Regarding two front-page stories Tuesday on the Massachusetts senatorial race (“GOP is finding few takers” and “Lynch changes tone on abortion rights”): US Representative Stephen Lynch has a history of opposing abortion rights, and that plays well in his district. When he needs to appeal to a less parochial constituency, he emulates Mitt Romney and morphs his stance.
The Republicans may be having a hard time fielding a senatorial candidate, but with Democrats like Lynch, who needs Republicans?
Comments
keith, it's a pretty sad day in this country when you can't be pro-life, it's now a bad thing. Mitt romney, Scott Brown and now Lynch can't go with their beliefs, pretty bad. Lynch is a moderate democrat, they are obsolete, the party of the JFK democrats is long gone, the party has gone far left, Lynch doesn't fit that criteria, he will lose because of it.
Umm.. were you truly unable to come up with any Democrats who have 'evolved' on issues in order to win races? By choosing that guy who ran against Obama II (what WAS his name again), it sure appears to turn a salient point about Lynch's character into a partisan dig.
Sorry, no offense intended
You make a good point.
"Evolution" of views, as one's constituency changes (in this case enlarges dramatically) seems like what a citizen might want from someone whose function is representative of the people in an area. That need not be an absolute representation and historically has not been; that said, preparing for one's prospective role by lining up more closely with the voters doesn't seem to be an ethical or moral shortcoming.
I don't like Lynch and won't vote for him but not for any "bum rap" like this.