National media figures are weighing in on Scott Brown’s “Thank God” moment on the radio this morning in which he apparently cast aspersions on Elizabeth Warren’s physical appearance. So far, not looking good.
Taegan Goddard (Political Wire): “A big mistake”
Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo): “Not smart”
Greg Sargent (Washington Post): “A major flashpoint”
Dave Weigel (Slate): “Lazy … Brown needs to do a lot better”
Rob Blackwell (American Banker): “Macaca moment?”
Nick Baumann (Mother Jones): “The worst possible course of action”
Erik Hayden (The Atlantic): “A clichéd response”
Josh Lederman (The Hill): “Unlikely to help him with women voters”
Sean Sullivan (National Journal): “Brown gave Democrats a gift…. Not a smart move, politically…. [S]ure to anger women’s groups and rally the Democratic base towards her side.”
Garrett Quinn (boston.com, formerly Red Mass Group): “Brown’s first major gaffe … Really, really stupid…. Very bad form by Brown.”
Hillary Chabot (Boston Herald): “a misfired zinger that even some conservatives are calling a ‘Biden-level faux pas'”
Now, to be sure, a couple of those (Mother Jones and TPM in particular) are media that are Democrat-friendly. But most of them are more or less impartial observers. I’ve noted before that Brown has a tendency to shoot off his mouth as though he were still a State Senator to whom nobody pays much attention. Looks like he hasn’t gotten over that little problem.
Say, does anyone remember the last time Brown famously said “Thank God” in a public setting? Seems to me it was something about Paul Ryan’s plan to destroy Medicare. Maybe Brown should keep his appeals to the deity to himself in the future.
But the fact is that one wisecrack merits a retort, and you will find that most people will agree that her attempt to be humorous was no better than his. And your choice of citations was the real laugh. Were you seriously implying that the Washington Post, or even the Atlantic, is not “democrat friendly”?
This was a bad move by Brown, Edgar.
nt
So what? What does some ‘attempt to be humorous’ on EWs’ part have, in any way, to do with SB? Such diversions are beneath you edgarthearmenian, you’ve displayed more subtle attacks than this, in the past.
Scott Browns’ “attempt to be humorous” is revelatory: despite what appears to be a strong marriage to a women, parenting two strong daughters, presumably having a mother and representing a liberal Commonwealth, Scott Brown reveals himself to be old-school sexist: not only personally disparaging to EW but displaying a double standard wherein he enjoys status of the ‘hot stud’ for posing nude and she’d be a skanky slut for doing so… The only thing new here is the assumption, in 2011, that this is a surprise.
I don’t think his comments suggest what you suggest were she to pose nude. I think he’s just plain calling her physically ugly.
You don’t do that. Ever.
Do you think a woman who posed nude in the past would not have had much more of an uphill struggle with the electorate than did Scott Brown? I think it’s implicit and clearly so to the extent that should he really not feel that way he wouldn’t have gone there in the first place.
Look, I agree that society at large would judge Elizabeth Warren harshly had she posed nude in a mag for money. I agree that it’s a sexist reality. Where I do not agree is in imposing those general views on Scott Brown’s comments.
As I wrote, I think he called her ugly. I think it was way out of bounds, inappropriate, unprofessional, and I hope that voters — both men and woman — keep it in mind when they formulate their opinions about Senator Brown. I do not think that you can assign more than that, nor do I think it’s necessary. Senator Brown has made it clear he is not a gentleman.
From the interview (posted here, emph mine )
Why is not going to Harvard the bottom line? It’s an implicit call to think EW bad, SB good that pivots on whether or not you can ‘blame a good-looking guy’ (hot stud) over and above what you can blame a women for…
I don’t follow Scott Brown’s comments about Harvard, nor do I follow your comments about his comments. Does not compute.
Here’s the conversation boiled down to it’s essence:
Host: What’s your take on EW saying she didn’t take her clothes off?
SB: Gratitude.
Host: laughter. But can you be blamed for being a hot stud?
SB: Hey, I didn’t go to Harvard.
Going to Harvard doesn’t answer the question but does answer the context, clearly implying an agreement with the sentiment (“can you blame a good looking guy…?”) with a clear condemnation of what SB thinks EW either did or would have done. However, EW neither attended Harvard as a student nor took her clothes off to pay for it… but it’s clear that SB believes both actions to be detrimental to her character and all too easily conflates the two acts. Scott Brown condemns her for what she didn’t do (go to Harvard… she didn’t graduate Harvard, but works there) in the context of the praise he receives for taking his clothes off and the statement she made that she didn’t.
The reason it doesn’t compute for you, or at least it’s my guess, is that you are not sexist nor often exposed to sexist thought. I, unfortunately, have been long exposed and have seen this time and again. Scott Brown, in the wee recesses of his tiny brain, knows too that at heart a sexist he is, but also knows that it doesn’t play well in public so he searches for a substitute condemnation. He’s neither smart enough, nor subtle enough, to perform that context switch with anything approaching dexterity.
So, apparently, is typing…
I’ve noted that the ‘reply’ function in the last comment in the post sometimes (always?) defaults to reply to the post, rather than reply to the comment. This can make threads discontiguous and discussion chaotic. I’m replying to what is, at present, the last comment in the post to see if this is the case.
this is only a test.
this looks like it’s in-thread.
DId the comment box redraw, indented below the comment you are replying to?
Perhaps when the comment box redraws, it could also change something to say “Repling to petr”, or “Leave Comment” if it is not in reply.
I think the comment box should be hidden, with a link to open it that says, “Respond to post” (perhaps have two such links: one at the top right under the post, and one at the way bottom) and then leave the “Reply” button for each comment.
hide the box until a link is clicked.
I vote for “Post A Comment” and “Reply”
And it is on our to do list! 🙂
Maybe they are sick of her getting away with being a “consumer advocate” or “fighter of the banks” and want to bring out her inner feminist, and force her to associate with those pesky women’s groups and Democratic base.
If you are implying only women active in women’s groups will care, you may be off by a huge margin.
This exposes a whiny, “poor Scottie” that is not the ebullient Brown of 2010. Then, he might have laughed and said that it was long ago, it was part of his past, it opened doors for him – including meeting the wife he has had a long, presumably happy marriage with. That would show self confidence and a willingness to accept that it was part of his history – while balancing it by referencing his present life.
Instead – it almost begs people to nit pick it:
Warren was poor. Warren did not go to Harvard. Both went to prestigious colleges on scholarship. It is harder to buy Brown’s poor little Scottie story when you realize that he was a college graduate in a far better economy than now when he posed. I suspect it was the easy good life it immediately gave him – with Studio 54 and beautiful models – one who he married. As a Tufts college graduate, he likely could have gotten a good job or taken loans.
The unemployment rate in MA was 8% and mortgage rates were almost 20%.
The economy is Massachusetts was worse in 1982 than now.
—Scott Brown, speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate, October 4, 2011