Channeling his inner Scott Brown, Charlie Baker is now the victim on his statements opposing the entry of Syrian refugees.
No, I’m not interested in accepting refugees from Syria
Baker was called out by Seth Moulton:
It’s a shame that Governor Baker doesn’t know the difference between refugees and those from whom they need refuge.
— Seth Moulton (@sethmoulton) November 16, 2015
To further his embarrassment and incompetence which has been detailed here at BMG, Baker threw a hissy fit like an upset teenager.
Baker said, “First of all, I doubt that Congressman Moulton actually heard my whole statement because if he did I can’t believe that’s what he would have said.”
Twitter translation. OMG Seth!
It gets better (or worse), now Baker casts himself as the victim:
Baker added: “And secondly, I think it’s unfortunate that a serious guy like that went straight to the partisan talking points, with respect to how he responded on that, instead of engaging in the serious conversation that I believe we should all be having, about if the United States chooses to increase by five times in one year the number of people who come here on a refugee resettlement program from Syria…three days after we find out that one of the bombers did in fact use a Syrian passport and traveled through several refugee camps on his way to France.”
Crissakes Charlie, are you kidding me?
Mouton’s response?
My American values and Marine Corps experience are not “partisan talking points.” @MassGovernor should know better. https://t.co/bQQSRBDsU4
— Seth Moulton (@sethmoulton) November 17, 2015
He has really stepped up and is a rising national leader to look to. A lot of people, my family included, had personal relationships with Tierney but boy did that race get unnecessarily ugly. I had questions about some of his background and positions myself, but the attacks on his service and motives were uncalled for.
Since his victory, he has been a real presence in a district that my entire family now calls home. And I for one think he has been a significantly better Congressman than Tierney, who would have surely lost the seat anyway. Even his general election opponent, Richard Tisei, has nothing but praises for him now.
Unlike the chickenhawks talking out of their asses like Charlie Baker, he has experience taking in Iraqi refugees himself, saving his translator and one of his best friends from reprisal attacks. He is probably the only talking head in either party who knows what he is talking about when it comes to honestly assessing ISIL as a threat and figuring out ways to stop it. And he definitely got the better of Baker in this surprisingly entertaining Twitter bat. He just got in there, so I don’t know if he will run for Governor, but he is someone destined for higher office who actually cares about serving. A rare commodity in my opinion.
If you had asked me several months ago I would have stated with certainty that Moulton will be running in the Democratic primary for senator against Kennedy and Clark in 2020 when Markey declines to run again but after watching Moulton go after Baker on this issue as well as his leadership on building an underground rail link between North and South station I am starting to think it’s possible he takes on Baker in 2018 should he see an opening.
He does risk giving up a safe seat to run, and it’s the one seat in the state that could elect a Republican. Unless Driscoll runs, Tisei could likely run and beat a rep or senator and certainly a Tierney comeback. So it’s a risk, but he has developed a great constituency service system that is more
like a community service program. He also has a solid foreign policy and national security record, so either is fine.
Just no.
that’s my Congressman and I couldn’t be more proud !
I watched him on national TV last night take on the xenophobes and he was amazing. He knows foreign policy, has military bona fides and is articulate.
He is a passionate advocate for refugees as victims of the barbaric fascist terrorists.
I admire leaders who defend the weak against the bullies of this world. And Congressman Moulton is a leader.
Better watch out, Faker. This guy just ate your lunch and he’s just getting started.
Give ’em hell, Seth !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Wake up, Bob. Maybe, better yet, an admonishment to grow up would be more in order.
Just because Charlie Baker beat Martha Coakley doesn’t make her a ‘weak rival’. It merely demonstrates that the CommonWealth voters were weak and fickle and easily swayed by his patrician demeanor. How that redounds to his ‘rival’ escapes me… The best, and worst, aspect of democracy is the willingness of REAL leaders to allow the people to make mistakes that are both egregious and consequential. We really can’t have democracy without that…
Martha Coakley is, today, a better person than Charlie Baker just as John Kerry is, today, a better person than George W Bush and if you think Coakley would have given a weaker response than Baker to the Syrian refugee crisis then you should hang your head in shame.
The truth is, Bob, nobody –including YOU— wants a real leader. You just want somebody to reflect your own best selves back at you. Problem is, unfortunately, your own best self isn’t, alas, all that good…
Wow. Perhaps your wounds from the last gubernatorial election are still a bit raw.
I most certainly DO want a real leader in the corner office. Martha Coakley is irrelevant unless and until she decides to run again. For whatever reasons, she most certainly WAS a weak rival — even with all the efforts of the Massachusetts Democratic Party she lost in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. I use the word “weak” in this context to refer to her ability to slow or alter the course of the Charlie Baker campaign enough to get herself elected. She was weak, and she failed. She failed to carry huge portions of the state. She lost the election. That’s how democracy works.
I despise words like “weak” and “strong” to describe responses in situations like this, because I find them at best irrelevant and at worst positively destructive. “Boston Strong” was anything but, as far as I’m concerned.
Barack Obama and Seth Moulten are acting like real leaders. Charlie Baker is not. I haven’t heard any responses from Ms. Healey, so I have no clue what her posture is.
What I know I do NOT want to see is more surveillance, more uniforms, more searches, more militarization of our police, and all the other consequences of somebody who wants to appear “strong”.
…but what’s with the attitude in this comment?
I’ll give you that. However, she is a terrible candidate. That’s just her. She was a weak rival in that race, there’s no two ways about it. A good candidate would have won that race.
I heard from a lot of people in 2014 that they would vote to re-elect her AG in a heartbeat, but were reluctant to vote for her for Governor.
The roles are very different and it’s weird that so many assume it is a natural stepping stone to governor. Also, the track record for such a move has been terrible. People are already chattering about Maura Healey, but I don’t really get it – at least not yet.
An Epidemic of Baker Derangement Syndrome?
http://blogs.wgbh.org/masspoliticsprofs/2015/11/19/epidemic-baker-derangement-syndrome/
The only epidemic I see is hysteria, bigotry, and cowardice. I can’t tell whether Mr. Baker is suffering from said epidemic himself or merely pandering to tho already infected. It doesn’t much matter — he is an embarrassment.
His experience doesn’t mean that everything he says connected with war is correct. No one thinks John Kerry’s or John McCain’s opinions are above reproach.
I agree that Mr. Moulton’s response is a bit snarky. This is a twitter exchange we’re talking about here, though. It’s hard to NOT be a least a bit snarky in that medium.
Still, Mr. Baker’s posture is, in fact, betraying the values of every American including Mr. Moulton. Mr. Moulton was absolutely correct in objecting to Mr. Baker’s characterization of those values as “partisan talking points”.
My compassion for the victims of religious violence is not a partisan talking point. My embrace of the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty, and my rejection of the symbolism of barbed wire, is not a partisan talking point. My expectation that my governor will show courage instead of cowardice is not a partisan talking point.
Our collective commitment to the values we say we treasure is being again threatened. We failed, miserably, when confronted with the challenge of 9/11. We in Massachusetts failed again in the aftermath of the marathon bombing. Governor Baker is failing now.
What some call “Baker Derangement Syndrome” I defend as bedrock American, New England, and Massachusetts values. When Mr. Baker, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Obama, Mr. Patrick, or any other government official betrays those values, I have and will continue to call them out.
You’re crafting a judgement based on your experiences, as do we all.
You’re on particular thin ice with “New England” values. I don’t know what that means. Is it better or worse than my “Midwestern” values? When I first came here I thought the majority of people I met were rude a-holes.
I think the Derangement term is not far off. If you objectively read this blog there is never a shortage of people jumping all over Baker. Anything good he does (like his active role in trying to improve DCF) is not mentioned (okay it’s a partisan blog, I get it) and statements like “it needs review” are treated like firm evidence he’s a MA version of Ted Cruz.
It’s fine, but it’s derangement.
Where does barbed wire fit into your “Midwestern” values?
How does one go about the task of “objectively” reading an unabashedly partisan Democratic blog? What is your objective reading of RMG (such as it is with the apparent departure of its founder)?
In fact, Charlie Baker’s active role in attempting to improve DCF has been discussed at some length here. What is your objective reading of his collusion with Mr. DeLeo in further destroying public transportation?
When I first arrived here in 1974, from a Maryland suburb of Washington DC, I welcomed the emphasis I found on celebrating and respecting individual choices. I welcomed the importance placed on the revolutionary war, in stark contrast to the focus on the Civil war that dominated the region where I grew up. I felt and feel far more at home walking the sites of Concord, Lexington, Bunker Hill, and even Prospect Hill in Somerville, then doing the same at Antietam and Gettysburg.
I thoroughly enjoyed the majority the people I met when I first moved to Massachusetts. Perhaps I met different people, or perhaps I’m a “rude a-hole” myself (a charge that more than one colleague has made, perhaps with some justification).
The only derangement I see at the moment is our collective hysteria about evil terrorist bogeymen. I hope calmer and saner voices (like that of Ms. Warren) prevail.
It was just three months ago everyone was crying over the little boy on the beach, and some hawks were even using that as a reason to attack Syria, blaming Obama for not doing enough to help these people. I think it was a universal value of compassion towards others, regardless of party, back then, and now it seems like a rush to fear and judgment because of the Paris attacks. Which to be clear, had nothing to do with refugees.
Some of my friends most upset about this recent anti-refugee trend are Christian conservatives who have been complaining about our inaction on these issues for the past four years. And to be fair, my buddy who served a tour in Afghanistan is pretty adamant that we shouldn’t let them all in at once, as he has been shot at by people he thought were ‘friends’ of America that were actually Taliban double agents. But, once he cools off even he admits he just wants to make sure they are ‘vetted’, and we definitely are vetting the ones we are bringing over here. It is Europe that has lost the capacity to vet-all the more reason we should be taking in more refugees to assist them.
So did my fiancee, she still does in many respects, New England nice takes a lot more getting used to than Midwestern nice, which I’ve started taking for granted. I used to think she was crazy, but it’s apparent you and her are not alone. But like you said, when you first came here, now that you’re an honorary townie, you’re just like family, right?
I think I bitched the loudest about Deval’s utter failure on that issue, to criticism from the peanut gallery here, and have been fairly effusive in praising Baker as exponentially better when it comes to that issue. And that’s not just from the media coverage, it’s from family and professionals I know who have had to deal with it on a daily basis. It is one of his accomplishments so far, and transit advocates in Cambridge have told me the T Control Board is actually looking at the full picture and viewing the T as an investment. A good contrast to 8 years of malign neglect under Deval and the Democratic legislature. I think we are all honest about that now.
But sure, for some this was the issue they were waiting for where Baker could be exposed as a closet conservative Republican. Is is their fault he played right into their hands or his own? My money is on the latter.
I think I have a bit more perspective because I am straddling the political spectrum. I have many many friends who would say they espouse “American values” yet their positions are 180 degrees from BMG. If you want historical perspective, “welcoming immigrants with open arms” has hardly been a consistent American value over our history. “Providing the less fortunate with the barest minimum (or less)” has been an American tradition, so it must be in our value system somewhere (the whole boot strap thing). So what are our values? I don’t know, so I am loath to criticize. I could say we have Judeo-Christian values (but of course what are they?), but of course we have a number of atheists here, and I am happy to let them follow their own path.
As far as New England folks are concerned, the area has been diluted by people from outside the region, so it’s not what it once was. However you get used to it and/or change, which is why most people don’t notice it anymore. I could cite specific examples if you want.
I’m not saying the criticism of Baker is universal here (however you did just say “chickenhawks talking out of their asses like Charlie Baker”). I just find it interesting that eight years of Patrick and stuff goes wrong, goes bad, or doesn’t get better, and that’s ho hum (or excuses). His administration was filled with incompetents (including Beverly Scott, who was vigorously championed on BMG).
Baker is actually trying to fix stuff, he’s only been in ten months, but he’s got an R after his name, so he is a (fill in the blank with a negative comment).
I think you share the frustration of CMD and Porcupine that people here tend to circle the wagons and defend Democrats, even when they are sucking at their jobs. Most criticism directed against Democrats is usually when they aren’t liberal or pure enough. But yeah, Moulton didn’t get a fair hearing and Tierneys flaws were overlooked, the connector failure was spun down, as was DCFs. I was shocked to see the pushback I got for endorsing porcupines modest proposal to dump Galvin, whom we bitch about here as frequently as DeLeo. And I was incensed when people went out of there as to defend DiMasi.
But that’s part of politics. Porcupine, as an outspoken pro-choice feminist, is far more generous to her potential nominees than she should be, since she fears Hillary Clinton more. Many of us, not me, were collectively defensive of the worst Democrat to run in this state in a generation, despite her obvious flaws. CMD still thinks if he votes for enough Republicans locally, we will get better Democrats. I agree in some cases we will, but it’s not a great long term strategy. Though I can tell from experience how uphill progressive mass has to go. Part of it is talking to each other and figuring out common ground, which is why I value your presence here. I strongly disagree with Baker about the refugees, but I’ve also admittedly been more diplomatic with personal friends and family who share his skepticism.
was to see “what was on the other side” and to improve myself by not living in a bubble. I’ve learned a lot.
Two warring sides is politics, and this is what many are talking about today, and Obama brought up in his 2004 keynote. It’s not gotten any better over the last twelve year. If a person can’t think gay-loving, have an abortion, work with the Dems, just trying to make government work Charlie Baker gets a chance to see if he can make things better, probably not much hope of ever coming together.
Part of the anti-immigrant theme is that those people will be joining the blue side, so why let them in? Many here ascribe these thoughts, and the red side’s resistance to helping the poor more as mean-spirited, but it’s probably just politics. They’re never going to vote for our side, so screw ’em.
The fight’s for the middle, and I think Baker’s winning there.
winning the middle with leadership.
Bush 43 was thinking that he was “leading” when he went into Iraq.
Really? You sure about that?
I saw on MSNBC last night that 56% of Americans do not want us to admit more Syrian refugees.
I like their blog, but I also suspect they are looking at this through the narrow prism of polling, and also citing ‘other Democrats’ to somehow prove that we here are merely being ‘partisan’. Well-we have also criticized those Democrats! Not just Baker-because they are all engaging in dangerous fear mongering attacks against the most vulnerable refugees we should be taking in, as a moral first principle, regardless of the politics. Have anyone of us attacked Utah’s Republican Governor? No, because for him his faith is actually defined by the parables of Jesus and not the pandering of Donald Trump.
This really shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and I am not desperate to attack Baker on it. For what it’s worth-it seems to be blowing back by Baker fans I have talked to. My dad was a Coakley voter and he has been very impressed with Baker so far, to the point where he was ready to re-elect him, but this really pissed him off as the naked racism it is. But the profs may be right, it is polling well right now, but fuck it-even if it is popular, it is morally wrong. And I think we have actually done a good job calling out Democrats locally like Walsh and Hassan and nationally like Chuck Schumer, the most useless ‘liberal’ in the Senate these days, for their bullshit talking points on this issue.
This is not a partisan issue. Moulton took in a refugee long before he got involved in elected politics, and unlike Baker, actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to these issues since he actually has life experience outside the boardroom. That’s why he took it as an attack on his service. If people want him to run it’s because he displayed more courage in three tweets than any member of our party leadership in Boston or on the Hill on this issue.
Can you provide a link to that poll? I’d like to check it out.
Cover article or the Bloomberg Poll is here.
Questions and methodology are here.
N/T
http://www.lowellsun.com/opinion/ci_29138524/moultons-myopic-refugee-tweets#disqus_thread
Oh damn, they made him look like a fool.
“Oh damn”… /s/ Loser troll.
I’m probably jaded from too much time coding. I’m reading this comment as a pseudo-coded regex (“/s/” meaning “substitute the preceding for the following”). Whether intentional or not, it works and I enjoyed it.
Love it. I have no idea what that means. When it comes to coding, I don’t know a 1 from a 0. /s/ as in “Signed.”
Funny how particular character sequences are automatic triggers…
LOL – Still mad bro?
I especially loved this part …
No, not at all. I’m more “embarrassed” by him. I thought that angry, tea-party, Charlie went the way of the dinosaur after 2010 but…… he’s back.
If he met a big white mythical white guy who told him about the plight of Syrian refugees–otherwise they’re on their own.