First, credit where credit is due: MA-6 candidate Richard Tisei has announced that he is boycotting this weekend’s GOP convention to express his disapproval of the right-wing platform that the party adopted earlier this year. Good for him.
Second, it’s impossible (at least to me) not to see Tisei’s move as putting a lot of pressure on Charlie Baker, the GOP’s presumptive nominee for Governor. If you think about it, Tisei and Baker are in very similar positions. They are pretty much the only brightish spots in an otherwise pretty grim-looking 2014 for MA Republicans. Both are well-known “moderate” Republicans who have already run statewide (on the same ticket, in fact). Both support abortion rights and marriage equality. Both are facing uphill but probably winnable races this fall. And both need the support of a lot of unenrolled voters and probably a few Democrats to win.
Tisei, who of course is gay and married, has decided to put his money where his mouth is by boycotting the convention this weekend. One has to imagine that this move will piss off a lot of MA’s small but merry band of conservatives, since they’ll see it as a slap in their faces. Which, frankly, is exactly what it is. Over at RMG, the anti-Tisei backlash has already begun. Tisei, who no doubt knew this would happen, must have concluded that the backlash from the right-wingers was worth it to him, both politically (he probably figures he’ll gain at least as many votes as he loses with this move), and personally.
On paper, at least, Tisei’s views are barely distinguishable from Baker’s. Yet just a couple of days ago, we read in the Globe about how Baker has worked hard to reach out to his party’s right wing, and how the right wing (at least to the extent that our friend Rob Eno at RMG represents that wing) is feeling the reciprocal love: “‘Because [Baker] has worked the grass roots and been in the trenches helping Republican conservatives, the grass roots have come to love him.'” The Globe tried to ask Baker about Tisei’s move, but “Baker’s spokesman declined to make Baker available or to discuss why he steered clear of the platform debate.” Profile in courage alert.
Also, as you may recall, Baker has a lousy track record of standing up to the extreme elements of his party. In 2010, he famously showed up at a Bill Hudak fundraiser (remember that guy?), and campaigned with Jeff Perry even as Perry’s less-than-awesome record as a cop was blowing up Perry’s own candidacy and threatening to derail every GOPer around him.
So what is a centrist Massachusetts voter, open to a Baker candidacy but uncomfortable with what the MA Republican party (as reflected in its platform) actually stands for, to think, if Baker shows up at the convention this weekend and rallies the assembled troops? How much ammunition does Baker really want to hand over to Democrats who – obviously – are going to make every effort to link Baker to the views of the party under whose banner he chooses to run? Last time around, Baker cost himself votes by refusing to disavow guys like Hudak and Perry. Will he make the same mistake again?
Of course, there is one noteworthy difference between Tisei and Baker: Baker needs 15% of the delegates voting at the convention to get on the ballot, while Tisei, who is running for federal office, does not. But come on – Baker could be a million miles away from the convention and still make the ballot, still win the endorsement, and maybe even still keep Mark Fisher off the ballot. The entire party establishment is behind Baker, and he can send Karyn Polito to Worcester to make sure everything stays on track. And even if Baker’s absence from the convention allowed Fisher to get 15% and create a primary, that would probably actually benefit Baker in the general election, since it would help Baker distinguish himself from Fisher’s extreme views throughout the primary cycle.
So how’s about it, Charlie? Are you really going to let your former running mate show you up? Do you really want it said that Tisei had the courage of his convictions, but you didn’t? Do you stand for the party of Bill Weld, or Bill Hudak?
Laurel says
If he’s against the proposed platform changes, then he should show up, speak out, and VOTE AGAINST THEM. If he can’t even stand up to a regressive minority in his local party, are we to believe that he’ll be anything but a dishrag in Congress? Really pathetic.
David says
If he shows up, makes a speech, and votes no, he will obviously lose the vote, and nobody will much care. I think he brings more attention to the issue this way, and I think it’s actually a stronger statement.
Laurel says
That would still have been a splash, and it would indicate that he actually intends to work for progress in his party. The way it stands, he’s just running away from the real work of creating the change in his party he says he wants to see.
hesterprynne says
If the Mass GOP is charging candidates for Governor <a $25,000 to speak at the convention, I wonder what they would charge Tisei to repudiate them?
Maybe the Dems should take up a collection.
scout says
Maybe that really means something to him and he doesn’t want to stand in a room that overwhelmingly votes that he and his spouse are unworthy of the institution and second class citizens? I can hardly blame him.
Laurel says
.
scout says
Maybe he should, but he may not think the convention is necessarily the party, and nor are few dozen yahoos involved in creating the silly new platform language.
fenway49 says
in Massachusetts and, of course, outside it on what today’s Republican Party thinks of gay people and gay marriage. How could he think, based on the evidence, that the “few dozen yahoos” are not representative of the party as a whole?
scout says
He’s a life-long repub. He considers himself a repub, it’s safe to assume he knows and likes some other people who are also repubs, but had nothing to do with this platform. Even Laurel above describes the faction he opposes as a “regressive minority.”
Boycotting the convention is more of a statement than giving a speech at the convention and, yes, less of a statement than leaving the party. It’s not like I’m opposed to him leaving the party or something, but I’m glad he did what he did.
theloquaciousliberal says
There does seem to be some recent evidence that those attitudes are changing andquickly. Pew just release a poll from last week showing that a significant majority (61%) of Republicans 18-30 now *support* same-sex marriage. Overall, despite the staunch opposition of older Republicans, a full 39% of Republicans said they favor allowing same-sex couples to marry.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/
Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, Republicans tend to be even more conservative than nationally (on average). Understandable, given their small numbers in our blue state. Still, polling shows 30% of MA Republicans think same-sex marriage should be legal with 9% not sure. And only 34% say legalizing same-sex marriage has had a negative impact on them (with 61% saying it’s had “no impact at all”).
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_MA_926.pdf
With this evidence – and the likely GOP gubernatorial nominee solidly pro-choice and in support of same-sex marriage himself – I think it’s somewhat unfair to suggest it’s truly impossible for Tisei to be hopeful that the majority in his party will support same-sex marriage at some point fairly soon.
jconway says
Even theologians and natural law scholars on the religious right are coming around to the idea that they lost. Attitudes on abortion are unchanging, but even self-described evangelicals and ‘traditional’ Catholics in my age group (the 18-30s year olds) are moving swiftly to embrace civil gay marriage. It will take a lot longer for attitudes to change within the church, but most people saw the sky did not fall in MA nor in the 18 other states that followed.
The DNC strategy of running socially liberal friends of Wall Street will have hit it’s ceiling at about that time. It wouldn’t surprise me if we had a pro-equality nominee on the GOP side by 2024.
Massachusetts is a great test case for a state with a high degree of social tolerance and a high degree of economic inequality. Which issue should our nominee pounce on with Baker in the upcoming election?
Perhaps we should learn from Tierney-Tisei rather than run O’Brien-Romney or Coakley-Brown a third losing time. Tierney beat Tisei by getting a huge swath of working class people of color to vote for him in Lynn and other industrial towns in the North Shore. It was just enough to eek out a win. And that strategy can mobilize similar communities across the state to come out for the Democrats. If we face a general election with two fiscal conservative social moderates, the independents will break for the R since that will bring ‘balance’ to Beacon Hill. Happened throughout the Weld-Romney years.
JimC says
a) Make a stand at the convention, and take a losing vote for a more inclusive platform. Or
b) Quit the Republican Party.
Hmmm. If only there were some middle ground where he could remain in the GOP, and (presumably) fight to make it more progressive, but also make a statement against the party’s platform. What could he do … what possible public move could he make … hold on, thinking ….
danfromwaltham says
Boycotts are lame and usually have some backlash, like Chic-Fil-A did. Tsei, as Laurel points out, looks weak, afraid to speak his mind, and to me, comes off as showboating.
Conservatives that I know love a good debate and would have welcomed Tsei to voice his opinion on this issue. Hey Richard, just look to Ron and Rand Paul, their foreign policy thinking was shunned by the party brass, but by debating and fighting for their beliefs, they (Rand) stand to be the 2016 nominee.
johnk says
so hope he has the courage to reject the party platform and debate why it’s wrong.
friendly says
comment on the linked story
David says
nt
scout says
I can’t imagine why he would not want to go…
JimC says
He is taking a stand on principle. Presumably, he has employed the approach Laurel describes in previous years, and told to get lost. So now he’s taking a stand.
Maybe he’s doing it for the press, but I don’t care.
Sorry, David, it’s different for Baker. He needs the press the convention will give him, and to be seen by party regulars, more than Tisei does. I don’t think he’s obligated to boycott.
David says
First, by boycotting, Tisei just got himself more press than Baker will by showing up. Nobody cares all that much about what happens at these conventions, especially the GOP one where there’s little drama about who will make the ballot.
Second, why does Baker “need” to be seen by “party regulars” more than Tisei does? They both need indies and a few Dems to win. I don’t see much difference in their situations, as I said in the post. If you disagree, please expand on your theory as to why.
Third, of course he’s not “obligated” to boycott. But if he had the courage of his convictions, he would.
JimC says
They’re pretty boring, if you remove whatever excitement (a relative term here) a campaign can bring. The notion of a statewide GOP convention boycotted by the nominee is demotivating for GOP activists. These are the people Baker needs first, before he gets to court indies and Dems.
fenway49 says
that’s disqualifying. Too bad for Baker. Needing the activists on the right is the kind of craven electoral calculation doesn’t cut it. It should hung around his neck like a lead anvil.
You’re either speaking out against those elements or you’re not. As in 2010, Baker is not. Tisi, for whatever reasons, is. I agree with Laurel that he should leave the GOP if he really doesn’t want to be associated with that kind of intolerance, but at least he is standing up against it.
JimC says
“The activists on the right” are the elected delegates to the Republican state convention. By definition, the nominee needs them.
I don’t know if you guys are just trying to make a point by being rhetorical, but I don’t think you can seriously argue that the Republican candidate should boycott his party’s convention during the year that he’s trying to be elected Governor.
fenway49 says
if he’s a decent person on these issues, he’s in the wrong party. And if he’s not, he shouldn’t be governor. He picked the party he’s running in.
If being that party’s nominee means rubbing elbows with people whose views are far outside the Massachusetts mainstream, he has to own that unless he’s willing to stand up against those views. And if playing nice with those activists costs him indy support, so be it.
David says
That is exactly what I’m seriously arguing. In the long run (i.e., November 2014, not next week) skipping the convention would do Baker much more good than harm. It might actually give him a shot at winning.
JimC says
A very good shot.
Alienating his own party doesn’t get him anything. So there we disagree.
jconway says
Tisei has a lot to lose from attending the convention, and a lot to gain from skipping. He is already attracting national LGBT dollars, including an endorsement from the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund (the LGBTQ Emily’s List), national press from Huffpost, and that constituency will matter more to him than conservatives. Especially since the mainstream arms of the NRCC and Boehner and Cantor are strongly backing him with their PACs.
Baker has mended fences with grassroots activists who thought he was too soft on social issues and done so deftly without actually changing his positions. He can run to the right to shore up his base in the primary with little risk in the general. I doubt the majority of MA unenrolled and moderate-conservative Democrats that he needs really know or care about Hudak or the platform. Shannon O’Brien and Martha Coakley ran on social issues in both their big races and argued their socially moderate opponents were dangerous. Nobody bought it then, nobody will buy it now. We beat Baker by running a strong economic populist willing to take on casinos, big business, fight for higher taxes on the wealthy and tax breaks and benefits for the rest of us. It’s the economy David!
Christopher says
At least for the Dems in nomination years they are anything, but boring. The excitement can be based on either certainty or suspense. The convention that nominated EW was exciting because it was one great big rally for her and the party was energized. This year’s will be exciting because we’ll actually have to wait for the votes to be counted and just about anything could happen.
JimC says
mike_cote says
n/t
HeartlandDem says
that’s the other guys with the tea bags that have invaded their bodies and corrupted the once dignified and functional GOPers. Their cousins are the ones in the white sheets.
Laurel says
…the news today would report him announcing that he intended to show up at the convention and use the stage to tell his party why his disagreed with the proposed platform, and why other delegates like him should use their precious votes to vote against it. His campaign slogan should be “Vote for me so I can fail to vote for you”.
JimC says
Tisei has zero chance of having that vote change the platform. So he can take a pointless stand inside the convention, or he can take a more visible stand outside the convention.
Laurel says
He could make the effort to sway other delegates. Showing up is much more effective means to do that than just sending out a press release.
kbusch says
What should Tisei do? If you’re a liberal and you accept that he is going to remain a Republican, there is no principled thing he can do because, well, we liberals regard Republicanism as morally abhorrent. So we don’t have any possible principled advice. I think he should also denounce McCain’s foreign policy, Texas’ anti-abortion bill, Ryan’s budget lying, and the whole opposition to the PPACA. But that’s just me — and every other liberal here.
If Tisei ceases being Republican, who is so interested in him as an independent individual that she would vote for him for governor?
SomervilleTom says
“If Tisei ceases being Republican, who is so interested in him as an independent individual that she would vote for him for governor?”
That is an enormously astute question.
SomervilleTom says
He needs the “Republican” identifier next to his name to even be a contender, never mind a winner. Yet the national and state party have enthusiastically tied that identifier to a homophobic and misogynist brand that no amount of lipstick will cover.
I think the right answer is for candidates like Mr. Tisei to renounce the “Republican” label altogether and run as the candidate of an existing or new third party.
Perhaps it’s time to resurrect the Whig party.
Bob Neer says
Primary to the right. General to the center. We know how that wound up: happily.
jconway says
Worked for Romney in 2002. We can’t run and win exclusively on social issues, let’s force Baker to admit to the extreme economics he espouses as well. Income inequality is the fight we should be fighting, choice and gay marriage are secure in MA, even if the MA GOP wants to pretend it can reverse them. I don’t see those issues winning voters to our side.
JimC says
David, and Joe Battenfeld (though he has a different rationale).
fenway49 says
when I saw the Herald at the newstand a while ago.
Patrick says
There isn’t a vote of the platform tomorrow. The vote by the state committee was the final vote.
Laurel says
If this is the case, then my whole calculation changes. So you’re saying that the delegates don’t get to vote on the platform changes? Has that always been the case for MA-GOP?
Patrick says
I’m not sure if this has been the case in the past.
Christopher says
I came up empty. There is no reference to the platform in the rules to this year’s convention and I could not find the platform itself. The Democrats ratify our platform at the convention the year before, but it is proposed by the state committee upon report of the platform committee. Prior to that there is a very open process of hearings around the state to determine what is included.
Laurel says
And it was because of the more democratic Dem process that I assumed the GOP did it the same or similar way. Silly me!
Donald Green says
He stood side by side with Charlie Baker as the latter supported the “bathroom bill.” Also it confuses voters(happily) because he is abandoning the Republican brand. Instead of standing up at the Convention, and stating his opposition, he does not do any such thing. The vote to accept the Platform included 6 votes against it. He would have support in his views. Does it mean the Republican Party not endorse him? The Chairperson of the GOP, Kirsten Hughes, seemed to think he was smart because he was removing his persona from Democratic attacks. What a ridiculous comment!
mike_cote says
Given how badly he is being trashed over at RMG, it would be nice for him to know he has options in life, that do not require him to be in such a cesspool of hatred and a self-loathing political party. Just saying.
fenway49 says
economic conservatives in the Democratic Party as it is, thank you.
mike_cote says
if we make the social liberal but economic conservatives unwelcome within out party, then we end up with discussions of a 3rd party or independants running, I rather see them as Democrats, but that’s just me.
mike_cote says
But an interesting Freudian slip!?!? 🙂
jconway says
They should be welcome, but no reason to run them as our gubernatorial nominees. There already is a socially liberal economic conservative and his name is Charlie Baker. I’d rather a true liberal down the line for our nominee.
fenway49 says
of the Democratic Party that it is too much under the control of economic conservatives who win elections by not being as socially retrogressive as their opponents. For most of the past century, economic conservatives who were socially liberal were called “Republicans” in Massachusetts.
SomervilleTom says
For most of the period between the end WWII and the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan, the things we call “liberal” today were called “American”.
My father, a conservative Republican and Barry Goldwater supported, tried to explain the gravity of the Cuban missile crisis to me in 1962 — I was ten. He was attempting to explain what was so awful about “communism” and “Russia”.
He said:
– The Russians make everyone carry an ID card and have an identification number. The Nazi’s did that too. Such a number and card are anti-American.
– The Russians make everybody ask the government for permission before they change work or move.
– The Russians can search anybody’s house or person whenever they want to.
He explained that the President, and America, was working hard to protect us from an enemy who would impose these awful things on Americans.
Sadly, the America that my father lived in was FAR more liberal than the America I am passing to my children and grandchildren.
Christopher says
Stalin ruled more like fascist than a communist it seems. Pure communism, regarding the state owning the means of production as opposed to private industry, need not include the things that you mention.
SomervilleTom says
I think the point here is not whether Stalin was fascist or communist (BTW, this was during the Khrushchev era). The point is that even conservatives like my father viewed the things today’s GOP strongly advocates as hallmarks of America’s enemies.
The America of 1962 was liberal by today’s standards.
afertig says
Yes, America of the 50s and 60s was more liberal on some things like that. Liberals tend to have nostalgia for a time (the 50s/60s) when we cared more about civil liberties, we had union density/power, when there were news outlets you could trust (Murrow) etc. but of course don’t want to move backwards on the progress we made on civil rights, women’s health and rights, LGBTQ rights etc. They don’t want to go back to before the Civil Rights movement or the sexual revolution. Conservatives tend to have nostalgia for a time (the 50s/60s) when they imagined that there were “stable homes” (read: women weren’t in the workforce in the way they are now), there was more social order and religious faith and core community institutions were strong, like the church. Of course, they don’t want to move backwards on the Reagan revolution. Whether that liberal and conservative nostalgia is nostalgia for something real or a fantasy I would say is actually a little complex. But regardless, it’s a fantasy on both liberal and conservatives parts to think that we’re going to go back.
Al says
in his last race was the way he allowed outside Republican groups to come in with nasty attacks on Tierney, and he even took up the nasty tone in his campaign. I think that provided the margin that he ultimately lost by. With this move, he might be trying to inoculate himself against the inevitable repeat of that dynamic in the Fall campaign. He might think that he has more to gain by holding the extreme wing of his party at arms length, with the possibility of having a better chance with independents and conservative Democrats. Just a thought.