There’s a point in the movie “High Noon” when Gary Cooper says to his deputy, “Don’t shove me, Harv. I’m tired of being shoved.” I was reminded of that line this week when I received a letter from a radical hedge fund billionaire threatening to launch an attack on me if I didn’t accede to his demands by “high noon on Friday.” Tom Steyer of California is demanding that I either repudiate my support for the Keystone XL oil pipeline, or secure a commitment from TransCanada that all the oil in the pipeline be kept in the United States — a violation of US treaty obligations.
While most people in Massachusetts are worried about whether they can pay their rent or their student loans next month, out-of-state billionaires like Steyer spend tens of millions — more than most working people will earn in their entire lifetime — telling them how to vote. I think most Americans are tired of being shoved.
Comments
Yeah, tell that to the working people out breaking their backs shoveling this freak snow. Global warming increases strong storms and snowfall. Anybody who votes for the Keystone Pipeline is voting against us and against our children. Plum Island is the first to go, but Boston harbor is on the list too. We need everybody out swinging, working people, billionaires, everyone fighting against the fossil fuels industry robbing our future.
Working families know we need strong healthcare laws, and people who will have our back against Republicans who consider us all moochers. I don't think you're the man who's going to vote for us.
Cordgrass, if we kill off fossil fuels as you would like to do, then you will not have to worry about working people being able to fight for various causes. They will be unemployed people with lots of time on their hands.
Those unemployed will be able to vote for "strong health care laws", demonstrate like crazy, and pretty soon, this country will look like Europe.
The "electric car" freaks have not figured out yet that it takes more energy to make those batteries than they ever save. But it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy when they drive one, superior too.
The solar panel advocates really do not have a grasp how much energy it takes to really run a manufacturing facility, but they love to blog about how wonderful solar farms will be, they are clean!
The windfarm blowhards (pun intended) think it is a great idea, as long as they cannot see one from their property.
Do I dare mention nuclear energy? Or will the environmental types start frothing at the mouth and try to speed dial Obama to see if they can get a drone strike at my location?
@ HistoryIsJustThat : Good points. I speak as an environmentalist.
Well I certainly agree regarding the influence of PAC's and Citizens United the sooner that went away the better off the country would be. The pipeline. That's not so easy. It will produce jobs not the numbers its proponents suggest. It won't do a thing about gas prices those are pretty well fixed. The public geting stiffed a foregone conclusion on that one. As to the environment? That's always up in the air on anything man builds, no pun intended there.
Not taking the money? That's a tough one too. Whichever Dem. gets the nomination his Republican opponent will go the well quite often and if you go you'll get stuck unfaily with the hypocrite label. Personally I take the money and then vote my conscience. You can always come up with an excuse. Heck look at Rove he's found a billion excuses for his billions in lost money. As to the public. Look the R zealots won't vote for you anyhow regardless of stand. The D's will do the same. For the balance, if they like you personally they won't care where you stand they'll vote for you. There's probably only ten people out there who will think about it.
Turk, this is a prime example of having to take a stance, which this candidate is doing. There is either going to be a pipeline, or there isn't. There is no middle ground.
There is also no middle ground concerning these PAC's. You wrote that you would take the money and then vote your conscience? How dishonest is that? PAC's do "represent" people at their core, granted, an itty bitty tiny minority as a rule. Lying is still lying, no matter how many "excuses" you come up with.
I like this guy, he has taken some stands.
It is interesting how you write about R "zealots", but Dems, are just, well, Dems. Can you start chanting "Yes we can, Yes can" for me? Mr Hi Diddle Diddle, Right Down the Middle.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Mr Lynch, with all due respect I appreciate your tough-guy stance but don't hear an argument for the pipeline in this column. I also don't think the proponents of the pipeline give a care about working Americans. Do you?
... think the proponents care?
It wasn't a column about the pipeline, it was about not being swayed by monied interests. He avoided the pipeline issue to maintain focus.
Thanks for saying so. We little people couldn't agree with you more. Especially after the Citizens United decision by the supreme court special interest money is driving the conversations and legislation that is passed. That is why I would love to hear your position on election reform. Why is it that our elected officials refuse to reform how elections are funded? And will you vow to support publicly funded election campaigns and stop accepting donations from the same monied interests you are talking about?
Indeed Tony91, publicly funded elections and term limits. Former SC Sen. Fritz Hollings recenlty lamented that he had to raise $30,000 a week to remain viable for re-election. And where's he going to get that kind of scratch, not from us little people, certainly. As for term limits, I used to be against them. But the fact that these pols on both sides think of Congress as a career means we need them, the term limits, not the lifers. A classic example, Boehner wanted to cut a deal, a grand bargain, on the fiscal cliff before the election. Faced with an insurrection from his right in the House, he chickened out to keep his speakership. That's not leadership, doing the right thing and damn the consequences. That's suckupmanship, sucking up to evil trolls to keep your job.
This comment has been removed.
Unfortunately this piece tries to have too many conversations all at once. Should there be out-of-state funds used in state elections? Should the Citizens United decision stand? What kind of environmental, economic, and social impacts can be anticipated from the pipeline? What kind of social implications are there from rich people impacting the political conversation? What about the growing economic inequality in the U.S.? Who is more of a bad guy, the right or the left?
I will be first in line to support the reality that issues do not exist in a vacuum, and that many things need to be seen and dealt with in context. But even though issues are connected, achieving clarity about the big picture requires a more focused and thorough examination of the details of any given issue. Mr. Lynch, I applaud your courage in running for public office. It is, on many levels, a dangerous and thankless pursuit. But I need to see more clarity in thinking from you than has been demonstrated in this piece in order to have confidence that you could advocate for me in Washington. I will welcome more evidence in the future.
Mr. Lynch's position re Obamacare is eloquent in pointing out his independence of thought; even at the expense of union support. We are beginning to see the negatives that the health plan will continue to bring us; just as Mr. Lynch forsaw them, and tried to protect his constituents from them, at the outset.
Aperture - You, apparently, know more about Mr. Lynch's position of the ACA than is detailed in this article. I re-read the article after your comment. I see no eloquent exposition of a position on that bill. I see sentences that would work well on bumper stickers - Americans are tired of being shoved - and I see a pastiche of images pasted together which are covering a wide swath of landscape. There is nothing of depth on any one issue. I stand by my initial comment.
Your mouth says democrat but your votes disagree. You already made all the political choices that I'm willing to allow.
Yes like actually wanting to know what was in the ACA before he voted for it. No, Lynch is not a lock step Dem, something he should be proud of. Only in this state is it a mark against someone. The more we find out about Obamacare the more Mr. Lynch will be proved correct.
Mr Lynch, I am a right leaning kinda guy, but I like your style, you are trying to get us back to the process as it was meant to be.
This comment has been removed.
Right On "History...........". For reference, please see my comment above.
The Keystone Pipeline issue is about helping us be less dependent on Middle East oil. Early on, the pipeline proponents had a great ad titled "Ethical Oil." The premise was that it is fundamentally unethical to be purchasing oil from countries where human rights, at least as viewed by the West, are practically nonexistent, when we could be using our own resources or buying oil from our twin culture, Canada. As for the check writing influence, compared to the Saudi's, Tom Steyer is a cheapskate.
This comment has been removed.
We already get oil from Canada. The Keystone Pipeline would make that oil easier for the Canadians to ship to China. Right now it is being refined in Midwestern refineries and sold to Americans. The Pipeline would drive up oil prices and also risk the water supply of one of our most important farming regions.
First, totally agree with you regarding Citizens United, and truly support your efforts in this direction.
But Mr. Lynch, you profess to support civil rights, yet are against a woman's right to manage her body and life as she chooses, and, to my knowledge, have never taken a public stance against the bigots in your own South Boston neighborhood that continue to refuse to allow openly gay people to participate in Boston's Saint Patrick's Day parade.
I'm not a "single issues" guy, but I find it extremely difficult as a socially liberal but fiscally conservative New Englander to support someone who still maintains these positions, despite my strong inclination to want to keep a balanced persective. I guess in my world, and for these specific issues, civil and social rights trump the case you're making for more jobs.
I would ask that you consider, as Mr. Bill Gates so eleganty stated, that you support these types of civil rights simply: "Because it's 2013", and get with the times (and your emerging constituent demographic).
This comment has been removed.
A woman's "right" to her own body; with no "rights" granted to the yet-unborn life growing in her body. Why not? Because the unborn cannot speak (yet), they do not have or "deserve" any rights?
This is probably one of the world's tougest questions. But we can begin to answer it by acknowledging that the unborn have a right to not be wiped out. Incorporating this consideration into an ongoing discussion about "what to do" may be the beginning of a plan that starts with putting the importance of these rights on a level playing field that gives them equal importance.
This comment has been removed.
I disagree with TomSteyer's tactics and the Koch-os too but have you noticed how all this money people are complaining about isn't really working to advance the moneybags' agenda? There is a visceral disrespect among the voting populace for those who buy elections. (Does anybody remember gazillionaire Michael Huffington or John Connolly's 1980 race for President). I don't generally like these folks but Citizens United has allowed for more speech both from snakeoil salesmen and the castigators alike. The more the merrier. Stop whining about it already. Lets let these idiot millionaires make our local press organs rich. I guess having more money is potentially unfair in an election but so is being an incumbent
A very interesting perspective, Abner, and I hope you're right. Would love to see some survey data on this perspective.
Abner, let's not, for one very good reason: All that money results in a lot more incredibly stupid ads that we have to sit through in the evening. It is gonna drive me to drink.
Representative Lynch---Amen!!!
This comment has been removed.
Actually, the US has been run by big money for a loong time. In fact, the political system was originally set up to prevent the poor from appropriating the lands of the rich, which has changed a bit ofer the years. The government has always been bought by the pound. Things are changing somewhat I feel, as people are becoming more educated (which the rich fight against) and are starting to realize what the deal is. As far as US democracy goes, US foriegn policy promotes it when its to the advantage of the US interests and forgets about it when the opposite is true. As far as the pipeline goes, ita a tough call. The US is being drawn into middle east hell because of dependance on foriegn oil, but also true is fossil fuel is wrecking the planet.
If the government has always allowed itself to bought by the pound, it is BECAUSE it has ALLOWED ITSELF to be bought by whatever means it took.
The determination to see events through the limiting lens of "rich vs. poor" prohibits solutions from being crafted rationally. Why should it be fair for ANY entity to appropriate anything from anyone else? Do the rich really fight against education? Then, how to explain the abundance of gifts and endowments to various causes that advance education?
Lastly, let us not allow the government, or any other entity for that matter, choose the definition of "rich"; lest these entities define more and more of us as "rich" to suit their own purposes.
Money, down through history, has called the shots. Excessive concentration of wealth, which we have today, is death for any society. People will ntyo abide it for long, with often catastrophic results. The rich support education that is in line with their self interest, anything else is considered government waste, like head start. Nobody needs a definition to help them determine what "rich" is.
Congressman Lynch - stand tall. This election is about the Washington backed interests, politicians ( Kerry, Democratic Senatorial Committee, Move On.Org,George Soros ) and outside interests deciding your opponent should represent Mass. You are being the skunk at the picnic standing in their way. Mass voters deserve the chance to vote on their choice without outside interference.
rollman66, Do you have issues with the Koch Brothers or Karl Rove or only when it is millions from Democrats?
This comment has been removed.
Rep. Lynch says that "No longer are we allowed to debate ideas and projects on their individual merits." Who is stopping him? This column is a bully pulpit: Why doesn't he use it tell us his ideas about global warming? why doesn't he tell us about his ideas on Obamacare? why are his TV ads totally devoid of any ideas or suggestions that he has any ideas? Maybe it is because he knows that talking about his "ideas" would inexorably lead to his defeat in the primary.
As mentioned yesterday, there sure are alot of comments being removed in this discussion. Very sad to see this, as it's always instructive to hear what's on people's mind, whether one wants to or not, isn't it?
I understand your concern. On the one hand, it seems to teeter very close to censorship in ways that is downright uncomfortable. Who gets to decide what is unacceptable and by using what standards is a sersiously vexing discussion, especially if we compare to other societies where free speech has been harshly suppressed by villains. But on the other hand, it is also true that these comments sections frequently illustrate the fact that some people truly do not know how to behave well in a public conversation. And that behavior fails to meet criteria which would be agreed upon by the vast majority of the population. This may be worth an entire discussion, all by itself. Perhaps the Globe should write an article which details the process of removing comments from these sections.
Gary Cooper? He's hip with...who? Last movie was 1960 & Lynch uses a quote from a 1952 movie to coalesce his message around. Cooper was dead at 60 in 1961, just like Lynch's ideas on this issue. He needs to find a Delorean, so he can get "Back to the Future". Protect the Oil Companies at ALL COST (to us all!).
Hey Steve! Unlike you, most of us don't want an oil pipeline cutting through the New Hampshire and Maine wilderness.
Pot: Why, you want to go up there and feed the black flies?
New Hampshire and Maine are a long way from your backyard.
And what is with this "most of us"? Got a problem just standing up for yourself, or do you need a mob?
Whoaa Abner. I doesn't really matter whether the big bucks spent on elections actually do have any effect on the elections. It just matters whether the pols THINK it has a positive effect, and therefore act and vote to curry favor from the moneyed interests. Even if they think more money doesn't make that much difference, a campain with a lot of dough has more fun, and outside organizations spending a lot of cash on favorable advertisements makes them feel important. Money is corrupting anyway you look at it.
Like Historyisjustthat I do like Mr. Lynch's style ... he says what he thinks and that is rare in public life as well as life in general. Even though the article was kind of scattered and shallow, it was easy to see what he was getting at. Also, I know I probably won't vote for him becuase I am quite sure the global warming is the number one concern for this era, and I don't think having a pipeline to carry dirty Canadian oil to the Gulf is going to make a hill of beans in terms of jobs, or the energy independence of N. America. It will only hasten the rate of CO2 put into the atmosphere.
This comment has been removed.
Rep. Lynch doesn't like to be pushed, yet nowhere does he discuss the merits of building the pipeline. Maybe he hasn't noticed the extreme weather, the melting ice caps and the rest. Is he willing to trade some short term jobs for the long term destruction of the planet. If the pipeline is built and Lynch is elected, the jobs for the pipeline will be over long before his term us up.
No billionaire shoved you to vote against Obamacare. That was all you. And don't give us that stuff about you couldn't support it because there was no public option. The record shows you had spoken out against the public option. You are trying to make this out-of-state billionaire the issue. But the real issue is the positions you have taken.
For all you global warming worry warts, this place has been warming up ever since the last Ice Age.
Trying to pin the blame on fossil fuels is interesting because there are studies that indicate the methane gas produced by cattle has a huge effect. But it is much easier to tell people to not use fossil fuels than it is tell folks they have to vegetables in hopes of slowing down the warming trend.
This comment has been removed.
Stop whining, you wuss! This is why I can't stand Stephan Lynch. I agree, we need debate but must you wring your hands and be such a victim? Get thicker skin or get out!
Mr. Lynch, who is my Congressman, is a sad excuse for a Senatorial candidate. He fails to address the issue (ie. the pipeline) and speaks to us in soundbites. He is wrong in his opposition to "Choice", was wrong during the Affordable Care Act debate and impresses as slow and ponderous when asked to think on his feet. I'm thinking Ed Markey is a much better choice.
"History" I don't dislike the guy. Really don't have an opinion on him. As to the PAC money that's politics. You want to give me money then you give me money and I vote my consciense. Are you saying, "You give me money you bought my vote." I hope not.
As to the pipeline. The pipeline is the pipeline and there are a number of issues related to it. I don't know all the factors that are leading some to support it and some to oppose it and I doubt you do. That's why I called it a tougher nut to crack. However, additional oil is not one one the issues, that we know. All you have to do is look at our increased production which gives the public no relief. Now you might believe "big oil". I never have I personally consider big oil nothing but an undecalred monopoly engaged in price fixing. If not then no one knows how to do a more efficient job than anyone else and that is bs.
As to the term "zealots" I used that adjective in the first sentence and made the implication that the D's were the same by stating there were only about ten people would even think about the issues. Don't mean to be condescending but read the whole as a whole. We're not pols we don't have to slice and dice the words.
By the way I wasn't even knocking the guy. I was merely responding point by point.
C'mon Stevie, tough guys don't whine. Pull
Up your big boy undies and assress the issues. you can't be a tough union guy and a whiner too. Sound like Romney or Scotty B.
So he won't be taking money from the Hollywood types, right?
Gee, an interesting article from Congressman Lynch. It raises important questions. Perhaps it is "High Noon" for the country!
But, Citizens United NEVER would have happened without a lot of working class voters pulling the lever for Republicans. Wonder how many times Congressman Lynch voted for Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush or Dubbya? I wonder if he voted, like 59% of whites, for the Mittster?
Republican presidents put the conservative justices in place, not the liberals.
I really feel for blue collar workers and their families. Economic inequality has hit record levels in this country. Unions are on the ropes and nearly powerless to fight back. But union workers voting for Republicans turns my stomach.
Union members need to look in the mirror...You, too, Steve. Did you back Scottie against Elizabeth Warren? Now she's the fighter for the little guy.
Personally, my experience goes back to working summers during college in a power plant in the late 1960's. All I heard was why highly paid union workers intended to vote for Nixon (deeply anti-union) and Wallace (governor of a right-to-work-state). Stupid...dumb...against their interests. Why did they do it? Upset about welfare...resentful of blacks...angry at hippies...all of the above. Just like a lot of Southie whites, upset about busing. Pissed off about affirmative action.
Well, voting for Steve Lynch will not make things better. Let's go with clean energy. We'll need as much labor to build wind mills as pipelines through red states. Lots of jobs are needed around here to keep iron workers going and perhaps a lot of young electricians too. Smart energy caan help blue collar New Englanders. Let's get smart.
Also, please recall, the sherriff in High Noon finally made his stand because of his wife...So, Steve, listen to Elizabeth.
I agree with Stephen Lynch's comments about big money influencing elections. Citizens United was a huge mistake, and we should get this kind of corporate money out of politics.
However, where I disagree strongly with Lynch is is characterization of people who want to protect our air, land, and water as a "left wing environmental faction." When will people like Lynch realize that humans cannot exist outside of the environment? We need clean air, clean water, and a planet that is not heated up, in order to survive. And, the resources our economy is currently dependent on are finite and will only get more expensive, and polluting, to extract if we don't treat them as more valuable.
This does not mean that people will be left without jobs. Quite the contrary. It makes no sense to think that our economy can only thrive by doing things that are destructive to the systems we depend upon to live. There are plenty of jobs to be had if we tax pollution, close tax loopholes for extractive industries like oil and gas, and move towards more sustainable technologies.
Lynch's antipathy towards people who care about this planet made him lose my vote! We need to get rid of that kind of dinosaur way of thinking and vote for people with more understanding of that an economy cannot thrive by destrying its host!