Thursday, September 07, 2006

Lynch's misplaced entitlement

Lynch's misplaced entitlement
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | September 7, 2006

STEPHEN F. LYNCH is entitled to his evolving opinions regarding war with Iraq. But why is the congressman from South Boston entitled to duck an opponent who questions his role as the Joe Lieberman of Massachusetts?

This week, Lynch had time to endorse Tom Reilly in the Democratic primary race for governor -- but no time to debate Phil Dunkelbarger , his primary opponent for the Ninth Congressional District seat.

Dunkelbarger is trying to apply Ned Lamont's script in Connecticut to Massachusetts. Lacking Lamont's money, he isn't getting the media attention Lamont enjoyed, and he is further handicapped by an odd surname. Even so, he manages to pose a legitimate question to Joe Moakley's successor: Why did Lynch back President Bush's policies in Iraq as recently as June 16, by voting in favor of a so-called ``stay the course" resolution championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives?

Lynch was one of 42 Democrats -- and the only member of the Massachusetts delegation -- to join a virtually united Republican Party to declare that the United States must complete ``the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq" without setting ``an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of US troops.

A former ironworker, Lynch stresses his common man touch. But he's not anxious to display it in any debate setting. ``He has pretty much stonewalled any kind of opportunity to give the voters of the district a chance to see the two of us in the same room," said Dunkelbarger of Westwood.

Read the entire article here:

Oh, by the way. . . .

since June 15, 2006, 166 soldiers have died (Iraq)
since June 15, 2006, 793 soldiers have been wounded and returned to duty (Iraq)
since June 15, 2006, 490 soldiers have been wounded and NOT returned to duty (Iraq)

Thanks for all you do, Mr. Lynch.


Post a Comment

<< Home