Will the last Republican please turn out the lights - oh, and run for Senate?

No Tagg, no Weld, no Healy, no Hedlund, no Tisei, but state Rep. Dan Winslow is promising a very special announcement at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Meanwhile, one-time Republican Jack E. Robinson hopes to crash the election party by running as an independent.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

I agree but

I'd rather Massachusetts be a one party state as it is now than have Republicans who represent the current strain of batshit insane be anywhere near power in this state.

What's a pragmatic person to do anymore?

I recently met up with an old work colleague of mine and our discussion drifted to current politics. There isn't a home for people like us. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is likely the majority of people in this country, but the two parties each have their hobby horses that go against our beliefs.

As he said, "a government worried about what goes on in your bedroom is too big".

What's a guy who likes abortion rights, gay marriage, guns, low taxes and dislikes wars, domestic surveillance, drug prohibition and profligate spending supposed to do?

The absence of a center in the parties has allowed the inmates to run the asylum. When they're regulating soda serving sizes or trying to insert creationism into schools, it's evident both parties need to have the crazies purged.

Are you sure you're a centrist?

Drug prohibition is centrist. The Iraq War was centrist. Domestic surveillance is apparently centrist.

As far as I can tell, the main distinguishing characteristic of centrists is that they complain that there's no center. That, and they make false equivalencies.

When they're regulating soda serving sizes or trying to insert creationism into schools, it's evident both parties need to have the crazies purged.

Bloomberg ran for Mayor as a Republican (later Independent). Local politics is strange.

Regulating soda sizes is pretty dumb but it doesn't match the pure evilness of forcing creationism on children. But I guess you have to try making a false equivalence to burnish your centrist credentials.

What's a guy who likes abortion rights, gay marriage, guns, low taxes and dislikes wars, domestic surveillance, drug prohibition and profligate spending supposed to do?

The moment you went beyond guns and low taxes is the moment you went too far to be part of the Republican party. So what's a centrist to do?

The power is in the middle

This guy sounds like me. Too far left for the R's and too far right for the D's.

I've talked to a number of people about starting a middle party. We wouldn't run any candidates - just throw our support behind the person closest to the middle. With 5-10% of the electorate you would control the outcome of almost every election - and bring the nutjobs on both sides quickly to their senses.

I agree, I'd bet that the

I agree, I'd bet that the registered independents are growing because both left and right are tired of the crazies taking over their party. The democratic and republican parties of today are not anything like they were even 30 years ago.

(I don't think it's as noticeable in this state for the democratic party since this is a liberal leaning state where many of the crazies are born)

Actually

the surge in Indy's recently has been shown to be dissatisfied Republicans (Teaparty types) that thought the GOP was too RINO.

IMAGE(http://ivn.us/editors-blog/files/2012/08/PARTY-AFFILIATION.jpg)

There's nothing particularly moderate or centrists about independents. Most have a bone to pick with one party and lean away from it in a more partisan direction. Very few are the magical, middle of the road, just can;t everyone get along beltway moderates.

Nonsense

How is his laundry list of stances left of today's Democrats?

I'm pretty sure he just named every single policy stance of Obama...except Obama is right of him on domestic surveillance!

Left is on the side where your heart is

I said these policies are too far left for the R's (not the D's) and too far right for the D's (not the social issues - the fiscal issues of revenue and spending).

I think he agrees with Obama on many social issues - as do I. but he also likes low taxes and dislikes profligate spending. Obama isn't just a supporter of the opposite of those - he's the captain of the cheerleading squad.

More bullshit from you

How many times do we have to go over this? The Democrats are the fiscally responsible party. They are always cleaning up the mess left by the Republicans. Clinton managed to bring us to a SURPLUS before Bush blew it away on wars and tax cuts for the rich. Obama took an economy in free fall and managed to turn it around. And government employment has SHRUNK radically since he took office.

So-called "centrists" are completely full of shit when you continue to insist that Democrats spend too much while completely ignoring the reality that Republicans blow the deficit wide open whenever they get the chance.

And that's why nobody believes the bullshit coming from so-called centrists. You're a bunch of whiners who live in a fantasy world where everyone is at fault but you. Get a clue.

Are you bipolar?

Sometimes you make so much sense and then you spit up the Kool Aid.

How many of your mistakes would you like me to point out - the response would be too long to take on all of them - Clinton didn't actually balance the budget and the Republican congress was largely/mostly responsible for the fiscal prudence of the late 20th century after decades of Democratic Congressional foolishness, Bush NEVER went to war (ask sock puppet), the tax cuts were across the board - not just for the rich, Obama did nothing but essentially continue the policies of Paulson via Geithner (and end of the day it's the Fed, not any branch of our dysfunctional government that has stabilized the economy) and while state and local governments have shrunk dramatically, federal employment is actually up (http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-anal...) and the government itself via entitlements is massively larger than it was when Obama took office in dollar terms.

Obama just lowered the boom on the rich and now he and Harry Reid want more blood from that stone(news flash - except for a few bones like income taxes instead of cap gains on carried interest it's not happening).

Get your facts straight.

It's not 1980 anymore

Time to stop fighting the political wars of the 1970s, Stevil. Times have changed since Reaganomics.

Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).

The deficit for fiscal year 2009 — which began more than three months before President Obama’s inauguration — was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the largest deficit relative to the economy since the end of World War II. At $1.3 trillion and nearly 9 percent of GDP, the deficit in 2010 was only slightly lower. If current policies remain in place, deficits will likely resemble those figures in 2011 and hover near $1 trillion a year for the next decade.

The events and policies that pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama’s making. If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.

From Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits

Regardless of whether you want to call them wars, they vastly increased the deficit for dubious reasons. And they were started in 2002-2003.

The tax cuts that Bush signed were "across the board" in a superficial sense but were definitely more beneficial to the upper end. And they were paid for out of BORROWING -- directly increasing the deficit.

There is no question that the Republican governance of 2001-2006 vastly increased the deficit. And as a result I simply do not believe any Republican when they talk about cutting spending or getting the budget under control. They had the chance, they blew it big. They're full of shit. They're the party of Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney.

If you want to break down Fed vs State and local government employment, here's a good summary from PolitiFact (Rated as TRUE: Government jobs have fallen by half million since January 2009). Federal employment is only 13% of total government employment. So if you exclude non-Federal and you exclude postal workers then you can get an increase of 6.7% of that 13%. Wow, scary!

Let's take a look at the chart you posted:

2008 2,692 1,450 64 4,206
2011 2,756 1,583 64 4,403

So from 2008-2011 civilian Executive branch employment increased by 64,000. Uniformed military employment increased by 133,000. So your chart says that two-thirds of the increase in this Federal workforce employment comes from the military which had been fighting two wars! Golly.

Hey, while we're on the chart, let's take a look at 1988.

1988 3,054 2,176 59 5,289

So in 1988, the end of the Reagan era, there were 298,000 more Federal civilian workers and 593,000 more uniformed military personnel than there are now.

ZOMG, that must mean that... REAGAN WAS A BIG GOVERNMENT, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST, ANTI-COLONIAL KENYAN!!!

Or maybe you're just full of shit on this. You know I support you when you have a good point. But on this, you're incredibly wrong.

There's reasons to criticize Obama and Democrats. Plenty. But this ain't it. And harping on it makes so-called "centrists" look like a bunch of partisan shills, because these are Republican propaganda talking points that you're repeating.

I'd give you a "D"

A "C" if I were in an overly generous mood. I seriously hope you don't believe most of what you have written. Especially the part about "dubious" wars. Iraq OK, but if Afghanistan is a "dubious" war, there are not justified wars.

So 9/11 was Bush's fault

why was Afghanistan a "dubious war" - I'm sorry - military action or whatever - we never declared war so it's not a war. Did you miss the memo on 9/11?

And how do you give a tax cut that DOESN'T benefit the rich when they pay almost all the taxes? Did you expect George to violate the rules of arithmetic? Or should we just tax the rich and give it to everyone else (actually isn't that what we are doing?)

As for spending - what material spending cuts are DC Democrats offering right now?

Let's start with that.

Changing the subject?

You dodge the facts. You still cannot confront the fact that the two wars and the tax cuts were all funded by borrowing money and increasing our deficit. Because that completely destroys your narrative.

Whether the tax cuts benefited mostly the rich or not, they still were deficit-financed.

Whether the wars were justified or not, they still were deficit-financed.

Whether Medicare Part D was a good idea or not, it was still deficit-financed.

President Obama offered steep cuts to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for revenue at ratios such as $10 in cuts to $1 in revenue and was rejected by Republicans in Congress. Even Mitt Romney proudly announced in the debates that he would reject $10 in cuts for $1 in revenue.

All the other stuff can be interesting to debate but I am going to home in on one point and one point alone: Republicans are fiscally irresponsible and all the evidence from the last few decades bears this out.

Your option sir?

We were in a recession. We had been attacked. We needed to stimulate the economy and we needed to attack our enemies. What would you have done to stimulate the economy and fund a NECESSARY war (we'll leave Iraq out of it for now). What choice did Bush/Congress/we have? With or without Iraq this required major deficit spending.

I agree - the Republicans did some stupid things - which is why they got tossed in 2006. Then the Dems turned around and did some stupider things - which is why they got tossed in 2010 from Congress. If the Republicans could find a couple of better candidates and moderate their social stances they'd have swept the Senate and the presidency possibly as well (different topic).

The Democrats are being wholly irresponsible as we speak. Where are those 10 for one cuts? Obama got his tax increases - now put those cuts back on the table.

(and as for several decades - in the 80's the Dems controlled the congress - which controls the purse strings - we spent like wildfire - part of which in hindsight was a brilliant move by O'Neill AND Reagan that effectively drove the Soviets out of business. With help from an overheating economy Clinton and a REPUBLICAN controlled congress went a long way toward balancing the budget - but didn't actually quite achieve it. The Republicans did some stupid things 10 years ago and paid the price. They still do stupid things on the social front and they are going to have to get with the program there - but while Obama and Reid push for more taxes and spending as far as the eye can see at the current moment only the Republicans are clamoring for Americans to make hard choices on entitlements which are the only things that are going to move the deficit needle)

Dude

8 years of Bush and Reagan has completely destroyed the idea that the Republicans are any less irresponsible with the budget than the Democrats. Can you people stop pretending the Republicans are this paradigm of fiscal responsibility and the Democrats are these big spenders? It's a joke at this point.

Maybe, maybe not

I guess I could be a Liberdemservative? Does that label suit you better? Regardless, why are you so butthurt about it? You tired of people pointing out that your team sucks too?

Viewing the Iraq war as a terrible idea is in fact a position held by a majority of Americans. I wish more had felt that way in 2003. Two states just fully legalized marijuana and majority of citizens believe it should be legal. If polar opposites Tom Tancredo and Barney Frank agree about something, then it can it not a centrist position? Maybe I'm out the center on domestic surveillance, but otherwise, the polling puts me in the majority on the first two topics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-num...

http://news.yahoo.com/majority-americans-support-l...

Where did I say soda and creationism were the same? I pointed out two issues off the top of my head where both parties (I don't care what party Bloomberg claims, he's no better) treat citizens as if they're too stupid to make their own personal choices. Nice of you to assume what I meant though. I don't need to burnish anything nor do I care what you or anyone else think about my politics.

What's a centrist to do?

I've never voted Republican for any national office, so you can get rid of that assumption. I voted Libertarian the last two presidential elections. I'm through with lesser of two evils.

For the record

Please look up the likely Native American content of Warren's genome.

Then look up the percent Cherokee that the current Chief is.

But, hey, by all means continue with the Rovian talking points that pissed people off and turned them away from Scott Brown. It will make Ed's job much easier if you cling to them and keep the stupidity flowing.

Do you call Karl Rove before you pick a breakfast cereal in the morning?

Swirly

Your are UHub's resident Bernie Sanders! You may very well be the most bias contributor on this site, making you view/opinions rather irrelevant.

Swirly, not sure what you're

Swirly, not sure what you're getting at. Are you now saying Warren never said she was Native American? She brought it up and I am not sure why it bothers you so. Dear me...

Shouldn't she be proud to be the first Massachusetts Native American US Senator? Just think of the good she could do for Native American causes..

I am not a Republican nor Democrat

I'm independent [un-enrolled]. My take is at the national level both main political parties are batshit insane at least on the surface:

We have a 'conservative' [rightwing] party that's beholden [at least on the surface] to a small group of mostly southern state based evangelical Christians and the interests including financial and political of mostly southern states. The reality is their ideology is window dressing. The Republican elite are really solely for the interests of big business and other powerful institutions. The small hardcore party faithful are useful foot soldiers.

We have a 'progressive' [liberal/leftwing] party that's beholden [at least on the surface] to a small group special interests 'advocates' [some shills,some true believers] with special attention paid to 'minority' demographics, brownie points if it concerns public-sector unions [teachers at the top of the list] gays, women or self-described environmentalist. Reality is their ideology/manifesto is window dressing. Democratic party elite, like the Republican elite, are really owned by big money and big institutional interests. The small hardcore party faithful are useful foot soldiers.

MANY Americans would consider the Republican and Democratic manifestos [the desire of their small hardcore party faithful] 'Batshit Insane'. But our political system is set up to operate as solely 2-party; nominally right/left, but really to support the elite's status quo, to 'play' the average citizen with a left/right paradigm, and to control and manage necessary change so it will ultimately benefit most the elite.

Of course you are correct on the fact

that both parties use their useful idiots to benefit the elite, and the elite alone. But pretending that they are the same, and that the Republicans don't do more damage is a little naive, akin to something CNN would do. The Republicans are simply more callous and less apologetic when it comes to running roughshod over the populace and fear mongering over vague foreign threats, and using those threats to kill thousands of foreigners and Americans. (Though on this, Obama is doing his damdest to show he's a tough guy)

Of course you would think the

Of course you would think the republicans are worse, you are bias. I think both are equally culpable. And, mentioning Bush's killing of thousands of foreigners, isn't Obama doing just that? Hasn't the government increased it's powers over the American populace since President Obama's administration? Hasn't the use of Drones increased since Obama's presidency?

It's either my imagination or you need to get away from the punch bowl.

I do not support Obama nor am I a Democrat

So stop trying to frame it as if I do/am. And as awful as 10,000 dead in Pakistan is, it sort of pales to 100-500,000 dead in Iraq over a war that was a complete lie and sham. At least there was reason behind the intervention in Libya. There is also technically reason for the drone attacks on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, but I don't buy what the Obama administration is selling at all. But these are numbers. You cannot equivocate Bush and Obama. And you cannot equivocate the Democrats transparent pandering to minorities to the blatant, toxic, violence provoking racism and homophobia peddled by the Republicans. And yes, Obama's continuance of the policies put in place by Bush is shameful.

10,000 signatures needed by February 27

To run for the Republican (or Democratic) nomination, you need to turn in 10,000 valid signatures by February 27, which is little more than three weeks away. You have to collect signatures separately for each town and city, and deliver the right petitions to the right town or city election clerks. In short, you need to put together a well-functioning statewide organization at once.

If your name is Bill Weld or Kerry Healey, this shouldn't be hard to accomplish. If you're a complete unknown with little experience in running for public office, it's a significant obstacle. Good luck.

I'd Argue

That if you’ve been sitting on your thumb the last 3-4 months, knowing Kerry was one of the top candidates for the Obama Administration, you probably shouldn’t get anywhere near a Senate seat.

Anyone that wanted to run already had had ample time to get initial funding and put an small political organization in place.

That's one of the problems

That's one of the problems with the political process. We end up electing people whose greatest qualification is being good at getting elected. Maybe being able to put together a campaign organization is a good test for an executive branch position but it really has nothing to do with being a legislator.

I'm here to admit that I got it wrong...

about Weld running. I am, however, utterly shocked about it. I think that he was the only Republican who could have made it a race (and we're all worse off for not being able to watch those debates) and who actually had a shot at winning.

In the few and mostly indirect dealings that I had with Dan Winslow, I remember him being a decent sort, and often one of the only adults in the room. I don't know much about his past, however, so who knows what might be in there - I'm sure that some of the opinions that he has written will come back to haunt him. Regardless, however, the guy (if he even gets in the race) is looking at a K2 type mountain in front of him in a race against a sitting Congressman. And that probably is what peeves me more than anything else (I don't identify as a member of a any political party).

I agree with the previous posters. One party rule is not a great thing to have. There is room for Weld-type Republicans (socially libertarian and fiscally conservative) all over New England (and probably down the coast a bit), but the national party has cut its own throat by turfing them out. They will now reap what they have sown.

Can't stand Lynch

and I steadfastly refuse to vote for him. Generally this means writing in my own name once every two years. He is essentially the complete opposite of my political philosophy, as he is a social conservative and labor Democrat. I'm not against unions, but I don't think economic policy should be captive to them or any other special interest. And on social issues, I'm basically the opposite of anything Lynch represents. I really, really, really hope he doesn't get the nomination.

Lynch is most definitely an

Lynch is most definitely an old school democrat. These were the democrats of Boston 30+ years ago. The dem party today is not recognizable to previous generations. That is why my mother of 93 years did not vote D for the first time in her life in the 2010 elections. I am sure there are many more.

My question: if the

My question: if the Republican party in MA cannot field a legitimate candidate for this position, does this dash their hopes for 2014? I mean, Baker is getting more and more insignificant as the day goes by, and the Republican bench is bare. The way people ran away from this seat makes me think that they will do the same in 2014, after 2 years of Obama's policies actually working and public sentiment towards conservatives will be at an all time low. Hey, that's me speculating, but wondering what others think.

I am not overly impressed with the Democrats in the race, either. Markey is a good congressman, but not sure how he will carry over into the upper house. I mean, he is going to get my vote, but I was hoping that another Warren-like Democrat would enter, someone like Robert Reich. I'm not sure if he even has MA residence anymore, though.

Edit: Republicans will have two seats to run for, which means that they will have to stretch it thin when it comes to who runs for who. Both Senate and Governor's seat will be up.

How many years in the house?

Some in leadership positions involving heavy duty security and technology policy issues?

Explain how that makes him unqualified for the Senate, anon.

Oh, I guess he didn't inherit millions from his daddy and granddaddy - his bad.

Anon, I'd love for you to

Anon, I'd love for you to give me your opinion on who you think will win this, not who you want to win this. If you say Democrats have "no chance" at this because they are probably going to run Markey, you are sorely mistaken. The Dems have the only chance at this, since the only Republicans with any clout have bowed out of this.

Did you see Lynch's numbers

Did you see Lynch's numbers from the last primary he ran for this level office? Yeah, he didn't fare too well. His social conservative nonsense will not be looked upon kindly by the vast majority of this state, ESPECIALLY the democrats voting in the primary.

My analysis looks pretty objective and rational to me...

Self-financing Human Sacrifice Wanted

... for GOP nominee for Senator. Must like being trounced for lack of experience in politics and/or self financing vanity campaign.

Must have no real chance of winning the Governor's race in the future.

In other words, the reality is that they don't want to put their best guys - the ones they will need in a couple of years who are competent and qualified and experienced - in to a spending spiral. If they actually won, they'd need to "pay back" the deep pockets and batshit insane GOP leadership that cost Scott Brown his seat. If a good guy lost, he'd either be in debt from the campaign (if he or she didn't take money from the GOP money machine), in thrall to the batshit crazy hate machine (e.g. tainted!) for future attempts at office, or otherwise tainted with losing and not up for the Statehouse run.

Off topic question!

Now that Obama was re-elected, when can we stop blaming bush and start blaming Obama? You know for the rising cost of food, energy, health care, public education, the deficit, stagnant employment numbers, weak growth, immigration, and so forth....

Just asking! And for those that are going to come back at my question and blame Republicans and Bush, ask yourself something.... What has Obama done wrong, the list is longer than the one containing thing he's done right.

Keep spewing fact-free talking points, anons

They were supereffective at keeping Scott Brown in office, now weren't they - and so helpful for electing Romney, too!

Every time one of you refugees from the Herald Comments Section touches your keyboard, a Democratic Party nominee's chances of winning increases.

Here's a tip: repeating stupidities and falsehoods over and over doesn't make them less stupid and more true.

Found it!

Oh, good, this is the thread where we try to railroad our own inflammatory, inane, and pig-ignorant beliefs into an unrelated discussion, and then react like a wounded dog when someone smacks our nose with a newspaper. I've been looking for this thread all week!

Don't you guys think Waterworld is criminally underrated? I mean, Costner kind of hammed it up, and maybe they could have done without the glass eye on Hopper, but they had some really great ideas that just didn't get followed through all the way. You give the script to somebody on less of a post-Dances-With-Wolves high, and I think you end up with something that ages as gracefully as The Fifth Element.