As someone who’s been a constituent of John Tierney for most of my life, it’s hard to think of any other person in the Massachusetts delegation who I’d rather have. Tierney has epitomized political courage, being one of our most progressive members in the entire congressional delegation, despite the fact that he lives in one of the most conservative Massachusetts congressional districts. It ain’t easy, but he’s done it for 8 terms now — and I think he’s done more than enough to earn a 9th.
For the “What have you done for me lately” crowd, let’s look at his recent record.
- He secured $620,000 to help disabled Americans get affordable housing in Lynn.
- He got $2 million for Beverly High School to help close the achievement gaps there.
- In one of the communities that has struggled to put together a budget more than any across the entire state, he’s delivered $640,000 to keep cops in uniform in Saugus.
That’s just a few snippets of what he’s done lately, he’s been doing this kind of stuff for well over a decade now — and he’s only getting better.
Let’s not forget that he’s also one of the strongest advocates on the environment in the entire Massachusetts congressional delegation (which is saying a lot), has been right there with us on issues of GLBT equality for this whole time now, and is a strong advocate for health care reform and a women’s right to choose.
He’s been a humble servant of the district, not one to rush to the airwaves and make loud speeches, but he’s been a very, very effective Congressman. He’s made the state a better place, and with his help the North Shore and the rest of his district has remained one of the most beautiful places across the entire state, with some of the best schools and places to live.
Bill Hudak is none of those things. Hudak isn’t interested in government working for people, he’s interested in following up with whatever his Tea Party brethren tell him to do. Let’s also not forget that this person, who thinks Obama is a scary Muslim born in Kenya or something, could be the person who determines whether or not a Speaker Boehner could wield the gavel and renew the Clinton era subpoena-powered Witch Hunts of a Democratic President. If people think getting things accomplished is difficult now, imagine that scenario.
That said, I don’t want people to just support and vote for John Tierney because Hudak is unacceptable. I want people to support and vote for John Tierney because he’s exactly the kind of person we want in DC, the kind of person who goes all across the district, as often as possible, just to meet and greet people and thank his volunteers. I want people to support and vote for the kind of person who really shares our values, who understands there’s a role for government to play and who thinks the system should work for the people, not be destroyed, like his opponent would have it. As Democrats, we believe the fundamental difference between our party and the GOP is that we know we’re all in this together, while the Republicans think we’re all alone and out for ourselves — and Bill Hudak, self-financer extraordinaire, is no different. Let’s be together on this one and get John Tierney into Congress yet again. He’s been there for us for well over a decade, let’s be with him for these last four weeks.
I implore everyone to get involved.
~Ryan
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person – save me.
but John Tierney’s won the hard ones before — he got into office with a margin of victory of .1%. I’m certain he can do it again, but we can’t be complacent.
<
p>Hudak was always going to be a challenge, but Tierney’s been out there every day, not to mention doing a damn good job in office — all of this in what has to be considered one of the most stressful periods of his entire life.
<
p>This may be a “sleeper” race, but the horse race stuff really doesn’t matter. We need to be more interested in what’s at stake than the horse-race stuff. At the very least, we owe it to ourselves to make sure that the people have the facts on this matter and about the race:
<
p>
<
p>Tierney’s great and we can’t afford to lose him. Not only that, but we certainly can’t afford to give up any of these seats to Republicans in Massachusetts if we’re to have any hope of keeping the House and avoiding Arthur Miller’s John Boehner’s The Crucible in the next legislative session. It’s bad enough having to deal with Republican obstructionism using the filibuster in the Senate, I shudder to think of two or more years of GOP control in the House and the Republicans with the filibuster in the Senate. Nothing will get done, save John Boehner’s witch hunts.
Ryan the “facts” are indisputable:
<
p>MRS Tierney has plead GUILTY to the charges..say again plead GUILTY !!! What is it about GUILTY that you don’t comprehend ??? Try pulling the money laundering shit that she is getting away with …you’d be in Walpole for 15 large…When are you loons gong to realize this?? Never
<
p>Her husband of of over 20 years claims he knows NOTHING of her support , laundering, bank accounts,of her criminal brother (s) ???? WTF?? are you serious? Do you actually believe this incredible lie???
<
p>Anyone that has ever been in a heterosexual relationship knows that this is NOT possible. There are NO secrets
<
p>This loon needs to be shown the door on 11/2…the pomposity is beyond nauseating. He too should be trotted off to Walpole for his lies , arrogance and contempt for the American people
<
p>That is an incredibly bigoted comment.
Did the Tierney’s file joint returns? Has the Congressman invoked what the IRS calls ‘innocent spouse’ status? I ask because I haven’t seen this reported anywhere.
<
p>Ryan – $7 MILLION is an awfully big ‘mistake’. Her brother was a bookie in the ’90’s and fled the country, so this isn’t like he didn’t know there were ‘issues’.
but the fact is this matter has been poured over by investigators and Congressman Tierney himself was not found in the wrong. As you well know, it would do a lot of good things for the career of a prosecutor to land them a Congressman… there’s really not much to see here, beyond guilt-by-association.
<
p>At the same time, the powerful (e.g. Congressmen) don’t get pursued for these things unless the prosecutor knows he can land them. You and me, there’s a suspicion we’ve done something wrong and a 50% chance of conviction , we will get prosecuted. If there’s “only” a 50% chance that a Congressman could be convicted of something, they won’t get touched. You know that.
<
p>It has to be a lock, because if you prosecute and fail to convict somebody like a Congressman, there’s a strong potential to be in very hot water for a long time. Potential career-ender.
<
p>Or career-maker. It’s a high-stakes gamble for the prosecutor, and most will want to be sure they’ve truly got their man in cases like this.
<
p>Hate to rain on your parade, because I too respect and trust Tierney. I just don’t find your argument here to be very credible. It doesn’t mean prosecutors haven’t found anything. It could mean they’re just not sure.
Shouting out the number from the rooftop seems really misleading to me, given the fact that even the prosecutors said the Tierney’s didn’t profit from this. It wasn’t like she pocketed $7 million and went on a bonanza. If there was nothing found to charge Congressman Tierney with, and the Tierney family itself didn’t profit from it, what other than smearing using fallacious guilt-by-association tactics is there left, especially when repeatedly reminding others the size of the bank account the Tierney family didn’t profit from… ?
So I’m not sure the Tierney family didn’t profit.
<
p>And when you claim it’s mere guilt by association, marriage is an AWFULLY strong association. In fact, it’s a legally binding one, not voluntary and easily severable.
an interesting way to put it, this time a straw man. I didn’t say she didn’t spend any of it, but the expenses were specific — and not in ways that benefited the Tierney family. Don’t quote me, though, here’s what the Globe had to say:
<
p>
<
p>Again: Neither she nor the Congressman profited. If she, the consequences, I imagine, would have been much more severe.
<
p>… But, I get it, PP, you’re going to find any excuse to use this against Tierney. It’s an easy shot, I guess, but it doesn’t make it a right one. To me, you’ve always been better than that. Let’s let the prosecutors do their jobs; they’re the ones equipped to do this, and that’s how our system is designed to work (and when we let it work the way it was intended, it usually works pretty damn good).
and held a signing, where I met him. Best dressed guy I ever saw, no contest.
Come on, Ryan, think about how it would be if the shoe were on the other foot. I think we’d be squawking just as loudly.
<
p>This was not an innocent error of omission, on the part of either John or Patrice Tierney. She clearly and flagrantly mishandled a significant sum ($7M). I’ve been married more-or-less continuously since 1976, I can’t imagine that John Tierney didn’t know that his brother-in-law was a criminal on the run, that a LOT of money was going through that account, and that his wife was managing it.
<
p>My guess is that there some significant and private family and marital issues at play, and that this is the route chosen by the Tierney’s.
<
p>I, of course, agree with you that Congressman Tierney is far superior to Bill Hudak. That’s why I am acutely disappointed that Congressman Tierney wasn’t more careful about this.
<
p>I think it’s fair game in a political campaign.
Maybe, but only insofar as seeing to what extent the Congressman was involved in this. The thing is, though, the feds have already done that — they’ve long looked into this matter, and if there was anything there, they’d be going after Congressman Tierney, too.
<
p>Until then, you are right that this is a “significant and private family and marital issue at play.” So long as Congressman Tierney hasn’t been found in the wrong, I think we should respect that.
<
p>Meanwhile, it’d be nice if there was the same kind of scrutiny of Bill Hudak’s past as there is John Tierney’s. The people of our district already know John Tierney, they know almost nothing about Bill Hudak.
Come ON, Ryan. There was intense scrutiny, and all they came up with was those offensive Halloween signs and the rambling public access video.
<
p>No bribes, no false residence claims, no sex scandals – none of the usual political scandals.
That’s an interesting way to put it.
<
p>The guy’s a birther. Birthers shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near government, Peter, and I’m sure — in the bottom of your heart — you know that, too. We need to separate ourselves from our party loyalty here. Hudak is bad in many ways that Scott Brown, for example, isn’t (as much as I hate to admit it).
Ryan, I’ve already said I agree with you that John Tierney is the far-superior candidate. I also agree with you that this should not, and is not likely to, hurt his chances for re-election too much. I expect him to withstand the scrutiny, I expect him and his supporters to counter it, and I expect him to win re-election.
<
p>The aspect where we perhaps disagree is the umbrage you seem to take at the Republicans making this a campaign issue. That’s what I mean when I say “fair game”.
<
p>You opened your comment with:
<
p>You opened your concluding paragraph with:
<
p>It is your assertion that the Republican-led discussion of this “stinks”, that it is somehow indecent to talk about it during a campaign, that I challenge. If you hold public office, and your spouse commits criminal tax fraud while moving seven million dollars of money through an account she manages on behalf of a brother who has fled the country because of his own criminal activity, you should expect your opposition to talk about it. I encourage you to consider the example Barney Frank modeled in handling the sorry episode with Steve Gobie.
<
p>John Tierney is a public figure. This did happen, and it happened very close to home. I think Bill Bulger should have had closer scrutiny as a result of the criminal behavior of his brother Whitey. I think that criminal behavior of spouses should draw increased scrutiny from the press and, during an election season, from opposing candidates.
<
p>That’s all I am saying — no less and no more.
As much as this is grief and drama we could have done without, none of this changes the idea that Hudak is a nut or that Tierney would cast better votes in Congress. In the end, that’s what Congressmen do and should be all that matters. Leave criminal investigations to the judicial system.
And personally, I don’t think Congressman Tierney’s all that great. He doesn’t stick up for the profoundly disabled, and failed to support Congressman Frank’s bill, HR 1255, which would provide families of disabled people the ability to opt out of class action lawsuits driven by ideology rather than neglect or abuse. In Massachusetts, we’ve had federally funded agencies suing to close federally funded facilities not due to negligence or abuse…but because the plaintiffs think that all people, regardless of disability, shouldn’t live in anything resembling a congregate living facility.
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d…
<
p>These lawsuits cost lives, evict people from their long-term homes, and cost significant amounts of money….and Congressman Frank’s bill will allow families to opt out if they believe their loved ones are receiving good and adequate care.
<
p>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…
<
p>So…despite the fact that I’m a life long Democrat, Congressman Tierney’s refusal to sign onto the bill, which has 90 sponsors across the ideological spectrum, tells me all I need to know. He cares about the vendors…and not about the people who are so disabled as to need facility care. From my perspective, the rich can buy any level of care they need. Middle class and the rest will need state operated facility care at times, but can’t afford private care….so hI will be blanking this race. The issues with his wife only add to the growing sense that he’s disconnected at home, and disconnected in the district.
an acceptable alternative in a two person race? I understand your dissatisfaction with Tierney’s performance, but Hudak’s performance on your issues would be the polar opposite of what you want, not to mention the manner in which he has expressed his beliefs is just so inappropriate, and unprofessional.
But John Tierney doesn’t deserve my support. Let him get it from someone else. I’ve called his office too many times, and gotten short shrift for my labors. He doesn’t care. This is one race that I (and my family) will be blanking.
but it is your right.
<
p>In the few times I’ve called Tierney’s office about various things, I’ve always found his office to be very responsive and open-minded. I’m sorry you haven’t felt the same way.
I could have sworn that you’ve identified yourself in the past as living in Tewksbury, which would make you Niki Tsongas’ constituent.
Swear all you like…I don’t live in Tewksbury and have never identified as such. I don’t live all that far from Tewksbury, though. I’m a John Tierney constituent. I’d trade John Tierney in for Niki in a heartbeat. Niki signed Barney’s bill!!
Wilmington maybe? That would qualify as not far from Tewksbury, but in Tierney’s district.
From Sal Dimasi, to Tierney, to Bump, all lying / committing crimes there is a pattern that democrats are not to be trusted. Voters will see that.
you wish) to post some sort of whitewash of the Bumps’ attempt to avoid taxes. Too bad that so many politicians-of both parties-consider themselves above the rest of us peasants.
I am appalled by the attempt of Suzanne Bump to defend simultaneously claiming multiple “primary” residences.
<
p>Sadly, Massachusetts politics (and, through sheer numbers, that means Massachusetts Democrats) has developed a deeply-rooted culture of corruption.
<
p>It hurts all of us.
that I admire your integrity for having taken an objective stand on the issue of politicians’ wheeling and dealing. Respect, Edgar.
This is the first I’m hearing of any “scandal” involving Bump except for that $600 ethical oversight that came up during the primary.
She owns homes in both Great Barrington and South Boston, and claimed that her “primary” residence was in Great Barrington to get an exemption there, while simultaneously claiming that her “principal” residence was in Boston to get an exception here.
<
p>When responding to the Globe, she asserted that “primary” and “principal” are different and that she is entitled to both. She subsequently decided to pay back the Boston abatement “out of an abundance of caution.”
…and Bump too.
Tierney’s mom donated 4800$ to the campaign. The money came directly from the 7 million account. Tierney’s wife is managing the moms finances because she is too old to do it. Is 4800$ from an illegal account orchestrated by Teirneys wife enough evidence for RyePower? Bump steals 6K from social servce programs and people in need by evading paying her fair share and Tierney is using illegal money to finance his campaign. Disgusting
Not that I am defending Bump — I think that claiming two different homes as your primary residence is totally bogus —
but since when does 100% of Boston’s property taxes go to social service programs? My guess is that only a tiny fraction of the City’s budget is spent on that category.
<
p>BTW, I wonder how many people with multiple homes attempt to pull this stunt?
With this additional news about donations from Tierney’s mother-in-law, I just don’t see how anyone can just sweep this under the rug. His wife intentionally did something wrong (not just “made a mistake”) and a lack of charges against Tierney himself should not prohibit further scrutiny from the press, the Republicans, or anyone else. It’s a situation that casts some light on his character – which I think is important for any elected official.
<
p>I think he’s either really shady for knowing about it and letting it continue or a moron for not knowing about it. Nothing yet indicates that Tierney committed a crime, but I still think he’s done something wrong.
<
p>If Tierney was a Republican, this site would be lit up with screeds attacking him as corrupt and calling for his head. We shouldn’t have a double standard for those who vote the way we like.
<
p>That said, I don’t think this is bad enough for Tierney to leave office. But if it was news that came out during a primary, maybe I’d have second thoughts about supporting him.
<
p>The fact of the matter is that Hudak is a dangerous individual who would be bad for this country and very bad for his district. He’s a radical conservative (aka mainstream Republican in 2010) who wants to push us backwards.
<
p>Should Tierney win? Yes. Does he deserve criticism? Absolutely.
check this finger pointing out by Ms Bump
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d…
like your defenses of Sal Dimasi.
In this case, Tierney’s been looked over with a fine tooth comb and hasn’t been charged with anything. It’s very unlikely he’s broken any rules. In DiMasi’s case, I simply believed innocence until proven guilty. You’ll note I’ve actually been very consistent on these sorts of things — few people on the blogosphere led the charge against Wilkerson stronger than I did, and it’s because she had done things that she had either been convicted of and/or things that had legitimately broken rules. Tierney hasn’t done anything of the sort.
his wife’s entire family was involved in illegal gambling. Are you saying he knew nothing of it even after the 2002 tax evasion plea by his brother in law. Are you then saying his vote against criminalizing internet gambling in 2006 was not affected by his family connections.
<
p>You’ve got a lot more faith in your public servants than I do in mine then.