The recent endorsement by Bay Windows of Richard Tisei is disappointing, but it actually highlights how the broader press coddles Tisei as a novelty because of his status as a gay Republican. Let’s challenge the press on this.
What is the press not doing?: balancing its coverage of Richard Tisei by pushing him to defend his positions on Republican 1% tax policy or destructive policies on health care, or labor issues, or the minimum wage, or oil company profiteering, or Citizens United, or dismantling social security, or any other bread and butter issues that affect the unconnected, the poor, and the vulnerable – not to mention undermining the last two years of Obama’s presidency with his inevitable vote for Speaker Boehner.
It’s well past the time when any one potentially vulnerable community can afford to endorse a candidate based upon a narrow community interest, without thinking about how that candidate’s policies will affect our fellow human beings and the greater nation.
The House’s prime function is taxing and spending policy. I respect Bay Windows’ right to make the endorsement, but it is disappointing in its narrowness and should serve as a call to us to challenge the press to challenge Tisei and stop the free ride.
Terry McGinty
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I tried to find it, but no luck.
Seems to me they just see their role as endorsing the LGBT candidate regardless of anything else.
Yeah, I said it. Homelessnessess, drug addiction, and lack of healthcare are pressing problems for gay young adults. The 18-35 LGBTQ demo has significantly rates of all three social problems when compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Tisei would continue to vote to gut homeless programs, repeal Obamacare which has helped address the health care disparity by ensuring everyone has coverage, and engage in an overly punitive approach to drug abuse.
Moulton is committed to improving Obamacare with a public
Option, Tisei would waste the Congress’ time on repeal votes that wouldn’t be passed and would be catastrophic if they were passed. He backed the Ryan budget which would severely cut the CDC even more than the sequester did, and certainly cut into funding for AIDS care and research.
We have two strong advocates for equality running in the MA 7th-but only one of them endorses a fair economy and greater assistance and opportunity for vulnerable populations including gay youth.
We should be hanging labor unions out to dry over casinos.
We should be encouraging them to join us after casinos lose in finding more constructive ways to create jobs and generate revenue for our Commonwealth on industries that are sustainable rather than dying, and that do not depend on the gullibility and vulnerability of our neighbors-especially our seniors-to survive.
What if I said “the broader press coddles Obama, Patrick, Booker (you could use any one) because they are black politicians who sound like white suburbanites.” I realize I am paraphrasing Joe Biden here.
The fact that Tisei is gay has zero effect on the vast majority of his supporters (and by majority it could be 99.9% for all I know). When I first got to know him I didn’t even know he was gay. I would assume it would hardly enter into anyone’s reason to vote for him.
You really need to get past these stereotypes. I view all the politicians above as political figures, not black political figures. You should consider Tisei in the same vein.
The culture war issues are far more black and white, so its easier to call Cuomo a liberal since he pushed gay marriage and gun control while ignoring his egregious Wall Street ties. Ditto Raimondo in RI or Booker in NJ. Meanwhile, ‘maverick Republicans’ like Weld, Tierney, or McCain are basically Republicans who bash the religious right and are socially moderate. Goldwater got a liberal revival a few years ago for the same reason, in spite of the fact that all the names I mentioned stand against the New Deal and a sane foreign policy.
A true maverick Republican like a Mathias, a Percy or even an Ed Brooks would be a Democrat today.
Like Bulger? DiMasi? Flaherty? Gouguen? William Jefferson? Wilkerson? Marzilli?
Social issues and honesty are not partisan issues. Size of government is, spending is, taxes are. It is just standard Demorat practice to take the most extreme position stated by a Republican and try to extrapolate it to all. Wrongdoing by a Democrat is always an idiosyncracy, by a Republican symptomatic. More and more, people see through that in places where the media ar in the tank for oneparty or the other, and Unenrolled/Independent becomes the majority as a result.
Though I did defend Marzilli initially, since his escapades seemed out of character from the man I canvassed with-and they were due to a severe mental disorder. But otherwise, I’ve been on the record bashing all of those people. I wanted the Republican who beat Jefferson to keep his seat, he voted for ACA!
My point is, the press likes Republicans like Weld and Democrats like Clinton. Moderates who don’t rock the boat of big business. All the bad Democrats you mentioned, Marzilli excepted, were also far more conservative than the typical Democrat. Murtha also took bribes and was fairly conservative and I called Pelosi and Kos out for pushing him as Majority Leader in 2006. And to Nancy’s credit, we abandoned Wiener immediately. You just took several extreme examples to also argue its symptomatic to the state Democrats.
The vast majority of Democrats in this state are disgusted by the legislative leadership on Beacon Hill. And you will frequently see that in these pages. I don’t see why backing a union busting Republican in IL or MA for Governor will be a check against either states corrupt legislative leadership. Why should I compromise my principles on issues I care about for the ideological schemes of the GOP?
Arlen Specter was the kind of Republican you should’ve kept in your party. An DA who ran against a machine, won, and governed largely in the middle on all fronts-including a strong pro-union record and strong record on choice and equality. His need to defect to the Democrats, along with guys like Jim Jeffords show how out of touch the party is.
If he wasn’t so neocon on foreign policy I might’ve voted for Mark Kirk, since Alexi was clearly a hack. I might vote for him in 2016 if I’m still here since I doubt the IL Democrats are capable of nominating a credible progressive to challenge him. I backed Tony Perica against Todd Stroger, I am voting for several down ballot Republicans against Madigan stooges. But it takes an open tent. Tisei is far to the right economically than even Peter Blute or Torkildsen were. You have to concede that.
I’m not sure this is quite the slam dunk you guys make it out to be.
Anti-gay sentiment in the Republican Party is a longstanding problem that the Log Cabin Republicans have tried to fix for, what, 20 years? More?
Meanwhile, our party had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting what we now call marriage equality. Our “civil union” position seems quaint now, but it was pretty tepid support, and basically we ran from equality issues.
Now the choice for gay voters is, add another Democrat, or add a gay voice to the House majority.
It’s easy if you’re committed to one party, like we are. But if you’re a gay swing voter and you judge each candidate, it’s a tougher call, I think. Will one (more) gay member change the GOP overnight? No. But ya gotta start somewhere.
If elected, Tisei’s first vote will be his most important, and that is for the next Speaker, i.e., the person who controls the agenda of the House. Everything else is noise.
Of course, Tisei will vote for John Boehner. If you think John Boehner’s agenda includes support for gay rights, minority rights, human rights, or anything other than cutting the social safety net and enriching the rich, think again.
Party I’d more important than the individual.
Nt
Nt
Unless you’re an older straight rich white guy, the same argument applies. Voting Republican is voting for a party that has no use for you.