Aside from Kerry Healey and Reed Hillman, who is it, again, that is setting the standard for the state Republican party?
This buffoon, for one: Ken Chase, one of only four statewide GOP candidates this cycle (Healey, Hillman, and Attorney General candidate Larry Frisoli are the others). Chase won the hotly-contested yet barely-noticed primary between himself and Kevin Scott for the honor of being demolished in the general election by Ted Kennedy. Even the Sages of Beverly aren’t too psyched about Chase.
And really, all you need to know about Chase appears in this hilarious video, in which (as Brian McGrory recently recalled) he and the campaign manager of his pathetic run against Ed Markey a few years back hashed out their differences before – wait for it – Judge Mathis. Especially entertaining is the revelation that Chase talked about wanting to take a 2-by-4 to Markey’s head.
So that’s Chase. The final statewide GOP candidate, Larry Frisoli, seems like a decent enough guy, but of course he has no chance against Martha Coakley.
And we would be remiss indeed if we failed to mention one last high-profile candidate fielded by the GOP this year: none other than Jack E. Robinson, who this time is taking on Steve Lynch in the Ninth Congressional District. Robinson, you surely recall, ran for Senate in 2000 with, well, interesting results. Here’s an article from April, 2000:
In the mid-1980s, for starters, Robinson was stopped by police for driving under the influence; and after graduating from law school in 1985, he failed the bar exam three times in two states. More recently, a federal judge decided Robinson had lifted portions of his 1994 book on Pan Am airlines from another author. One former girlfriend once took out a restraining order against Robinson, and last month, an unnamed woman told reporters Robinson had groped and forcibly kissed her after a date four years ago, leading Boston papers to dub him “Jack the Tongue.”
And just when things couldn’t get any worse, they did. While talking to a reporter on his cell phone two weeks ago, Robinson got into a car accident — “Candidate Robinson Steers into More Trouble,” ran one headline — and worse, was accused by another driver of leaving the scene. Within days, the Republican State Committee withdrew its support, and Robinson’s candidacy became a punch line. “The sheer volume of the allegations, and the disturbing nature of some of these allegations,” announced Gov. Paul Cellucci, “makes it pretty impossible for him to get this campaign off the ground.”
So “Jack the Tongue” is back, representing one of the best chances the GOP has this year of picking up a congressional seat in Massachusetts. Which, obviously, ain’t sayin’ a lot.
There you have it, folks, the standard-bearers for the state GOP: Ken “Judge Mathis,” “whack Markey with a 2-by-4” Chase, Jack “the Tongue,” “maybe driving while talking on your cell isn’t such a great idea after all” Robinson, and Larry “nice guys finish last” Frisoli. These guys had better hope that Kerry Healey has really, really long coattails.
I remember getting a robocall from Chase last cycle where he blamed 9/11 on Ed Markey.
By the way, it wasn’t a book about Pan Am that Robinson plagiarized. It was a book about how he personally “saved” Eastern Airlines…. Hmmm, where is Eastern Airlines now?
<
p>
Robinson was one of Frank Lorenzo’s proteges, which (according to my wife, who knows the airline industry) tells you all you need to know about him.
In recent years the GOP has fielded a weak set of candidates. Only time an office has been contested other than Gov. was when Joe Malone ran for Treasurer. I always figured Republicans were too busy making money to seriously run for higher office. Republicans usually have to give up something to run for higher office. For Democrats, it is usually just another stop on the public payroll. For instance I remember Bob Durand going from asst. clerk of courts to state rep, to state senate to DEP. A nice 20+ year career and a nice pension to boot. Republicans, if elected get bored after five or six years and move on.
<
p>
My republican friends do consider Jack E. to be a joke.
<
p>
In defense of Mr. Chase, who in their right mind would run against Ted Kennedy here in Massachusetts.
…and don’t forget that they ran old Joe Malone for everything but dogcatcher, until he won as Treasurer, and was finally discovered to be incompetent or crooked, depending on whether he was oblivious to or complicit in the larceny that went on during his watch!
<
p>
I’ve lived in Mass. 20 years, and it always seems like they throw five names into a hat, and they pick the offices they want to run for out of another hat, and they plug them in however they’re drawn (see my comment about Malone, above).
<
p>
As to who in their right mind, etc…GOP bids for Ted’s birthright seat peaked with Romney in ’94, preceded by Malone in ’88, and followed by Jack E. Robinson in ’00. With Chase it seems they’ve hit rock bottom. Talk about running up the white flag!
Greetings liberal bloggers. I thought I would finally enter the enemy camp. I have been reading your blog since late summer and, frankly, it is the best source for real-time political news as there is in MA (my good friends at Hub Politics and Mass GOP News notwithstanding). With that, let me comment on your recent post.
<
p>First, I am glad that you agree my race against Rep. Lynch is the best chance for the GOP to pick up a congressional seat in MA and end the 10-year GOP drought in the MA delegation. Our most recent internal poll shows Lynch with an approval rating of only 40% (anything less than 50% for an incumbent means he’s vulnerable). Two-thirds of registered voters in the 9th District don’t even know his name – whereas my name recognition is at 50%. Lynch has also failed to answer why he’s remained silent on the Big Dig fiasco while at the same time pocketing over half a million dollars in campaign contributions from Big Dig contractors and labor unions.
<
p>Second, the appellation “the Tongue” never really bothered me, as I always assumed it referred to my oratorical abilities.
<
p>Third, after that incident with the cell phone, I have always used a hands-free device.
<
p>Fourth, I was never found to have plagiarized anything. My book on Eastern Airlines was very well received nationally. If you visit my bio page on my web site, you will see that the Librarian at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point gives it a good review. I then wrote a book on the history of Pan Am and I was the one who brought the lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that my book did not infringe the copyright of an earlier book. (I had no choice because the earlier author had personal access to Pan Am founder Juan Trippe and Charles Lindbergh – Pan Am’s aviation consultant – that I obviously did not have). Unfortunately, however, a federal judge ruled against me and deprived the academic world of a complete history of Pan Am. Alas, I have since given up being an author.
<
p>Fourth, your readers should give my candidacy an honest look – as I will be a much better congressman for Boston and the Metro South area than the incumbent has been or could ever be. I defy any of your readers to name a single thing my opponent has accomplished in 5 years in Congress (excluding the small earmark so Easton could buy a nice red fire truck – which I’m sure is great for Easton but is not very substantial in the greater scheme of things).
<
p>Fifth, I am not one of those southern-fried evangelical right-wing Republicans from Bob Jones University. I went to Brown (with JFK Jr.) and Harvard Law School (with Kerry Healey’s husband). I am a classic Republican in the Teddy Roosevelt mold – fiscally conservative and socially libertarian (after all, I could never use the word “liberal”). As your congressman, I will always work to keep the federal government out of our pocketbooks and wallets as much as out of our bedrooms, family lives, telephone calls, and internet searches. I invite your readers to give my positions a serious look. I would suggest they contrast my positions with those of my opponent, but his web site is still down after 2 months!
<
p>Sixth, in point of fact, my opponent is more conservative than I am – and I’m the Republican in the race! Want proof? Just last week he voted with the majority of House Republicans to build a 700-mile wall on our southern border. I would have voted against that measure – Americans have never lived behind walls and should not start to do so now. As I explain on my site, there are much better ways to stem the tide of illegal immigration.
<
p>Seventh, on the most important issue facing the Congress – Iraq – my opponent has had more positions on this issue than a weathervane. First he voted for the war. Then he voted for a phased withdrawal. Then just this summer he voted for the “stay the course” resolution. Frankly, I don’t know where he stands, but we’ll certainly find out during the two debates the League of Women Voters is working on sponsoring. I have a creative 3-point plan for ultimate victory in Iraq and I invite your readers to review it on my web site and then freely comment upon it here – I will be waiting and reading!
<
p>Finally, regardless of wishful thinking from Nancy Pelosi and your friends at the Globe, the House will remain in GOP hands this Fall – albeit probably with a smaller majority. As a freshman Republican, I will have more power and influence in the House than 25-year veterans like Barney Frank (whom I like personally) and Ed Markey – let alone a low-ranking, do-nothing, flip-flopping, incumbent like my opponent.
Thanks for commenting here!
<
p>
I’m no fan of Rep. Lynch, but he will do one thing you won’t, that trumps all of the points you make: He will vote for a Democratic leadership of the house. The Republican leadership of the House and Senate are utter disaster for our country – but especially the house. We need to do anything we can to keep them from visiting further horrors on us, and every vote matters.
<
p>
By running as a Republican, you signal your intention to vote for Republican leadership of the House – people like John Boehner, Tom DeLay (thankfully gone, but if he were still there, you’d vote for him wouldn’t you?), and Dennis Hastert.
<
p>
Renounce that, and some of us may consider your candidacy seriously. I’m not the only one here who’s not much of a fan of Lynch.
Thanks for joining the dialog, Jack. I thought several points you made were interesting, especially your fourth and fourth comments.
<
p>
If you’ve got visions of emulating Teddy Roosevelt in this Congress, you’re going to have your hands full, since there isn’t a single individual on that side of the aisle fit to shine ol’ Teddy’s shoes (his policies would seem very tax-and-spend/big government by today’s standards, if I’m not mistaken). Seems to me the ultras have thrown more than a few “classic Republicans” under the bus. I don’t think that helps the district, especially with the pendulum starting to swing the other way.
<
p>
Keep making Brown and Harvard Law proud, old chap!
<
p>
Kidding aside, I’m glad you felt you could make your case here; there’s no harm in us hearing it from the source.
Just watched that video, hilarious but damning.
<
p>
If Ken Chase has any paid staff this time, that video should be required viewing for them and they should definitely demand their cash up front!!!
First, thanks for the warm greeting to an outsider.
<
p>First (just kidding!), even if – as Cos suggests – I were elected and voted against the current House GOP leadership (for whose positions I certainly have no love lost), they would still be re-elected to their positions by an overwhelming majority of arch-conservative GOP members from the South, Midwest and West. The goal is to leverage the strong and growing center in national GOP politics – especially in the House – and use that leverage to moderate the otherwise off-the-charts right wing positions of the House leadership (as well as the ultra-left wing positions of the ranking Democratic House members waiting in the wings).
<
p>For example, if (as I predict) the GOP majority in the House is small (say, a handful of seats) going into the 110th Congress, then centrist and moderate Republicans will have much more influence in setting both the tone of political discourse as well as the agenda. The Republican Main Street Partnership, whose members include Sens. McCain, Chafee & Snowe, and House members like Bass (NH), Bono(CA), Castle (DE), and Simmons (CT), would be ascendent. The price of peace might even be that some committee chairmanships be changed. In other words, another Republican Revolution like 1994, except this one would be focused on bringing the party back to the center where it should be.
<
p>One final thought. Massachusetts in general and the Boston area in particular have suffered from not having any GOP representation in Congress these past 10 years. Why do you folks think terror funding for Boston was cut by one-third earlier this summer? The answer is that there was no GOP voice to speak up for Boston. Not even Ed Markey – a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee – could save the day.
<
p>When the people in power are Republicans, it’s better to elect a moderate & centrist Republican like myself to Congress than a conservative Democrat who can’t get anything done.
you and Lynch?
I don’t think you’re gonna sway a lot of Democratic voters by telling us “you’re gonna lose anyway, Republicans are keeping the House”. We’re getting close and we’re sure going to try our damnedest to take back the House. If we don’t do it this year, we’ll at least be closer for the next attempt in 2008. Moderate/liberal Republicans have mainly used their “influence” to provide cover for the extremist policies of the Bush administration. You mention McCain – the Senator most responsible for legalizing torture under the guise of banning it. No, having a few moderate Republicans is no solution to our ills. An all-out struggle for Democratic leadership is the solution.
<
p>
So, renounce the House Republican caucus and promise to vote for Democratic leadership? That’s the one vote that means more than all others.
You do make good points. I hope you continue to post your thoughts here. NYC Mayor Lindsay switched parties quite successfully. It’s an idea. If you don’t like those who have hijacked your party and you are far less conservative than the Dem candidate, why not switch? Then we could have some really good conversations!
You make some interesting points.
<
p>
I agree, in particular, that the Republican supermajority has strengthened the more extreme elements of the party. Present leadership in Congress can, and prefers to, pass legislative measures without seeking any support from moderate Democrats. Instead, they negotiate with the extreme of their own party; this strengthens that extreme.
<
p>
Rah-rahing aside, it certainly seems, to put it charitably, highly unlikely that control of the House changes, because (i) the districts are arranged to be Republican-friendly, and (ii) Democrats are going to be surprised by the potency of the terrorism/security issue. Again.
The districts have already been arranged, and they can’t be rearranged again to affect this election. Everyone knows exactly what all the districts are for this one. Projections that say Democrats will gain seats and have a chance of gaining enough to take back the house, are all made in light of the current districts, so saying that districts can be rearranged is not a counterargument. It’s already factored in.
<
p>
Regarding terrorism/security: Polls in the past few months show that the Republican advantage on that issue is either gone, almost gone, or actually a disadvantage now. How that’ll affect the election, or how true that is, we’ll see.
<
p>
The biggest mistake Democrats make is when they don’t push the war on Iraq as a top campaign issue, because all over the country, a majority of voters want it to be a top campaign issue, and a majority of oppose the war and want to get out of Iraq. Democrats that talk aggressively about Iraq are a lot more likely to win than those who don’t, and there are many who don’t.
<
p>
Anyway, on balance, the Democrats are very likely to gain seats, and have a chance of taking back the House this year, though I’m not sure how big that chance is. The closer they get, though, the more they’ll be able to accomplish while Bush remains unpopular.
If not, why not?
<
p>
I wish Kevin Scott had been chosen over Ken Chase, but Scott didn’t want to run a “negative” campaign and so there it is. If Kennedy will not debate the Republican candidate running against him then you should affix to the front page one of those chicken icons with his name on it.
I DID call to complain, like I promised – so now, it is incumbent upon you to call Sen. Kennedy and ask him to debate Ken Chase (I was for Scott, too).
<
p>
Please let us know back here on BMG the response you get.
… though I was going to remember anyway 🙂
<
p>
Today I left a voicemail with Kennedy’s office, and sent them email, asking if Kennedy will debate his Republican opponent. In both the email and the voicemail I told them I support Kennedy, and would also like to see a debate.
<
p>
I encourage other readers to do the same.
Might I suggest that the better debate would be between Ken Chase and Jack E. Robinson for the heart and soul of the Republican party. If we take Robinson at his word, he has a very progressive view of the future of the party, a return to Teddy Roosevelt style big government intervention, versus Ken Chase who just prefers Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick…er, two by four.
<
p>
In fact, to insure a viewership larger than Judge Mathis, maybe Jack E. would take up the Chinese death star vs. Ken’s two by four at twenty paces, with Kerry Healey as referee.
Incumbent should debate their challengers, and that goes for Ted K as well as anyone else.
Jeff Beatty is running aginst Bill Delahunt, with a Gree named Peter White also on the ballot because Delahunt is too CONSERVATIVE!
<
p>
Of course, jow that Delahunt has NATIONALLY embraced his best buddy Hugo Chavez, it may mean that Beatty has a chance to unseat him.
<
p>
But that would mess up your story line, wouldn’t it?
but I wish him him the best of luck.
Great post David. The Judge Mathis video is priceless.
<
p>
May I be so bold as to suggest some theme songs for the beloved four.
<
p>
Jack E Robinson – “Same Ol’ Situation”
<
p>
Larry Frisoli – “Dr Feelgood”
<
p>
Kerry Healey – “Time for a Change”
<
p>
Ken Chase – “Don’t Go Away Mad (Just Go Away)”
<
p>
I can’t say it was your influence, but still –
<
p>
Sen. Edward Kennedy will DEBATE Ken Chase on NECN of Tues., Oct. 10 at 8 pm.
<
p>
Cos – your power knows no bounds!!!! Thank you!
Yeah, I was quite tickled when I heard that.
<
p>
Think Lynch and Galvin will listen to me? 🙂