Senator Scott Brown has made extraordinary efforts to differentiate himself from the national Republican Party in his tough reelection bid — appearing with President Obama in campaign commercials, calling himself an independent voice on the trail, and chastising his Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren, for her efforts to nationalize the race.
“While she’d like to run, apparently, against Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and others, she’s running against Scott Brown, and I’m right here,” Brown said last month during a press conference.
Comments
Brown has spent the last three years cultivating his image as a really nice guy with good political instincts. His attack on Elizabeth Warren's heritage coming out of the blocks in their first debate has done enormous damage to the first part of that image and was, I think, an unfortunate error on his part. The demands on the political instincts of a Republican running statewide in Massachusetts are enormous and may prove too much for Senator Brown, although in 2012, I'm not sure if any politician would have been up to that task.
Sen Brown forgot about the news media. How did he think that he was really a Republican was going to escape attention. He tried mightily to hide this fact. He endorses Mitt Romney then refuses to speak at the Republican National Convention when asked. So the truth is out he wants Mitch McConnell to be Senate President and push the country back to the 1950s.
How much money and time do you think the Globe has spent trying to dig up dirt on Brown? My guess is, with what they dug up on Romney, they spent a boatload only to come up empty handed with Brown.
You think this story is dirt?
This comment has been removed.
I completely agree with inmonster - Scott Brown's obsession with the native american thing has really started to turn me against him (and I'm a democratic leaning voter who was inclined to vote for him). I liked Scott Brown because he voted with the democrats sometimes. I think I read somewhere that he was second only to Olympia Snow in his bipartisanship. That is what I want in a repesentative. How many times do you think Elizabeth Warren will vote with the republicans? I think its despicable that she identified herself as a minority and I don't believe for one minute that she didn't benefit from it - but enough aleady.
The only reason Scott Brown voted with Democrats at times was for his own political interests. None of those votes led either to legislation or was a deciding vote except one. That was Dodd-Frank. Then he worked behind the scenes to weaken the Law by providing expansion of speculation by banks that have FIDC protection. In other words putting us back in the same soup that caused our present recession. He is against health care reform, wants special breaks for the wealthy, will raise your taxes, and is favor of a militant overseas policy. You would be voting for a Republican as he tells out of state supporter he is and would support Mitch McConnell. On a federal level or anywhere for that matter, balance is not what is important, it is where an elected official stands on the issues. Scott Brown's low level approach to political debate also shows there is much Tea Party in him.
But as for this column - so what? Everyone in the world has a different conversation to a different audience - they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Globe is digging pretty deep here to besmirch Brown.
Elsewhere Globe headline says" "Obama using Mass. politicians to cast doubt on Romney" Headline SHOULD say " Obama using Boston Globe to cast doubt on Romney.= Which it has long before any MA politicians got into the act. Of course, they don't try to defend Obama's record as President. And neither does the Boston Globe. Here note the CONTRAST with the Brown Warren campaign. There Globe and Warren supporters actually try to point out problems with Scott's record, while insisting that complaints against challenger Professor Warren are mean and should NOT be allowed. Glob and liberals are two-faced HYPOCRITES
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
If you vote for Scott Brown, at least have the gonadal fortitude to stand for the power of your convictions and also vote for Mitt Romney.
Just roll over and play dead. Surrender to your wealthy superiors and hope that they have the grace to leave out some leftovers for the dog.
We don't have to be slaves to one party or the other. My plan is to vote for Scott Brown and Jill Stein. I voted for Obama before and don't want to reward him for what I see as failure. Romney hasn't convinced me that he's ready for the job, or that he wants it for the right reasons. Jill Stein is a bit of a throwaway vote, and I don't agree with all her politics but believe she's honest and believe what she says. Scott Brown is one of the few examples in Congress of independent thinkers who are truly able to work with both sides. Elizabeth Warren's promise to leave 'blood and teeth on the floor of Congress' is the exact opposite of what is needed.
Is Bill Cimbrelo not on the ballot for the Senate race, WSD? No need to vote for one of two bad choices if there's a third. Alsot, why Jill Stein instead of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate?
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
If Brown had declined the "no 3rd party advertising" he wouldn't have had to suck up to the extremist right wing. I guess he was stilling committed to the "Scott Brown: Nice Guy" strategy at that point. As it is, he has no choice now but to be one thing in Mass and another out of state.
It's difficult to be very independent in Washington. You are dependent on your party for everything even the size of you office and the budget for your staff. If you don't get along you'll be burried in the basement on the "all important" paper clip committee. That is why you need to vote your party affiliation when it comes to Senate and House candidates.
This article is just another in the Boston Glob's ongoing one-sided coverage of the Brown-Warren U.S. Senate game. Its writer makes a huge deal of Brown's appeals and links to national level issues, statements and fund-raising. Yet this same writer totally ignores Professor Warren's overly-dramatic pronouncements near the end of her first debate with Sen. Brown that she supports the re-election of President Obama as the nation's commander-in-chief. Not merely as president, but as commander-in-chief, as if that job is somehow separated from the chief executive office. Talk about a partisan news report. I am a registered independent with a profound and permanent distaste for one-party political efforts at ruling my life.
Who are you trying to kid BW... you're as Republican as can be.
Yeah, boatwrote is a bit of a joke. He doesn't see the hypocrisy of Brown claiming to be bipartisan in Massachusetts while being very partisan to out-of-state contributors. His defense is that Warren supports Obama for re-election.
I can't see the parallel, but maybe my feeble mind can't comprehend BW's superior intellect. He's blatantly partisan, but claims he's not. As SYSTEM would say, LOL.
but according to some on these boards, that is not a good enpough reason to vote for Brown. But it is fine to vote for Warren to keep McConnell from becoming in charge.
That's a perfectly good reason.
If someone doesn't want the Republicans taking over the Senate, then that possibility is certainly a reason to vote against Brown.
Brown is the one who claims to be bipartisan, but he's not making that claim to out-of-state contributors. Which might be termed hypocrisy, although the writer didn't say that. As is the case in such stories, the reporter leaves it up to readers to make their own judgements.
On the other hand, Warren is a Democrat and not making a major claim of bipartisanship to anyone in-state or out-of-state.
Brown is a REPUBLICAN who is funded by Wall Street. He gutted the congressional insider trading bill before he signed it. On any critical vote, he will abandone the middle, back his party.
This comment has been removed.
"the facts show he is not who he says he is" Wow...that really comes around when you look at it from the facet of national campaigning, and if that is not a Character Issue, I don't know what is. Looks like neither candidate is being truthful here, and I am not surprised.
The whole bipartisan thing is a sham, a trick to suck in Democratic voters.
When Brown took office, he didn't have time to be his political self. He was already facing re-election in a year and 8 months. He had to quickly create a persona that could win in the general election where turn-out would be much higher.
If he wins a 6-year term, he won't have to worry about re-election for 4 or 5 years, so we can anticipate seeing a different Scott Brown. For example, he's going to want some meaningful committee assignments. He'll only get that by being a loyal Republican. You don't say "No" to Mitch McConnell and then expect favors.
Scott likes having it both ways, and it's a big turnoff. Has anyone ever heard of a pro choice candidate getting endorsed by Mass Citizens for Life? What is he telling them privately that he's not telling us???