I am a member of the Reading, Ma Rotary, and today we had a special guest. Richard Tisei. He announced he wasn’t going to be political. Then he launched into the Republican talking points on the ACA using deception and outright falsehoods all the way. I will try to recall his words and where he is wrong.
1. Massachusetts had a 15% uninsured rate before our health care law went into effect.
Correction: Ma had a 7.3 or 6.4%(depending on the survey) before the law was enacted. Half of what he said and the national average was 16% at the time.
2. The Cadillac Tax on high premium health plans will be taxed at 40%.
Correction: The tax is on the overage of health plans above $27,400 for families, meaning someone would pay $1040 excise tax, not the $12,000 he implied for a $30,000 policy(he did not check obviously how this tax works). Who has a $30,000 dollar policy anyway?
3. The Medical Device Tax at 2.5% on sales will lead to layoffs and shipping devices and manufacture overseas.
Correction: The Medical Device tax was lowered when industry representatives met with Max Baucus, and accepted the tax because they would get more customers because more people would be covered with insurance. If shipped to other countries, there is no tax. The excise tax can be deducted as an expense, and the effective rate drops to 1.5%. Profits in this industry run from Baxter International at 2.3 billion to Care Fusion at 293 million. As for R/D this mostly from ex camera sources. With added insured their profits will climb, and costs will be passed on.
4. The law is too complex and the President has given waivers beyond his power to do so.
Correction: Most of the waivers have been asked for by insurers or Republicans. They are arguing against themselves.
5. People have lost their insurance, and are now uninsured.
Correction: There are more insured in the country since the ACA has gone into effect. The uninsured rate has been lowered by 2% to date and counting.
This is what I remember. It may be helpful to attend some of his events and straighten him out when he says these things. This is going to be the main Republican pitch this year.
kbusch says
You can count on Republicans being very loose about their assertions about the Affordable Care Act. They are not going to corroborate stories they find favorable. If one of them hears a number damning of Obamacare, they’re not going to track down the source to verify it before they run with it. If the Koch Brothers or Rove or Corsi turns out deceitful advertising, they won’t complain. They won’t complain because they expect the facts to be on their side; they expect that everything negative about Obamacare is true.
They’ve already demonstrated that with sob story after sob story that turned out to be untrue.
The approaching campaign season isn’t going to be pretty.
SomervilleTom says
I agree that one very generous characterization of their behavior is “they fully expect the facts to be on their side”.
Another is “they just lie”.
Sorry, but I think the latter is both more accurate and also more succinct.
kbusch says
Conservatives generally feel very morally righteous about their positions. It’s difficult to have that feeling if you also feel you’re being deceptive. And while there definitely are “poker players” on the Right, they’re not the majority.
What we have here are people deeply convinced that Obamacare will be a catastrophe. Whether this or that “detail” or “fact” turns out to be untrue does not shake them from their conviction. So they don’t care at all about whether a Ryan statement here or a sob story there gets things wrong. Those are details; Obamacare’s evil is truth.
Maybe it is useful to liberal morale to believe Republicans are just a bunch of lying cynical bastards. However, people who know actual Republicans aren’t going to draw that conclusion. If we sink into unconvincing ad hominem, we’re not going to win a lot of debates.
JimC says
n/t
kbusch says
To lie is to deceive someone else intentionally. Passing off one’s own self-deceptions as truth is not lying. We call that being misguided.
SomervilleTom says
Perhaps confabulation is the term we seek. If the GOP were as innocent as you suggest, then they would take a different stance towards, for example, global warming/climate change.
I’m sorry, but the phenomena we see unfolding is, in my view, more intentional than merely “expecting the facts to be on their side”.
kbusch says
Ezra Klein, on his new site, has an excellent article called How Politics Makes Us Stupid.
Klein, in this article, features the work of Dan Kahan who runs some remarkable experiments whereby conservatives demonstrate an ability to readily believe falsehoods that are favorable to them. Oops, did I say conservatives? Well, he proves the same thing of liberals. This is a human characteristic, not a conservative one.
Kahan terms it Identity Protective Cognition.
Donald Green says
Tribalism
SomervilleTom says
Are you suggesting that Mr. Hannity doesn’t know he’s wrong about climate change, and therefore lying?
Sorry, but I don’t buy it. I think Mr. Hannity is more like Lou Albano and the other pro wrestlers who stage magnificent displays of hostility and personal violence while on-camera, and enjoy long and lasting friendships off-camera.
I think the argument your quote from Mr. Klein is a rationalization to avoid the obvious conclusion that these guys are either vicious and delusional scum or, more likely, utterly amoral cynics who do and say whatever they need to protect their livelihoods.
As Mr. Mencken is sometimes alleged to have said — there are none so blind as those whose livelihood depends on their not seeing.
kirth says
If you’re trying to show that Republicans are honest in their delusions, I don’t think you could pick a much worse model than Hannity, short of a Kristol. Hannity has very publicly demonstrated a lack of honor or convictions. Remember his promise to undergo waterboarding, which he insisted was not torture, which promise he has not fulfilled, and five years later, won’t talk about. Also, the Klein excerpt above boils down to this: Hannity would be out of work if he acknowledged the reality of climate change. He gets paid to lie about that and the other components of the Republican fantasy world. I know that a lot of ordinary Republicans actually believe the lies they are fed, but let’s not pretend the ones doing the feeding also believe them all.
kbusch says
Is that really what you are suggesting?
Sean Hannity may be a doody head, a boor, a pernicious influence, and a rage addict, but he is a sincere doody head, boor, pernicious influence, and rage addict. To think that he has constructed an elaborate shell of rationalizations to undermine the large, large number of liberal truths he’d have to hold in his heart is to imagine something more akin to science fiction than any reality I’ve known.
kirth says
I’m not suggesting that. Hannity is not a liberal who believes the things he says are false. He’s an ideologue who doesn’t care if they are false. Truth or falsehood are irrelevant to him; he may know some of the things he says are false, but it makes no difference to him if they are. If there’s one word I would not apply to him, it’s “sincere.”
This quality of not caring about the truth is common to right-wing mouthpieces, and I have seen it in some ordinary conservatives as well. For those people, truthiness will always have more appeal than facts do.
SomervilleTom says
Truth is not all relative.
Heavy objects DO fall at the same speed as light objects (in a vacuum). The earth is more than 6,000 years old. The climate is warming.
It sounds as though you suggest that accepting these objective realities makes one a “liberal on the inside”. Is that really what you mean?
jconway says
How many times has MSNBC really hit Obama hard on any of his abuses of executive power, drones, or his outright lies about his views on drug policy in the New Yorker? How many times do people here make excuses for him? I did repeatedly in the first term but won’t going forward. It’s unconscionable that a man who so eloquently demanded sentencing reform as my state senator is now lying to Remmick saying his hands are tied. They aren’t-there are 3,000 pardons just waiting for him to sign! The Afghans just voted in a decent government, time to GTFO of there and Pakistan.
Anyway, my point is the tribalism issue is very real. Problem is Klein like Silver are going to insist on the same false equivalence sad old media to appear “objective”.
Christopher says
…I’m a pretty regular viewer of MSNBC primetime. They do in fact criticize Obama on things like drones and drugs with some regularity.
kbusch says
Something we liberals all believe is completely, objectively false. Who knows?
Lots of people believe lots of things that aren’t true. Poor drivers think they’re above average. Stingy people think they’re generous. Voters think they’re great judges of character.
*
In addition to being true, the proposition that human-generated global warming is occurring is not believed by a majority of conservatives. To believe that and to believe it is significant qualifies on as liberal — in the world we occupy. No doubt some Platonic Ideal of Conservative somewhere believes the science. If you want to talk about shadows on the walls of caves, though, let’s be clear we’ve departed the empirical for the airy world of Pure Concept and Idea.
SomervilleTom says
Perhaps you’ve “departed the empirical for the airy world of Pure Concept and Idea”, but I have not.
The “liberals” I know, when shown evidence that a cherished belief is “completely, objectively false” discard that belief. I suggest that you have the cart before the horse. We now live in a culture where relying on science makes us “liberal”. THAT is foolishness, and that most certainly does not come from the liberal side of the spectrum.
I’m not talking about people self-estimating their driving skills, generosity, or judgement. I’m talking about whether or not increases in atmospheric CO2 cause increases in global warming.
In your last paragraph, you are apparently reinforcing the foolishness that relying on science makes one liberal. While I agree that that is real, we apparently disagree about the import of that reality. I don’t care about shadows on caves or about a “Platonic ideal of Conservative”.
I care that the arctic icecap is melting, the seas are rising, the costs of catastrophic climate events are skyrocketing, the US is a major contributor of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and a major political party STILL denies the fundamental objective TRUTH of all that.
The very fact that global warming is discussed in terms of “belief” is preposterous. We don’t climb on airplanes because we “believe” the science of aerodynamics that keeps them in the sky.
What you call “the airy world of Pure Concept and Idea” I call “La La Land”, and the GOP and its supporters — reinforced and enabled by our major mainstream news media — have been living there for years going on decades.
There is objective evidence that global warming is real. There is NO objective evidence to the contrary. There is objective evidence that reducing government expenditures during a recession worsens, rather than improves, the deficits of that government. There is objective evidence that the outcomes of the US health care system are inferior to those of our western European allies.
If you want to live in a world where rationality, objective evidence, and science are divorced from governance, then more power to you. I do not.
kbusch says
The discussion here is politics.
SomervilleTom says
You seem to be making the claim that politics is rightly divorced from objective reality, including physics.
I agree that this is one viewpoint, and it is is certainly possible — one need only look at the positions taken by the GOP and the way those issues are presented on Fox News.
The anthropogenic CO2 that we dump into the atmosphere will continue to warm the earth, whether or not our government legislates to the contrary.
Not ALL truth is relative, in spite of the claims of some academics a decade or so ago. The success of the American system of government is, among other things, founded on a willingness for all sides to agree that when a rational exchange has pointed to a specific outcome, that outcome is embraced (even if reluctantly).
The alternative, that the GOP has been increasingly enamored of since the 1980s, is to revert to sheer power and tyranny, obscured by a thin veneer of advertising and media persuasion. Concern for objective truth is discarded in preference to the cynical observation that mob rule can be more powerful and is far easier to manipulate.
We are talking politics. I hope that we have that discussion against a commonly-held acceptance of a shared framework of reality — reality that includes physics, mathematics, and the rest of science.
kbusch says
and so I am not going to debate you further.
Christopher says
…pride themselves on being reality-based and are thus more open to reconsidering their views when presented with new evidence.
mike_cote says
It is unbelievable.
While at the same time, I was taught that the Milky Way Galaxy is a Spiral Armed Galaxy, but when this was corrected to the Milky Way Galaxy is actually a Bar Galaxy, I just thought that was Nerdtastic.
Further, I was taught that the hills of Scotland are actually the remnants of the Appalacian Mountains before North America split from Europe to form the Atlantic Ocean, now the latest is that North America was actually connected to Africa, and that what is now New York City was once connected to Africa around Moracco.
I had no problem adjusting to the new evidence but these people freaking out over that accuracy of the Noah Flood story is just ridiculous to the point of being just “sad”.
Christopher says
…putting “accuracy” and “Noah Flood story” in the same sentence is dubious at best. The closest you can come is faithful to the Biblical account, but that’s not the same as accurate in the literal sense.
jconway says
Early Christians from Augustine to Jerome to Origen held that much of the Old Testament was allegorical in one way or another. For a variety if reasons I know a few pastors, a few friends from undergrad at Chicago, Duke and Yale Divinity, and my future in laws. All would agree it’s allegorical. Were Noah and a flood real-possibly. What’s most important is covenant to Noah and how Christ fulfills it in the NT.
It really bothers me when fundies like Ham make our religion and faith so small and easy to disprove and mock. On the other hand, scientists like Dawkins thinking they’ve disproven God are also annoying-albeit far less influential.
NDT takes the right approach on these questions, it’s obvious he’s likely agnostic like Sagan before him (though I read somewhere he attends an Episcopal church with his family) but he does a great job demonstrating that we are talking about entirely different methods for explaining different phenomena. The first episode illustrates this well with discussing Bruni.
theloquaciousliberal says
The atheist/agnostic distinction (semantically) is a dispute for the ages. I know Sagan claimed he was an agnostic and that he hated the term atheist. Me, I prefer atheist to agnostic (in the sense that I don’t know if God exists and that, to me, is enough to be an “atheist” in the absence of any contradictory evidence).
But, that aside, you’ve really misquoted Dawkins here. Dawkins doesn’t think he’s disproven God at all. In fact, he regularly and eloquently acknowledges that disproving God is impossible. For example:
jconway says
And just as I think it’s wrong for the religious right to belittle people of no faith and people of other faiths, I think it’s equally wrong for him to belittle people with faith. He is also highly Islamophoic, which along with homophobia is the racism of our era in my view.
But, as I’ve stated elsewhere, I do think there is a double standard within the mainstream culture that enables religious bigotry under the guise of Christianity. You will see more and more atheist candidates, particularly as my very secular generation moves from the ballot box to the ballot itself. But that double standard will persist, and those atheist candidates will sound like the Milliband and Clegg and mention how much they respect people of faith, I don’t think you will get the same notion from the Brouns and Akins on the right.
Within the ivory tower though, this double standard is inverted and that is just as tragic in my view.
jconway says
I have no idea what any of this has to do with Richard Tisei, but I am more than happy to continue this dialogue here or on a different thread.
I think militancy is a bad tendency within any ideology or belief structure, even one that is purports to be free of either like atheism. One of my best friends since childhood is an atheist and we used to have very heated arguments, but I do think they have served to mellow us out. He is a lot more open to the idea that not all Christians are backward conservatives since he recognizes the Christian origins behind my desire to fight for social justice. And through him I have an easy counterweight to anyone who would suggest atheists are immoral by default, he might be the most upstanding ethical person I know.
kirth says
One of the things they’re freaking out about is a depiction of Noah getting drunk, which they say shows a lack of respect. The Bible, however, also speaks of him being drunk. (I am not a Biblical scholar; I’m just repeating some of what Jon Stewart said.
Christopher says
Genesis 9:21
JimC says
I heard about this article yesterday, and this line stopped me from reading the rest.
“The deeper their disagreements become” is WAY different from “Politics Makes Us Stupid.” And in this case we can’t blame an editor, because isn’t this Ezra’s new venture?
I’ll forgive him, eventually. But his timing on going Third Way is poor.
kbusch says
Ezra Klein has never embraced the Broder-Friedman-Lieberman-Ford sort of positions that qualify him as Third Way.
The results of Kahan’s experiments can indeed be characterized as they were in that article. In Kahneman’s excellent Thinking Fast and Slow he describes a number of experiments where fast, reactive thinking gets the wrong answer instinctively and where only our slow, reasoned thinking gets us to the correct answer.
What Kahan does is present some data on a neutral topic and a certain percentage of people (both conservatives and liberals) take the slow thinking path and arrive at the correct result. However if you reframe the question so that the very same data, when correctly interpreted, undermine the case for gun control or for global warming you see ideology overwhelming the capacity for slow thinking. In other words, liberals, faced with the gun control data, do the fast thinking and stop; conservatives, faced with the climate change data, do the fast thinking and stop. In other words, ideology overwhelms us; it makes us more stupid. When the data are about skin rash treatments, there’s no problem.
JimC says
“Politics makes us harden our ideologies” — fine.
“Politics increases our tribalism and can even make us reluctant to see some evidence” — fine.
“Politics Makes Us Stupid” – Third way BS. And not even in line with the subtle premise of the piece.
jconway says
The messenger, Klein, has embraced Broderism at points. He is very self conscious and self critical of that-but he still thinks ACA was a better policy than single payer and seems to love its complexity which is the main reason it’s so unpopular. We can also blame him for creating the myth that Paul Ryan is some kind of wonk.
Donald Green says
The state uninsured rate went from 93.6% in 2006 to 96% in 2013, but with continued rising costs above inflation. This state continues to have the highest premiums in the country. In 2017 Vermont launches its single payer plan. Keep watching.
fenway49 says
Not uninsured rate. That would be pretty bad!
Donald Green says
Yes, this is the insured rate. Thanks for the pick up.
Donald Green says
I wrote this post so Dem activist can strongly counter this pack of you know what. If there is a Tisei gathering in your neighborhood, Go. He does do questions and answers and it looks like he will mostly be a single issue candidate. The ACA was the only subject he addressed at what is suppose to be an apolitical meeting. Usually only elected officials are heard from, not candidates who hold no office. Somehow it was violated in this case. He also acted like he was an expert on the ACA, saying near the conclusion of his remarks: “I just wanted to let you know what is going on……” This humbug needs to be stopped.
Switching a bit onto other Republican strategy in Massachusetts. Every chance a GOPer gets in this state, they mention political balance as a goal. My answer is once they can achieve the same in Georgia, the Carolinas, Texas, or Alabama or take your pick, we’ll think about it. This argument too has to be shown to be bogus, as if Mass voters are mindlessly pulling the lever for more progressive candidates.
jconway says
Since he isn’t a moderate. How would he vote
on the minimum wage? Unemployment extension? The jobs bill? How would he vote on social security? What about national security
for that matter?
I think we know the answers to these questions and the answer is : not that different from Paul Ryan or John Boehner.
Christopher says
…vote differently from Ryan and Boehner he will almost certainly cast his first vote for Boehner to be Speaker, which means he will vote for their agenda to be the House’s agenda for the next two years.
jconway says
Is how many Obamacare repeal votes are optimal in Tisei’s eyes next session? Should they beat the record of this Congress or is it even worth trying to tie?
And with a strict earmarks ban his boast of ‘delivering more for the district’ is about as hallow as his gesture at the state convention.
merrimackguy says
Democrats:
AL-1
GA-5
NC-4 (though one of them was D, now “vacant”)
SC-1
merrimackguy says
12
fenway49 says
responsible for the vast majority of those districts.
AL-one majority-black district, gerrymandered so as to pack as many of those Democratic voters into one district as possible.
SC-same.
NC-two majority-black districts, one Research Triangle district populated by northeastern transplants, one Blue Dog.
GA-four majority-black districts, one Blue Dog.
TX-twelve majority-minority districts, nine of which are represented by people of color, plus Lloyd Doggett of Austin and Gene Green of Houston.
merrimackguy says
Mass has zero Republicans.. The states you mention have at least some Democrats. I see Clyburn from SC on TV all the time.
When Tisei says “wouldn’t it be a good thing for MA to have at least one Republican in a Republican controlled House of Representatives” it’s a valid thing to say in a political campaign.
He’s not far out of line (philosophically) in representing the 6th District, districts which were all created by a Democratic legislature. I will grant he is far to the right of most BMG posters so of course you don’t like him.
jconway says
I respect and admire his social tolerance and liberalism on equality and choice. Why he chooses to be part of a party at the state and federal level that refuses to recognize his full rights to citizenship is another question, but I respect that he is fighting to keep marriage equality a bipartisan issue as it should be.
What I don’t respect is someone pretending to be someone they aren’t. Tisei is no moderate. He has repeatedly endorsed Ryancare which would eviscerate social security and medicare. My parents, who now live in the 6th, aren’t BMG posters or liberal activists by any stretch-> they voted for Weld for Governor twice and against Kerry in 96′, I believe they voted for McCain in 2000. In short they are the exact voters Tisei needs to win-but they are retired and depend on SSI and Medicare for their income and healthcare. And he would eviscerate both with his votes for the Ryan budget. He is against organized labor and ma partly depends on her union pension as well. The MA GOP’s problem isn’t social conservatism but hostility to working people and their interests. And until they are able to fix that problem, they will always be running second place, even for statewide offices or in centrist districts like the 6th or the 9th.
merrimackguy says
as I mentioned earlier I am never right here so no point in arguing. As has been noted many times here the MA House & Senate (Democratic) leadership is considered right wing, so I suppose that would put Tisei “far right.”
Note that my former State Senator, Susan Tucker (hero to the anti-casino crowd) was the most conservative voting Democrat in the MA Senate when she was in office, often aligned with the Republicans, yet no one thought she was right of her district, or called her far right.
Can I add, by your thinking:
Boehner would be far far right.
McConnell would be far far far right.
Cruz would then be far far far far right.
fenway49 says
by the standards of the United States Congress, circa 1957 or 1965 or 1977. The John Birchers that Cruz represents used to be a tiny fringe way out of the GOP mainstream. There’s not a Republican left who wouldn’t be “far right” as that term would be understood pre-1994.
HeartlandDem says
Really?
THE most conservative……really?
merrimackguy says
Highest CLT Score of any Democrat.
Sort this list by rating
http://votesmart.org/interest-group/1483/rating/4918#.U0VPMqhdXeB
or this
http://votesmart.org/interest-group/1483/rating/4918#.U0VQDqhdXeB
That’s not to say that she was a conservative, but on budget/ taxation and government operation the most conservative Democrat. The point is that she could be this without everyone decrying her as this or that. Most people would call her balanced.
margiebh says
Would he really eviscerate your parents benefits? To get their votes, wouldn’t he leave their benefits alone and cuts benefits for younger, less politically vigilant citizens?
fenway49 says
jconway’s parents care about their kids and their generation too. But the Chained CPI discussion did indeed involve reducing the payments current seniors would receive over the years.
fenway49 says
Those states probably wouldn’t have any Democrats in the House if they hadn’t spent 100 years after the Civil War doing all they could to suppress the black vote, prompting Congressional action. Once John Roberts & Co. get the next VRA case, maybe they’ll strike down that section too.
But the current MA districts are not really gerrymandered. I’ve seen an article saying that, if an independent commission rather than our Democratic legislature did the districting, we’d still have nine Democratic-leaning districts. It just happens that there are Democratic voters spread fairly evenly across the state.
Personally I don’t buy the argument that we should vote for someone of either party because the delegation doesn’t include anyone else of that party. If I lived in South Carolina (I wouldn’t), I would vote for Democrats because I think their policies are better, not for “balance.” even if Jim Clyburn (in office thanks to the VRA) is the only Democrat holding an office above dog catcher. People should vote for the candidate who best represents their values and policy preferences, period. Mass. GOP candidates really are saying, “Vote for me even if you don’t think I’m the best candidate so my party isn’t shut out.”
Obviously he’s got a chance in that particular district. Sure, I wouldn’t vote Tisei because he’s pretty far to my right. But the point of the post is that he (like too many in his party) is willing to play fast and loose with facts as well, and we shouldn’t let him boost his chances by bullshitting the voters.
merrimackguy says
an invalid campaign point. There are Democrats in Red States. I’m not talking about the VRA, post-Civil War South or anything else. That statement “MA could use at least one R in Congress” will work with some voters and he’s using it.
As to Tisei’s distance on the right scale, especially with regards to the district, Hudak got 42% in 2010. That would imply that Tisei is to the left of a considerable chunk of the voters.
We can keep going forever on this. I’m only making those two points.
SomervilleTom says
I agree with that the statement “MA could use at least one R in Congress” will work with some voters and he’s using it.
I think it’s hard to say what portion of Mr. Hudak’s 42% can be attributed to his own stance, what portion can be attributed to Mr. Tierney’s personal affairs that were very much campaign issues, and what portion can be attributed to voters who choose “anything but D”.
I hope you’ll agree with me that primary reason that GOP has no seats in the MA legislature is the direct result of the GOP’s own actions:
1. They fail to contest most seats,
2. They promote stances that are at great variance with Massachusetts voters of all persuasions, and
3. Time and again, they embrace the national GOP brand even as the evidence mounts that that brand is absolutely toxic in Massachusetts.
I note that Mr. Gomez was the most liberal of the GOP candidates, and he beat more conservative opponents the April 2013 primary.
The truth is, for better or worse, Massachusetts voters ARE liberal than the national average. Even “conservative” Massachusetts voters are, by and large, more liberal than their counterparts in other states. Given that simple reality, using right-leaning talking points, strategies, and brands is a prescription for failure.
Which, in my view, is a perfectly adequate explanation for why the MA GOP is dead.
merrimackguy says
The MA GOP has been trending down since the 50’s.
The voting trends in MA are not flowing in their directions.
The MA GOP has been inept. The MA Dems have been very effective.
I might note that from a habitat perspective the place in MA formerly occupied by moderate Republicans has been occupied by Democrats. If I was not keen on taxes for example, I would be happy that DeLeo only hit me with $500M instead of Devel’s $2B.
fenway49 says
I don’t think we’ve been having the same conversation and I’m sorry about it. The statement that “MA could use at least one R in Congress” might work, but all sorts of statements (ranging from totally acceptable to despicable) will win over some voters.
I’m not sure Hudak is a helpful data point. As Tom points out, 2010 was the high point of Tierney’s family troubles. It also was a low point in Democratic popularity and arguably the least Democratic-friendly electorate in recent years. Based on opinion polls it seems at least 10% of the electorate changes their minds about the parties every two weeks.
kbusch says
Usually gerrymandering is achieved by lumping as many voters of one party into a single district that they can win overwhelmingly. You get Republican gerrymandering in an evenly divided state when six districts have 55% Republican majorities and one district has a 95% Democratic majority. The trick is to “waste” as many Democratic votes as possible.
In Massachusetts, there is no one district that is a repository of Republican votes.
Donald Green says
His remarks I heard were did not pass the smell test. Further he presented himself as expert on the issue. Should someone who deceives the public so blatantly get their support whether D, R, or whatever?
jconway says
From the 1980 GOP Platform
Speaker Boehner whom a Congressman Tisei (R-MA) has pledged to vote for has instead pledged that unemployment will have “no chance” in his House.
We could go issue by issue.
It is doubtful the same Tisei who supports the same Ryan budget that turns Medicare into a voucher program and dismantles Social Security would have voted for the deal Reagan made with Tip expanding Social Security. It is doubtful the same Tisei who supports the border fence would have supported the Reagan amnesty and immigration reform package. It is doubtful that the same Tisei who has been endorsed by a party and a speaker that wants the marginal tax rate reduced to 20% would have supported the Reagan and Rostonkowski tax reform that reduced them to 50%.
On choice and equality he is as good as a Democrat, on any other issue he is a Goldwater Republican at best and a Tea Partier at worst.
mike_cote says
to paraphrase Goldwater.
jconway says
His support of choice and equality is an insufficient virtue.
I’ll also take back this remark
Since ‘any Democrat’ would not be keeping Boehner and Cantor in the majority where they routinely oppose choice and equality at every turn. Which also leads me to question how effective he would be in such a majority.
merrimackguy says
Not everyone in MA is agrees.
jconway says
I am saying any Democrat is better than Richard Tisei. Even Stephen Lynch would vote to his left.
mike_cote says
n/t
jconway says
We may have sent some Republicans to Washington but we haven’t kept any of them there. Markey v Gomez was about as close to “any D v any R” in recent history and was a route against “any R”. Sure not everyone agrees but “not everyone” isn’t enough to win a statewide or federal election. A lesson they are sure to learn again.
merrimackguy says
running against one of the most experienced politicians in MA, and one with a large D voting block.
Gomez could have gotten up and said “I think everything Markey does” and still would have lost be a substantial margin.
mike_cote says
I forget which town.
merrimackguy says
not really good prep for a statewide race
merrimackguy says
So what does that matter?
jconway says
You seen to think the MA GOP is still a moderate balanced to one party domination, but the national and state party’s are to the far right of where they were in 1980. You are the one suffering under the delusion that somehow the MA Democrats aren’t centrist enough and somehow the current GOP will balance that.
merrimackguy says
I am only referring to the original points about Richard Tisei.
jconway says
Granted I am partisan here, but I’ve also pointed out Tierney’s flaws elsewhere, and I think Tisei is making a flawed case on three fronts.
1) An R is needed to balance out the MA delegation
This argument only works if the MA delegation is substantially leftward that it would need a conservative R candidate to move it to the center. I would argue it’s not, and Tisei seems to be arguing he is a centrist candidate that would move it to the middle. I would argue his economic and foreign policy views are as conservative as the mainstream of is increasingly far right conservative party. Thus he is not the moderate centrist required to balance out the delegation. An R may be needed, but it’s not his brand of R.
2) Good to have a member in the Majority
Not with earmarks eliminated, and not with the kind of political socipaths that particular Majority has become. It’s an argument for his candidacy that negates the first one-how will he be an independent voice that balances our delegation out if his caucus is so obstructionist and conservative-possibly the most on record.
3) The 6th is intrinsically socially moderate and fiscally conservative
Another unfounded assumption he, you, and Seth Moulton seem to be making. Based on the 2012 results and the garbage dump polling Moulton is enjoying, it seems to be that Tierney’s brand of left populism is actually a good fit for the district. Good enough that it seems to help him overcome his other liabilities. I might add that prior to 2010, Tierney enjoyed easy re-elections in the 60-70% range and that has everything to do with his voting record which is unchanged. His personal problems are there, but it seems that people hold their nose on that and vote for the record. It’s what I intend to do if I’m back in MA by that point, and it’s what my parents intend to do since the don’t trust Tisei on Social Security.
I would argue its a district that is socially liberal, slightly right of center on immigration (judging by state legislative votes on in state tuition and housing), and right in the center on economics-which is far from where the GOP is these days. It may be ACA skeptical if the Brown/Coakley votes are an indication, but it’s not SSI or Medicare skeptical.
merrimackguy says
way too many words on a subject that clearly there is no middle ground.
fenway49 says
This is a political blog. People like to ruminate about political things. If it’s too long for your taste, don’t read and don’t say anything at all.
merrimackguy says
but I could change if you prefer.
and use the dreaded “Meh”
jconway says
Sounds like we are all wasting your time then.
Here is a site you might find more enjoyable
merrimackguy says
only the other two.
SomervilleTom says
While you’re “not answering the ACA point”, the candidate you’re talking about is making it the center of his campaign strategy!
Whatever the generic reasons why generic Massachusetts GOP members lose (there seem to be approximately as many reasons as there are losing candidates), the specific case we’re discussing here is that THIS candidate is making a GOP lie the center of his campaign.
A very successful investor once told me “your best deal is the one that’s on the table”.
Mr. Tisei is the MA GOP candidate that’s on the table. Embracing the lies of the national party about the ACA — while falsely presenting himself as an expert — exemplifies why this candidate will and should lose.
It also exemplifies why the MA GOP is dead. Until rational people like yourself can embrace rather than flee the positions taken by your party and its candidates, your party and its candidates are dead.
merrimackguy says
The leader of your party is Bob DeLeo and I know what you think about him, so I can embrace or not embrace anything about the platform.Just like you do about your party
You can make whatever point you want about the MA GOP- I think above I agreed with your points and piled some more on besides.
I do disagree that the MA GOP problem is all messaging. Various nobodies ran against Ted Kennedy and got 30%. Who are those people? 40+ % routinely vote for Republicans statewide. Who are those people? Yes, Democrats always win, but it’s not 95:5.
The party is weak, the candidates are weak, people have voting histories. I get it Republicans are doomed. One guy with a shot comes along and everyone dumps on him. If he wins then some of the MA story no longer rings true so it’s completely understandable.
MA had a health care system that worked. If our Congressional reps cared (other than Lynch) they should have voted for our state. Now we in MA have something that does not work. That is not a lie.
and by the way here’s a link to Tisei’s voting record. You can see at times he was joined by 6-9 Democrats on Bills, and at times even joined the majority. Hardly an extremist record.
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/4760/richard-tisei#.U0WPsahdXeA
fenway49 says
You’re totally right, Tisei wasn’t called out because he’s spreading falsehoods about the ACA, or because he’s wrong on major issues in the eyes of BMG participants. He’s being called out because we can’t bear to lose even a small part of “the MA story.”
You’re also right that it’s our job, on a Democratic blog, to avoid saying anything bad about a Republican candidate. We should step back and do nothing to interfere with the Republican who “has a shot.” It’s only fair.
And you’re right that criticizing Democratic politicians for failing to adhere to the party’s platform is exactly the same as praising Republican politicians BECAUSE they don’t adhere to their party’s platform.
You can’t have it every which way. You just pointed out that the Massachusetts Democratic Party spans far enough to the right to include many people who don’t abide by its platform, then argued that Tisei is beyond reproach because he sometimes voted with the 6 to 9 right-most Democrats on things.
Whether he’s to the right depends on his stance on the issues, not the fact that James Timilty or Susan Tucker share some of them. On some issues he’s not far to the right at all, on others he is.
jconway says
Get a life bro
SomervilleTom says
You seem to be making an arguments that Mr. Tisei should be elected to the House, while simultaneously choosing to not discuss the issue Mr. Tisei has made the center of his campaign.
If Mr. DeLeo were running for dog-catcher (or any other office), I would oppose him. I would cite his frequent votes (and applications of his influence) against working-class men and women in support of my opposition.
Mr. Tisei, a self-identified Republican, is embracing the national and local GOP platform. Mr. DeLeo, a self-identified Democrat (and Speaker of a Democratic House), opposes (or ignores) the national and local Democratic platform.
In my view, your attempt to equate my posture towards Mr. DeLeo and yours towards Mr. Tisei fails.
kirth says
Unless one of those “Republican” words is supposed to be “Democratic,” the question makes no sense.
JimC says
I actually think that’s a strong argument. What it translates to is, “Right now no one in office can bring home the bacon, but I can.” Voters might shrink from the translation (ask Mike Capuano), but they might like the code.
I think Tierney survives this one, in the end. If I were him I’d be more worried about the primary.
merrimackguy says
What if it’s an issue that is specific to MA- fisheries, or mutual funds or even offshore wind farms and we need some push in conference committee or otherwise.
JimC says
Conference committee is no problem, as long as we control the Senate.
jconway says
Not when that Majority has banned earmarks, and not when it routinely votes against it’s party’s members who need aid. If aid to Sandy was ‘pork‘, I doubt aid to ailing fisheries would be considered kosher either.
JimC says
I didn’t say it would work on you, but it might play with voters. A lot of people like divided government, for one thing.
jconway says
But even independents should see by now why it’s not working on Capital Hill.
Boehner won’t give Tisei pork, but he can count on his votes for shutdowns, Ryancare, and killing SSI and Medicare. Can any of is honestly say a Weld Republican would vote that way on economic issues? This is something Tierney needs to batter home. Our gubernatorial nominee needs to tie Baker to Walker, Kasich and Snyder who all ran as social moderates as well and governed as proud union busters and pension wreckers. A socially liberal Republican with economic views to the right of Reagan is still not a moderate in my book.
fenway49 says
I think jconway’s arguing for why voters SHOULDN’T find it a compelling argument, while you’re arguing that some will. Those are two separate issues in my view.
Merrimack said above it was “a valid thing to say in a political campaign” precisely because it might work on some voters, and you seem to agree. My point is that a candidate might say all sorts of things, including despicable things, that would win over some number of voters. The mere fact that some voters might go for it doesn’t make it, in my book, a “valid” point. That’s a substantive determination.
jconway says
I actually agreed with JimC’s second reply since it clarified his position. I think Merrimack thinks its both compelling logically and with voters. JimC agrees with me that it’s illogical, but it might be compelling with voters. I would argue its certainly illogical and it’s up to us to point that out so it’s not compelling with voters.
And for what it’s worth that was the intention of the OP, how do we, as liberal Democrats, particularly those of us that live in the 6th, advocate against this campaign of lies and obstruction? I think the answer is calling Tisei out for them and hammering home that message between now and November.
Donald Green says
Voters who come to hear Tisei speak should understand where he is off base and often. So we have to lift our tushes and get out and give him no rest. If done persuasively it can have the proper impact. Done churlishly it will be the opposite…..Scott Brown’s tom tom crew for example.
jconway says
Good point oetkb. But a key difference is the Tom Tom crew was spreading bullshit, and we are wiping it off.
Steve Stein says
“the President has given waivers beyond his power to do so.
Correction: Most of the waivers have been asked for by insurers or Republicans.”
Do you have a cite for this, or data to back it up? It would be most helpful.
Donald Green says
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/10/obama-administration-announces-further-aca-delays.html
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/03/06/insurance-plans-not-in-compliance-with-aca-get-three-year-reprieve/
Most of these fixes have come about because there is no universal mechanism for payment, and the rejection of some states to have functioning exchanges. Single payer under a Medicare For All umbrella was sadly not in the cards. So we have this Rube-Goldberg mess thanks to health insurance company lobbying(Remember Karen Ignani) and Republicans equating social insurance with socialism. My eyes turn to Vermont and hope their turn at SP is successful, starting a trend for the rest of the country.
Donald Green says
In my opinion just speaking to the choir is not enough. These candidates, like Mr. Tisei, need to be challenged. I have asked his campaign where he is speaking next, but, sadly, no response. If he is going to show up in your area, asking pertinent questions may clarify his positions for those attending. He was a bit flabbergasted at my questioning and pointing out where he has missed the boat. Afterwards he said he had been talking to manufacturers and just took their word they were giving him hard facts. I didn’t ask where he got the rest of his information, but he is vulnerable to pointed inquiries. This is where the tire meets the road. So I advocate showing up and speaking out.