period of redistricting (which will be difficult for all the same reasons), or seeing a national wave of people wanting nonpartisan redistricting commissions in every state.
bob-gardner says
The state Democratic Party should have made sure that there was a better candidate on the ballot than Tierney. That would have made a lot more sense than demanding that the voters be as stupid and credulous as Mbta’s Charlie.
Ryan says
Because he won the primary.
Any other Democrat old enough could have challenged him, but didn’t. Furthermore, he’s been there for quite some time, surviving some pretty damn close races. Obviously, a decent chunk of the district likes him.
kbusch says
Because they’re questions!
Ryan says
His entire point was that Tierney shouldn’t have been the nominee, that the Democrats should have found someone else.
I countered by pointing out anyone Democrat could have run in the primary.
kbusch says
the answer was obvious.
Ryan says
The fact that I – and many others – fundamentally disagree with his “answer” illustrates the fact that it isn’t obvious.
Mr. Lynne says
Therefore it is likely that the question he asked was asked rhetorically. You’re disagreement is orthogonal to this.
Ryan says
don’t address the ones that came before it.
Otherwise, there’s really no point to a reply button.
This has been a very, very silly set of comments to what was a legitimate point that I made. To any sore losers who wish there were someone else in the race, they should have worked toward that in a primary.
bob-gardner says
would have pressured Tierney to get out of the race, if not resign. They had two whole years. Failing that they should have recruited a Democrat from his district and supported that candidate. Instead they did nothing, and as a result a pretty safe Democratic district may end up being represented by a Republican.
Contrast the treatment of Tierney to that of Anthony Wiener, who was pressured out of office because he used a Twitter account inappropriately. His behavior became an embarrassment and he was gone. No waiting for Federal judges to say he didn’t actually commit a crime, no waiting to see if there was someone willing to run in the primary in the next election.
kbusch says
MBTA’s Charlie is neither stupid nor credulous.
methuenprogressive says
jconway says
All of Charley’s reasons are pretty paltry.
It is a Republican House lets not be naive, er go Ryan on the Budget Committee, Boehner as Speaker, fiscal cliff etc.
Tisei is pro-choice and pro marriage equality which makes him anything but a Tea partier (how many Republican Tea Partiers do you know with those positions?) and his election means equality can become more of a bipartisan issue. Barney Frank said a lot of his colleagues moved on the issue since they interacted with him and his husband. Tisei could have the same effect within the Republican caucus. Tierney is a bad Democrat like Rangel and a taint on the brand-time to move on, we can survive two years of Tisei and let a better Dem run in two years (look at Cao in Louisiana). This means Tisei would have to vote against his caucus in order to remain viable or suffer like Brown has.
He has blown this opportunity though and should have backed Simpson Bowles as a centrist alternative to Ryancare and run like Angus King or Bill Weld as an outside the box independent centrist-would’ve played real well in the North Shore. Instead he has run a negative and stupid campaign and that’s the reason he wouldn’t earn my vote-neither does Tierney, a friend of my uncles I might add and someone I used to respect.
Charley on the MTA says
You think Tierney’s as bad as Rangel? Really? Can you explain that to me?
jconway says
Way to harp on the Rangel comparison. Obviously there is no crime here but the impropriety is just as damaging to the progressive brand and that’s what matters. Also are you conceding my points that all malarky about House control was just that?
And sorry Christopher the voting record is not enough to justify even the appearance of personal favoritism and corruption. A better and more local comparison is Bill Bulger, a great liberal voting record (save for Southie based anti-choice and anti-busing votes) who even if he never got caught helping his criminal brother will always have that taint on his record and its a taint he brought on the entire Democratic brand. Weld, Celluci and Romney were able to run against the Bulgers and Finnerans of the world. We should be expelling hacks from the progressive/Democratic umbrella not giving them a free pass.
And let me be clear Tisei is running an incredibly stupid campaign and I lost what respect I once had for him. Like I clearly stated it was a blown opportunity on his part and he certainly has not earned this seat, but Tierney has not earned it either, a point you sort of concede, but since there is a “D” there any transgression is suddenly forgivable. There are a lot of bad career politicians with no beliefs who do whatever it takes to stay in power and enrich themselves. Tierney may not have personally benefited or done anything wrong but he has clearly shown he thinks he is above even discussing this issue and above the will of the voters and there is nothing progressive or democratic about that. But this is why the team mentality is killing our politics. We shouldn’t be defending bad politicians simply because they are on ‘our team’. We should be throwing them out. We can throw Tierney out and throw Tisei out just two years later, considering how Brown, the most personally popular politician in the state is being dragged down by his conservative voting record it is unlikely Tisei, who will win solely based on negative impressions of the incumbent rather than any positive impression of his candidacy can do much better. The real question is do we give Tierney a free pass and endure another ten maybe even twenty years of him in office or do we adjust course now. If Tierney, the most vulnerably he has ever been, did not draw a primary challenge now how on Earth will he draw one two years from now? Tisei though will be one of the top targets of the DCCC and there is a nice back bench of progressive leaders in the North Shore waiting to lead. Give Tierney a pass or give them a chance thats the real choice.
fenway49 says
Pretty standard GOP fare. He’d be a lockstep vote for Boehner on anything economic. He supports the Ryan plan to turn Medicare into vouchers.
I don’t think for a minute the national GOP or its supporters will come around on choice, gay marriage, or any such issues if Tisei is elected to Congress as a Republican. Equality will not be a “bipartisan” issue anytime soon. Tisei’s doing all he can to avoid mentioning his own stances on these issues since the Mass. Tea Party doesn’t like it and he needs their help to win. He called them a godsend for revitalizing the Republican Party and turning it even farther right.
The Rangel comparison is ridiculous. Rangel was censured, overwhelming, by a Democratic house for eleven proven violations. Tierney’s been accused of nothing by anyone, except his sketchy brothers-in-law and Tisei’s supporters. It’s just not a fair comparison.
Christopher says
How will the Member vote? That is the ONLY relevant question in a D vs. R race. If there were concerns about electability and other intangibles, Tierney should have been primaried to at least give voters a chance to elect someone clean, but who would likely have a similar voting record. We did it in the 5th when Meehan successfully primaried Atkins who was caught up in the House banking scandal. That was 1992 and if we hadn’t I’m sure the 5th would have gone R in the 1994 wave.
jconway says
Remember Christopher that’s how Tierney got to power a well. He primaries a corrupt incumbent and narrowly lost to Peter Torkildsen in 92 and then Tierney came in with Clinton in 96.
jconway says
He has a huge warchest and its incredibly hard for a challenger to get on the ballot. Simply not drawing a primary challenge does not a good incumbent make. Is my Chicago Congressman, Jesse Jackson Jr.suddenly effective and good since he won his primary challenge? I respected his record but he had an implosion and is clearly incapacitated but refuses to resign since he feels he is entitled to the seat, just as Blago felt he was entitled to sell the Senate seat. By the way the same poor argument Charley uses allowed Blago to rise rather rapidly in Chicago politics, first as a ‘regular’ Dem against an independent Republican, then later he was re-elected in spite of naked corruption since his opponent had an R next to her name. Unfortunately for my family in the North Shore it’s hard to replace one bum with another, and its a vote I do not envy. Tisei could have been a last hurrah for centrist Republicans but either had bad advisors or honestly feels his bad policy ideas are right, that said we are stuck with Tierney if he wins. Sort of a lose lose and it brings out the worst in our politics.
johnd says
you should stop supporting people regardless of their party when they’re “bad”. Tierney is a disgrace and should reconsider his threats tot he Globe about libeling him. I hope the Democrats on the North Shore vote the person and not the party, just like I hope Republicans don’t vote for Akin. Bad is bad!
kbusch says
This is actually a very, very disappointingly partisan comment. Tut-tut to you Johnd. Tut tut tut tut tut. The problem is that we do not know whether Mr Tierney is a “disgrace” at all and speaking as if that is a fact, well, that’s just knee jerk partisanship. And here I thought you wanted to be objective and non-hypocritical. Oh my tender hopes in you!
The more nuanced position, shared by the majority of liberals in this discussion, is that we don’t know either way whether Tierney was culpable. The judge said he wasn’t involved, but we would prefer to have Congressional representatives, unlike Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, New Gingrich, or Bob Ney, about whom there can be no question.
johnd says
I have a long record here of calling out “bad players” both in my party and in your party. You’ll recall I started the diary on Akin’s egregious comments and asked for him to step down. I’m sure you’ll recall my calls for Charlie Rangel to do the same. I say these things because the public’s approval rating for Congress (and our elected officials) is at an all time low because we have lost faith in out elected leaders… we don’t trust them! Every time there is a case of one of them getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar, it tarnishes “all” their reputations and we trust them a little less. And my sincere feelings along this line is our elected officials “need” public support and yes “trust” to get their jobs done and help us. An example would be we both want another stimulus bill to get Americans back to work, but we (the public) don’t trust our leaders to put together a plan that would actually work. I think Tierney needs to go because so many people don’t trust him anymore, they don’t believe his story regardless of how a judge decided (think OJ). As for the we don’t “know” for sure… I’m afraid people running for office are chastised by their opponent’s party with all sorts of scurrilous charges which we don’t “know”, but we ended up going with what information we do know and most people do not believe Tierney’s story regarding his wife, her brothers and the $$$$. And it isn’t only the public in Tierney’s district that loses faith in a case like this, it’s contagious. He should drop out.
So I’m sorry if my comments sounded partisan but “in this case” I was trying to be non-partisan.
kbusch says
These recent comments — I like them much better. They go no farther than what we know.
dracutfire says
I don’t see any problem with someone who is a liberal voting for Tierney while holding their nose. If I lived in his district, this is probably what I would so. The issue is, how is your typical moderate voter who only half-agrees with Tierney’s record going to justify voting for him with this scandal going on.
There simply may be not be enough liberals in his district for him to win reelection against a strong opponent, which Tisei is. To say that Tierney did not benefit from what was going on is false, because earnings by his wife of $223,000 (source: ny times) boosted their joint bank account.
It may be too late, but Tierney could have said “neither of us knew the nature of the business, we are not in it any more, and to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the proceeds we got from it will be donated to charity.” This would have been a much cleaner exit and the donations would be great PR at a time when most of the press is negative. Donations are tax deductible as well, right? He was urged to do this early on in the campaign: http://www.itemlive.com/articles/2012/06/15/news/news12.txt . It may be too late to do this now.
Finally, the point I made about the Warren Campaign (http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2012/10/warrens-missing-message/) about “localizing” the discussion of budget cuts applies to Tierney as well. Instead of having a philosophical discussion with Valley Patriot publisher Tom Duggan on his radio show about the Paul Ryan budget, Tierney should just do the math and then provide voters with the actual numbers of dollars that the governments and school districts in each town he represents will lose if the Ryan budget passed, compared with the current administration budget. This would be much harder for Tisei to refute.
Alex W. says
1) If I didn’t have a member of my wife’s family working for Tierney’s office, I would care at all about losing his seat. So given that, and my desire to have a Democratic House, I might have voted for Tierney if I lived in the district, which I don’t.
2) I think Kim Driscoll (mayor of Salem) should have run against Tierney in the primary, and if not him, then any other Democrat. Seth Moulton should have run in the primary.
3) With Barney Frank retiring, a small part of me wants Massachusetts to have an openly gay representative in Congress, and the first openly gay Republican in Congress would be a big deal. But only a small part.
There’s no reason we should have him hanging around running for re-election. Tierney could end up winning, but it will take far more effort than any other Democrat in the district. I don’t plan on contributing to that effort in any way.
Ryan says
I think, perhaps, you should take a listen to Barney Frank on the matter.
Richard Tisei is worse than useless for gay rights. All he is is a vote for John Boehner, and that party has no intention of moderating its voice — or listening to moderated voices — on any issue. They’re getting worse, not better.
Tisei would not only be a vote for keeping the insane Government of No politics of the Tea Party alive, but an outcast within even GOP ranks, not likely to even be able to deliver much — if anything — to the state or district.
We are far better off keeping this seat Democratic and working towards a Democratic majority, whether that happens this election or after.
If Tisei wins, he could stay there, making things more difficult for all of us, for years or decades. If Tierney wins, we’ll continue to have a strong progressive who’s one of the few who voted against Iraq, will be there for us when it comes time to make sure the rich have to pay their fair share, will never let anything like the Blunt Amendment through, and is pro-gay rights — with the backing of an entire caucus full of votes for it.
The choice is clear.
Charley on the MTA says
And I still don’t get it. I appreciate and respect stomv and jconway a ton, and in eight years of doing this blog, I can’t think of too many times we’ve disagreed on much. And here’s where I come down.
Is Tierney, in fact, disgraced in a similar manner to these pols?:
Do we have the goods on him? Or not? And if not — then what?
If it was that bad, then we should have — and I think *would* have — *all* called for his resignation months ago, or stood up to primary his ass, so that we could have a real candidate in a critical year. We should have thrown him under the bus and backed up over him a few times.
Well folks, did we all do that? No? Why not? Maybe because we’re chickenshit. Maybe. Or maybe because *the other shoe just never dropped*; that the evidence he did anything wrong just never showed up, except for a statement from two convicted scumbags.
stomv seems to suggest that there should be no standard of judgment for whether Tierney is corrupt or not; that just going with your gut is acceptable. Isn’t it acceptable to actually base your decision on facts? People in that district have a real decision to make; upon what basis and criteria should they make it? I don’t think that’s an airy-fairy question — it’s what a lot of people are pondering right now.
Incidentally, I do *not* accept the logic that says that one GOP seat doesn’t matter. I’ve seen Bush v. Gore, Al Franken’s squeaker, the 50-50 Senate in 2001, and so on. No thanks.