Hey, there! Log in / Register
Evidently Scott Brown isn't counting on the support of welfare recipients
By Kaz on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 9:53am
In a recent press statement, Scott Brown declared that he was upset at a recent lawsuit settlement that requires the state to comply with the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (aka "the Motor-Voter Law"). The law requires states to offer voter registration when you apply for government services like a driver's license, but also social services like welfare too. Voting rights groups across the country have taken their states to task recently to force compliance.
Here in Massachusetts, one of those voting rights groups that sued the state on behalf of a woman who received welfare registration, but not voter registration, is headed by Elizabeth Warren's daughter and that has Brown crying foul. His complaint is two-fold: 1) the state is being forced to pay to mail registration information out to help welfare recipients register to vote (something it was obligated to do all along but ignored), and 2) this is a political tactic to help his opponent in the election. I guess following federal law is only important when it's convenient for our current Senator sitting in "The People's Seat".
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
The underlying message
What is Brown's underlying message here?
Either:
1) He has no compelling campaign message for welfare recipients so he thinks they will never vote for him when comparing the two campaigns fairly, therefore it's best if they don't register to vote in droves. Sort of a "man of the people...with money" message.
2) He doesn't think welfare recipients are smart enough to see his message is the better one for everyone, so they'll vote for his opponent instead. This option doesn't exactly win you more votes from that crowd either if it's true.
I mean, for him to be upset that the state is mandated to help poor people register to vote, he has exposed that it's either him or them that aren't connecting and that means more votes for the other candidate. But either way, it doesn't exactly speak volumes for his integrity as our representative to make an official statement about this as some sort of conspiracy theory and whine that the state is finally meeting its federal legal obligations (as opposed to something you might whine about internally with your campaign staff).
I think his message is that......
The 250K+ of taxpayer money could be better spent on other things, or at least not spent at all.
Brown probably thinks people not on welfare will see this as well and be just as outraged as he is. People on welfare aren't going to vote for Brown anyway, and those who support this program also aren't going to vote for him.
His message is trying to reach those who might think spending money on this program is a waste, whether it be legal waste or not.
dON'T HURT YOURSELF..
Trying to explain this to people on this page who are so far left they cant even see the fence anymore
Sure
Because voter repression is so patriotic!
We could get rid of all these issues by vote and register by mail. Easy, cost effective, and secure.
But participation would go up, so the GOP will block it any chance they can. Their electoral and local success is increasingly bent on making elections and government so toxic that only their constituencies can be counted on to reliably to show up.
Unfortunately for them, citizens are starting to wake up, and the higher voter participation, the more they lose.
The good thing is there's nothing keeping them from reforming their platforms to capture voters. Blacks, Hispanics, even young voters have conservative characteristics, especially fiscal conservatism. But the GOP don't want to change, so were stuck with the last gasping deaths of a dying, radical political philosophy.
You must have hurt yourself
You must have hurt yourself to not notice the caps lock button was on.
Message depends on the listener
Let's be honest, the message is not intended to be heard by people on welfare. The message is that Deval Patrick and the Democrat establishment are using govt resources to support their party's candidates by making it easier for those lazy slobs on welfare to get out there and vote to keep the gravy train running just like those damned darkies at Acorn used to do!! I swear this country's going to hell!! The heathens are turning this once great and proud Christian nation into aswarthyhordeofgay,welfare-stateleecheswiththeirpantsaroundtheiranklesandlisteningtothathorridjungle-gutter"music" >sputter froth...froth...throb sputter<
Ahem...I mean...how dare they subvert the system in such a way to gain political advantage. A despicable act in which neither I nor my august party would ever engage.
To be honest I think it does look like a cheesey political ploy by the Dems. I mean do they provide voter registration cards when you go down to register your guns or get a hunting/fishing license? Maybe they do, I have no idea.
No basis for claims
There is NO BASIS to claim Deval Patrick or Democrats had anything to do with the lawsuit that Demos filed. Demos has filed similar cases in 18 states and have been doing so long before Warren's daughter Amelia had anything to do with Demos.
Demos wants the states to enforce the provisions of the bipartisan 1993 Federal Motor Voter Act that says that people who go to state social services offices are to be offered a voter registration form.
The states that were sued by Demos, including Massachusetts, were not complying with the law. Lawyers for the Commonwealth negotiated a remedy because they knew they were not in compliance. The remedy is to mail the forms now.
No, that's not the message.
I think this quote pretty much sums it up: "it’s clearly designed to benefit her mother’s political campaign. It means that I’m going to have to work that much harder to get out my pro-jobs, pro-free enterprise message."
There's no need to guess what he probably thinks when he comes out and tells us.
Yes
Because politicians (of both parties) always are completely candid and honest about why they do and say the things they do.
Yes, because facts are biased when you're lying
The state had a requirement to make voter registration available in the first place. It ignored it and this is to make up for that fact. If it only costs $250k to undo our screw-up, then I think we're getting off pretty lightly.
There can't be a debate about where the money is "better spent" because it's a penalty of not having behaved legally in the first place. I don't get to weasel out of paying a speeding ticket by arguing that the money could be better spent on car washes.
Also, I addressed your point about welfare recipients not voting for Brown. Who says? Is that his fault or theirs? Either he isn't putting out a compelling message to them or he thinks their too stupid to see he is. Either way, that's a political problem for him to deal with and this is a legal obligation that's being dealt with. Connecting the two as he has is both paranoid and narcissistic.
The only people who think this is a waste are bigots. Welfare recipients have every right to vote and do so however they choose in the voting booth. The federal government mandated that they be given the ability to register when they sign up for welfare just the same as when they or anyone else signs up for a driver's license. These mailers will be compliance for the 500,000 times previously that the state ignored its obligations to these people. To claim that it's a waste to meet those obligations is to claim that those people don't have the right to easy access to voting registration. That's bigotry against the poor. To appeal to that as you claim he's doing is to condone and foster bigotry for political gain.
You don't have to be a bigot to think this is a waste.
Any resident can call 617-727-2828 and a form will be mailed to you. You then fill out the form and mail it in and you are then eligible to vote. It doesn't get any easier than that. You can be on welfare, or not on welfare to do this. If you want to vote, call up and register. Or just go down to your City or Town hall and sign up there. Most college registrars offices also have forms in Massachusetts. Being able to register while getting a license or receiving social services is nice, but you have to be kidding me if you think it would be a travesty if these things were eliminated. Hey, the laws the law, and apparantly Massachusetts hasn't been following it, so they have to settle up, but it doesn't mean that people who don't agree with the original premise of the law (or the "penalty") is the right thing to do.
It doesn't? Then what was this bill about??
"It doesn't get any easier than that."
Yes, it does. When you register for a driver's license or sign up for government assistance, they can hand you the form or even use your information on those registration forms to sign you up if you check the box asking to be registered to vote too.
Boom! Even easier than calling, waiting, and mailing it back.
Furthermore, we live in a democracy whose very etymology is "people power" from Greek. This federal law has been responsible for a 20-30% boost in voter registration from before it was passed. To remove it would return us to the steady decline in voter registration that dogged the country through the entire 20th century.
It would actually be a travesty to democracy whether you are so ready to dismiss it or not. Anyone under the age of 40 has probably registered to vote via their driver's license registration. That's roughly half of the voters in America who have benefited from the law now not counting those above the age of 40 that hadn't registered until the law came into effect and they went to renew their license.
"People who don't agree with the original premise of the law"? Do you really think there are people who go around grumbling about 'that damned Motor Voter law' to appeal to with this statement? Or is it really more from your first point about this being about welfare and not the Motor Voter law that the obvious bigotry comes from? Don't deflect from your original statement. This is about the poor being given easier access to vote. Anyone being "appealed to" by Brown is someone who doesn't like "people on welfare"...which innately sounds like class warfare to me...
Give me a break
In terms of how easy it is to vote. The point is that no one is being denied access to vote. If you really cared about voting, you can call the number or go down and register at one of the dozens of places set up for people to register. The access is easy either way. If you really wanted to vote, you could vote pretty fucking easily.
And yea, I do feel that a specific group of people (those who vote democrat) are given almost an extra opportunity to register to vote. Drivers license are one thing, since the range of drivers who are republican or democrat probably even out. But those who receive social services are probably going to vote democrat, so if you push the issue on these people who haven't voted, you are going to get a greater number of democrats to vote who might not have voted before. But that isn't even the issue. The issue is that the government is doing this, not some private organization.
I used to work for an organization where we would go to the polls and find out how many registered deomcrats who lived in public housing hadn't voted yet. We would call up those people and offer them rides to the polling stations if they couldn't get there (or didn't want to walk). We wouldn't call the registered republicans in public housing, and I would sometimes wonder if what we were doing was fair or not. It was kind of fair, because we were a private group, and anyone could legally look at the log to see who voted or not. But this case is the government doing it, and yea, I think it does effect the voting process.
If it weren't so easy to register, I might not have a problem with the whole process. But it still is pretty dam easy to register, so I don't think anyones rights would be taken away if these forms weren't mailed out.
Whose fault is that?
"But those who receive social services are probably going to vote democrat, so if you push the issue on these people who haven't voted, you are going to get a greater number of democrats to vote who might not have voted before."
Thus, we return to one of my original points about why he would make this statement in the first place. Whose fault is it that a candidate running for office doesn't think he can draw a particular demographic to vote for him? He claims to have a "pro-jobs" platform in his statement which should appeal to a welfare recipient who would want a job to help get off of government assistance.
To paraphrase his press statement, "These people won't vote for me...I'm too pro-jobs for them." So, to claim that they won't vote for such an honorable platform in the same exact statement must mean that he thinks they don't want a job...which goes back to the trite and provably false bigotry of "welfare queens" and the poor being "lazy".
True, but......
This isn't about poor people, this is about poor people on welfare. Scott Brown is going to get a lot of "poor" people to vote for him.
And in general this is a group of people who are going to vote democrat, and this group is being helped in the registration process by the government.
Still not getting it
In our democracy, every person should vote and so at least getting them registered is a start. You admit that there is a large block of voters who are potentially unregistered and will likely vote for the Democrat. Well, guess what, that just means they should be registered and vote so that the entire population is represented in the democracy we live in...it doesn't matter that they'll vote for the Democrat. If that reality is a problem for the Republicans, it's their duty to prove to these largely Democratic voting blocs why they should instead vote for the Republican; it's not their duty to keep them from voting.
To claim that it's a conspiracy against him means that Brown thinks it would be better if those people didn't vote. To claim that there are better uses of government money than to get more people access to vote suggests that the government shouldn't promote democratic principles like everyone voting (let alone what better role is there for government than upholding laws like the one they should have been upholding in the first place). Trying to score political points with his statement might win the election as if it were some kind of game, but that's at the expense of the ideals of democracy.
In a perfect world, everyone would be registered and they would all go vote on election day. To do anything that hinders or slows approaching that ideal speaks volumes to me about whether you actually believe in democracy or not.
No you aren't getting it.
We don't give special voting registration forms to people who register their guns, or people who buy alcohol, or people who pay real estate taxes and own property, or people who are landlords, or people that rent, or people who teach for a living, or people who live in wealth towns, or people that do x, y, and z, because that wouldn't be fair to people that aren't in those groups.
Don't you think it would be unfair if the towns of Dover and Wellesley (two towns that tend to vote republican) decided to use real estate tax dollars to mail voting registration forms to residents of those towns while people living in Brookline or Newton (two cities who tend to vote democrat) don't do the mailings?
In a perfect world? How much easier does it get to vote? Call a number and they will send you a form or walk right into city hall or a registry! It doesn't get that much perfect than that.
Although I don't think it is a conspiracy, I don't think it is the governments business to encourage some groups to vote over others. Sure, drivers might have it a little easier than non drivers, but drivers don't really represent one side or the other.
Pete
You argument seems to boil down to more people vote Democratic, so Government initiatives to register as many people as possible are unfair.
Thats bullshit.
There's nothing keeping the GOP from aligning it's platform with different constituencies and getting a greater share of the vote. Many minority and poor working class people are religious and socially conservative. They are actually prime target's for a truly Conservative party, and one without blinders on.
Making it as easy as possible to register to vote, through all government offices, is not discrimination nor unfair. It's the exact opposite. Nothing is keeping these people from registering as Republican, or even voting for them.
If you're argument comes down to "registering more people to vote means I lose", well you've lost. Time to think about why that is and reconcile it with your views.
The Dems had to after the 60's and 70's.
It isn't registering more people to vote
It is registering a specific group to vote, and that group clearly votes a certain way. And it isn't all government offices, it is an office that deals with those who are on government assistance. Not poor people, but people on government assistance. That is the difference. People who receive government assistance are going to vote for those people (who they think) support government assistance programs.
And yea, it does go back to making it easier for those with drivers licenses to vote. It makes it unfair for those who don't drive. So this law attempts to balance it out, but I don't think it really does that.
Right...
So? Just because this effort gets more of a specific group to register to vote doesn't preclude other groups from getting the same treatment. If rural farmers are disparately represented in voter registration and predominantly vote Republican, I'd support a new federal law mandating anyone who filed for all of the farm exceptions on their taxes last year get mailed a registration form with their receipt/refund.
Imagine a district of voters. There are 100 voters. 20 are Republicans and 80 are Democrats. However, all 20 Republicans vote every election, but only 10 of the 80 Democrats do. Someone says a group of 50 Democrats would vote if we made an effort to register them. Your argument is that this would unfairly hurt Republicans in the district. Do you not see the absurdity?
Imagine a new district. 100 voters: 50 Republican, 50 Democrat. 30 Republicans vote, 30 Democrats vote. Someone says the remaining 20 Democrats would vote if make it easier to register for them. Your argument says this is unfair and should not be done. I would say that the correct response is to figure out where that group of 20 Republicans is and make it easier for them too. In other words, you are happy to maintain the voter rolls the way they all simply because of the chance that it upsets some inherent balance you think exists in the current situation. However, the correct answer is to make it easier for as many people as possible to register to vote. Currently, that means drivers and welfare recipients.
If you can identify another under-served group, write a new law. I'll back you. However, not acting to get "some" because you can't get "all" or because of partisan political gamesmanship is absurd.
It does preclude other groups from getting treatments.
Well, maybe I shouldn't say that, since I still believe any moron can figure out how to register to vote in this state, but no, if rural farmers can call and get a form, or go once every 4 years to their town hall to register, then no, they shouldn't have a special tax form t help them register. They can register like anyone else can.
Listen, I get the fact that if licensed drivers are getting an easier path to register, than non drivers should also get that same path. But then those non drivers make up a group that votes a certain way, and you can't prove that the drivers vote a certain way, then maybe the non drivers shouldn't get the easy road.
Write some legislation
If you think that the FEDERAL LAW that has been in place for TWENTY YEARS is unfaiiiirrrr, then write a more sweeping law that further expands efforts to enrol voters from all walks of life.
You clearly know nothing of living in poverty and moving around a lot. Instead of being spiteful, why not count your damn blessings?
The purpose of the "Motor Voter Act"
was to make it easier for everyone to register to vote. The law had broad bi-partisan support when it was enacted. It specified both RMV offices and welfare offices so that everyone would have the chance to register to vote, even people too poor to own a car. That it's now being used as a political weapon by Scott Brown is a betrayal of the democratic (note the lower case "d") values that prompted this law.
I think it's perfectly okay and fair for Dover or Wellesley or any town or political subdivision in Massachusetts to mail voter registration forms to its residents. The City of Boston runs voter registration drives (there was just one in JP last week) that I've never heard anyone complain about -- although that is probably about to change. The problem we have in this country is too few people voting, not too many. It's also okay for Demos and any other group that supports voting rights to sue to enforce the federal law. The "welfare mailing" (as the Herald is calling it) in Massachusetts is part of a settlement of a law suit that charged the state with more than a decade of violating the law. A settlement sometimes requires something above and beyond the ordinary way of doing things to make sure that the violation is rectified. That's what the mailing does. From here on, the forms will be handed out at EBT offices just like they are at RMV offices.
See I don't think it's fair.
If Dover residents get voter registration cards mailed to their houses (for state and national elections) but residents/renters in Mattapan don't get mailed those same cards, the process is unfair in my opinion.
pfft
The USPS can use the business.
How about ending corporate welfare? Why are we giving $100's of billions to Northrup Grumman for useless war machines?
$250k to help people vote in a democracy
vs.
$45 billion for B-2 bombers that can't fly in rain, heat, cloud, or dust.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/23/world/the-2-bill...
What's really worth being outraged over?
The underlying message
here is that Scott Brown is a fucking moron. A tried and true moron. I bet he gets lost trying to get out from under the sheets in the morning.
At least Warren's daughter is doing something meaningful with her life, unlike Brown's daughter. Ayla Brown wants to be the next Leeann Rimes, only I think she'll be the next Mindy McCready.
Yeah, Brown is a real moron!
Not nearly as smart as, say, Martha Coakley!
Oh, wait....
You have a point...
...if there were only one moron allowed to exist at a time. Fortunately for you, the legal limit is higher than 1.
No arguing with you on that
You've proven it time and time again.
Have your Saturday morning cartoons mixed up?
"I know you are but what am I" is Pee-Wee Herman's schtick, not Bluto's.
Martha Coakley would have made a bad Senator for sure
but I still think she does a fine job as AG. Meanwhile, can you name any of Scott Brown's greatest hits as a Mass pol?
I'll wait.....
How about this....
Coming from behind and eating Martha Coakley's lunch in a special election where everyone had him dead and buried from the outset? For a Senate seat that had been held by the opposition party for what, forty-plus years?
But maybe you want to go back to ad hominen attacks on his children. That was making you look almost as good as calling him a fucking moron.
You cut me to the quick, sirrah!
I feel humbled by the fact that you chose to use the punchline to the old joke as an example of Brown's political achievements;
"The Senator's major achievement to date was getting elected"
I think I saw it on MASH. Either way, I take it then that you agree with me in that getting elected is his only claim to fame at this point? I also seem to have confused you with my question in that your answer was geared towards what benefited Scott Brown personally and not how he helped the citizens of the Commonwealth as an elected official.
Also, out of myself and Senator Brown, who attacked whose daughter first? Add to that the fact that Miss Brown is a public figure, unlike Ms. Warren's daughter. And a mediocre singer to boot, IMHO.
Bluto
pass what you're smoking, because the GOP historical retcon weed must be epic.
Coakley didn't fumble the ball on the one yard line and have Scotty squeak by. She fumbled on the kickoff long before the race even got started, being the very public "machine" pick that no one in the party wanted but the assholes up top delving out patronage. That's already starting in a hole. She then didn't run a campaign. When she did appear in public all she could do was produce gaffs showing how out of touch with the electorate she was.
Scotts margin of victory also wasn't that close. He won by 4+%.
Sorry that doesn't fit the GOP are always the victim narrative you always seem to blow on about.
You're about half right
Yep, Coakley was a terrible, Democratic Party machine pick, who never should have been put in that position. Because she wasn't ready for prime time, and was in way over her head.
Sound familiar, kind of like the current candidate, a convenient Cherokee who was given a pass at even token vetting by having her only competition run off the board (and out of a primary) by Deval et al, at the Democratic convention?
As for my GOP narrative, sorry, Registered as an Independent. Voted for Obama. Voted for Jill Stein. Plan to vote for Obama again. But your candidate, Ms. Warren, is a 24-carat gold plated phony--regardless of party affiliation. Brown ain't no Abraham Lincoln, but he's a lot less of Deval/Murray tool than she is.
I rather have a moron as Senator than a Liar like "Liawatha..."
Yeah Brown is a moron, but I'd rather have him as Senator than Warren who falsefully claimed to be a native american indian to advance her professional career.
Also for anyone not to see that this move by Demos is not political, than they are the morons. I find it amazing that Massachusetts is the only state to send out voter registration cards to welfare recipients and it's headed by a group that's led by Warren's daughter.
This is clearly bullcrap.
This is clearly bullcrap.
Well, at least you disclaimed yourself at the end. I was starting to worry you were serious for a moment there.
I got push-polled yesterday....
...by a pollster (a young lady with a sweet vocie) whose only real interest was peddling the various BS Brown narratives about Warren (including the "lying about her background to get hired" one).
I think you want the Herald, it's right down the corridor
Massachusetts broke the law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
Let me repeat: The state of Massachusetts violated a federal law. It got sued. The state admitted it broke the law. To make amends and come into compliance with the law, it agreed with Demos to send out postcards to welfare recipients explaining how they could register to vote.
As David Bernstein writes, it doesn't matter who got the state to stop breaking the law, the key point is that the state agreed to stop breaking the law:
Official Scott Brown position
Scott Brown wants the state of Massachusetts to break the law specifically in a way that might suppress the vote and benefit him electorally.
Is this not despicable?
Because Liz is soooooooo
compelling. you must be "Hammered"
Scott..is that you?
or is it another denizen of the intellectual morass known as "The Howie Carr Show"?
The Howie Carr show...where they call Ms. Warren "Lie-a-watha" all the time, but bring up Scott Brown's lies and it's the old "You're a moonbat with that moonbat way of thinking".
Kings and queens, anyone?
He isn't representing MA anyway
He takes his orders from the Republican Party.
He has made that abundantly clear.
Funny, Liz Warren seems to
Funny, Liz Warren seems to not say a damn thing which hasn't been scripted by some lackey in Washington. Brown on the other hand has actually been listening to and representing large swaths of the state,*cough central Mass*, which has been utterly ignored by the senate delegation for decades.
Geographic Area != Constituents
That "large swath" doesn't have nearly as many people as eastern MA. It is a right-wing myth that geographic area is what representatives are representing and not populations.
The truth is that Scott Brown decided to vote with the Republican Party and against the interests of the majority of folks in his state all the last year - especially on health care.
"Scripted"? Are you serious?
Ever listen to one of those awful "Scott Brown radio reports"? The guy has the line reading skills of a 4 year old. I'm willing to put a hundred bucks up to anyone who thinks that Brown will win in the debates.
Warren will smoke Brown in the debates. Guaranteed. When she does, you'll hear the right start with the old fear of anyone with a brain routine.
"Scott's a hard working guy with a truck. Warren's another limousine liberal".
"It won't be fair unless Dan Rea is the moderator".
"Warren should have both sides of her brain tied behind her back....just to make it even".
At this point, Scott Brown makes Louis Gohmert look like Stephen Hawking.
A history lesson
Dr. Warren has been publishing books and academic articles on debt, personal bankruptcy, and the law surrounding these things since the 1980s. It was her work in these areas that led to her invitation to work on the National Bankruptcy Review Commission and FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion and to her inclusion in multiple documentaries to talk about the rise of personal credit debt in America.
These appointments made her a perfect candidate for running the TARP Oversight Panel which is where she started to gain more national attention as someone who was speaking out against the bank practices that continued even after the financial collapse. And that is ultimately what led to her nomination to head the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help protect Americans from these bad practices.
So, you think she isn't saying anything that isn't scripted by "some lackey in Washington"? Well, get real. She wrote that damn script and has been saying it for over the past 30 years. That's how you even know who she is in the first place.
Warren is just a puppet for the Democrats
If Warren is elected she's simply going to be another puppet for the Democratic Party. She'll simply vote the party line. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless. She is NOT going to be representing our state any better than Scott Brown currently does.
Democrats
Booggie Booggie Booo!!
If your argument is that at the least she won't be any change.... sounds like a good reason to roll the dice!
trickle down, my cheek
sorry scott,
massachusetts is moving forward,
your appointment was our mistake and we admit that, but no more.
we were asleep at the wheel, but now we are going back to work against the obstructionist, deceptive and disingenuous republican machine.
the only difference is,
we are prepared to play fair and still win.
take that whine back to your crooked cronies,
we arent interested.
thanks.
The Rich People's Seat
Apparently Scott Brown thinks its the rich peoples seat, not the peoples seat. Wall Street and Oil Barrens, sure, they have a voice in the peoples seat (like the out of state Koch Brothers) but the people of MA?
Depends on how wealthy you are.
When did this site turn into Red Mass Group
.
Coakley is useless...
Which led us to Brown. He has proved to be a pawn. I don't think Warren is any better but when in doubt, I vote for someone new. Keep turning the seat over until someone decent comes along worthy of more than one term.
Scott Brown
is grasping for straws. You know it's about a done deal when this many people show up for a political ice cream social in Aug...
Warren's taken Scotts riding in a truck approach, but dumped the truck. She's walking door to door. Only a disastrous showing in the debates could knock her down now, and is that all the Brown campaign is hoping for?
Funny thing is it didn't need to be this way.
Scotty could have easily been a state leader of a reformed GOP party that rebuked the christianists and anarchists in Washington. Fiscally conservative, Massachusetts socially liberal, and willing to truly be bipartisan to get things done. He could have been a reform candidate that pushed Conservatism to a new direction in MA, and appealed to a new generation. Hell, I KNOW people working in his campaign that support a right to choice and gay marriage, and a ton of other "dirty little liberal issues". Hell, I'm pretty sure Scott thinks the same privately.
Instead he allied himself with the Teabagger GOP, and is letting Rush and Howie run his campaign. A campaign where if he says professor betty enough, people will not like her. Cause if it's one thing us Commonwealthers hate, it's our long and proud history of educational institutions, science, and civics.
Well Scott, hopefully those big bank connections come through in December, otherwise you'll be back to folding Ayla and the Misses laundry. Your lack of Leadership is apparent and appalling. We've tasted the snake oil.
long thread here....
...after watching the Kaz and Pete Nice volleys getting skinnier and skinnier, nice to find this post. I don't think Scott Brown is the worse thing imaginable for Massachusetts, but I don't think he's all that good for the country, given the party of reality-deniers with which he's associated himself. I thought it would have been great if he had come out as a sort of Collins/Snowe type of Yankee Republican that kept his distance from the fruit loops of the rest of the GOP and carried the banner of fiscal conservatism with some sense of social reality. Which is kind of the position that the Clinton-Obama Democratic party has taken up. He could have found bipartisan things to do with Bernie Sanders and blown peoples' minds. My hope was that a branch of the GOP taking up the center right ground might push the Dems back towards the left of center again - but no luck. Absent some serious demographic shifts in this nation the GOP is screwed.
Is anyone else
just sad and depressed to see Scott Brown do this? And to see that it seems to be working? Over on boston.com, the comments are overwhelmingly in support, although some people are a bit confused and think Warren "spent tax dollars" for the mailing (in our dreams she'll be spending tax dollars, but right now even Harvard doesn't have that power).
What happened to the guy who met with Boston's black ministers on the day after his election in 2010 and pledged to represent everyone in Massachusetts?
working
Have you ever looked at the comments on the Herald or Boston.com before?
90% are trolling or paid out of state astroturfers.
It's a wasteland.
Here's the link
to the Demos website which explains the law suit in Massachusetts and gives some context about the federal law at issue:
http://www.demos.org/publication/background-delgad...
I wonder if they make rat
I wonder if they make rat traps big enough for scott brown and his republikkan ilk.
Sticky traps
All that hair in the Cosmo shot - just lure him in by saying that he'll be more telegenic if he comes in for a waxing ...
Update: Brown statement today requests Warren pay state
Brown's campaign released a new statement today where he requested Warren pay the state the cost of the mailings.
He wants a private citizen to pay costs the state agreed to incur as a way to assure compliance with a law it should have been in compliance with 17 years ago. Is this guy out of his gourd? Regardless of what you thought of the first statement by Brown, this one is just plain absurd.
Scott is Confused
You see, the plantiff was DEMOS, so that MUST mean the "Democrat Party" for sure!!!
Right?