Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Someone's been lying about Rep. Stephen Lynch

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-13 10:22 AM
Original message
Someone's been lying about Rep. Stephen Lynch
Edited on Sun Feb-24-13 10:54 AM by No Elephants
Ask almost anyone about Stephen Lynch and they will say he is anti-abortion. Wrong.

He was interviewed this morning by a Boston weekly news show that specializes in Massachusetts politics.

One of the interviewers (who asks a lot of pointless questions, IMO) asked if he would vote to repeal Roe v. Wade.

Without hesitation, he said "No" and repeated that view several times throughout the conversation Then he added, "As you know, I cannot repeal Roe v. Wade because that is a Supreme Court case, but I would not repeal it if I could" (or similar words).

IOW, he knew that he could have dodged the question, but he answered it without hestitation and repeatedly.

He added as well that he had voted for funding for Planned Parenthood to increase access to contraception. Can't argue with that, either.

Dosn't sound at all anti-abortion or neo theo on choice to me. Yet, the reverse is "common knowledge," so I smell a smear.



When asked to name two differences between himself and Ed Markey, he said that he had voted against NAFTA and also against the bailout and Markey had voted for both.

Plus--and this is a big--he was a 99%er--a union ironworker-- and is known for being 100% pro-union. Indeed, firefighters and police, who tend to vote Republican, even in Massachusetts, are gathering signatures for him.



He also used the same word as I have about the push by the Party toward Markey: "anointment," though I say "anointing.


As for Market, it's been rumored that he doesn't even live in Massachusetts anymore. He and his wife own a home near D.C. and his wife. Dr Blumenthal has a job in the D.C. area. So, there's really no reason for him to travel to Massachusetts much.

Finally, this same weekly TV show has invited Markey to be interviewed again and again and, so far, he hasn't accepted.

Lynch started about 23 points behind Markey, but has already moved to 15 points behind.


I just decided to vote for Lynch in the primary. Unions need to GOTV for Lynch. It will benefit them, not only because he backs them, but because it will remind Democrats that unions still matter in politics--and not only because of their donations.




Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-13 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Smell like a smear to me too.
I can't vote for either one. But if the winner is in a close race, in the general, I might send them a few bucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-13 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I cannot say that I would be distraught about either of them winning the primary.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-13 11:39 AM by No Elephants
Markey's been good on the environment. That means a lot to Massachusetts.

Cape Cod in particular is an especially fragile ecosystem.

Also, women there come down with breast at a higher rate and no one knows why.

But, I will be voting for Lynch in the primary, especially if it keeps looking like "an anointment." I might even make up a flyer and spread it around my area.

I wonder who my former Rep, Mike Capuano, will endorse in the primary, if anyone.

just dawned on me: No matter who wins, some district or other will have to have a special election to choose a new Rep.

We've had so many special elections in Massachusetts since Kennedy passed..

I bet we're burning through a fair amount of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-13 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. My guess would be the carcinogen content in the seafood.
You know Massachusetts is famous for seafood. No creature on earth can escape the presence of these persistent carcinogens. It doesn't seem fair that we should have to live like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-13-13 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Massachusetts gets "Red tide" warnings quite often, including the summer that I
was pregnant with my son, born in early September. So, I avoided all seafood during most of my pregnancy.

It's a bit of a conundrum, since everyone is always telling us to eat seafood for better health.

Then again, with acid rain and everything else, is even a vegan diet really health?

As (sigarette smoker) Red Foxx once observed about people who try to avoid everything that might harm them , "People are going to be mighty embarrassed some day, lying in the hospital dying of nothing."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-13 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. Only two reps voted against the bailout I also trust Lynch on Social Security.
I have posted a few times that he is by far the most conservative member of the Massachusetts delegation.

I apologize for that.

Maybe he is only the least neoliberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-13-13 04:15 AM
Response to Original message
6. Good look back, this thread. Well, I did vote for Lynch and he did lose, as I expected he would.
Edited on Mon May-13-13 04:34 AM by No Elephants
I never underestimate the power of the anointing--or the rumors.

Bucking the anointing was realy "wasting my vote."

I firmly believe that all political party machinery and weight should stay the hell out of primaries, no matter which political party's machinery and weight it is. The choice of the voters of the Party should be good enough for the relatively few in the leadership of the Party, not the other way 'round. (Is it their goal to foster voter apathy? Because they've been making getting out to vote less and less meaningful. Maybe the acronym should change from GOTV to GOTOTVWW--Get out only the vote we want.)

Then again, God made Super Delegates precisely to ensure that Democratic voters in Presidential primaries did not mess up the nominating agenda of the PTB for the Presidency. Why should Congress and the Senate be any different? Why should they risk overriding a veto of the Imperial Presidency?

The Democrats led the way on that totally undemocratic change, thanks to the same thinking and the same group of most Southern white male Democrats that led to official formation of the Democratic Leadership Council--same group that is now the stronghold of the Republican Party, as well. Funny how that worked. No wonder the Koch Brothers contributed to both the DLC and the Tea Party.

And one of that group of DLC founding Democrats, Hillary Clinton, has been touted for President in 2016 since Obama got re-elected, maybe even before, subject only to her declaring for President.

Indeed, the meme is that no one will even run in that primary if she announces. Concomitantly, if she does announce, she will supposedly clear the field. Or so the meme goes. So, basically, the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016 currently all rests on a single DLCer, namely Hillary (Billary?).

How very Democratic and democratic! :sarcasm:

So much for any hope of changing the Party from within.

Conservadems rule!

Literally, but not figuratively. Figuratively, Conservative Dems bite.

How very ironic, too, that conservadems smeared Lynch as too conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-13-13 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. We cannot vote for Hillary.
Too bad. Too bad she isn't the candidate that is true to the needs of the people and the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-13-13 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Saying that would violate DU2 rules, if she were the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-14-13 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. But she isn't the candidate yet.
But she will be. She has.......secret special approval.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-21-13 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Someone on another board once claimed
that Mrs. Skinner worked for Senator Hillary.

I don't know if that is true or not, but I hope Skinner is prudent about his tweets!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC