Vote for Jim Miceli (D-Wilmington) for State Representative

Above being a Republican, I am a conservative first. That is why I am asking the readers of Red Mass Group who live in Wilmington and Tewksbury, in Jim Miceli’s district to cast their vote for Jim Miceli (D-Wilmington) for State Representative.

Miceli has been a long-time conservative voice, siding with conservatives again and again in the Legislature.  He has been a champion of our causes, and should be returned to work with a, hopefully growing, conservative presence – most of whom are Republican – in the House.  

This year you may remember that Miceli gave a passionate plea for the House to vote against price controls in healthcare.  For that reason alone, I have been thinking of endorsing Miceli.  But the reasons go much further than that.

In 2009 Jim Miceli sided with Republicans in voting against an attempt to send an amendment to roll back the sales tax hike to study (09-263).  Miceli sided with taxpayers in this vote.  He did so again later in the same session (09-365).

Also in 2009 Jim Miceli sided with Jeff Perry in trying to stop “The Perry Amendment”, which would have barred illegal immigrants from receiving state benefits, from going to further study (09-129).

He voted, again in 2009, in an attempt to stop a further study, to end the practice of giving pensions to felons, and to cap state pensions at 4 times the state average. (09-072, 09-076).

He voted against a further amendment to send to study, and increase in local aid by 273M in 2010. He also voted in that same session to return the surplus to cities and towns.  Both failed to pass the legislature.

continued after the jump

Granted, Doug Sears (R-Tewksbury), Miceli’s opponent, probably would have voted the same way on these issues. There is one area, and it is important to this blogger, where they differ. Jim Miceli is pro-life, and Doug Sears is not.

Jim Miceli is a proven conservative in the House of Representatives, and for that reason I wholeheartedly endorse his re-election.  

About Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno


  1. Did I miss something? John Sears wasn’t moving as quickly as he used to when I saw him last at Church of the Advent on the flats of Beacon Hill. But I’m pretty sure he was alive.  

  2. Here he is opining on the closing of the veritable Locke-Ober.

    John Sears epitomizes the gregarious Old Yankee imbued with civic spirit. There was a time when demographics still allowed a Republican to win a city wide seat on the Boston City Council. We need a few great men like John Sears.

  3. Miceli’s been there for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS!!!!  He is the problem.  That he sees the light once in a while doesn’t run a thrill up my leg.

    How has his pro-life stance benefitted anyone in those 35 years?  How has it stopped ONE abortion?

    Really, for me, it boils down to his appearances at my town’s Veteran Day and Memorial Day ceremonies.  Where Paul Adams has been great in keeping his comments on those being revered…..Miceli and Tsongas always turn the attention on themselves and all the supposed good work they’re doing.  Disgusts me to the core.  Don’t have to listen to Tsongas pimp herself any more though…

  4. As you say, Sears would almost certainly vote “Republican” on all this stuff. And I am certain that if Miceli was for abortion, that you would not endorse him.

    Rob, you have revealed yourself as someone who votes abortion politics above all else. I don’t have a problem with that, as some of my fellow social conservatives – especially those who work at pregnancy care centers – think the same way. Human life matters a lot, perhaps more than anything else, in how our society functions. (I am certainly a pro-life Catholic citizen.)

    But as the most important media voice in our entire party, what you say matters too much for me to just say, “Well, there is another pro-life voting friend of mine.”

    You have often said we are on our way to a House majority one day. How exactly does this endorsement further that goal? And if abortion politics is as important to conservatives like you as it is to many liberals that I know, then we will always just be an impotent minority, as this is a way of approaching politics that we will certainly lose.

    But here is some food for thought:

    What is Senator Tarr thinking about this endorsement?

    He must be saying, “Here is Rob Eno – who excoriated me for not rushing to automatically endorse a Republican for office in the name of building a future majority – endorsing a Democrat because of abortion. I guess the support-the-GOP-no-matter-what policy doesn’t apply to Rob Eno, just everyone else.”

    Remember this endorsement next time you mercilessly attack someone for not toeing the party line.

  5. Rob Eno is a private citizen and entitled to make any endorsement he wants. In that, he’s in a different place than either Bruce Tarr or Scott Brown, both of whom owe a certain loyalty to the institutional Republican Party. That said, I think this is a bad decision on a whole host of levels.

    First, Rob seems to have forgotten the rule that discretion is often the better part of valor. I’m not sure why he felt the need to bring this controversy upon himself, particularly at this juncture when we should be all working together in the pursuit of common goals. To my knowledge, there was no outcry demanding that he express his opinion on this race. I suspect we can almost all identify a handful of Democratic candidates we like or Republicans we despise, but why rock the boat unnecessarily by publicly identifying them? This is especially true in that I don’t see the 19th Middlesex as an especially competitive race this cycle. Miceli won handily in 2010, and I don’t know of any reason to think he won’t do so again this time, with or without Rob’s endorsement.

    Second, Jim Miceli illustrates the conservative Democrat problem that Republicans face in Massachusetts. Given all of the policy areas in which he seems to agree with conservative positions, why isn’t he a Republican? Part of the “credit” for that goes to the Massachusetts Democratic Party establishment. It’s amazing to think that he hasn’t faced a liberal primary challenger in recent years. He’s an illustration of the “big tent” philosophy of the Massachusetts Democrats at the state legislative level. They’ve been very successful in reducing Republicans to irrelevance by masking policy differences and focusing exclusively on “influence.” Conservative Democrats tell their constituents that they can have their cake and eat it too, electing someone who will vote the same way as their Republican challenger but whose access to the halls of power in the Democratic establishment will bring millions of dollars in government spending back to the district. They’re free to vote against the party line whenever it doesn’t matter to the end result (and, because of the Democrats’ massive majority, it usually doesn’t). In exchange, they get committee chairmanships or other baubles of office. In Jim Miceli’s case, there’s that bridge on Route 38 that was named for him while still an active politician! Regardless of what else he had done, do you think they would’ve named the bridge for him if he was a Republican?

    The only way to break the cycle is for sensible people to throw the power-hungry conservative Democrats out of office and replace them with principled Republicans. Heck, on that level I’d rather have an honest-to-goodness liberal Democrat! At least when you’re running against one of them, there are legitimate areas of policy disagreement.

  6. Miceli going to vote for for Speaker? End of discussion.

  7. I would agree that Miceli has a better stance on life and health care.  Price contraols will be a disaster for Massachusetts.

    On the other hand, Miceli also has a very bad record when it comes time to limiting the power and abuses of public sector unions.  

    I agree its a tough call.  Still, I’d go with Sears.  

  8. Jim Miceli is as old-school, dyed in the wool, yellow dog democrat as you can get.

    Rob – Tom Finneran and Billy Bulger were great pro-lifers too, should we have supported them?

    Jim Miceli is a tax and spend, spend and tax, big government democrat.

    The guy’s got two bridges named after him, for goodness sakes.  Who but a Beacon Hill Hack di Tuttti HACK would have two bridges named after him — WHILE HE’S STILL ALIVE?!?!

    Rob – He’s been in the legislature for 35 years and accomplished exactly what?

    Give me a break.

    Rob, I hope to God Miceli isn’t one of your mailer clients — if that’s the case you’re crapping all over the quality and objectivity of this blog for the sake of a buck: supporting a big spending Democrat (35 YEAR INCUMBENT!  I Thought you believed in term limits?!?) over a promising Republican alternative…

    This is disgusting and repugnant.  If I want a defense of some democratic lifer state representative I’ll go over to Blue Mass Group…

  9. Demo-Tax-and-Spendocrats have had their chance.

  10. Republican Ram Rod Radio

    I like Ted Speliotis – D (Danvers).  I can’t help it; the guy is all over my town.  He used to show up at my school all the time when I was a kid growing up.  Everyone calls him Ted.  Anyway, had to get that off my chest … And since EaBo is taking the brunt of this one … I think I will be flying under the radar on this one quite nicely!  



  11. Plain and simple.

    He might be a hack that votes conservative, but he’s a hack, through and through.

    I don’t understand Rob’s position on this.

  12. Thanks to Rob Eno for getting me involved in his silly little blog which pretends to advocate Republican principles for Massachusetts. Rob, you now have my undivided attention!

    Your supporting a Democratic candidate on your blog’s page 1 just before the election is the best thing you can do to show how irrelevant the boosters of Republican principles are today in Massachusetts.

    I really mean it. Thank you for being the “poster boy” for a failed GOP. (Holly Robichaud ‘s the “poster girl” for her equivalent article posting the same picture of Miceli in her Herald “Lone Republican” column, lauding his 88.6% voting with Speaker DeLeo as “less than” that of other Democrats.”)

    For this support, I am truly grateful. It is pathologically comporting to see that the tradition of “eating our own continues” in 2012.

    I am also grateful for the comments of others here. (Yes, Dan, Rockefeller Republican, John W. Sears is alive, and the principles he espouses are as just as forgotten by the Mass GOP today as they became after 1982 when he ran for Governor — p.s. JWS is the Honorary Chairman of my campaign.)

    We both remind the Reds that the party of Lincoln is blue — the traditional color of the party that so many who call themselves “Republicans” don’t even know they have left!

    Rob’s post reminds that Democrats exist to give people like me a party that is interested them when they are running!

    When I  prevailed in 5 of 8 Tewksbury elections, the only  congratulatory notes  were from Democrat office holders.

    It’s not that Republicans are can’t pay for the stamp!  

    Running for 19th Middlesex — I got main requests for $$ from Mass. GOP to help candidates — and received not a dime from the GOP. This is not a complaint, but an observation.

    Not only is there no financial support for non-incumbents, but RED Mass Group gives a Democrat incumbent editorial support without interviewing the Republican candidate!

    Does there seem a pattern of “loser behavior” here?

    Back to the article — which I first read today — November 19, 2012 —  

    So, Rob, if Miceli and I are “even” except for the “pro-life” litmus test, on what to you base your pivotal decision to declare I am not “Pro-Life”?

    Your credibility is on the line.

    Give the readers a “source.”

    Can’t do it? Well, I’ll help.

    I am really “Pro-Wife.” I may have said or written somewhere that were it to come down to my wife’s life or that of the fetus she is carrying, I would side with my wife. I would rather that she live. For many of the co-bloggers here, this would not make me “Pro-Life.”

    Rob, I don’t know whether you are married or not, but if you let your wife know before you tie the blessed knot, that were you to choose between saving her life or that of the fetus she is carrying, that you would let her die so that the fetus could continue to live — you truly would be a different man than I.

    Guys like you and Jim Miceli who would let your wife die so a fetus can live — God bless you! And more importantly, God bless your wives for sticking with you knowing that the “choice” you favor is not in their favor!

    I do not believe as you guys do.

    I do not believe that the majority of voters who are women do either.

    I am not in favor of you guys aborting the Mass. GOP.

    Yes, centering a party’s political platform on this point has aborted the Mass. GOP. You have done a very good job at terminating its significance.

    (Yes, the old saw has merit — choose your adversaries carefully as you will tend to become like them — i.e Conservative “pro-life” has “aborted” the Mass. GOP — and

    we’ve all got to get over it if the party is to survive!)

    In my informal post-election listening tour, I have heard over and over how the Democrats are sick of the Democratic party in Massachusetts; but, that they are sick even more of the “mean” Republicans “who want to hurt people.” I tried unsuccessfully to appeal to the middle — but got caught up in the cross fire.

    I have learned — I just hope the Mass. GOP can rebuild and be more accommodating to those who are “Pro-Wife.”  

    May God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!                    

  13. StartedoutRepublican

    If Rob is not a Republican first,  but pro life  then he ought to  start another blog….

    And is that why he is not  enthusiastic about Scott  Brown?  Of course  I have not been able to figure out  if Scott Brown  is pro life  or not, never mind if he is a Republican  or a bi partisan….

  14. You mean Rob’s Republican party is not “big tent” enough to accept his pro-life views?????  

    People who are pro-life understand that abortion ends a beating heart and they can not vote for someone who thinks it is ok to do so. One can argue that it is not a baby, etc. However, the fact is, that if an abortion takes place that baby WILL NOT be born. Consequently, it would be impossible to argue that it is not a taking of a human life.  When one understands that a human life is at stake, how does one back down from that? One does not. Therefore, in a race between a pro-life candidate and a pro-choice candidate, the pro-life voter must invariably choose the pro-life candidate regardless of party.

  15. is this not what we complain that the democrats do – following the party line like lemmings?

  16. If that’s your view – that abortion policy trumps ALL other considerations in ALL cases whatsoever – then you can’t be a Republican. That’s not a question of being “big tent.” What you’re calling for is a single issue Pro-Life Party. That’s not what the Republicans are.

    Having said that, I don’t see that as being what Rob said. He didn’t start his post with “I’m backing Jim Miceli solely because of abortion.” He rattled off a host of topics on which Jim Miceli took the right position, acknowledged that Sears would presumably have also taken the same position, and then relied on abortion as his tie-breaker. He’s entitled to make that value judgment. I simply disagree. For a state representative, who has virtually no control over what the United States Supreme Court (or the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, for that matter) has to say about legalized abortion, I think it’s far more important to advance the broader consideration of two party competition. That’s an area where reasonable people may differ.

  17. This is not about my view. This is about the following comment:

    “If Rob is not a Republican first,  but pro life  then he ought to  start another blog…”  

  18. Furthermore, there is a lot a state rep ( or for that matter a Senator or Congressman) can do about what Roe v Wade has wrought. They can vote :

    1.against lowering the age of consent for abortion require informed consent for an abortion to be as detailed as the informed consent that is given when one undergoes a typical medical procedure. not allow abortion till the day the baby is born. defund Planned Parenthood which does NOT do mammograms.

    So stop being a bomb thrower and stay on the topic.

  19.  Does that matter? Is one of our reps going to be the Speaker? Got to go to work. Reps to elect. Hope you guys are out helping also!!!

  20.  Does that matter? Is one of our reps going to be the Speaker?

  21. If individuals want to be pro-life voters, I have no issue with that as I am pro-life. So, Rob Eno, as an individual citizen, can do that, and I have no problem with it.

    The issue here is the relationship between the Republican Party and abortion politics. As Rob is the most important voice of the party online, and because he put this on the front page of his site, it puts that issue in play. (He could have supported this guy in many ways, publicly and privately, but by front-paging it on RMG, it then becomes a bigger issue.)

    The Republican party is in trouble in this state. We have shrunk over the past twenty years. The national party has moved further to the right and the residents of Massachusetts has moved further to the left. If we want to be a statewide party – something for you to think about Ms. Doherty as an SC member – we must figure out how to build majority coalitions.

    The worst possible mainstream issue I can think of for the Republican party to emphasize is opposition to abortion. Again, not as a moral issue, but as a party-building issue. I am confident that the vast majority of Massachusetts voters do not, under any circumstances, want to see abortion be illegal, and most of those people would enthusiastically vote against someone who was going to make that happen. I also believe that there is a solid, unbreakable majority that does not want to see any further restrictions – no matter how sensible – than what we have now.

    You know as well as I do that the chance of the Democratic majority allowing more abortion restrictions to come up for a vote is zero. The chance of Deval Patrick signing them is less than zero.

    Regardless, some want more pro-life politicians in office. For what purpose? The ones that are there now do not disturb the status quo. They are usually older conservative Democrats from more conservative areas and are “allowed” to be pro-life – like the man Rob endorsed, and I am pretty sure that their eventual Democratic replacements will not be pro-life in any recognizable sense of the word.

    Republican candidates who come out as pro-life are reducing their chances of winning in a state like Massachusetts. For almost all of them, this is craziness as they probably can’t win regardless of that issue. (I do not buy the talk about the pro-life freshmen – that’s correlation without causation and we will see how many survive next week.) And this isn’t even an issue that would ever get a vote on Beacon Hill – except to make things worse.

    It is my preference that we welcome pro-life candidates into the party, but that we gently encourage them to be like Sean Bielat – principled, but quiet on the issue with no legislative plans. If I ran for office, that’s what I would say – that I wouldn’t want to change the status quo on abortion. (Though I would want to embrace other pro-life issues, such as regulating what happens to embryos in the fertility clinics in this state.)

    I have blathered on so long here because I know you are on the SC and are a supporter of us adopting the uncompromising pro-life national GOP platform plank. I think that’s madness and I will be at that postponed SC meeting to protest in person, as a pro-life Catholic who doesn’t want to see the Republican party be devastated any further by shrinking the tent even more.

    There are many ways to support pro-life causes, and I will continue to do so outside of the Republican party. They cannot help the cause on Beacon Hill, and a further embrace of pro-life politics will harm all of the other causes that we Republicans have.

  22. Do not have the time to go through your essay point by point. Suffice to say, I think you are wrong on most points. The new reps are pro-life and they are the future of the party. As a former democrat, I can attest to the fact that the reason the Republicans are even at 11% in this state is because people like me can not tolerate the far left politics of their cultural home. My day job is to educate people of my faith to realize that they should not be voting the party any longer but the issues. And for people of faith, that usually means pro-life.

    Btw, if you look at the GOP platform adoption as all abortion issues, you are way off base. Happy to discuss this later after the election.

  23. Most of the “Users” here didn’t agree with Rob on this one. You would have had my vote had I lived a town over.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *