So there I was, at the
second 6th Congressional District debate, held by The Salem News and
The Jewish Journal. Participants were again, in alphabetical order,
Libertarian Daniel Fishman, incumbent Democrat John Tierney, and
fiscal conservative-social liberal Republican challenger Richard
Tisei. I’ll try to show you what the evening was like.
I took advantage of the
Danvers debate site to stop for a quick supper at Brothers
Restaurant. Got talking with the owner about his recent trip to
Greece so reached the high school later than I’d planned, in a frame
of mind to be very concerned about our country following Greece into
debt perdition. Was surprised, on a rainy evening, to see so many
signholders lined up along the entranceway; there seemed to be many
more signs for Tierney.
Therefore I was
surprised to find that there were many more Tisei than Tierney
supporters inside the auditorium. Guess some union guys came early
to do their duty and then went home, and that’s OK.
 |
|
|
Supporters outside Danvers High Schooll
Photo by Ken Yuszkus/The Salem News |
The format was simple:
questions from three panelists for all three candidates to answer.
First question, how would you get people back to work? Tierney began
by talking about the President’s “jobs bill,” which encouraged
Fishman to note that government doesn’t create jobs, with which
thought Tisei agreed, then noted the things that government’s been
doing to prevent job creation, creating instead uncertainty about
taxes and regulation.
To clarify this point,
Fishman offered his original “First three are free” proposal to
employers: hire three new employees with no paperwork, no government
requirements or roadblocks, just give them a paycheck. He said that
there are many one-person businesses that would quickly hire someone
to help if it was a simple thing to do.
Tisei noted that five
organizations, rating Congress on business-climate issues, gave
Tierney scores ranging from 19 percent from the National Chamber of
Commerce, to zero percent with the National Federation of
Independent Businesses and National Retail Association; two other
Massachusetts Democrats got as high as 66 percent. Tierney responded
by calling the groups “all wings of the Republican Party.” Tisei
told him that “small businesses aren’t partisan, they’re job
creators.”
| |
 |
|
The
audience
Barbara sitting in front row centerl
Photo by Ken Yuszkus/The Salem News |
The pattern for the
debate was set early. Fishman had interesting ideas, Tisei said he’d
fairly consider anyone’s ideas, Tierney ignored Fishman and attacked
Republicans in general and the Tea Party, which wasn’t even at this
party, since no one was asked about the national debt.
As Tisei cited many
examples of his ability, while a Massachusetts legislator, to get
along with both Democrats and Republicans, Fishman joked that if
elected he’d only talk to other Libertarians. Tisei noted that
Tierney votes with the Democratic leadership 99 percent of the time,
including the strictly partisan vote to pass ObamaCare with no
Republican support while the Massachusetts version was a bi-partisan
effort.
Regardless of what
Tisei and Fishman said about working well with others, Tierney
insisted that Tisei would “support the Tea Party that doesn’t
believe in government.” Actually, it’s Libertarians like Fishman who
would severely limit government, while the Tea Party just wants it
to live within our means and the Constitution. Tisei cited his
several awards from human service groups.
Fishman and Tisei were
good-natured throughout the debate, with the latter even joking
about being the only gay, pro-choice Republican attacked as an
extremist by his Democrat opponent. But at the end, when Tierney
charged that Tisei hadn’t paid some taxes (reflecting business
losses during the recession), Tisei expressed astonishment that
someone who hadn’t declared over $200,000 in family income from
illegal gambling would bring up the subject of unpaid taxes!
 |
|
|
The
candidates, L to R
Tisei (R), Fishman (L), and Tierney (D)l
Photo by Ken Yuszkus/The Salem News |
Driving home later in
the drizzle, I mused that there are three kinds of people involved
in politics as either candidates or voters: partisans, who get
caught up in the party thing and generally vote along party lines
whether or not they agree with their leadership; ideologues, who
vote for principles that they think are right and on
candidates/issues as they reflect those ideals; pragmatists, who
vote for what they think will work. (I’m not counting the
clueless/apathetic who probably shouldn’t vote at all.)
Based on what I
observed during the two debates I attended, Tierney is clearly the
first kind; Fishman is the second; Tisei represents the best of
each: he chose a party that most often reflects his ideas, which he
calls Goldwater Republican, but votes for what he thinks works for
his constituents. I’m an Independent small-l libertarian, but if I
wanted to be a viable politician, having to choose a party to get
elected, I’d probably be like him.
Well, except for the
good-natured part. Somewhere in that debate I’d have had enough of
Tierney’s broad-based guilt-by-association and waved the nine
Democratic Party flyers accusing me of wanting to kill Medicare,
send American jobs overseas, and prevent abortion even for rape and
to save the life of the mother, and demanded that Tierney disavow
them or defend the lies to the debate crowd. If he refused, I’d have
asked him to take a lie detector test on when he noticed his tax
returns hadn’t declared $200,000 in taxes. Take that, incumbent
partisan pol!
