Obviously in a very heated argument among friends we can forget what we were fighting over. Whether for Tierney, Moulton, or hoping a better Democrat than either steps forward-we can all agree that while Richard Tisei is no Tea Party extremist-he would be extremely ineffective as our Congressman.
Why? Well one of the reasons is that he would be nearly alone. Even more so after today. There really are no longer any moderates in the House caucus on the GOP side, and adding one to the mix really wouldn’t balance it all that much. Particularly when that moderate has consistently taken money from the same Speaker who shut the government down and has stalled any common sense compromises on a host of important issues facing the country.
No matter what Democrat we end up nominating, it’s important to remember, with no moderates left in the House, will Tisei really have an impact? And will he really be a moderate in the first place?
probably does not take us where you want us to go.
Thanks K!
…will almost certainly be to re-elect John Boehner as Speaker. The way the House operates that is pretty much a vote for the agenda for the next two years, even if you do break from your party now and then on specific legislation.
One impact of being the ‘lone moderate’ in the Republican Party is he’d have no protection from the Republican Leadership, no caucus of moderate GOP peers that could be used as leverage.
He may not have had a Tea Party record in the state legislature and he may not communicate or act like a Tea Partier in person, but his policy decisions are going to have to look an awful lot like a Tea Partier if he ever wants to have any hope of getting on good committees or getting leadership positions, etc.
The fact that he supported the Blunt amendment last cycle is a pretty good demonstration of what we’d be able to expect from him as a “moderate” in Congress: nothing.
I can’t think of anything else that so quickly encapsulates how much in thrall Tisei will be to the far right. I actually forgot about that one, I would’ve said Ryancare (which to be fair, medicare/ss cuts may have more traction as issues in the 6th), but the whole pro-choice/pro-SSM socially moderate BS goes out the window with that one. If Mistah Speakah can’t even let him dissent there, how can he dissent anywhere else?
http://www.johntierney2014.com
I can envision goggle ad words driving a lot of low info voters to this RNCC owned site.
i.e., if you have a bunch of moderates already there, who needs another one; and if you don’t, then adding one doesn’t “balance it that much.”
..like a bunch of GOP moderates running at once throughout the country. Like those Dems for Brown ads we saw saying we need more Scott Browns I remember thinking that would be nice in a way, but isn’t happening this year.
I think the second part of the formulation – that adding a moderate where there are hardly any will do virtually nothing to moderate the chamber’s output – is clearly more compelling than the first part. But if someone’s big claim to office, as 1 of 435 from sea to shining sea, is “My party sucks nationally but personally I’m a moderate,” what’s wrong with arguments that one self-identifed moderate isn’t worth much?
A pro-employment, pro-civil rights, pro-gun safety, pro-environment Republican?
Most Republicans are anti-employment (pro austerity), pro-repression (anti civil rights, like women’s choice), anti-safety (pro guns), and anti-environment, or some combination of those benighted views.
No. I can’t think of a single Republican down the line on those issues. You get some of those. Shelly Moore Capito in WV is better on choice than Joe Manchin, but awful everywhere else. Ross-Lehiten in Florida has been consistently good on choice and LGBTQ issues (son is transgendered and she represents a significant population as well), but awful on national security and civil liberties. Collins has a good record on the environment and choice, as did Snowe, as did Lieberman for that matter, but all three were instrumental in fighting for the insurance companies in ACA and awful on foreign policy. Kirk is great on LGBTQ, great for a Republican on guns, good on the environment, but nutty neocon on the wars and oddly anti-immigrant for a Midwestern moderate.
I honestly can’t think of one in the house, the Senate, or a statehouse that comes close to the Rockefeller Republican model. Sandoval in Nevada maybe.
In MA, and other New England states, you will always have a situation where a true blue liberal Democrat-so what’s the point with electing a centrist in either party? Now Lincoln Chaffee as Senator and Jim Jeffords were to the left of their party and even some Democrats (notably on the war) but what’s the point of a Lieberman when you can get a Murphy? A Brown when you can get a Warren?
by the campaign he chose to run, and the ads he let be run for him that he would surely be a safe vote for the far right agenda of his party? He was heard, and rejected, albeit by a slim margin. This time should be no different. His ideas haven’t changed.
but couldn’t one of the best paths to breaking the gridlock and finally working on solving the issues with solutions instead of bickering be to change the republican party from within by supporting moderate/progressive republicans when they (rarely) come around. If for example people sought to change the republican agenda to different issues move the party back to the Teddy Roosevelt/ Eisenhower Republicans.
I just don’t get why one party has to be “no no no” conservatives and the other has to be the party of progressive ideas. Why the argument be over which side’s idea/ solution is the best?
It seems that a lot of people view their party as an institution, something that they identify with like their country or home town. No one wants to change parties and that will probably keep many people in the republican party who may not even agree with what the official party positions are.
On the other hand I do see why you would much rather people like Tisei run in the South or in already republican districts. Democrats need Tierney’s seat and even though Tisei might be a good republican he would still have to listen to his party leadership.
If the republican party leadership was composed of guys more like Tisei or Scott Brown we would be in much better shape. If they were friendly with Democrats like President Obama and Cory Booker, maybe even Senator Gillibrand plus the wealthier tech community, and influential innovators like Zuckerberg/ Bezos, I think we could get some awesome stuff done. I know it’s extremely wishful thinking but as our demographics begin to shift and as the Conservative Republicans become increasingly regressive it could be a reality some day.
Of the national republican party, brand, infrastructure, noise machine, leadership and activist base. Tisei is not the man who could change that, nor does he pretend to be (as I said before: he supported the blunt amendment, for heaven’s sake!).
Furthermore, the democratic party has (frustratingly at times) never had an issue with “blue dog” conservative or moderate Democrats, so please stop thinking this is a Washington problem instead of just a Republican problem.
… that “mov[ing] the party back to the Teddy Roosevelt/ Eisenhower Republicans” would effectively make it the modern Democratic Party.
Think of some of Teddy’s and Ike’s key accomplishments:
Creation of the National Parks system.
Creation of the National Highway system.
Trust busting/increased business regulation.
Expanded Social Security.
Increased the minimum wage.
Created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Supported the creation of low-income housing.
Declined to cut taxes in order to balance the budget.
Apart from Teddy’s hawkishness and Ike’s uncertainty about Civil Rights, both would probably fit fairly well in a Clinton/Obama era Democratic party.
might be too far left for the present-day national Democratic Party. We’ve got some work to do.
Like Cook County. For a long time progressive Republicans were a welcome alternative to machine Democrats. Even now there is talk of a liberal Republican running against Lipinski in the 3rd just to avoid the inevitable shenanigans Mike Madigan might pull. But where we differ is I don’t see those token local liberals moving the party of Thurmond back to the party of Lincoln. I also don’t see why it behoove a me to back them over a liberal within the liberal party.
A better question to ask is if the collapse of coalition parties into ideological ones demands electoral reforms (like IRV or party lists) that reflect this.