What is causing the current crop of Republican candidates for federal office in Massachusetts to falter from the high expectations of this past Spring ? Pundits have expressed surprise that Sen.Scott Brown finds himself not only not sledding to re-election but in the fight of his political life.
Meanwhile, the local GOP’s other great hope for the Fall, career politician Richard Tisei, who is challenging Congressman John Tierney in the 6th district has muddled his message and run a innuendo-ridden, personal attack campaign against Tierney, whose family vulnerabilities are an addictive temptation to a relative unknown like Tisei. But Tisei’s campaign looks to be in danger of being sunk by this singular negativity tied to an empty vessel of policy proposals.
That absence of ideas reveals most who these candidates are and may also be the key to what has spiked their campaigns’ wheels.
Some of us older fogies remember when the Republican Party was competitive in New England. There was a reason for this. In the 20th century, Republicans in this region still reflected the progressive values that had animated the national GOP since the Civil War : equality of opportunity, good government, and civil rights. It seems that for THIS new Republican guard, the first two legs of the old local GOP three-legged stool are still missing.
What has now happened is that candidates like Brown and Tisei wear the veneer of progressivism on civil rights issues that are no longer controversial in this region, like gay rights in Tisei’s case and women’s rights in Brown’s case, but say little about where they differ from the Tea Party wing on tough bread and butter issues. Once elected, however, they are standard issue right-wingers on economic issues; out of touch with the everyday struggles of regular Americans.
And make no mistake. If elected, they will be just as beholden to the Tea Party extremists who set the Republican agenda in Congress
For example, when Brown got to Washington in his pickup, he played a key role carrying cargo in his truckbed for Wall Street after being one of the greatest recipients of special interest Wall Street money in the Senate. Unfortunately for him, he faces in Elizabeth Warren, a candidate with genuine credibility as someone who fought Wall Street and repeatedly beat it, a rare thing indeed.
The same goes for Tisei, who seems reluctant to give a straight answer on a question as simple as whether he supports or opposes the budget proposal of Paul Ryan, which would end Medicare as we know it. He has taken moderate stances on social issues and refused to sign the Grover Norquist no-tax pledge, seeming to hope that this would be enough to have independents of the Commonwealth not to notice his refusal to distance himself from the draconian Ryan budget, which would cement the 1% in power.
As for good government ? In March Tisei appeared to try to revive that old stool leg when he asked Tierney to agree to limits on outside spending by big money. But then on May 7, John Tierney sent a signed copy of the Warren-Brown pledge that bans this kind of outside spending and challenged Mr.Tisei to join him in signing it. Tisei responded that he would only sign if the Tierney campaign agreed to his public challenge limiting PAC contributions to 20%. The Tierney campaign promptly agreed to that exact condition but Mr.Tisei still rejected signing an agreement. It did not help Tisei that in the interim ultra-conservative national super-PACs pledged to bankroll him completely. Coincidence? I doubt it. Richard Tisei simply sold out to the highest bidder.
The old centrist GOP magic is not working for a simple reason: they are not convincing as New England moderates on bread and butter and good government issues. They instead look like empty vessel candidates bought and paid for by big-money interests.
Folks, this is definitely NOT your father’s Grand Old Party anymore !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Didn’t he cosponsor the Blunt amendment?
“The Nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny—fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear.
I doubt if the Republican Party could—simply because I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory. ”
~ Margaret Chase Smith, Republican Senator from Maine.
Today’s Republicans would run her out of their party.
…if I recall correctly was among the first to call out Joe McCarthy. Today the Joe McCarthys of the GOP are clearly in the driver’s seat.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/margaretchasesmithconscience.html
Her 1950 ‘Declaration of Conscience’ was a rejection of where McCarthyism had taken her party. It is disgusting that today’s GOP rejoices in being exactly everything she warned against.
for political office, so if you’re okay with that, Tierney’s your guy.
He’s also done absolutely nothing during his time in office, but many people like their Congressman to sit on their posterior and collect a salary.
But Margret Chase Smith? “Today’s Republicans would run her out of the party?” You do realize that half the time Smith was in office Strom Thurmond was a Democrat?
Note today’s Democrats would probably run Lyndon Johnson out of the party.
Most of the posters on this board would not vote for a Republican in any shape or form, so this pining for Smith like Republicans is pointless.
So Mitt Romney’s sleazy offshore connections are fine, but the behavior of relatives of Rep. Tierney disqualify him (even though that behavior had the blessing of their probation officer)? Sounds like another case of “IOKIYAR” to me.
Regarding the period during which Margaret Chase Smith served, I think most of us are well aware of the disgraceful racism of Southern Democrats during that time. That’s why the Democratic Party forcefully rejected that racism in 1968. I further note that the GOP explicitly and enthusiastically welcomed the racists into the GOP fold.
The Voter ID program so forcefully promoted by today’s GOP is precisely the kind of racist vote suppression that Southern Democrats were known for. It is no accident that it emanates from the GOP today.
Yes, most of us realize that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat. I also remind you that he left the Democratic Party in 1964 to become a Republican. He is famous for saying “all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement”.
Lyndon Johnson was forced out of office because of his lies and duplicity regarding the Viet Nam war. The world would be a better place today if the GOP had done the same with George W. Bush.
I find it hilarious that you cite the Democratic Party’s successful rejection of its most racist elements as a reason to somehow support the GOP’s enthusiastic embrace of those same elements. After all, let’s not forget Jesse Helms — another hero in the pantheon of racist ex-Democrats welcomed and celebrated by the GOP.
Also note the Democrats (at least some of them) rejected Jimmy Carter as well.
Must be anti-southern snobbery.
Looks like he will be bringing down Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. as well.
Elliot Spitzer. Today’s Democrats just can’t seem to tolerate the wayward sexual activities like Republicans (see Vitter). Then there’s Paterson, and Wiener. Must be a NY thing.
Yes, Margaret Chase Smith. It’s not surprising you had never heard of her.
Unpredictable
…and unlike it seems the current President, he knew how to get his way with Congress.
Also let’s not forget his mentor Richard Russell. Another fine upstanding Democrat.
Did anyone ever claim all Dems were saints? You’ll have to elaborate on LBJ. Yes, his first election to Congress was questionable, but he has a great legacy of civil rights and social justice. Yes, the Democrats used to have a Dixiecrat wing that would make most modern Dems cringe. Now if only the GOP would lose them too so they would be as marginalized as they deserve to be. You may recall that Spitzer and Weiner resigned and Patterson yielded to Cuomo, but what makes many Republicans worse is that they run on morality then prove to be hypocrites. You’ve done nothing but taunt on this thread which does not enhance the dialogue.
In this instance Margret Chase Smith, is a stupid argument.
You cannot hold up one elected official at one point in time and expect hundred of elected officials 40 years later to reflect that person. History doesn’t work that way, and all my other examples just reinforce that notion.
So I am disputing the whole premise of this post, this without even attacking possibly the stupidest remark I have read recently (my bold)
Beside the bold point, BMG posters nitpick Brown and Romney all day and it makes sense for a candidate to do this. Tierney’s wife and her brothers are a major issue for the Congressman because he either knew, or if he didn’t he’s too dim to represent a district in my state. As I have mentioned many times before the whole BMG shtick “Republican candidates should do this…..” is tiresome. Why? So they can lose?
As to LBJ according to biographer Robert Caro LBJ rose to Majority Leader (and made it the position it is today) by being a bagman for Tex oil interests, parceling out cash to politicians he wanted/needed for his agenda.
And yet you cite George Wallace.
You have no purpose but to make noise, and then reject the noise you’ve made. Since you have nothing to post that you’re willing to stand by for longer than a few minutes, why do you post at all?
How is that great city of Methuen working out for you? Do you hold it up as a shining city on a hill ?
All I see is you throwing “stuff” at the wall. As Christopher asked (and you never answered): what’s your point? You characterized the reference to Margaret Chase Smith as “stupid”, but you haven’t shown why. Instead, you’ve posted a slurry of references to racist southern Democrats.
Who, in the current GOP pantheon, is comparable to Margaret Chase Smith? If the argument is “stupid”, then surely some names come to mind.
Hence the demise of the northern liberal Republican and the southern conservative Democrat. Those voting groups don’t exist anymore.
The US is a different place and I don’t expect to see any Sen Smiths.
It would seem that the argument offered in the thread-starter isn’t so stupid after all — you’ve just agreed with it.
There are no “liberal Republicans” any more.
QED
is like a politician who was in the 40’s 50’s or 60’s.
Is there people “like them” yes. Are their less of them from the north? Yes, because most people align themselves and don’t accept anyone from the other side. Brown could be 25% further left than he is now and everyone here would still be calling for his head.
So in purple states the Senators might shift, or there might be holdouts, or particular elections dynamics like Brown in 2010. Anyone remember that Obama won Senate election helped by a sex scandal? He has been replaced by a Republican in Illinois. But mostly states have hardened.
I want to point out something seeming unrelated.
Justice Scalia was confirmed by a 98-0 vote. Why is no one pining for the bipartisanship of the 1980’s? The nobleness of Democratic Senators using their advise and consent to allow the President to “have his man.”
Most of this blog constantly goes on and on about times that don’t exist anymore. Private sector unions, 1937, Great Society, blah blah blah. How about pre-Bork when nominees for judges sailed through? Anyone want that?
“You cannot hold up one elected official at one point in time and expect hundred of elected officials 40 years later to reflect that person.”
If you want to respond to what people ‘expect’, then this statement makes sense. Personally I have very low expectations of the GOP (lately they’ve lived down to them and then some).
Of course Christopher voiced no ‘expectations’ of any kind, he expressed hopes and perhaps a prescription, which is perfectly legitimate.
One person’s taunt is another’s “making a point”
Watched parts of Ken Burn’s Civil War series this past week and keep coming back to how unrecognizable the Rethuglicans today are from there founding principles (back when they had principles).
I just watched an episode of “John Adams” on HBO and I enjoyed how Jefferson was okay with some mob violence (including executions) on the way to a greater good.
Kinda reminds me of recent demonstrations here in the US and those who support them.
I take issue with your characterization we only vote for the D, my parents voted for Weld precisely because Silver was a crazy conservative Dem. they also voted for Weld again against a traditional liberal since they thought he de a good job and this wasn’t that long ago. Our point is the Republican bench wouldn’t be so thin around here if Republicans started meeting their constituents half way. Charley and other editors respected Tisei in the legislature and I believe Charley admitted voting for him
once or twice. But he has taken no specific positions on a host of issues and if he was really an outside the box thinker he’d condemn Ryancare but endorse Simpson-Bowles which would put Tierney who has always been a follower and not a leader on the defensive. He might back campaign finance reform which would separate him from the GOP an again put Tierney and his ethics questions front and center. My point, and I can’t speak for others, but if Tisei took those positions I’d be more likely I vote for him. Instea he is running as a socially liberal but still vaguely tea party on fiscal issues Republican and dumping Tierney is not enough in my book if it risks Ryancare. That’s why he needs to take a stance.
and it is presented in a reasonable way. You may be truly a swing vote but the D choice is the clear default in MA.
My sharpness on this post started with the tone of the author, and the “excellent” characterization of it by Bob Neer.
I think you make a valid political point and we’ll see what the Tisei campaign does in the coming months.
Back on my earlier point I think the Weld Republican is gone as well. I was watching a show this AM and one of the commentators talked about the centrifugal forces that spun politicians out of the center.