.
As Dave Weigel points out, “at the time, everybody thought” Steve Lynch voted against the Affordable Care Act because his personal base is urban blue-collar religious Democrats, and he didn’t want to give future opponents the chance to paint him as a baby-killer. But now Lynch, running for national office at a severe name&fame deficit to Ed Markey, has taken the chance (I think this is what sports fans call ‘a hail mary pass’) to race out towards the ‘progressive’ end of the Democratic spectrum and deplore the ACA’s “giveawy” to big insurance companies. This does not change my opinion that Ed Markey would be a far better choice to replace Scott ‘Cosmo Boy’ Brown, but if you’ve been wondering about donating/ phonebaking/voting for Markey, Lynch’s newfound firebagger credential may influence your choices.
For those of you who can’t watch the video, here’s a summary by the Boston Globe:
US Representatives Edward J. Markey and Stephen F. Lynch tangled over Lynch’s vote against President Obama’s health care law in a televised debate [Wednesday] between the two contenders for the Democratic nomination in the special election race for US Senate.
Lynch said he didn’t vote for the bill because “it was a very flawed bill and we missed a real opportunity to create real health care reform.”
Markey described his own vote for the Affordable Care Act as “the proudest vote of my career” and said, “Steve, when that vote came up, you were wrong.”
Lynch responded, “What we did there was wrong,” describing what he said were several flaws in the law and calling it a giveaway to health insurance companies…
Of course, Steve Lynch would still be preferable by a wide margin to any of the three Repub candidates:
…Gomez, for his part, stayed largely out of the fray thoughout the one-hour matchup, reiterating his intention to bring a political outsider’s perspective to Washington and advocate for pro-business policies to jump-start the economy.
He did, however, tangle at one point with Winslow, who chided Gomez for writing in a letter to Governor Deval Patrick that he supported the immigration policies of President Obama. Gomez at the time was seeking the interim appointment to fill the Senate seat.
“Maybe a slick lawyer might have written that a little bit differently,” Gomez said to Winslow, the former chief legal counsel to Governor Mitt Romney. “What I meant by that letter was simply that I supported some of [Obama’s] positions.”
The sharp words aside, the three candidates staked out similar positions on many issues Thursday night.
While offering few specifics, each candidate voiced support for overhauling Social Security and Medicare while preserving the benefit structure for seniors currently collecting benefits.
As on Wednesday night, they agreed on the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and criticized the Affordable Care Act, though only Gomez and Sullivan said they would vote to repeal the health law if given the opportunity in the Senate….
Gabriel Gomez is the financial industry stalking horse who served as the spokesmodel for the attempt to swiftboat President Obama in the last election.
Hunter Gathers
I wish these fuckers would say what they really mean when they say that they have to ‘overhaul’ SS and Medicare but leave it intact for those over 55.
“If your under 55, odds are you voted for Obama. And you must therefore be punished by getting a shittier retirement deal than your parents did.”
All because old white people are scared of the black man in the White House.
FlyingToaster
I still think that Lynch is setting himself up for the 2014 Governor’s race. Even his crappy positions will help him out on 495 against ex-Senator Centerfold.
Like with Coakley, I would hold my nose and vote for the whiny lil’ shit in the general, but I don’t have to like it.
Fortunately for this race, it’s a Special Democratic primary, and the machine that Warren put together is in full swing. I have been e-mailed, called, and canvassed for Markey already.
W. Hackwhacker
Actually, either would be replacing John Kerry, not “Cosmo” Brown (thank you, Elizabeth Warren!).
FlyingToaster
@W. Hackwhacker: Brown is widely believed to have by-passed running for the 2013 Special Senate race (as in “been there, done that”) in favor of running for the empty Governor’s seat in 2014.
And given name recognition, Scotty’s ahead. So if a Democrat w/o name recognition wants to run against him, s/he needs to make some noise. What better way to do that than put up a noisy, doomed run for Senate?
Full Metal Wingnut
Actions speak louder than words. He’s either a blue dog type (and we can do so much better out of Mass., so that means he’s useless) or a perfect pony type who’ll vote against any semi-progressive legislation that isn’t perfect-also fucking useless. Fuck this guy.
mdblanche
I somehow originally read “newfound” as new clown, which would also have been appropriate.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Full Metal Wingnut: I’ve had him pegged as a Ray Flynn/Lipinski type, more obnoxious about his “faith” than people like Stupak or Kaptur
Davis X. Machina
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Is that really fair to Lipinski? Ray Flynn, against stiff opposition (Ed King) may be the stupidest Mass Democrat of my lifetime, at least of any prominence.
mdblanche
@Full Metal Wingnut: He’s the former pretending to be the latter.
Full Metal Wingnut
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Oy. I’ll have to check in with my relatives in the state because I want to know more.
Phil Perspective
… but if you’ve been wondering about donating/ phonebaking/voting for Markey, Lynch’s newfound firebagger credential may influence your choices.
Lovely!! For one, ObamaCare is still a give-away to the insurance industry. Also, too, Lynch is an anti-choice zealot like Stupak is/was. The only way Lynch can win is from Markey’s left. So it’s obviously insincere on Lynch’s part.
the Conster
I fucking hate Stephen Lynch. He’s a tax cheat and a moralistic opportunistic hack in the Finneran style, who happens to have labor behind him because he speaks Southie if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
the Conster
I listened to Gabriel Gomez being interviewed on WBUR’s noon show, and fuck that guy too. Everything he said was a slippery weasel worded dodge about what he believes and what he’d do.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Full Metal Wingnut: I’m observing from afar, too, just my sense from reading about him in the ‘tubes.
@Davis X. Machina: Lipinski, who I think is also an austerity advocate, recently co-sponsored a bill with some wingnut calling for $X million to be spent on “abstinence education”. Stupak I think is an interesting and kind of sad case. I think he was a decent guy, good on labor and safety net issues, who IIRC pretty much admittted he got his head turned by the red beanies. I wonder to know if there was some kind of bribe that would only mean something to a hardcore Catholic– some kind of papal knighthood or an audience with the Pope?
max
This does not change my opinion that Ed Markey would be a far better choice to replace Scott ‘Cosmo Boy’ Brown, but if you’ve been wondering about donating/ phonebaking/voting for Markey,
No transcript. (The C-Span transcript is gibberish. Blah.) However, the Bluemass group had an open thread!
And:
And:
So it’s Markey for ACA, for TARP, against Stupak, against Glass-Steagall repeal, against DOMA, against AUMF Iraq. Lynch:
So Lynch is a labor guy, but no on TARP, no on ACA, yes to Stupak, yes to Sequester and ‘pro-life’ (his words). I read that as Lynch being pro-labor right, and the pro-labor part prohibits him from being an R. And the BlueMass guys are suggesting he’s aiming for the Scott Brown vote.
Gee. If Lynch hadn’t claimed the anti-ACA vote, I might not have looked and found something like a vote record. I think Lynch just sank his own battleship. Oops.
The Globe story told me they asked a foreign policy question, but not the answers. Not helpful!
max
[‘I’m guessing that Lynch has locked up the Glenn Greenwald and Conor Freefehnsdorfer vote though.’]
Davis X. Machina
@max:
Lynch has a labor-friendly profile only if your concept of ‘labor’ begins and ends with the Carpenters’ Union Local 33…. It’s the Knights of Columbus, with toolboxes.
Mike Michaud and the Paperworkers have a similar thing going on up here in ME… Gotta keep an eye on him, too.
smith
@Davis X. Machina:
No such thing as being unfair to Lipinski. In addition to his vote against ACA, he’s ultra hard line on choice, happy to let women die rather than save their lives with abortions. He spent most of his adult life in TN and returned to IL when his retiring Congressman father wired the seat for him. He still votes like he’s in TN even though he represents a very safe, and not all that conservative, blue district. He’s got a seat for life as long as the local Dem machine supports him, and since the machine apparently believes in divine right to hereditary offices, he’s secure.
John
My understanding on looking into this a few months ago was that Lynch’s opposition to ACA may, indeed, have partially been about abortion, but that most of his comments at the time were criticisms from the left.
Here’s Wikipedia:
Here is a TPM article from the time about it, and here is one from the Globe.
Pretty clearly, the public reasons he gave at the time were primarily criticisms from the left.
Anoniminous
If the choice is between having one’s foot nailed to the floor or being dipped in a vat of boiling oil and then being set on fire the decision is a no brainer.
The meta-question is: why is both prongs of the Boolean decision tree unpalatable? I have a lot of opinions, some of them profanity laced, but no understanding. I do note people seem content with the situation since they don’t, or won’t, bestir themselves to change it.
dmsilev
@efgoldman:
Surely John Silber has the ‘most unlikeable’ award sewn up?
Charley on the MTA
Steve Lynch is a joke. He didn’t support the public option when it was early enough to make a difference. He supported single-payer, and then didn’t. And then he wants to play the “not-left-enough” card vs. the ACA. Pure horsehockey. He just couldn’t figure it out.
Here was my take at Blue Mass. Group.
beergoggles
When I called Lynch’s office during the healthcare debate asking him to vote for it, his minions told me he would not be voting for it unless there was a single payer option included in the bill. So I don’t think this is some new position he has staked out. Even after the vote he sent a mailer out to those in his district explaining why he voted against the ACA and his position doesn’t seem to have changed.
I just think both these guys are extremely weak candidates but thankfully the Reps won’t be running anyone that can threaten them unless they hurt themselves like Coakley did.
Amanda
@FlyingToaster: As one of the local organizers working my tail off for Markey, as I did for Warren, I am so glad to hear you’ve been contacted so much. This is how we win, folks!
And you are correct that the Warren grassroots is all in for Markey.
Amanda
@the Conster: Word. He’s also got a really really bad record on women’s issues.
Read it and weep:
https://twitter.com/WomenForMarkey
Amanda
For some reason the link didn’t work…trying again
https://twitter.com/WomenForMarkey
Amanda
@beergoggles: Not exactly
http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/03/healthcarehamlet-finds-his-principles-three-years-too-late/
Also he voted for the Stupak amendment. This was the only amendment to the health care law that Lynch voted for.
And he can’t answer a question about fetal personhood laws.
http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/03/stephen-lynch-ducks-fetal-personhood-question/
pluky
@FlyingToaster: Scott Brown now works for a hoity-toity Boston law firm as a “government affairs consultant” (i.e. lobbyist). This makes him, as Lawrence O’Donnell puts it, the man never to be elected to anything else, ever again. Especially in Massachusetts.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/11/rewriting-scott-browns-political-future/
pluky
@dmsilev: John Silber, thank the FSM, never managed to get elected to anything.