There’s a tag-team Senate debate hitting the airwaves tonight: Republicans at 7 pm, followed by Democrats at 7:30. Should be entertaining. You can watch on channel 5 (WCVB), listen on WBUR (90.9 FM), or watch a live-stream on a variety of websites.
This is your debate open thread.
Please share widely!
mike_cote says
that Steve Lynch will piss me off within 3 minutes of speaking. Either because of:
1) ACA
2) Keystone XL pipeline
3) DOMA
4) Women’s Rights
5) Southie Parade.
Tick Tock
danfromwaltham says
C’mon Lynchie, hit him on NAFTA, ask Markey if New Bedford and Fall River are better off today when Ed supported trade deals that didn’t put American workers first. Make him defend the votes, or worse, admit they were wrong.
Then hit Ed on supporting the Kyoto Protocal, which will make NAFTA look like it was part of the Great Deal. Lynch should say “Markey will do for the average rate payer what he did for the avg. factory worker.
Toss in how Steve will stand up to the radicals, put jobs first, and how grounded he is by living in Massachusetts, and call it a night.
oceandreams says
Yes, he voted with the hard right against any federal funds for any insurance program that dares to offer abortion service. But I guess that’s a good thing because he doesn’t work for Nancy Pelosi?
sabutai says
Watching this debate, a casual voter would have no idea that Stephen Lynch is further to the right on social issues than two of the three Republican candidates. Right now, an ignorant electorate is Lynch’s best hope, and it’s closer to reality (based on debates and polls) than I’d like.
fenway49 says
I do agree Markey can win this Dem primary just by drawing the distinction on social issues. Lynch’s positions won’t fly with a Dem primary electorate. There was nothing close to a knockout punch tonight but I thought some points were scored. Lynch described himself as pro-life though he made his “let’s keep Roe v. Wade” pitch. That can’t help. Markey did OK at saying he’s been consistently in favor of reproductive rights for 30 years, Lynch voted for Stupak as late as 2009.
I was annoyed, but not surprised, by Lynch’s efforts to say he opposed Obamacare and the bailout from the left. Each bill was flawed enough to leave that justification for a “no” vote. I thought Markey countered him decently on each. It seemed to me the sequester thing was a reverse of the Obamacare and bailout issues. Now it was Lynch saying the only responsible vote was “yes,” and Markey saying there the strings attached justified the “no” vote.
My question is: How many of those undecided voters actually watched this? And if they did, how much did they understand? I think there is room for Markey to make his points with more precision, but I thought he did OK.
goldsteingonewild says
Off topic, but I’m hearing the Mayor announces tomorrow he’s not running. True?
David says
Now it’s on boston.com.
Pablo says
I thought it was Bernstein!
Christopher says
His explanations sounded quite reasonable.
fenway49 says
I agree Lynch’s explanations sounded reasonable for the most part, although I don’t think all of them are true. I do NOT believe he voted against the ACA from the left. I thought Markey acquitted himself well also, explaining the bailout and making the case for voting “yes” on ACA.
Again, how many undecided voters were watching at all? Markey’s gotta get the message out on some of these issues, and this debate isn’t going to do it.
whosmindingdemint says
is trawling for Scott Brown votes. You’re right, he opposed ACA from the right with the same Brown patter about taxes on top of taxes on the medical device companies. And just where was Lynch when the left wing of the Dems wanted single payer or the public option?
It’s one thing for a politician to vote against a bill claiming it wasn’t good enough, it didn’t go far enough, if they just got rid of that one provision…; it’s quite another thing to use it to attack your opponent for voting for it, particularly as important a bill as ACA. Lynch was listening to the Tea Pahty crowd thinking it was the voice of the people while Markey knew the bill must be passed – with all its flaws – and be fixed over time. Just like Social Security Act, these big scope policies need constant maintenance over long periods of time.
It shows the glaring difference between law-making and politicking.
Lynch has the gift of gab though. Markey needs to loosen up a bit – he sounds like a guy who has been in the House for 20 years, which is also the glaring difference between a lawmaker and a politician.
mike-from-norwell says
leaving work driving by Channel 5 on Gould Street was predominately (sy 5-1?) Lynch supporters outside the entrance and back to the Highland intersection. Did also note a few overpasses with Lynch supporters along 128. Markey, not so much.
fenway49 says
outside the studio but had dinner in Newton with a crowd of Markey people who’d been outside Channel 5. There must have been 50 or 60 and they said there were more over there. Don’t know how many Lynch had.
mike-from-norwell says
was big time Lynch supporters compared to Markey; can not speak to later turnout. first thought was another union picket of the Wingate project across from ch 5 given type of crowd.
fenway49 says
I think I got an email from Markey people to show up a bit before 7.
mike-from-norwell says
would be to show up earlier than that; Lynch’s people were out in droves at 5. Can’t imagine that there was much of a place to stand if arriving that late.
oceandreams says
can’t show up someplace at 5 o’clock on a weekday. (I certainly can’t.)
mike-from-norwell says
being one of the few non democratic posters. Only passing on what I saw, since I work right around the corner. Lynch’s people were all over Gould Street and the Highland St interchange by Muzi Ford in prime commuting time for exposure. Not very many Markey supporters (although some) out, and not sure where they were going to stand since Gould Street not exactly conducive to crowds along the road. Will refrain about any comments about Lynch’s supporters.
Pablo says
I thought Markey was flat, and Lynch was annoyingly long-winded. R.D. Sahl had to reel in Lynch on that Yes-No question, and it never looks good when you get the hook from the moderator.
For now, call it a draw and see which candidate learns the most from this performance.
historian says
I don’t see how I can possible vote for an alleged Democrat who opposed Obama care in such a dishonest way and who tries to run against environmental radicals. If should happen to become Senator I would support anyone who runs against him in any primary.
John Tehan says
If he wins the primary, I’ll vote for him over anyone on the GOP side, but I’ll primary him myself in the next election if I have to!
bean says
He was excellent on the bailout and on his support for women’s reproductive freedom. He didn’t give an inch on his vote for Obamacare. He scored points pointing out Lynch’s vote for the Stupak amendment and underscoring his own endorsements from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. I liked his last question on support for veterans, too – made him seem the bigger person – someone who could share credit in .the service of a larger principle.
I was always going to support Markey – he’s been right on so many votes – against the dismantling of Glass Steagall, against DOMA, against the AUMF in Iraq, for healthcare reform, out in front on climate change.
I didn’t know what kind if debater he was, though, and I was happy to see him take charge, make his points succinctly and underscore the ways he is more in step with Massachusetts Democratic primary voters’ views than Lynch.
johnk says
tonight. While I knew his background I wanted to hear him speak. Lynch was awful, there is no way I can support him in this race. I really couldn’t point to anything positive from his performance.
I thought he would have been a better candidate. His framing of issues rivals the extreme right. Truly bizarre.
johnk says
Both debates, Markey/Lynch at the 30 min mark:
oceandreams says
Useful piece on HuffPost by Richard Kirsch, who was a key player in trying to get the Affodable Care Act passed, to set the record straight: There were no votes against Obamacare from the left. Even Dennis Kucinich, obviously unhappy that the bill catered to insurance companies without even a public option let alone single payer, did not oppose it.
I really would like to see Lynch asked about this again, framed properly: Those working on the issue say that there were no votes against Obamacare from the left, because everyone understood the urgency of getting a bill passed to save lives, and fine-tuning it later. Even Dennis Kucinich did not oppose it from the left. Are you claiming to have been to the left of Dennis Kucinich on this issue? If so, can you point to any evidence in speeches you gave at the time?
fenway49 says
these are the reasons I voted no, and how they characterize my vote is of no matter. I know what I know, I know who I am, etc. He’s a slippery one. Check out Charley’s piece on this on the front page.
Then he tossed in the “oppressive taxes” stuff out of the GOP playbook. He’s trying to have it both ways and, to some extent, it’s working. I think Markey will win, but we need to tie Lynch to his own positions.
Christopher says
He voted no from the left in late 2009 and for the conference report in March 2010.
fenway49 says
post by a Massachusetts union member this morning.
Always stick with your first answer, Steve.
jconway says
Why Lynch has so many unions behind him. Just two years ago he was getting booed by many of them, rightfully so I might add, for backstabbing them on health care reform. Little else in his record indicates he is any more pro-Labor than Markey, and at least with Markey he is consistently for single payer healthcare as well. I know some unions tend to be more culturally conservative but Lynch has received backing from locals I wouldn’t associate with that.
fenway49 says
Did you see the piece in last Friday’s Globe about unions splitting in this race? The union guys for Lynch were flummoxed that the state AFL-CIO didn’t endorse him. “He’s actually one of us, we’ve known him personally for 30 years, he was a union president” was the refrain. That has real value to these guys, particularly because it’s so rare to see a former local president in such a high position.
I will add that he co-founded the Working Families caucus in the House and has been a “go-to” guy for national labor on national issues. Not that it’s gotten them much of anywhere, since Congress never seems to give them a thing they seek.
And that’s fine, as far as it goes. But Markey has a near-perfect labor record as well (I will say I opposed NAFTA, et al., at the time and still hold that view, but that was 20 years ago). And Lynch’s positions on too many issues are just no-go for me. If the opponent were a social liberal who were Lieberman-esque on economics and labor issues, that would be a tough call. But this choice is easy.
jconway says
And I want to be clear I respect his union record and union history. I just think the record is identical to Markey’s who is better on a plethora of other issues that, in my view, are intricately linked to the success of the labor movement (health care reform, etc.).
Thats our choice if Lynch and Winslow win their primaries, but fortunately polling is showing both outcomes are unlikely. Its going to come down to turnout and making sure Markey voters go to the polls. I got my family lined up and have been trying to get friends via facebook and email to get their asses to the polls.
fenway49 says
Markey may have voted fine except for NAFTA 20 years ago, but he’s not necessarily leading the charge for labor the way they think Lynch is. I agree with you there are other issues affecting labor on which Markey’s better.
Turnout is the key. I think Markey would be the clear preference of Democratic activists based on the issues. But some of the unions supporting Lynch have a rep for a good ground game. I still think Markey will win, but I don’t think it’s in the bag for and would like to see a better campaign.
More public visibility (him in person, signs, stickers), more across-the-board ads (I don’t like the narrow focus of the first two ads), more making it clear what Lynch has stood for over the years.