October 26, 2012
Um, Senator Brown, got a minute?
Let me be blunt. You are in imminent danger of becoming former Senator Scott Brown.
This comment has been removed.
The right wing tea party extremist Republican Party is filled with a bunch of hypocrites, the biggest one being pretty boy Scott Brown. The continual smear campaign funded be Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, the Koch brother’s and Tea party against Elizabeth Warren is just another example that they will do anything to keep this radical party in power. Pretty Boy Brown brings in the heavy weights from the right wing (no pun intended) and then proclaims himself independent. The voters of Mass. are not that stupid Scotty Boy. We know that when it gets down to the nitty gritty you will vote for Mitch and the radical right wing agenda. This includes supporting the likes of Akin and Murdock who will be sitting next to you in the Right Wing Republican Caucus, voting to have Mitch the leader of the Senate. And now this you hypocrite Brown, taking money from those very insurance companies, that you accuse Elizabeth Warren of supporting! It is obvious that you have no knowledge of bankruptcy law and most likely very little knowledge of real estate law, where is your client list. You are going to pay on Election Day and you will now be able to go back to your modeling career.
wow...thank god that you don't write history texts...did you notice that Mass. is a Democrat state? That Brown got in through election? And that his seat was formerly occupied by Ted Kennedy...for about 40 YEARS? Seems to me that there are THOUSANDS of democrat hypocrites who occupy the state...you know, the ones from Hingham and Marblehead who have huge carbon footprints, "throw money at it" instead of actually volunteering...because actual work is for someone else? Do you even look out of your front door to see what the hell is happening around you...or do you just waste your time recording Rachel Maddow shows?
Tom, where were you two years ago? Do you seriously think that a special election in an off year in January is representative of any voters except the most active?
When the Supreme Court discusses Affirmative Action, they will likely talk about Elizabeth Warren as an example of reasons to discontinue the policy. White for 38 years, then suddenly pulls out 'family lore' to claim discrimination worthy of favored status for hiring? I say "Thank you Elizabeth" for your shining example!
System - you got it! First Native American Senator from Massachusetts, first nursing mother to take the New Jersey Bar (not Massachusetts ... never heard about that in these Globe pages ), inspiration for the Occupy movement and last desperate hope for capitalism. We'll be so proud!
Another tip for Brown: Tell Americans for Tax Reform to stop putting flyers in my mailbox that obviously airbrush foam and fake cold sores at the corners of Elizabeth Warren's mouth. These tactics are not going to work with me or any other thinking voter. It's not a beauty contest -remember?
Scott thinks it is a beauty contest. Love his hair......
You were right about one thing, we do live in a smart state and we can make up our own minds about counts and matters to us, we don't need your "help". Oh yeah and those issues you bring up do matter. She's a liar
The best advice to Scott Brown is to NOT take advice from Scot Lehigh. Scot's made a name for himself by penning many columns that reveal the flaws of Republicans, as he sees them. Generally, he advises the Republican in question to abandon his principles and to ork with the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. This would be suicide, because Reid is the problem that a GOP controlled senate would solve. Scott Brown cannot declare opposition to Reid as his central motive because Massachusetts is a radically left wing state. So he must come across as the "moderate", and he seems very much up to doing that.
Is anyone else out here wondering why Scot puts all his energy into critiqueing Romney and Brown, while the Obama panic mode is in full swing? The news on the President's incompetence on the Libya attacks is now out there for the world to see. Actual communications that came to the White House, in real time, as the attacks were commencing. These emails said that terrorists were attacking. Yet the president and his minions stayed on the "video caused it" line for two weeks. the President also flew to Vegas for a fund raising event, the very next day, after 4 Americans were killed.
Scot is part of the "whistling while Libya burns" media, which is doing its bidding for the president by ignoring these facts. If attacking Scott Brown with snark is a more vital issue that the President's fumbling here is more important to Scot, than he is clearly doing his part to keep the Obama nightmare going.
We have a 16 trillion dollar debt, Elizabeth Wareen NEVER addresses this issue, she talks about investing(spending) in education, infrastructure, all on the tax payer's dime. I have never heard her talk about the private sector. She believes big government is the answer to our problems. Seems like a nice lady, but has no clue about life outside of Harvard.
Well the fact of the matter is that Elizabeth Warren does address the debt and a independent review of both Elizabeth Warrens and Scott Brown plans show that her plan is the most aggresive in reducing the debt. Get your facts right, that is part of theproblem with the right wing tea party, they are factless.
This election cycle seems to have lasted about three months too long. Distortions and outright lies have been repeated too often, and anything approaching empirical reality has been totally compromised. If something is said often enough, it can, in a perverse way, become "real". The tsunami of negative ads in the Brown-Warren campaign has been enough to make us all sick. And consider the impact on voting. There seems to be a possibility that some large swath of voters will be voting based on emotional attachments to either the notion of "individualism", or "collectivism", with neither topic clearly defined. And those votes will be cast with precious little in the way of a clear appraisal of the actual person who is getting the vote. The potential, then, is that is that someone may cast a vote for a person who will, in fact, produce the exact opposite result as the voter intends. The vote for Brown, as a champion of the middle class, would appear to be one example of that type of vote.
This is more than a tongue in cheek column less than 2 weeks before election day. It is a sad commentary on some of the shannigans in this race. The last debate probably is not going to change many minds. Scott Brown is who he says he is, namely a do anything to win politician including vilifying an accomplished teacher without any basis. Last night on Channel 2's Emily Rooney's show a very young worker in Scott Brown's campaign from Medfield was asked to expand on his candidacy. "He's a nice guy and we live in taxachusetts." I'll leave the former alone but Massachusetts is 11th in taxation while being 3rd in prosperity. She had it wrong and is not even aware of what a great state this is. If Massachusetts were a country it would be in the top 5 countries in educational achievement. Further she insisted he is helping small businesses even in the face of his backing from wayward financiers and bankers and how he casts his votes. So there is somewhere between 40 to 48% who will vote for him because they have not looked up his actual voting record and ignore who gives him money or what groups supports him. I harken back to the great Jerry Williams one of the feistiest radio hosts who sided with the little guys. He would point out all the wrongheaded and corrupt actions of some politicians and then end with the phrase: "But he is a nice guy." Jerry's energy in insisting on showing up phonies is what came to my mind. He would have had a field day with Scott Brown.
It does seem a fairly simple proposition for Mass voters. While Brown may indeed be a moderate the question becomes do you vote for him and possibly give the Republican's control of the Senate. It would seem to me a dangerous proposition to give the current throw back party control. This is not the party of Eisenhower or even Dick Nixon. This party sits upon a belief of anti-science, anti-intellectualism, anti-women's choice, anti-womens control over their own health in general. The neo-cons at the highest level seek further US adventures and expansion.. Economically it is more pro-corporate control albeit only slightly more than the Dems. but enough to make matters worse for the average worker.
I suppose if one wishes to take these same positions then Scott is your man, if not you have no other choice than to vote for Warren. Scott seems an amiable fellow but I have no desire to have my wife and daughters lives ruled by the southern Taliban of the US. This amalgam of religious politicians from the south who believe they speak the mind of god. I'd prefer to take my chances with science and rational thought even with all of its fallacies.
In fact his whole election seems to be about exactly that. Do we return to a time when men were men and women and children were chattel, back to the gilded age of what's good for the Vanderbilts is good for America. Frankly I don't care what you folks pick but if you take the backward choice I'd sure like to come back in a hundred years and see how far the, I do it on my own, mighty mouths have fallen.
I think youmeant what is good for the Romneys is good for America.....
I should have thought that new radio ads of Scott-The-Moderate (Brown), the ones that make him appear as the Senator from Planned Parenthood and Contraception, USA, would have allayed the fears of Scott-The-Progressive (Lehigh). I'm sure that was Scott-The-Moderate’s intent when he approved them. But of course those despicable, extreme, pandering ads did not win for Scott-The-Moderate the hearts and minds of “progressives". Rather, those radio ads earned Scott-The-Moderate contempt, not only from “progressives” but also from of those like me who took down our Brown yard signs as soon as we heard them. I have a question for both Scotts: What business (much less right) does the federal government have extracting taxes from hard-working fisherman in Alaska, or farmers in Kansas, or coal miners in West Virginia, or electricians in Massachusetts and channeling those confiscated revenues to an ideologically extreme, out-of-the-mainstream, money-making entity like Planned Parenthood that harms women and kills babies? That is hardly a proper role for government. And why doesn’t Scott-The-Moderate make this case? Like Scott-The-Progressive, I too have some advice for Scott-The-Moderate. First: ignore campaign tips from “progressives” like Scott Lehigh; the Left is not with you and never will be, and your efforts to appeal to them are unseemly and enervate your base. Second: to thine own self be true. The country is broke. Government has grown too big, wasteful, and expensive. Stick with your message of low taxes and, stay off the social issues, at least until you get on the right side of them.
Leo-the issue small government cannot be fully discussed until you take the tax money from those Kansas farmers too. Or don't you count those subsidies? Maybe because they are Real Americans? Don't you just love euphemisms? The single mom facing reductions to her food stamps works just as hard for her family as the Kansas farmer. It's easy to throw around talking points and political phrases like "to wasteful" or "too expensive" but true leaders take into account all of the details. Scot Brown would rather wallow in personal attacks and character assassination. He is close to becoming the political blip he is destined to eventually become.
Ideally, it is too late for the boy senator. Upon being elected, he immediately sprinted to the welcoming robes of mitch mcconnell to pledge his allegiance to all things related to this ogre minority leader who has done everything possible to obstruct reform in our country. Excellent research skills scotty!
However, now that he is in real shape to be our former senator...which can't come soon enough....the boy senator is declaring himself an "independent"....because....? Oh, I see...he wants to convince the apparently (in his mind), dumb citizens of Massachusetts that was not him but someone else.
There is a story out there about why the chameleon could not change colors....had a reptile dysfunction. The sameness came be said of the boy senator...he had a republican dysfunction....
Scott the Cosmo model doesn't have the guts to do any of the things that would get him re-elected by his constituents. He's back to taking money for filing house mortgages.
Scot, You are right on the spot - thank you. As a someone inclined to vote for the fiscally conservative candidate (and by that I mean deficit and spending reductions) I am very disappointed in Scott Brown's campaign. He has only tried to convince me to not vote for Elizabeth Warren, but he has given no reason for me to support him. At this point, it is most likely I will leave my vote for senator blank.
Absolutely agree! Great follow up to a very well written article. The campaign started out great by Scott Brown talking about himself, how much he loves Massachusetts, and the idea of bi-partisanship... Then he "took on" Warren and from the beginning she said that she wasn't going to back down...at first I thought that was rhetoric...but he has allowed her to increase her relevance.
well said - Scott is a phony - Mr moderate who votes for fillibusters - so long.
Guys: Is there anyone out there who thinks Brown has run a good -- or even competent -- campaign? He is the incumbent. She was virtually unknown. He has a huge ability to make news and to position himself as he chooses. He should have made some fairly simple moves early on to blunt the argument she's using now. Meanwhile, he's been hammering away at her on issues that people just aren't all that interested in. There were two or three polls in late summer showing that even most Republicans didn't give a rat's behind about the Native American thing, and yet he has continued to carry that message himself! (Just from a tactics point of view, once an issue has been aired and you've got what mileage you can out of it, don't gum up your own image by carrying the attack. Have someone else do it. The talk-radio types and a conservative columnist or two were obviously going to keep it alive.) But he used it as his lead-off in not one but two debates. That obviously changes his image, in a negative way, with some of the very middle-of-the-road voters he needs to gold. Meanwhile, he's also decided a no-new-taxes position will work, when it's obviously to most everyone that something will have to be done on the revenue side, so the real issue becomes, who pays more? I mean, you are running for re-election in this state and you plight your troth to Grover and don't find a way negate that position? It's incomprehensible.
Sure, the Globe is all about ISSUES ... meanwhile the Globe was working with Gloria Allred yesterday to dig up dirt on Romney by unsealing the Staples owner's divorce proceedings. Even Cambridge Jim Braude calls the "Brown is just a model" article the other day a hatchet job.
Mr. Lehigh appears to fault Brown with running a negative campaign. He seems not to have a problem with Warren's rather negative campaign (also funded in large part by out-of-state interests). I would agree that Brown needs to focus on the issues and less on Dr. Warren's Cherokee roots or lack thereof.
Although, as another reader points out, the Cherokee nation would have its first member elected to the Senate--notwithstanding the fact that apparently Dr. Warren has never had anything to do with the Cherokee nation. Whatever it takes to get elected, right?
But what would a Senator Warren be like? Well, Elizabeth Warren is an anti-business extremist who would continue the U.S. down the same path of stagnation and misguided socialist policies that have destroyed Europe's competitiveness. She boasts of providing Occupy Wall Street's intellectual foundations. She boasts of sticking up for "the middle class" while advocating policies that would accelerate the disappearance of a middle class. She advocates dependency on big government in place of self-reliance.
I'm not saying she doesn't represent the people of Massachusetts very well. Indeed, she surely is very representative of the denizens of Cambridge, Amherst, and other liberal havens around the state.
Scott Brown, meanwhile, relates better to working people, the military, and small businesses. He has worked hard to distance himself from the mainstream Republican party line and has worked with Democrats. He honestly boasts that he is the most bipartisan Senator, and he correctly points out that Warren would be anything but bipartisan.
Election year antics aside, it's a pretty clear choice. Will Massachusetts vote for a moderate, pro-business, pro-growth candidate, or for a social welfare candidate who doesn't care about (or even know about) business?
How much does the Warren campaign owe a Scott Brown charity? Because the Boston Globe's free services to Elizabeth Warren has certainly broken the People's Pledge agreement between the 2 candidates.
Since the Boston Herald has been acting as a wholely owned subsidiary of the Brown for Senate campaign, I don't think you have much to complain about.
NER - Yes, I agree. The Boston Globe shouldn't be acting like MSNBC and the Boston Herald shouldn't be playing FOX. They should report the facts of the news on the front pages.
I concur -- I haven't voted for a democrat in 30 years-- but as a social moderate I have concluded that I have to vote for Warren. The scary clowns nationally in the Republican party frighten me greatly -- and personal liberty trumps all. His ads have been terrible... no vision, no good reasons to support him. It is truly ironic when the democrats are offering more personal liberty... Any party with Santorum, Akin and Mourdock cannot have my vote anywhere in the country.
Wait a minute. Scott Brown has a LOT of support among the various Kings & Queens he has been hobnobbing with the past few years. Mr. Lehigh, you are out of bounds. Z.
Scot, do you think that the chance/view that Romney is going to win will also push more votes to Warren (and possibly to other dems in close races) to make sure of no one party rule?
Begolf: It's very, very close, and Mitt may win the popular vote, but I don't think he can take Ohio, and that means it's awfully tough for him to put together 270. If you put a gun to my head, I'd still say Obama pulls this out. But I do think the big vote for the president here will swell her vote. Still, Brown could have won this with a better campaign. Scot
Scot, I believe you're right that Romney can't win Ohio...but I'm concerned that he may be able to steal it via the voting machine scam. Sure worked for Bush in Florida in 2000 and who thinks this Supreme Court wouldn't deliver us into a deja vu situation if given the chance?
A frustrating portion of this is that voters here hold Brown to a higher standard than they do a democrat. They want a huge list of accomplishments and he has only been in office for 2 years. MA voters have re-elected democrats through scandals and with lousy records (Tierney, Kerry).
I still think she is a charlatan and the law degree and cases, if they had actually been properly covered, would make a difference.
Anyone else finding the comments section really buggy over the past 2 days?
Brown: Moderate, Military Man, from Massachusetts, by most accounts a fairly "regular guy", has political experience. Warren: Way left, from Oklahoma (and Texas and New Jersey and now she wants Washington), Cherokee when it is convenient, Harvard elitist, part of the "wine and cheese" crowd, no political experience AT ALL. For the life of me I cannot fathom why anyone would vote for someone like Warren (or Kerry or Kennedy or Patrick for that matter). Poor Brown. If he just put a "D" next to his name and still voted as he has he'd win in a landslide.
Brown has no problem mischaracterizing his experience in the national guard as"military experience" and people like you have fallen for this line that he is a military man. He's never been deployed.
Giermund, You may want to look up the word deployed.
Scott, Maybe Scott Brown should get Gloria Allred to dig into Warren's deals when she bought foreclosed homes with her brother and flipped them for a profit. She like, you can claim this has nothing to do with politics, that she is representing the only woman in the world who doesn't have freedom of speech! Maybe Brown can be right down the middle, like John Kerry or Barney Frank or the rest of the democratic delegation that believes in representing everyone in the stae, regardless if they don't share their views. Let's see, the Globe is very thorough on checking the facts of Brown's ads, but isn't quite as diligent on matters of minor importance, lying on applications,claiming heritage that doesn't xist, so putting that on application is legally fraud! Maybe the Globe will have pols like the last time that had Coakley up 9 the weekend before the election and up 6 the day of the election! ow did that turn up. Scott, you are only partially right, only 51% of the state is smart, the ones who didn't vote for Patrick! The Globe had reporters camped out in front of Romney's house looking for HIS GARDNER to have illegal aliens, not Romney, and report things. Yet when Warren lies and says she represents the middle class, oh sure, $375,000 for teaching one class, interest free loans from Harvard, living in a $1.8 million dollar home, she can relate to people on the west coast of Massachusetts!!! The more they spoke of their honor, the faster we hid our spoons!!!
BAM - didn't you get the word? Character doesn't count in this campaign.
Certainly not to the Globe or to moonbats!
For a good article on what it really means to be a moderate, check out David Brooks in today's New York Times. It's not about percentages of votes across party lines. It's not even about finding the middle between two extremes. Neither Brown nor Warren can claim anything other than being products of their party affiliations. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/opinion/brooks-what-moderation-means.html
And Warren is running a good campaign? Does anyone think that Brown is against women as the Nutty professor keeps telling us? We know the globe is against balanced reporting and thats fine, but to write such blatant hypocritical statements makes me wonder how Scot can sign his name to some of these articles.
Want to run through that list of Brown's ideal Supreme Court jurists? Do they sound like a group that will uphold Roe v. Wade? Be honest, if women's issues are your thing, Brown isn't your candidate.
At least one problem with your plan, Scot. Up here in the 6th Congressional District, Richard Tisei is running much as you advise; though as a challenger,he had no chance to create a moderate coalition in Congress, he is running as a moderate, did not take the Grover Pledge, etc. Doesn't matter. So far I -- probably as an Independent woman voter -- have received nineteen, that's 19, attack flyers from the Tierney forces against Tisei, using guilt by association. Though Tisei is gay and pro-choice, I've been told that he is a Tea Partier who won't allow abortion even to save the life of the mother. I'm told he doesn't want women to have cancer screening. These lies brought to us courtesy of the Democratic State Committee and the Mass. Teachers Assocation. So, my advice to Scott Brown (and all candidates) is: be what you are, say what you really believe; the Democrats will distort it anyhow.
Im sure Scot will ignore you, he has a nasty case of Romnesia when it comes to looking at both sides.
October 3, 2012 To our clients: In the recent debate between Massachusetts US Senate candidates, Scott Brown charged that Elizabeth Warren represented Travelers issue for you, and want to assure that you have an accurate understanding ofInsurance Company against asbestos victims. We presume this is an important this situation. Asbestos victims, represented by several law firms including Thornton & Naumes, sued Travelers. Asbestos victims and Travelers SETTLED the case for $500 Million. Another insurance company challenged the establishment of that fund, and that challenge went to the Supreme Court. Elizabeth Warren represented Travelers at the Supreme Court, and thereby the interests of asbestos victims, to protect the settlement. Elizabeth Warren won the case for Travelers and the victims, and the settlement was upheld at that stage. After Elizabeth Warren’s work was finished, and she was no longer their counsel, Travelers has attempted to renege on other grounds. Thornton & Naumes will continue to litigate that issue on behalf of its clients. The Asbestos Workers Union in Massachusetts has endorsed Elizabeth Warren. We are well aware that political choices are made based on many factors. We are not recommending or suggesting how you should vote in this election. We do feel, however, that if your decision is based in part on this issue, you are entitled to the truth. Very truly yours, Michael P. Thornton This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they in notifying us.are
The previous is a letter I recieved from my lawyer, who is probably the first and foremeost in asbestos cases. Also Ppefitter's Local 537 and the asbestos workers local, people who know the most about asbestos cases, have both endorsed Warren. Aside from this, Brown has relinquished his decision making power of a US Senator to that weasel Norquist. Who, in their right mind, after working hard to attain that office, would just sign it away. Brown, that champion of free enterprise and trickle down, knocks Warren for making money. Brown ran through Afghanistan for two weeks now claims war service. Also re-joined the gaurd when he knew his office would mean a jump in rank. He is pro choice and pro life and trying hard to look like a Democrat. He is, in my opinion, a lying sack of s---t and does not deserve another term so he can fulfill McConnell's dream of total control.
Begolf: I don't think anyone is demanding a long list of accomplishments from him. But I also don't think it's too much to expect him to take realistic positions on issues like the deficit. And I do think the other Republicans he would empower in the Senate is a very legitimate concern. I've suggested several ways he could, if were a genuine moderate, address that concern. Charlie me boy: She was almost unknown to this state when she started. She has raised an enormous of $$$, built a better field operation than he has, run a campaign whose critique has been mostly issues based rather than attacking his character, and is ahead in the polls. By those metrics, I'd say she has done a pretty good job, despite some learning-curve missteps.
HH most Republicans are not religious fanatics. Believing in something is fine and, as far as religion goes in this country it is largely left out of politics. You can disagree with their "family values" approach but it never reaches the level of bombs and evil plots. The "vote" is always respected by both even when they disagree. So to not vote for an obvious moderate who works across party lines because your afraid of these "radicals", who frankly dont exist or have little if any political power nationally is one of the silliest things you've written. And I usually enjoy your comments.
What are they doing that is "fanatical?" Blowing things up? Barely even protesting. Its all about the vote. Disagreeing is fine, but neither party in this country is fanatical.
Barbara: I think Richard is going to win, with the help of the Globe endorsement, don't you?
Senator Scott Brown has exploited his National Guard service in order to gain votes. Members of the Guard receive ribbons for having served their time in Afghanistan. Scott Brown did not receive a ribbon because he did not qualify for "having served" during his brief visit there. What he did receive was lots of publicity, and photographs while in combat fatigues, from the press when he arrived at the airport.
Courageous members of the Massachusetts National Guard have fought with valor and some have died in Afghanistan and Iraq and their dedicated service will never be forgotten. Politicians who dare to exploit these war zones for publicity in order to gain votes deserve to lose and deserve to be forgotten.
Right, so Brown's participation in our military is not good enough...Ok now where is your post about how warren's abooiding any service at all makes her unsuitable...Opps, nowhere to be found.
"...Despite your more moderate inclinations, as it stands now, a vote for you is a vote to put a right-wing party in control of the US Senate.." yeeesh, Scot, the Dems have controlled the Senate for four years, and in four years they have not passed a single budget, while the Federal government has spent some $5 trillion it didn't have. Maybe the real spectre of our coming fiscal collapse is a little more important than birth control, abortion, higher tax rates on the rich, and all the other smoke and mirrors you and other Dems are using to change the subject. Of course the Dems must lose control of the senate, their control to date has only served to ge tnothing done, not even the one basic annual obligation of the Senate.
Missed the bit about the the McConnell filibusters?
Waaaa? The Dems have't produced a budget!!! The only budget presented was the President and even the Dems voted that down. Nice try.
I will say as far as good campaigns go--the Presidents was masterful, instead of talking about what a mess the economy is, his complete inability to fix it or work with others to develop a plan to do so, he has the country talking about a made up "war on women." Its certainly a lowlife, deplorable divide the country over nothing approach but it did work for him. The right has zero chance winning on the sneaky, dirty cheap politics. They try, but get out hit everytime. Can anyone say honestly that Romney hasnt stuck too issues while all the President does is attack him and fear monger?
Religious-fanatics jettisoning such platforms is a non-starter, since those platforms are central to their fanaticism, Kitch. Perhaps you meant that if the GOP on a national level exorcised itself of religious fanatics it would immediately benefit?
LifeLibertyPOH Participating in our military is not a qualifier. Exploiting our military is a disqualifier.
Hmmm.. .so how does a candidate violating EEO regulations to claim completely-invalid minority status as an American Indian, so as to get preferring hiring treatment fit into your disqualifier hierarchy? Maybe you only disqualify Republicans!
She did not violate EEO regulations and she did not claim minority status. Her employer did. She simply claimed what she had been hearing about in her family's history. By the way, it's common to meet "white" people in Oklahoma who proudly claim their Indian heritage through a descendant just as many French Canadians (and Swamp Yankees) in this state do.
I agree abortion has little advantage in their platform. However, how many Rs do you really believe are anti gay or anti women? Its ridiculous to even talk about---The answer is barely any. They are Pro family, thats about it. Are their some nuts out there, yup, just like on the left. Its a campaign based on a complete lie because the Presidents record is atrocious. His biggest problem is he cant work with anyone unless they agree with everything he says.
After all is said and done, Scott Broown is a poor advocate for the Commonwealth with no proven ability to get things done. He's lock-step with the far right wing of the republican party and without a positive vision for the future of Massachusetts or for our country. He is who he is.
except he's not in "lock-step" with anyone
Name three things Scotty-boy did when he served in the Massachusetts Legislature....stumped? Well he did little to nothing, same as he's done in DC, where he should be focused on returning to Massachusetts as much of our tax money we send there....but not Scotty-boy. We sure know who wears the pants in that family, and it ain't him.
"Kitch" If the Republican Party jettisoned the religious right how exactly would they be different than the Dems. Now the zealots make a lot of noise about the differences, but lets face it, there is only one political party in America. The capitalist party. One party supports the concept of capitalism with bread and circus to avoid social upheavel, the other party is the every man for themselves party, except let's not tick off the old folks will try to keep SS and Medicare till they croak.
The zealots give this Obama the socialist nonsense but in my lifetime he's more like Ike or Nixon than some socialist. What actually drives many of us away from the Republican Party is this social issues nonsense, this southern Taliban cabal that rules the party. In truth beyond taxes the two parties would have nothing to argue about if not for the social issues. Romney agreed with everything regarding foreign affairs, in fact as I said drop the social issues and what's left, taxes. Okay the Repubs are willing to stiff my children and grandchildren but that generation is fully capable of altering the actions of today's R's.
In fact I find it amazing that so many people can get so worked up about this election unless something else is driving them and I leave that to their conscience. I think Mitt's numbers are way wrong, but that's a small thing. It's the crazy House Republican's I don't wish to give power to.
Scot: program wouldn't let me "reply" so I'll do it here. I'm too superstitious to say I think Tisei will win; I always think my choice of candidates is going to win. Still haven't figured out how my favorite governor Eddie King lost to Dukakis in '78. BTW, must correct my earlier posting. The mail just arrived and I now have twenty --20-- flyers, not 19, from the Democrats attacking Tisei and his "right-wing extreme agenda" that wants to ban abortion and deny health services to women. If the Globe hadn't endorsed Tisei against Tierney you'd have reason to be embarrased; heck, I'd be embarrassed to have it on my lawn every morning! But yes, I'm glad and think it will help.
HH--- again you're shooting out lots of rhetoric. None of those people are "fanatical." They have beliefs which others are free to disagree with or agree with. Most polls have abortion at 50/50. right now in this country. Labeling someone fanatical because they disagree with you is part of the problem that we are having right now. Most of the religion in this country, 99% id guesstimate is positive in its effects. Most Americans on all sides are fair and compassionate. Im Pro life not because im religous (im not) or because im against women (again, im not). I just dont think we know what a fetus is when its in the womb for 2 months. Too me, looks like a baby, err on the side of caution unless rape, incest or the life of the mother is at stake. Thats not a "fanatical" choice and one that many republicans, indepenents and democrats share.
"charlie" I think "HHK" views them as "fanatical" for the same reason I do. They wish to impose their beliefs upon myself and others. We are not free to disagree if they get their way. In fact if they get their way a woman is raped, gets pregnent, seeks and obtains an abortion and is then charged with what "murder", "manslaughter", that is not being free to disagree. That is being oppressed by a fanatical religious group.
You make the exception but a good portion of these folks including Ryan seek the personhood amendment. Now if some woman was treated in this fashion in the ME you'd be screaming how the Muslims oppress women. These fanatics of ours however are merely expressing the will of God. Where else do I hear that. Oh, yeah in the Middle East by religious fanatics.
Brown has morphed into nothing more than a thug politican looking to keep the "people's seat" as his own no matter what. Hooked up with that great american Karl Rove. 'Nuf said.
Mr. Brown sure is dreamy! Not like that icky injun he keeps talking about! Mitch McConnel, however, he and Inhofe are the stuff of nightmares...especially in Massachusetts!
Sure, the left is afraid of McConnel and Inhofe and make them out to be big scary people. I really think most of the distain is saved for Reid and Pelosi - now thats a scary duo. They are just despicable people, let alone politicians.
What Brown should have done was to become a REGISTERED Independent, instead of trying the stupid tactic of promoting himself as an independet Republican. But I am glad he didn't do that because Warren will be a much better senator.
"charlieboy" said, "if you knew for certain that a 2 month fetus was just a small infant would you still support the right of someone to terminate after getting pregnant? (not rape, Incest)."
The reality is a 2 month fetus indeed has the potential of being a small child. But let us say you did decide it was a small child. How could you make the exception? Would you hold it is legal to kill it because of rape or incest or does that suddenly make the potential child not a child. As idiotic as some of these religious fanatics are they are at least consistent. If you hold that it is a "sin" to abort then it must be a "sin" regardless of cause.
However the issue is, should what you call, (not necessarily you personally), a "sin" be called illegal. What the right wing social engineers would have us believe is that what they consider a "sin" should be illegal. Yet the definition of what is a "sin" is between the individual and their faith. What those who hold this position are saying is that they have the "right" to impose their view upon another person. It is as if the "woman" herself has no inherent worth or "rights" that the religious right would hold that they have the right to ask government to tell a woman she "must" without choice carry a fetus to term.
Talk about the overreach of government. We have this argument as if the woman does not even exist within her own right. That she is merely the "states" or the religions object of procreation. That borders on the dictactorship of one group of people over another.
Is murder a "sin?" Lets call it the same as murder---i leave religion out of it. And yes if a crime is done to someone, or the mother would die giving birth then id call that extenuating circumstances. But that doesnt fit it with your narrative that all right wingers are nuts does it?
It is not a question of "right wingers" being nuts. It is a question of making moral decisions based on faith. Scientifically speaking you can't call the fetus anything except a "potential" human being and you are indeed killing it. Are we then saying that the "mother" must prove self defense. I'm simply saying the only way you move this into law is by taking a "religious" view that it is immoral for otherwise you have no basis. You could make an argument it is "unethical" but that does not rise to felony law. The problem with the debate is that while you seem quite reasonable others are not. You can be open to a logical argument but for those on the "religious right" this is not a logical discussion it is a discussion regarding breaking god's laws and imposing god's laws upon man.
I'm not sure how I would feel about my wife getting an abortion, but I do know it isn't my choice to make. By the way I consider myself "conservative" in the classical fashion not in today's hyper run off at the mouth, I hate government fashion. Think about it what real "conservative" would say government has the right to interfere in this particular issue.
Barry Goldwater a true conservative said:
I just received a mailer from a political Mafia group calling themselves "CrossroadsGPS.org". It's campaigning for Scott Brown. This has got to be the biggest lie I've ever read condemning Elizabeth Warren and her legal work helping the asbestos victims. Of course, it states that she didn't help them but helped herself to big bucks. Her photographs are also pathetic candids displaying her with twisted and awkward looks on her face. This mailer is on the level of bad graffiti. What I do like about the mailer is that it's written for stupid people and I don't think we have that many in this state. If anyone has been undecided as to whom they should vote for and they have half a brain, this should convince them that Brown has gone pathetic. This is a desperate mailing piece.
Actually, it was a proud moment for Obama when he finally said and properly defined what most people have felt about Romney. This was one of those moments where millions of people thought, "I wished I said that!" It brought in hundreds of thousands of undecided voters to Obama's camp. Vulgar? Karl rove is vulgar.
He was a tool for the banks and Wall Street, signed the Norquist No Taxes Pledge, voted against The Fair Pay Act, Co-sponsored the Blunt Amemdment, has a campaign against Elizabeth Warren paid for by Karl Rove (can't Rove just go away?), made racist ads attacks against Elizabeth Warren about her Native American heritage; so, why would anyone believe him now? We do not have $1 Million to pay for his votes.
What a mistake for anyone to vote for Elizabeth Warren over Scott Brown. Scott Brown has been a breath of fresh air for Massachusetts. The lies and distortion by the Warren campaign is outgrageous. Warren will be another empty suit Senator much like Kerry that will stifle the economy and put America deeper in debt by voting the party line. Massachusetts has more to gain by re-electing Scott Brown and sending Elizabeth Warren back to Harvard.
An extraordinarily adroit column
Oh, come on, Scot Lehigh. Be real.
Scott Brown has been, and is, attempting to have his cake and eat it too. He says he's "bi-partisian" when speaking to us in Massachusetts, but when out of state begging for campaign funds, he's the Tea Party darling.
Scott Brown is Scott Brown = a center-fold "has been" cheesecake model who still thinks he's everyman's wonder modelling for us in his brown leather barn jacket and his pickup truck. He's stil thinks his modelling days will carry him in Massachusetts. Nope. He's at the ready wanting to undo Obamacare, and yet has his kid enrolled as an u/ 26 y.o. reaping the benefits of Obamacare. He's doublespeaked on women's issues up the ying yang voting to allow employers "decide" whether to cover contraceptives. And he voted against equal pay for equal work in the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
No way. Scott Brown is Scott Brown. And we do not like Scott Brown's politics nor his negative ads running since day one against Elizabeth Brown.
Scott Brown deserves to be ex-Senator Scott Brown. The sooner the better.
typo: (1) stil = still, and, of course, (2) Elizabeth Brown = Elizabeth Warren!!! (sorry, Elizabeth)
Another bitter Scott Lehigh piece of garbage.