The League of Women Voters is launching ads on TV today and a website called peoplenotpolluters.org which highlights votes by Scott Brown amongst others to block air pollution standards. Brown voted to block the EPA’s ability to set standards for clean air and water.
Television ad aimed at Scott Brown:
Votes have consequences Scott.
While Scott Brown enjoyed a large female voting block in the special election, I wonder how he will fare when there is a review of his voting record.
Leave a Reply
25 Comments on "Scott Brown, Protect People Not Polluters"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This commercial is as shameful as his vote. It will backfire.
I’m not following. Why is the commercial shameful, and why will it backfire?
My gut reaction to viewing it.. over the top and heavy handed. It went too far – not a big fan of using children like that in a commercial.
…in silence? Nice attitude you’ve got there – can we assume you have no kids?
yes clearly I have no children and the only way to prevent children from suffering and dying is this commercial.
…is to not weaken the EPA. Remember the Cuyahoga River fire? I shudder to think what the world would be like today had we failed to act back then, and if this ad helps to create consequences for Scott, then I’m all for it.
You make not sense whatsoever. This is specifically aimed at an issue not next year’s election. Your opinion is that voters are going to turn on the EPA and allow clean water and air standards be weakened?
Votes have consequences. If Brown wants to push his Republican bonafides on EPA issues, here’e the warning shot that they are going to come after him. Being the Jr. Senator from MA, it’s not going to go over well. Just a gentle nudge to look elsewhere in making Republicans happy.
Brown’s vote is obviously wrong-headed, and will hopefully come back to bite him, since I don’t believe that the people of MA are as anti-gubmint as he apparently does. But this ad is the equivalent of saying “Scott Brown hates children and wants them to suffer. Also, he beats puppies and likes to drown kittens.” Nobody really believes that, so it’s not going to have much effect, IMHO.
actually do have an effect on kids. We used to have lead all over the place; now we don’t. That makes a difference.
I’ve got an old ad from a magazine about how great lead is …. I’m going to scan it and upload it.
note an election campaign ad, it’s an issue ad.
It’s pretty simply: if , like Scott Brown, you cannot even bring yourself to say that climate change is a real problem that we are causing, and you also oppose both cap and trade and then vote against he only current alternative you are voting to damage the future for children. We seem to have this assumption that it’s possible to get away with being a ‘nice guy’ and discount our actual actions. Until Scott Brown is willing to stand up and be counted on this issue a vote for Scott Brown is a vote to destroy the future of the environment. He does not seem to like that reality, and neither, apparently to some of the voters who want to be judged by their feelings.
I thought they were suppose to be non-partisan ?
I always respected the LWV to run debates and informational meeting. This is sad
…Democratic Senator from Missouri, so yes, the league is still non-partisan.
here it is
Never thought of them as an issue advocacy. If you are an “R” from MA or a “D” from “MO” who is supportive of your respective candidate you are not going to be happy.
BTW the ad is misleading, unless I’m mistaken the bill is related to CO2 emissions – which is related to global warming not air pollution.
Votes for McConnell (R) and Rockefeller (D) amendments that I discussed in a previous comment but I’m having trouble finding it to link to as I learn the ropes of BMG 3.0.
And while you are correct that CO2 does not by itself cause health problems (I mean, within reason of course). It is documented to contribute to ground level ozone which, is a problem.
And then there is the secondary piece of this argument, which I think if the ad was totally based on, it would be misleading. CO2 is a pollutant that should be regulated under the Clean Air Act (according to SCOTUS), and one of the best way’s to transition to cleaner forms of energy is to have polluters pay for the pollution they create. So the upshot of the EPA doing what it was mandated to do, is that it spurs investment in clean energy and efficiency.
But a interesting link. But the LWV running this. Something tells me both candidates are going to refuse to debate in a LWV forum. Maybe LWV has changed it’s focus.
Not a debate I want to get into – but CO2 pollution is global. What we do is going to have little or no effect in the big picture, with China burning tons of coal with limited or no pollution control. What we will do is drive more manufacturing jobs overseas to China fueled with electricity from dirty coal plants.
Globe
USA Today
Roll Call
Washington Post
Politico
TPM
AP wire story
CNN
It’s a solid ad, and the noise from Brown’s office since it started running shows that they are very concerned. I only wish they would have fully considered this before the ad started running…
Your link to the “AP Wire Story” doesn’t actually go anywhere. There’s no “href” on the “a”…
Clean Air Defense
Health Care Defense
Money In Elections
Voter Registration and Election Administration
Fair Judiciary
Promoting Global Democracy
What do you think has changed?
Brown’s response
Scott, specifically how was your vote misrepresented? And yes the “allegedly” non-partisan, allegedly, really? Come on Scott your response is to insult. Still waiting for the facts Scotty ……
LOWV response to Scotty:
then there is no room for this kind of discourse.
who really thinks that Sen. Brown wants this little girl to choke? He should be more mindful of the environment, but to suggest that he is responsible for children’s respiratory ailments and is indifferent to them appears irresponsible.
Do you want your Senator that votes against clean air?
Actions matter.