The Paula Deen admissions and Food Network canceling her show ( I won’t get into how many lives that action will save) brings back my on-going problem with people who fail to understand that while you have the “right to free speech” you also have the responsibility for your words and the expectation that your words carry a potential consequence.
I am so tired of the left and the right crying about “free speech” whenever there is a blowback from someone offering a racist / stupid / sexist / just-plain-dumb comment. Well yes, you do have the right to your opinion. Yes you do have the right to express that opinion – regardless of how off the wall ( I have no respect for those who do some hiding behind screen names) but there are consequences to that right. You can get fired. You can be the target of a boycott. You can get suspended from BMG. And people can just plain think you are an jerk.
Free speech is a right, talk all you want but it isn’t a “get-out-of-jail-free card”. There is a price to be paid for that right. Whining after the fact just makes you sound worse.
Why the glee over cancelling her show? That the price one must pay? Did she apologize and was it sincere? Speaking of boycotts, I am sure you have been a participant in one or two, if a private company opted for non-union workers to complete a project.
A football player can’t even get on one knee during a game, or make a pro-life commercial, with half the people in this country being offended, and hating him.
Whether its the Dixie Chicks or Chic-Fil-A, let freedom ring when it comes to political discourse.
a pot calling a kettle black (as usual).
I’m going to go rend my clothing and gnash my teeth. (I’ve already wept and fasted, wept and prayed).
But you’ve got to appreciate Dan’s incoherence. He goes from “the Left and Far Right” needing to forgive, an irrelevant shot at unions and boycotts, to a complaint about people offended by Tim Tebow (who, if he were a devout Muslim praying on the field, would surely cause no complaint), and then a call for free political discourse. Political discourse–the most free market we have in the United States–needs to voluntarily limit itself, Dan, in his incoherence, seems to suggest.
Incidentally, Deen’s apology wasn’t sincere. She didn’t even mention her offending comments in her so-called apology.
Sound bite wars dominate the style of left vs right style arguing one sees on the television and hears on the radio. You say something damaging about my side; I’ll counter with something damaging about yours. It’s unenlightening. It doesn’t rationally explore issues, but it passes for television entertainment.
If I’m not mistaken, DFW attempts to bring that style into blogging threads here. He can sound as inflammatory as someone on television, but, because reading is more deliberative than TV-watching, that style ends up sounding stoopid. Holes in arguments, irrelevant examples, meaningless catch phrases, and unfair comparisons are more obvious when read than when they flit by quickly on the tube.
A deeper problem, though, is that we lack thoughtful conservatives with whom to debate. Otherwise, we might find it easier to ignore DFW and debate more prepared and interesting visitors. As Josh Barro’s recent troubles reveal, there is somewhat of a shortage of thoughtful conservatives because they keep getting ostracized by their movement.
Because there is a proliferation of facts (Internet, TV, talking heads) and no one can sort them out.
A person could say “lower state taxes stimulate growth” and another could show studies (I think I’ve seen it here) that say there is no correlation between economic activity in a state and their tax rate.
You could go all the way down the line… help the less advantaged, make them strive to be better, teachers are the problem, teachers aren’t the problem. You don’t need “conservatives” to argue, it’s already here within the BMG ranks, and it seems to align along personal philosophies and personal experience, so that’s not really debate.
When it comes to facts there is no source that is more credible than any other. Is Krugman smarter than other PhD’s? I don’t know. Is the WSJ a more credible source than the NYT? Is the Globe better than the Herald?
I think one thing that EB3 brings to this blog is the sense that the truth could be anything. He focuses on local politics and law enforcement, but what about ______ ? It depends on what you read/see and what your bias is already.
The sound bite is important because of politics and the narrow attention span of the average voter. Markey’s got a crack ad crew at work because he’s got Gomez lined up with assault weapons, pro-life, won’t tax the rich, raise SS age, cut funds for the poor, etc. There’s almost no other extra words. They are hitting the mark obviously because Gomez’ negatives go up every poll.
So I would agree that sensible debate is important (I heard Harshbarger complain this AM about the lack of it in this campaign) but I think that the system (let’s say “the media”) as a whole is biased against it, and the political system actively works against it.
Discussions do go no where when they’re only grounded on an appeal to authority. So I thing your NYT vs WSJ and Globe vs Herald questions have to be answered empirically.
Studies always get oversimplified in the media which is why, for example, we gotten such mixed messages on the dangers and benefits of soy beans.
On economics, Krugman argues that economists should base their work on models, models that they’ve built off data, and, if those models end up predicting incorrectly, they should be rethought. That seems eminently reasonable to me. It’s also why I wonder about why those that minimized the housing bubble, those that have been predicting inflation for a very long time, and those that have predicted austerity was going to make Ireland a success story any day now haven’t re-evaluated. Those people with bad models may be smarter than Krugman along all sorts of dimensions, but that’s not the point so much as what instruments they’re using.
Thoughts?
unexpected changes in behavior. I think Greenspan was truly shocked when bankers violated his model by being willing to risk their bank’s solvency in the quest for a giant bonus. He thought they would act more responsibly. Oops.
You can, as you suggest, adjust the models, but when economists have become talking news show heads, are advising governments, and working with Wall Street, all in real time, there’s not much time to rethink. Krugman’s out there every day so I don’t know exactly how contemplative he can be, and of course his income is driven by being known and having an opinion. 5 years from now he might be proven wrong, but he’ll have a lot more money!
Word out this week is that the most of the monetary easing has gone into excess bank reserves. They took the super-cheap Fed money and re-invested in slightly higher yields rather than lending it out. Hence it’s not going into the economy and causing inflation. Too bad for all the holders of gold….
The lack of housing bubble predictions was due to poor data. In the aggregate you didn’t see the real issues (there was a blog, imfacingforeclosure.com from a guy who bought ten homes without really having any money, or all the tales of fraudulent underwriting) and so they tried to make sense of it – immigration, household formation, scarcity of land, etc. etc. The banks and mortgage companies were also very tricky- as you would expect them to be versus regulators.
Do you believe Trent Lott needed to resign as Senate Majority Leader, when he tried to put a smile on an old mans face at a birthday party, by saying we would have been better off if he was elected POTUS? That the price to be paid, as you suggest?
People tend to be offended at just about anything. My goodness, any criticism of Obama is a dog whistle. Asking for personal responsibility is “war on women”. And just here on BMG, defend gun ownership and be called an “accessory to murder” or a “denier” (gee, where did that word come from?) if you prove the global warming models are crapola.
Glad to know Mark Bail knows what is in Deen’s heart.
Kbush- I cannot help anyone who defends. $32 Billion hedge fund (Harvard Univ) being tax exempt, b/c it needs to “thrive”.
Says it all.
If red herrings smelled, everyone would think Dan worked at Legal Seafood. It would take an ocean of lemon juice to clean his hands. He talks stoopid, and throws red herrings (and ad hominems) when we point it out.
Dan’s not stupid, but he’s very stoopid.
When Clinton wagged his finger into the camera back in 98′, denying sexual relations with Ms. Lewinski (i wouldn’t be surprised if some here believed him at the time), what price should he have paid (personally, I didn’t give a bleep, I have family in Arkansas, I had the low-down in Clinton way before 92).
Serena Williams made a dumb comment about a 16 yr old girl being raped, saying why was a 16 yr old girl drunk, didn’t her parents teach her any better, it could have been worse. Should she lose all her endorsements? She has apologized.
If the people of MA can forgive Kennedy and Studds for their indescressions, why not Anthony Weiner or Trent Lott?
I would just like to know what Striker57 or you consider “dumb” or “stupid” or “sexist” and the “price” to be paid. I recognize this is more philosophical, and a better forum is a lecture hall, not a blog.
Speaking of Legal Seafood, every summer I go fishing 2-3 times off Cape Cod and Nantucket and reel in some stripers and blues (small tuna one year). Now that’s fresh fish.
.
It happens
,
Speech is a free market. You pay for what you say or not. It depends on the market. That market includes partisan forces. Our discourse takes place in a very imperfect marketplace. I liked Anthony Weiner. I didn’t complain or say he was treated unfairly. Clinton was treated unfairly by the media, which at that point, was dominated by very serious people who were completely played by conservatives. But so what? It was what it was and is what it is.
Personally, I try to be fair to the people who say stupid things. As someone with the opportunity to say stupid things in the classroom and in public meetings, I know how easy it is, not only to say something offensives, but to say something I would disagree with had I had the time to think about it.
Your concern with what’s fair and right or wrong in this regard is a waste of time. At best, you seem to be caught between your talk radio desire to score points on us either for our alleged hypocrisy or moral unreasonableness and actually wanting to figure something out. You talk like the guys on WEEI, to whom I rarely listen. Any information is drown out by serial accusations and self-defense. You’re not a stupid guy, but KBusch describes you pretty well.
It doesn’t matter what price is paid. The market decides, not you, not me. What does it matter what price we think they should pay? It’s like complaining about the price of Apple stock or the weather. You can’t change it.
I mean, some here thought Scott Brown’s “He’s For Us” was code for something nefarious. It’s shit like that, that drives me nuts.
I think Austin Powers said it best about a person acting like they have a bug up their arse, too many people see racism or sexism, and a simple apology is insufficient, rather most want a pound of flesh.
I thought what Sen Allen said in 2006 was deserved a high price. But war-whoops by a Brown staffer…..puhleeze.
Problem is the “price” is determined by a liberal media or Drudge and talk radio or hired guns by DNC and RNC. Meanwhile, Rome is burning, which is my concern.
Not everyone is perfect, and mistakes will be made or said. IMO, people need to take a deep breath. We lost the best goalie in Tim Thomas, b/c he had certain views on things.
Tim Thomas wanted to go hide in the woods. He pouted and took his ball (mask?) home. Not a good teammate who does that.
Tuukka’s been excellent. Virtually all of the goals he’s given up in these Finals haven’t been his fault. Deflected off three different people, third-chance rebounds because nobody took Kane or Toews out of the crease, Krug passing it right to a Blackhawk at his own blue line. The one softie I put on Rask is the OT game-loser in Game 4, which he shoulda had.
Against the Rangers, remember that? Don’t get me wrong, I like Rask, but when $$$$$ on the line, chips are down, I would take Thomas and respect his views.
against the Rangers, which was basically all he gave the Rangers or the Penguins in 9 games. He’s been pretty good against Chicago too, but the team defense that got them this far has been lousy the past two games.
Hoping they can win Game 6 at home and then put together a great effort in Game 7 and win this thing.
If you had your choice for game 6 against the Blackhawks, would you pick Rask or Thomas as your goalie?
but you missed all but the tip of my commentarial iceberg.
there is no time for reading.
You expected more maybe?
In your opinion, should Trent Lott have been forced to resign for what he said?
Sound bite war. Not illuminating. Ever.
Mark answered my Clinton impeachment and Anthony Weiner saga, why not Trent? I would not ask unless I respected his opinion. Would you like me to ask you your price for saying the wrong thing?
:
Delusions of grandeur…
of one hand clapping? You’re BMG’S unsinkable Molly Brown, man.
After I write two comments explaining to you that what someone “should” do is completely irrelevant, you ask me if Trent Lott should have been forced to resign? My answer is, was, and ever shall be: I don’t care. It doesn’t matter. You’re asking me whether I think the sun should rise in the East.
Paula Deen is well past age 65 and from the deep south. She was asked, while under oath as part of a deposition, if she had ever used the word ‘nigger’.
She told the truth, and accurately observed that it was a long time ago.
Millions of people her age are equally guilty. Former members of the MA Congressional delegation come to mind. I am not quite as old as she is, and have lived in Mass. all my life. I was taught that it was crass and low-rent to use such a sword more than immoral, but since I never had a black classmate in my legally segregated Massachusetts school (we walked to schools in our ‘neighborhood’) and never interacted with a black person personally until I left home, the use of the word really didn’t come up.
I don’t get the glee and grave-dancing.
There’s an entire deposition with a number of stories, most contemporary, that reveal a pretty patronizing view of black people as a whole. Besides, as striker notes, lives will be saved by taking her recipes out of circulation.
The Settlement Cookbook, circa 1903, has instructions on how to render butter, for example.
Or this for a pie – 3 eggs; 1 pint cheese; 1/2 cup sugar, 1/2 cup rich cream; 2 tsp. flour; the grated rind from 1/2 of 1 lemon (rind only – no need for juice to dilute the mixture!). Pour into a pie crust and bake until browned.
It’s just another stereotype that rich cooking is a Southern phenomenon – this comes from Jews in Minnesota.
And as far as the deposition goes, what did DEEN say – not her detractors? I’m not a big fan of hers, but it feels like she’s being railroaded for having a Southern accent.
The whole thing is available here:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/06/entertainment/deen-deposition/?hpt=hp_t1
For the record, I agree with you porcupine (what’s that, a flying pig?) that the whole “I once used the N-Word” theme is pretty silly.
That said, there’s the whole “southern plantation style wedding with the all black waiters in white tuxes” stuff and some other pretty bizarre things in the deposition. E.G.:
Where in my comment did I refer to Deen’s being Southern? And, it’s a side issue, but the fact that her recipes are Southern are not the problem; they’re just terrible.
Molly. Liberals, I mean, not those with Holyoke connections.
Insofar as I pay attention to anything celebrity, my understanding was what PP said. However, if she has an ongoing racism thing, well, FN is probably better off not renewing her.
It’s a free market — Deen may prosper without their help. Or she may have to content herself with several million dollars based on apparently being a genius for discovering that most people think things taste better with more butter and lard.
is that which you and Dan wish was there so you had more to work with.
and Sarah, herself, the “C” word, but do long as his $1 million dollar check to Obama’s PAC doesn’t bounce, no price will be demanded my Striker57, Mark Bail (still want your opinion on Trent Lott though) or Kbusch.
Now I get the picture
Wow, cry baby, so much effort to defend a bunch of Racist idiots, why am I not surprised?
What racists am I defending? Tim Thomas? Trent Lott? Anthony Weiner?
Neither Bill Maher nor Paula Dean are elected officials, but Trent Lott was, and Trent Lott was a racist POS, as you well know, otherwise, you would not have brought him into this discussion. Since Paula Deen and Bill Maher work for different networks, there should not be any expectation that they, as public personalities, experience the exact same action. You keep bringing up Bill Maher in various contexts because you of your own prejudices and your pathetic desire to smear President Obama. Otherwise, he is irrelevant to this discussion.
one pays for saying “stupid things”. Hence, when folks call for boycotts of Rush or Paula, why the silence for Bill Maher, b/c he paid the ransom?
I don’t listen to the effin POS Rush Limbaugh, so I cannot boycott him anymore than I do already, and I don’t eat at Chick-Fil-A so I cannot boycott them anymore than I already do, so where is it written that if I choose to boycott Paula Dean, I must automatically, also boycott a litany of others.
Answer: No where. Since you support market capitalism, you already know the answer to that. The market will drive the actions. I have yet to see where it is necessary to boycott Bill Maher, and when it comes to the half-governor of Alaska, I agree with him for the most part.
you talking to yourself in the mirror. I gave you an answer, but clearly, you don’t understand it.
Please Mark, aware you can’t change what is (your last answer), should Lott have paid the price of his Majority Leadership for what he said to an old man?
I don’t ask Cote these questions, he ain’t fair-minded as you seem to be. Me, no, that was too high a price.
ATTENTION! ATTENTION!
There has been an exchange on Blue Mass Group that lies beyond Dan’s abilities to sound out words. If some from his family could please, please read him Mark Bail’s comments above — preferably very slowly and explaining all the vocabulary words, we would be VERY GRATEFUL.
There has to be a sibling, niece, nephew, spouse who can help.
me! That’s the only reason he’s asking. He’s like a rookie pitcher complaining that I won’t swing at pitches outside of the strike zone.
One of the things that’s interesting here is an underlying cognitive construct. Stated from a toddler’s point of view, it’s that “everyone is run by my parents.” From an adults point of view, it seems to be that there is a single, central authority that runs everything — the Republican Caucus in the Senate, the Democratic Caucus in the House, HBO, the Food Network and various sports franchises. If that were indeed the case, it would make sense to wonder about whether it was fair or not or what rules it follows.
There’s something like this in the Gomez campaign for Senate. Gomez wants you to think that you’ll be electing him to Daddy Major of the Senate and he will get lots of things done in 17 months. Similarly, there’s the illusion that the economy is under the exclusive control of the President. This tendency to imagine that there’s some Other, some sort of mater mundi who controls all, crops up an awful lot. It crops up in a sound bite war, I suspect, because it’s a bias baked into us somehow.
…that no matter how inept or incompetent or corrupt the Democrat is, you must vote for them or else the Republicans will automatically control everything.
That’s the basis of Markey’s campaign.
I keep wondering – is Harry Reid, that Markey will mindlessly follow (just like Gomez would mindlessly vote for McConnell) such a bargain? A dynamic leader worth preserving, etc.?
They now all campaign on making the nation go into default by not raising the debt ceiling.
Their approach to climate change is suicidal.
Their opposition to reining in health care costs by studying what works is insane.
They approach to the economy is like Hoover only worse and with eminently predictable consequences. (Look at the UK’s GDP, for example.)
They are using the filibuster more than any party has ever.
So yeah, every Republican in the Senate is one too many, and the range of opinion in the Democratic Party, broad enough to capture the entire political spectrum in any European country, offers the only hope for anything good happening.
Couldn’t Markey’s campaign material be used by most of the MA delegation?
Wouldn’t almost any Republican candidate be subject to the same criticism Gomez is getting? He has to say something that appeal to the base. Trust me, numerous FB friends are posting things like “vote for Gomez, he’s bad but not as bad as Markey”
Check this out http://rabidrepublicanblog.com/2013/06/24/we-have-choices-on-tuesday/
This is why the Gomez personal criticisms are just so unnecessary (meaning, why waste your time?). I bet zero voters cast their ballot for Markey based on Gomez’ tax deductions or his offshoring of jobs. There are just so many reasons above it. Would you hate the Yankees because you don’t like their middle relievers?
Democrats don’t like Republicans, and it’s a Democratic candidate’s job in MA to get the unenrolleds not to like Republicans also. As far as I can tell that’s been most of the messaging in this campaign.
In George Washington’s day, the idea was to vote for men of virtue and character in the confidence that we’d be well-governed. We’ve now reached a point where elections all seem to be referendums on the Republican agenda.
I frame it that way because the Democrats are consistently less united. That’s one reason, for example, that healthcare reform passed but financial regulation floundered and cap & trade failed.
*
Oh, my, and I thought my response to porcupine was rabid…
George Orwell was right.
Down thread, somebody explains why Republicans are responsible for Bulger and Finneran. Not the Democrats who voted for them – only us.
You’ve created your scapegoat while your Democratic leadership sneers that some pigs are more equal than others, so you all work for any hack that your leaders pick, just like the horse Kate, who says, ‘I must work harder’. You don’t even get to choose candidates any more – ask Setti Warren.
But, it’s still all Snowball’s fault.
Yes, I’ve “created a scapegoat”. I’m sure my support is puppet-like and purely knee jerk. It must be very comforting to you to indulge all these essentially ad hominem remarks.
They, like your robotic anti-hypocrisy efforts, save you from having to deal with policy.
Apparently you now claim that the failure of the GOP to even field candidates is the fault of we evil Democrats.
Whether “snowball” or “porcupine”, I prefer you comments when they aren’t whining about the consequences of your own party’s decisions.
here, Merrimack. In the general election, I’m a yellow dog Democrat. Individuals can matter on Capitol Hill–that’s why we have primaries–but the parties get things done (or prevent things from getting done). Parties are ultimately the keepers of ideology, i.e. what we like to believe. Why did South Carolinians hold their noses and vote for Mark Sandford? Party and ideology.
Some of our elected representatives have influence. Not necessarily good influence, but influence. Eric Cantor is an individual with influence. Chuck Schumer is an individual with influence. I think Elizabeth Warren will prove to be an individual with a more positive influence than either of those two. But for someone to vote for Brown or Gomez, or even Warren, because he thinks they are going to change Washington, well, that’s flat out stupid. It’s the oldest political sales pitch there is.
Bring up evidence to show Markey is corrupt or incompetent Markey is or it’s a baseless charge, nobody is saying this is about preserving Reid as majority leader. I expect Markey to push him on the filibuster just as Warren has. You’d be hard pressed to find a man or woman who regularly comments here who likes Reid. I believe I even had a dump Reid post awhile back (Broons are on so I’m not gonna hunt it down).
The difference between our boogeyman and your boogeyman is that we can point to Brown’s votes with McConnell over and over again as proof that it’s a real threat to Massachusetts values, not a smokescreen. Would Edward Brooke or Salty Saltonstall voted for the Blount Amendment? Voted against common sense gun control? In my relatively young lifetime you had Weld who my parents voted for against Kerry and Cellucci, guys not afraid to rock the boat and put the Commonwealth first. I’d still take a Weld Republican over a Bulger-Finneran Democrat any day of the week. You guys just stopped nominating electable candidates and that’s frankly not our fault.
The Republicans have been voting as a near monolithic bloc since at least the recent Bush Administration. To get anything accomplished in Congress, Democrats absolutely have to be likewise united. Otherwise nothing passes.
The accusation that Democrats in Congress are somehow puppets of Reid or Pelosi overlooks that. Democrats are simply not going to bring forward bills that don’t get almost all their caucus. Likewise, the Republicans — advocating as they do defaulting on the U.S. debt — have moved so far into extremism that it’s no surprise at all that Democrats tend to fall in line against them.
So yes, indeed, Democrats vote very much as a bloc. What differentiates Democrats these days is less their voting than their ability to craft legislation, push issues into the limelight, and push back against the insanity of the party of Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachmann.
and the rest of the Republican agenda.
You can’t project the past onto today. Nixon was all about big government and Reagan raised taxes, ran big deficits, and did an amnesty for those here illegally. Who knows about what any MA Republican would do?
If Tisei had beat Tierney and Finneran moved to the 6th District and ran against him in 2014, would you vote (assuming you lived there) for Tisei? Probably not.
I put forth that there isn’t one Republican in MA that would get more that a token amount of Democratic (actual enrolled Dems, not leaning unenrolled) votes in either a Congressional district or a statewide race.
Like it or not we’re moving closer to some pseudo parliamentary form of government for the Congress, and this blog show the new MA reality. It’s not about D vs R, but the two wings of the D’s, and what they do next. In essence DeLeo and Murray are on the opposite side of Patrick, right? It just becomes a dysfunctional form of government, where the issues aren’t debated and the action (when the seat is open) is in the primary. We’ll see if there are actual primary challenges going forward. I think yes.
In fact, given current trends, it wouldn’t surprise me if the US ended up looking more like MA with a dominant Democrat party that has wings battling each other. TX will be blue once Hispanic voting rates increase. GA is close. FL and VA are already. CO is too, and NV. AZ might be. Once the Republicans move to permanent minority they will erode even faster.
IT’s about consolidating the corrupt hegemony of the Democratic Party. Period.
We can spread our corrupt legislative system nationwide, with liberals and progressives holding office since no other points of view are allowed. Screw Kansas. Then we can look forward to impeachments and indictments, just like here.
Because having a single party oligarchy has worked out so well for progressives here – any DAY now, they’re gonna get elected to leadership….
Nobody but the MA GOP selects the abysmal candidates put forward by the MA GOP. Nobody but the national GOP puts forward the suicidal insanity of the national GOP agenda.
Nobody decided to construct a “single party oligarchy” in Massachusetts — it happened because the MA GOP collapsed and died.
In fact, it is the utter vacuum of ideas and viability of virtually every GOP candidate that has destroyed the MA GOP. I didn’t do that, my fellow progressives didn’t do that, and my fellow Democrats didn’t do that.
How many Massachusetts house and senate seats did the MA GOP offer candidates for in the last general election?
Are you seriously trying to claim that Gabriel Gomez could even share a stage with, for example, Edward Brooke? I invite you to offer the name of ANY legislative candidate put forward by the MA GOP for in the past twenty years who compares with, say, Everett Dirksen, Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller, or Mark Hatfield?
The Massachusetts GOP destroyed ITSELF. Please spare me your whining and finger-pointing.
the MA GOP made some serious missteps in the 90’s and 00’s that set them back.
1. Two very popular Republican governors both bailed on the state.
2. A third, less popular Governor (Romney) left after only one term.
3. A person holding an excellent statewide office, treasurer (Malone) instead of holding it, challenged Celluci.
4. Romney created a lot of dissension in the party (Healy vs Rappaport, plus more).
5. Swift and Healy were poor choices for LG and couldn’t run on their own.
6. There was little organic effort to develop a “bench” to make a run at a relevant number of legislative seats.
And that’sjust the big stuff. Note that these are all organizational and don’t even have anything to do with policy. You can have the best ideas in the world, but you need a candidate people can vote for and some brand that the candidate can align with and low information voters can recognize. MA GOP doesn’t have enough candidates or a brand.
Note that they are probably in a death spiral. Without candidates down ballot the candidates at the top lose votes, and decent candidates at the top help down ballot. Without state organization (and everyone knows elected officials, of which there are few Republicans, have the best organizations to support broader efforts) it’s hard to elect people.
I’m still not on board with some vision of the Republicans in the past being more noble. Times were different. Abortion wasn’t an issue because it was illegal. No such thing as LGBT rights. If you want to get a sense of the times read up on the history of birth control in MA (my point is to point out MA legislators passed laws that would be outrageous today and a governor signed it), like this little gem below:
I said “abysmal”, and “utter vacuum of ideas and viability”.
While the specific issues may have been different (and many of them were not), Gabriel Gomez is a faint shadow of, for example, Edward Brooke (emphasis mine):
Mr. Brooke brought real substance to his Senate campaign. He took positions on issues. He advanced his party when it allowed him to, and challenged it when it was wrong.
I reject your contention that the issues of his day were somehow less divisive, less partisan, or inspired less passion than today. Legislators like Edward Brooke are how the horrid mistakes of the past were corrected.
GOP legislators like Edward Brooke took stands and led.
Massachusetts has not fielded similar legislative candidates in at least a generation.
a reflection of the GOP as a whole. The party has moved too far to the right for the electorate. The Massachusetts base is almost as conservative as it gets. Mass GOP candidates face a relatively moderate electorate and a fairly right-wing base. People going into GOP politics are automatically caught between the voters and their party.
That presents a problem for the Mass GOP, they have to recruit from a pool of candidates that are either too conservative for the electorate or too moderate for the base. Scott Brown was able to thread that needle for the special election, but he was beaten by a better candidate and a national party a large part of the electorate doesn’t like.
It was Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock who helped sink Brown. It could have been Warren or Coakley or Bugs Bunny, if they had a D next to their name, plus a pad of 1.9 million Obama votes, they would have defeated Scott.
Warren a superior candidate…..joke of the day…..
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
The name on the ballot was “Scott Brown”, and he was the incumbent. It was Scott Brown who lost, and it was Elizabeth Warren who trounced him.
Speaking of “who helped sink Brown”, you forget to mention his harping on the “heritage” non-issue, his failed attempt to make “Professor” an epithet, the unpunished war-whoops from his staff, his sponsorship of (and subsequent incoherent ranting about) the Blunt amendment, and a host of similarly self-destructive acts.
Elizabeth Warren most certainly DID beat Scott Brown — handily. Deal with it.
It was already out there. He should have never said anything about it himself. He would have been a lot better- more senatorial- if he’d been in office longer. He still came across as a state senator for the most part, and Warren seemed more Washington (which she was). I think that made a difference.
Brown had an uphill race based on the numbers.
He was going to have to take an unrealistic percentage of the increase in voters from January 2010 to November 2012, voters who traditionally vote D. Of course Obama votes helped, but presidential years are always tough for Republicans in MA.
Brown tacked towards the middle (I realize there is debate on this) and if the opposition had been one of the original candidates he would have had a good shot. Warren hung in there and didn’t screw up and she was tough. Even if more things had gone Brown’s way, he’d done a better job, etc etc what would that change? He loses 51:49?
There is a group within the MA Republican electorate that is attempting to take over the party and has elected a number of state committee members. You can get a sense of them here : http://www.massra.com/
They are allied with the people who attempted to get Ron Paul supporters as convention delegates but were blocked by the MA GOP after they won the caucuses. They also have a number of state committee members.
There is a third group, MA Citizens for Life, that also has sway. The head of that organization (who is an activist) recently won the spot of national committee woman.
However, and this is why I disagree, there is a solid chunk in the Bruce Tarr/Dan Winslow camp that are moderate/business types with little interest in Tea Party or social issues. They still have power (barely) but more importantly this is where all the money is. More than 50% voted for Gomez in the primary, and I think Republicans figured Gomez would perform better than Winslow. If your thesis was correct Mike Sullivan should have won the primary (and truthfully a lot Republicans thought he would because he had all the activists behind him).
Did you actually read the contents of the link you posted — such as, for example, “What We Believe“?
I have no doubt that this assortment of extremist right-wing crazies would like to “take over the party” (from the outside, it appears that they already have!). I see nothing new, nothing substantive, just more rightwing drivel.
To be more specific (I’m not going to do the group the favor of further publicizing their noxious screed), I make the following points:
– This group apparently believes that only men have “Unalienable Rights”.
– This group apparently seeks to impose the right-wing fundamentalist Protestant equivalent of Sharia Law.
– This group joins the extremist rightwing in elevating anti-tax Gilded-Era greed to an article of religious faith
– This group clamors for the “unqualified” right of citizens to possess (and presumably use) whatever weapons and ammunition they can acquire.
And finally, of course, no right-wing crazy website is complete without the obligatory icon of Saint Reagan:
You seem to have forgotten, while writing your comment, the observation that you were responding to:
Your link eloquently speaks to the truth of that observation.
At least Mr Bail acknowledged I might know something.
Note that MARA is not the MA GOP base, no more than small sub-groups within the Democratic coalition are MA the Dems base. Evidence of the that is that the most conservative candidate only got 1/3 of the primary vote, hardly proof that the base is far right.
Unless of course the conspiracy theorists are correct (I can link this if you want) and the Dem committee accessed a list of Dem leaning unenrolleds and encouraged them to pull R primary ballots and vote for Gomez.
I upvoted your two comments in response to DFW, I think you nailed each observation. I share the opinion of mark_bail that your insider knowledge greatly exceeds my own.
I wonder if we are seeing the “nature abhors a vacuum” phenomena applied to a dying political organization. I’ve seen something similar in consulting engagements with dying businesses — truly bizarre and self-destructive corporate cultures emerge (briefly), as the middle management that is left operates essentially open-loop without the constraints of actually earning a profit or growing a business. Once realistic hope of profit and prosperity disappears, top-shelf management moves on while those who are left don’t worry about profit or prosperity because they know it’s a lost cause whatever they do.
I think Massachusetts needs a new party, far removed from the national GOP and the baggage that comes along with it. I am embarrassed by the behavior of segments of the Democratic Party, and I believe that behavior occurs because they have nowhere else to go.
It seems that the political reality of today’s Massachusetts is that there are “Conservative Democrats” and “Progressive Democrats”. I think our political climate would be healthier (and less corrupt) if our party affiliations reflected that reality.
I agree with you, though not sure I would come from the “abhors a vacuum” direction (because I’m looking at in from a different perspective) , but the thinking is certainly on target.
Groups have formed throughout history either because if they could, they could get power or because they needed to confront power. Sometimes they crash and new groups form. Sometimes they can make changes as they go and prevent a crash. The GOP does not look like it’s going to make changes. The “Gang of Eight” is going to be attacked and then primaried, and it’s not going to end well.
I think one of the main problems with the US is structural. Power is not properly distributed. I think that everything in the US related to agriculture, food, and health (oh and animal rights) is related to the power of small farm states. This needs to end but of course it won’t. Farm state R or D has the same interest- keep Agribusiness happy.
I seem to recall you have a particular interest in divorce right? Maybe father’s rights. As person who has been involved in this myself it’s crazy how a system so messed up can be perpetuated. It’s because power cannot form against it.
So back to MA, if the MA stakeholder is the average citizen, yes the current situation does not benefit them, for sure. How does a legislator vote his district, or his beliefs, knowing that the Speaker can punish him (and his district) for it. When will we get transparency?
I know another one of your issues is transportation. Where’s the debate on that? Again, if we had a well functioning government, then we would have some progress.
As I postulated elsewhere I think the whole country is going the way of MA. Business interests in MA are already focused on the Dems not the Republicans. A few more years of trends and a couple good pols and we could see some statewide Dems who look more like R’s. Note: In the MV we had one. Sen. Steve Baddour who was indistinguishable pretty much from Bruce Tarr. We could see more of that.
I thought that the conspiracy was on the part of right-wing extremists, who pulled Democratic primary ballots in the hope of displacing Ed Markey with Mr. Lynch. You mean that’s not what happened?
Actually, I think the primary results reflect the distribution of Massachusetts voters — voters in Massachusetts are, in fact, far more left-leaning than the national average. I suspect this is especially true for primary voters in a special election.
It looks to me as though both parties chose the leftmost leaning candidate.
If there is a “branding” or strategic message for the GOP, it is that conservatism and “right-leaning” do not attract Massachusetts voters. Perhaps a new party could be constructed from the ashes and bones of the MA GOP that rejects the right-leaning conservatism of the national party altogether.
There was a time, after all, when “Liberal Republican” was not an oxymoron.
I don’t know enough about the intra-party machinations to disagree.
Just like the Dems the Republicans are segmented. “The Party” is not monolithic and the core are still people you would be okay with. What happens if the party got “taken over” no one knows. The last Party Chair vote was 41:39. The other guy wasn’t crazy, but lots of people lined up behind him right away, so I don’t know what was said to them behind the scenes.
I don’t like those MARA folks either. Not just their views. Most of them seem….well, stupid. Some are okay and you wonder why they tolerate the kooks.
The Paul people got the shaft and they’re mad. Some MARA people are Paul people as well. The party really did them wrong, and they did it because they could (and Romney told them to).
The Socons are not MARA (more normal, smarter), but they are a force, partly because of their money. All the MARAs are Socons
So to repeat MA GOP is not a reflection of the GOP as whole, except (and this is bad for them) in the minds of many voters. Such is branding.
Social conservatives?
I’m a strong partisan, but I honest wish there were a decent party organization for my Republican friends to belong to. I’m most active in town “politics” where party affiliation doesn’t matter. Common sense and fiscal prudence carry the day. So I have a lot of Republican friends who are not politically active because there is no organization.
But thanks for your information.
Yes. The Republican Town Committees in MA are particularly weak. Where they do exist they are often controlled by an older person who puts off any young people, they tend to not do much and they have no concept of technology. Even the idea of outreach to registered Republicans in town is beyond what most can do.
While town elections are nonpartisan, the RTC can be useful for the ground game if one of the members, or a candidate that is registered and known to the members runs.
Alas the reality of it is that most Republicans running for local office do it on their own.
58% voted for Gomez. My town is working class conservative.
A couple of years ago, I wanted to see if the local RTC had a web site, so I went to the state Republican Party web site and checked their list of links. Sure enough, there was Milford on the list – when I clicked through, I found a great site, very active, with a graphic across the top showing about 30 people! I had no idea they were that active – but when I looked for a few folks I know, I didn’t see them.
Then top-most blog entry talked about an interview with the mayor of Milford, a Republican – that’s when I realized I was looking at the web site of the Milford CT RTC, since we have a Board of Selectmen in Milford MA. Next time I ran into one of my GOP friends in town, I mentioned it to him – he replied that he doesn’t want to hear from the state party anyhow! To this day it hasn’t been fixed:
http://www.massgop.com/about/rtcs/
So your point is well taken, MG – the RTCs are weak, and not only do they not do much, they don’t even want to talk to the state party, at least in Milford’s case!
I am not sure that even the local Republicans comprehend what damage Romney did to their local fortunes.
The hard turn right, and particularly the attempt to turn right on social issues (i) pissed away most of resorvoir of goodwill with independents that his Republican predecessors enjoyed; and (ii) seems to have disempowered the “New England Republicans” thus marginalizing the party as a whole. It was not that long ago that rock-ribbed Massachusetts Republicans were proud when Bill Weld went nose-to-nose with Jesse Helms. No more.
By remaking the local Republican party into something more like the national party, he more or less killed it. It just doesn’t know that it is dead.
What is it like in tinfoil hat territory?
Enjoy your stay!
1) Kansas and impeachment
What are you talking about again? Last time I checked Kansas is never going blue, period. And all the indictments and impeachments are on your side, when the GOP actually has a President committing grossly impeachable offenses the Dems collectively shrug and say they don’t want to have a ‘politicized debate’ while thats all the GOP is good at. Sorry don’t get this point, and frankly any impeachment point flows to my side not yours proving that your party is full of extremists.
2) Progressives in leadership
They ain’t getting elected to leadership in your party, but they might be in the Dems. Progressive MA actually gets that and is actively recruiting primary candidates, I give your side credit for contesting those things, and while it produced an extremist and deranged leadership in the House and within the GOP Minority in the Senate, it will produce fiscally and socially responsible leadership in MA. Feel free to join us, Bob Hedlund won’t be a leader anytime soon but Jamie Elridge might be. Remember Tommy Taxes was elected thanks to Republicans in the House who liked a theocon Democrat. Never forget that. Billy Bulger got to stick around thanks to Weld. Republicans haven’t really had clean hands either.