Scott Brown should stop running down Tufts and B.C. Law

Listening to Scott Brown talk, you’d think Tufts College, where he graduated cum laude, and Boston College Law School, where he received his J.D., were one-room schoolhouses with dirt floors presided over by Beulah Balbricker. “You know what, listen, bottom line is, you know, I didn’t go to Harvard,” he told WZLX this month, right after mocking Elizabeth Warren for being a middle-aged woman.

In fact, Tufts and Boston College Law are extremely prestigious, elite schools with sterling international reputations. They are gems of the Commonwealth, our country, and the world. Tufts is ranked #28 among national universities, and #58 worldwide. It costs $41,998 a year to attend. Boston College Law School ranks in the top 15 law schools in the country for job placements, and #28 overall among the hundreds of law schools nationwide. Its admissions standards are exceptionally rigorous: just 18% of applicants were admitted last year. It costs $41,590 a year to attend. As the school says of itself, “Boston College Law School is among the top few law schools in the country in the number of applications it receives, and has an overall applicant-to-acceptance ratio that is among the most selective in the nation.”

Scott Brown should stop posing as a reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln, studying law by candle light in a home-made cabin on Plum Island, and admit who he is: an elite Republican lawyer educated at two of the Commonwealth’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning.

Recommended by massmarrier, heartlanddem.



Discuss

56 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Killed to get in

    I got into U Chicago which is now ranked #3 overall by USNWR and is the second most expensive college. That said, I was still rejected by Tufts and BC undergrad during my senior year of high school and would kill to get into the Fletcher School or BC Law and/or Business now. Scott Brown is the worst kind of poseur, not only is his working class hero schtick old and transparently false (how many working Joes model Armani for a living?) but also unaligned with his consistent anti-worker rhetoric. Both Brown and Warren should be proud they overcame humble circumstances to attend elite institutions, I sure am, my parents and older siblings never finished college and I got to graduate from the third best in the country and that does not make me an elitist-that makes me an American. His attacks have backfired so far, and hopefully people recognize that action speaks louder than words and the only difference between the two is that unlike Brown, Warren does not want to pull the ladder up from under her. In fact she hopes to widen it and make it more accessible to even more Americans-hardly an elitist and an egalitarian ethos virtually extinct from our modern political discourse.

  2. Tuition question

    Bob,

    I agree with your general point, but your tuition numbers are apples and oranges. You use the raw tuition number from Tufts, but the tuition plus living expenses number from BC Law…

    BC Law tuition: $41,590

    Tufts tuition: $41,998

    • I stand corrected

      And have updated the post to include your more accurate numbers. Thanks. As we agree, the point remains unchanged.

    • And was Tufts always so expensive?

      I think it was a lot cheaper back in the 80′s, relative to other schools and certainly relative to now. What was the tuition when Brown went there?

    • Backwards day

      Obviously, there is a moron on the loose downrating factual contributions. So on this thread one should take thumbs downs as high compliments.

  3. Not the very worst kind of poseur, surely!

    In fact, Senator Fratboy is not much of a _poseur_ at all, apart from the _Cosmopolitan_ wild oats of long ago.

    He who, or that which, sits in The People’s Seat (Pat. Pend.) does not merit bein’ described with so active a verb as “to pose.” Some more passive expression is wanted. “Passive-aggressive,” maybe, but in any case passive. Not a poser, but a product, is Fratboy.

    Lots of other raw material could have been worked up into as quite good a placeholder, or a better one.

    Were I myself among the Funders of Fratboy (LLC), I believe I would be feelin’ a certain disappointment at this point: “To be sure,” might I reflect, “Nobody could have known in advance that our product would have to go up against the Wicked Witch of Wall Street, herself not unlavishly funded out of carpetbags alarmin’ly similar to our own. [*] Nevertheless, it was never reasonable to assume that General Coakley is the worst that Lieberalism an’ Demonocracy can come up with out there in the former Kennedistan.”

    Happy days.
    –JHM

    ___
    [*] “That Ms. Lizzie Warrenbuffet’s level of national fundin’ should be available to any pol outside of America’s Otherparty is a scandal, a plain violation of Natural Whight. Unfortunately it is not technically illegal. Worse, I do not see how it can be made so.

    “Let our AEIdeologues an’ our Heritagitarians look into this matter at once! What we require is twofold: (A) naturally dollars must be permitted to vote–¿why should organisms have all the fun?– but (B) not to vote against the Party of ‘Votes for Dollars!’ Reaction is not a suicide pact, after all.

    “Things looked bad when Franklin Roosevelt became a traitor to Our Class, but not as bad as they will be if Benjamin Franklin does the same an’ gets away with it.”

  4. but he won't

    Scott Brown should stop posing as a reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln, studying law by candle light in a home-made cabin on Plum Island, and admit who he is: an elite Republican lawyer educated at two of the Commonwealth’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning.

    You can call him out all you want, but this is this sort of thing that helped get him elected last time and pressure from BMG to stop it isn’t going to make him stop. Instead, we should realize that this will be a key part of his strategy and the Dem candidates should be working on effective strategies to counter it.

    • Of course

      My post was more aimed at the corporate media who read BMG to remind them of this hypocrisy, and less at Scott Brown himself. He is far too skilled a politician to be concerned with calls for honesty, and far too practiced a poser to interrupt his act. That said, reality has a way of asserting itself, and the more frequently and loudly the facts are put before folks, the more they have a chance of being heard. Finally, I like and admire Tufts and BC, and it annoys me to see Scott Brown try to scrape them off his shoe, as it were.

  5. Every politican creates a story about themselves that is not all that accurate

    The President first and foremost.

    His unusual upbringing and the way he portrayed his background now come to light in his interactions with people.

    His African-American base is restive, and he can’t figure what to say (take off your bedroom slippers?) because he shares little of their experience.

    Or the fact that he portrays himself as a devout Christian, but since being in office apparently rarely attends church. That’s fine, but he acted like a big churchgoer during the campaign.

    He hardly ever talks about his time in Kansas which is the point that most of us can relate to. Why is that?

    Maybe he should admit that he is not “one of the people” but actually shares more characteristics of of the top 1% in this country than the common folk.

    The fact that he’s not super rich now if just a matter of timing. The Clintons quickly went from middle class to super rich in a couple years and the Obamas will as well.

    I don’t see the point in all the calling out of Scott Brown to basically change a positive (in his view)impression that people have of him. Why would he want to do that?

    • What "time in Kansas" are you talking about?

      His mother was born in Kansas, and his grandparents spent time there (obviously, since that is where his mother was born) but Obama himself grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia and then went to college in Los Angeles and New York. If you have reality-based information to share, please do so. Otherwise, for surreality-based discussions you may find this site of interest.

    • oh please...

      Or the fact that he portrays himself as a devout Christian, but since being in office apparently rarely attends church. That’s fine, but he acted like a big churchgoer during the campaign.

      “big churchgoer” aside, I’ve never heard him describe himself as ‘devout’.

      Given that his wife can’t even pop out to Target without bringing down an unrighteous host of criticism, respect for even the concept of church might lead the family to stay in the White House and save any particular church the bother… I dunno, but I do know that, under those circumstances even I’d stay home. And I do consider myself devout.

    • Yup, I thought so...

      Or the fact that he portrays himself as a devout Christian, but since being in office apparently rarely attends church. That’s fine, but he acted like a big churchgoer during the campaign.

      Obama woships at Camp David Chapel, just like Bush did.

      So perhaps you should just keep you mouth shut on things you don’t know about…

  6. What else has he got?

    after all.

  7. If he plagiarized at either...

    He probably wouldn’t have lasted long at either school if he was caught plagiarizing there like he was caught plagiarizing as a U.S. Senator earlier this month.

  8. "The former Kennedistan"

    ROTFLMAO!!!!! Much better than “Taxachusetts.” I live in NYS now and we hold that title along with our 27 rings. Can you create a new moniker for us too? We definitely need one.

  9. Correction amd reassertions

    Okay so I’m wrong about Kansas but with sites like this out there: http://obamakansasheritage.org

    it can happen.

    I’m not wrong about the church. They rarely go to Camp David. The article you sent is from 2009.

    It’s the WHITE HOUSE that claimed he was devout.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41265.html

    I assume you think the Christian Science Monitor (and a 2011 article) is an acceptable source on his churcch attendance.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0424/Easter-Sunday-Where-did-Obama-go-to-church

    My point is still valid that ALL politicians create an image, and calling on them to dispute parts of that image to make themselves look bad is stupid.

    PS. Like the “shut your mouth quote.” Wouldn’t a more accurate request be “stop moving your figners?”

    • It's a perfectly valid point in general terms

      I agree that “shut your mouth” adds nothing to the discussion.

      The point of this thread, however, is that Scott Brown should applaud Tufts and BC, not treat them with disdain. In effect, he is positioning himself as an anti-education, anti-learning candidate in line with his Tea Party base. This is a theme of the GOP presidential race as well, as noted by candidate John Huntsman and others. The Republican Party is becoming the party of opposition to science and reason.

      • not what was said...

        I agree that “shut your mouth” adds nothing to the discussion.

        In an attempt to avoid adding further nothings to the conversation I suggested that the poster keep his mouth shut about things he demonstrably knows little… I stand by that. This is decidedly different than the outrightly censorious ‘shut your mouth’.

    • In spite of MerrimackGuy's

      inaccuracies, he has a point:

      My point is still valid that ALL politicians create an image…

      That’s true. A large part of most politician’s biographies are fictional in that they emphasize, de-emphasize, and/or omit certain details. Even with public figures with the best of intentions, public personas are not equal to the actual person. If you’ve ever known a public figure as a member of the public, and then more intimately, you know the complicatedness of political biography. Political life involves creating an image or story not in the least because the public can’t deal with the complexity of the truth, and political opponents and the media won’t let them.

      MG is wrong, however, when he says,

      calling on them to dispute parts of that image to make themselves look bad is stupid

      .

      It’s not stupid. It is Politics 101: a candidates primary goal is to define himself; his secondary goal is to define his opponent. Brown defines himself, and as partisans, we try to define Brown. Calling on him to dispute his image is just a tactic. (Incidentally, the GOP does it all the time). Does it lead to them doing so? Of course not. Does it affect public discourse? To some extent.

      • hmm...

        It’s not stupid. It is Politics 101: a candidates primary goal is to define himself; his secondary goal is to define his opponent. Brown defines himself, and as partisans, we try to define Brown. Calling on him to dispute his image is just a tactic. (Incidentally, the GOP does it all the time). Does it lead to them doing so? Of course not. Does it affect public discourse? To some extent.

        I agree that this is done all the time. I do not agree that it is ‘politics 101.’ I think it is weak campaign tactics 101.

        Whether they would admit to it or not, Republicans believe in ‘charismatic leadership’ and what follows from this is a sort of charismatic vs uncharismatic meta-debate that occurs periodically: For instance the 2006 Mass Governors debate featuring Kerry Healey and Deval Patrick wasn’t, per se, about Healy vs Patrick but ended up being Kerry Healeys’ un-charismatic version of Deval Patrick vs the real Deval Patrick. Healey lost. In 2004 a similar dynamic occurred when George W Bushes version of John Kerry went toe-to-toe with the real John Kerry. Bush won. The idea is to create a very un-charismatic, even anti-charismatic, totem to run against. merrimackguy is even trying out a micro-version of this by injecting some dubious claims about Obama into a discussion of Scott Brown.

        I think it is to Charlie Bakers credit that he did not run this sort of campaign in 2010… but that just highlights the fact that when Republicans run straight up campaigns they lose to Democrats almost all the time. When Romney ran against Kennedy in ’94, when Weld ran against Kerry in ’96 and when Clinton ran against Dole in ’96 they put forth pretty straightforward, clearly policy based, campaigns that pivoted on issues. They lost. I do not think that Democrats, as a rule, rely on this sort of tactics, mostly because the futility they’ve experienced fighting against it, in 2004, 2006, etc.. Certainly, I can’t recall any campaign in which the Republican had to contend with any such doppleganger created by the Democrats.

        The other weak campaign tactic often used by Republicans is to outrightly lie about policy and ability, as in Bush in 2000 and Romney in 2002.

        • Petr, I agree it's a weak tactic.

          So what? But I’m not sure what you mean by weak. Lying about policy and ability is effective, but, I think we would both agree, wrong.

          Nit-picking about Scott Brown’s record may not be highly effective, but if the assertions are true, I don’t think it’s immoral. Furthermore, a Democratic candidate is not using this tactic. BMG is.

          I guess I’m missing your point.

          • I'm not so sure that you should agree that it is weak

            As it has been used to pound Democrats into dust for some decades now.

            More like, we hate that one because it is usually quite effective for the other team.

            • You're right. I don't

              like the word “weak.” I think calling on candidates to rebut their own biographies is not necessarily that effective, but not every tactic is very effective.

              The problem with the Democrats is that, like Obama, they tend to ignore attacks on their self-definition (to be above the fray) and then fail to define their opponents. In other words, Dems have tended to fail Politics 101. The GOP, on the other hand, understands these political basics and has largely taken the low road with them. Democrats have lost for the last 30 years by thinking they can campaign on policy. But both the GOP and the media will make the contest about “character,” not policies.

              Obama has failed politically for the last 3 years in defining himself and interfering with other Democrats’ vision of who they are (e.g. throwing SSI & Medicare into a debt reduction deal). Whatever Obama’s policy victories–and we’ll have to see what lasts—he’s a political failure as President.

              • Yes

                And just so.

                Aaron Sorkin, God bless him, had a long rumination on this in the West Wing, in which the the Ron Silver character compared the typical campaign stance of Democrats to “cringing in the corner and pleading ‘please don’t hurt me’” and the more lefty staffers appalled at what they viewed as his low road tactics. At the time, this was a reaction to the perceived “lowness” of Clinton’s approach.

                Sing it, Ella: What a difference a [decade] makes.

                PS, it should be noted that Gingrich is STILL bleeding from where Clinton shivved him, and that Eric Cantor is not bleeding.

                • The thing I hate about Obama

                  is his refusal to play politics, and then when he tries to do so, plays them badly.

                  If he played a good game and lost to the GOP, I’d have no complaints. If he came off the field with dirt on his uniform, I’d have no problems. But he’s not. He’s sitting upstairs with John Henry thinking about how to improve the numbers and forgetting about the game.

                  • I think that is a fair criticism

                    I don’t mean this in the gleeful way that it might be interpreted by seascraper or porcupine, but in this he bears more than a passing resemblance to Carter, who came across as weak for many of the same reasons.

                    Say what you might about Clinton, but he was never weak, even when he should have been.

    • you have no basis for your claims.

      My point is still valid that ALL politicians create an image, and calling on them to dispute parts of that image to make themselves look bad is stupid.

      The FACTS that Obama has STATED around his Christianity is a clear example of private devotion and a desire to avoid intrusion upon others public worship. it is YOU who has refused to take him at face value, preferring instead to create a different image and then use that false image to attempt aspersions upon Obama, in a clear effort to detract, distract and disrupt upon a conversation about Scott Brown.

      Like the “shut your mouth quote.”

      You can neither quote me accurately, nor apparently make accurate use of quotation marks. I did not say “shut your mouth”. I said, “keep your mouth shut on things you don’t know about.” It’s good advice. You should take it.

      • Way to go playing

        the arrogance card there, Petr.

        I usually disagree with MG including much of what he says here about Scott Brown, but I don’t think he was being disingenuous in the examples he cited. Wrong, perhaps, but not intentionally obfuscating.

        You sound like Deputy Dawg, “Don’t go away mad, muskrat, just go away.”

        • Hello...

          I usually disagree with MG including much of what he says here about Scott Brown, but I don’t think he was being disingenuous in the examples he cited. Wrong, perhaps, but not intentionally obfuscating.

          He was both factually wrong and drawing distinctly disengenuous conclusions from his factual errors. And he was doing so in a deliberate attempt to distract from the conversation about Brown. What do you call that?

          • I call that your

            misinterpretation. Even he agreed he was factually wrong on one point. He was trying practice something called argument by analogy. It didn’t work IMHO, but I didn’t see any evidence for his being disingenuous. Aside from your implied ability to read his mind, where’s your evidence?

            • misinterpretation. Even he agreed he was factually wrong on one point. He was trying practice something called argument by analogy. It didn’t work IMHO, but I didn’t see any evidence for his being disingenuous. Aside from your implied ability to read his mind, where’s your evidence?

              I didn’t read his mind, I read his actions: argument by analogy only works if the analogy is neutral, correct and germane. Choosing Obama as the analogy, positing (incorrect) arguments and doubling down when called upon the factual errors, positing more factual errors, compiling elisions, in addition to the snark, is transparently acting disengenously.

              If he was interested in a workable analogy that would highlight his point about Scott Brown he would have chosen other than Obama and worked to bring the analogy and that point back to Scott Brown. Instead, he chose to (incorrectly) impugn Obama and get snippy about it when called on it.

  10. It's this line that I was focusing on....

    “…an elite Republican lawyer educated at two of the Commonwealth’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning.”

    and while I do not dispute that Tea party people provided support to Brown, they really are few in number in this state. There were a lot of regular people out there with signs.

    I don’t think Brown runs from elitism either. He is supported by moneyed interests in this state, just different ones from the Dems. His fundraisers are (at this time) costly affairs that the TPers are not going to be at.

    Your perception of him (based on a couple media lines)may be that he’s downplaying his background, but he’s married to a TV person, has a semi-famous daughter, has been on a book tour, so it’s not exactly a secret that he and his family are doing pretty well.

    • Oh come on, MG.

      “I didn’t go to Harvard.” The truck. The jacket. It’s all an act. The guy is desperate to prevent people from realizing that what Bob said is true: he overcome a tough childhood – and kudos to him for that – to attend some of the country’s most elite educational institutions; to spend some time as a model where he got to hang out in some of society’s most exclusive enclaves, rubbing elbows with celebs the likes of which most of his constituents couldn’t dream of getting within 100 yards of; and finally to achieve the dream of becoming a member of the most exclusive 100-member club in the country. You say “I don’t think Brown runs from elitism.” But the entire public record proves the exact opposite – in fact, he runs screaming from it.

      • And, to be clear,

        I’m certainly not knocking Brown for having achieved what he’s achieved. It’s a great American success story of which he should be proud.

      • Some Shameless Self-Promotion

        He poses. ALL THE TIME!

      • You really should just adopt a different word

        to distinguish between “elitism” when spoken by a liberal:

        (Hi, I am Scott Brown, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht. I am a member of the Somerset Club AND the Alogonquin Club. I use the word “summer” as a verb.)

        and when spoken by a conservative:

        (Hi, I grew up in a condemned tenement and went to UMass Boston before I went to Harvard, but I am now your government representative and as such I am here to provide you with some simple instructions on (i) where you should live; (ii) how you should commute to work; (iii) what you should eat (you need to be saved from Fluff and soda so you don’t poison your children out of sheer ignorance); (iv) where and how you shall educate your children; (v) your child-rearing decisions, (vi) whether you shall be able to borrow money; (vii) how you might borrow money; (viii) whether you shall be allowed to do things in your free time that I do not approve, such as playing slots; etc., etc., etc. You need me to do these things, you see, because you are just so fucking stupid. But you’re cute! And I’d have a beer with you, if you had brains enough to think of anything other than the cheap swill that Budweiser sells as “beer.” So, vote your economic interests and vote for me, you moron. Its for your own good, moron.

        You’re just talking about different things, and it is ever so irritating because I think Democrats know they are talking about different things, but pretend otherwise in an effort to scoot (unsuccessfully) past the issue, which has done them harm in the past.

        • I see it a bit differently.

          I think what’s really going on is that conservatives using something like a Harvard affiliation as a proxy for your nanny-statist second example, however detached from reality that association may be. Oh look, that’s exactly what they’re trying to do to Elizabeth Warren.

          • Well, of course they are!

            But that is always what they mean when they say “elitist.” And it resonates quite strongly because it puts a political cast on a pre-existing cultural divide between cosmopolitan, urban, coastal residents, who tend to vote Democratic, and rural “square staters” who either aren’t or are at least up for grabs. This is an enormous obstacle for any Democratic candidate, especially nationally. Clinton was exceedingly good at blowing right through it; John Forbes Kerry was decidedly not so (remember “Manny Ortez”; his pathetic hunting trip; how it was news that he was skiing in Gstad; how the windsurfing picture gained traction; pathetic attempts to “like” NASCAR, etc.).

            The phenomenon exists, at a smaller scale (because the NASCAR vote is smaller and not as essential) here, and Brown played it like a virtuoso last year– with big assists right and left from Coakley.

            As upsetting as it might be, I strongly suspect that they’re going to try to win the election. Of course he will try this play again. Football maxim: if you have a play that gains 25 yards every time, you keep running it until the other side shows they can stop it.

            Warren’s present employer makes her vulnerable on this. Doesn’t matter if it is fair or right. It is, and must be addressed. It remains to be seen whether she can do this without seeming inauthentic. If she can, she has a good chance next November. If she can’t, she’s Coakley.

  11. What about Brown's record of serving his town in political office, and serving in the NG?

    He spent years sitting in meetings listening to townies drone on about this and that issue.

    Then all those years of weekend warrior BS.

    Not very glamorous, but probably good experience for what he needs to do today.

    I don’t think calling Warren names gets anyone anywhere. The same applies to Brown. If it’s a question that “both sides do it” then I guess that’s just a data point about why political discourse is what it is.

  12. One other note......

    I knew someone high up in the Kerry 04 run.

    Every event had specified clothing, and he changed up to seven times a day.

    • LOL

      You’ll forgive me for being a tad reluctant to believe that story, 100% credible though your source no doubt is.

      • Why be reluctant to believe this?

        Wouldn’t you assume everyone running for a significant public office would have consultants on where to go, how to talk, what to wear… at the appropriate time to the appropriate people? Obama with a tie and without, when to say going vs. goin, press shots of him shooting hoops… and certainly Brown and Kerry received similar advice although seven times in one day must have been a very diverse group of audiences for sure.

      • I find it easy to believe...

        … and furthermore I find it easy to believe that ALL campaigns have frequent clothing changes. I do find it extraordinarly difficult to believe that this is wholly specific to Kerry… although Kerry did launch his push for the Iowa caucuses with a marathon 24 hour campaign drive. So I can believe seven changes what with eating at each event, hugging babies, running from event to event regardless of the weather, striving to make sure each photo and camera op, whether nationally or locally, is optimized.

  13. Bob, you're calling Scott Brown an "elite Republican"...

    so, how do you mean this?

    One definition I found on-line…

    Elite –
    a. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status:

    b. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team’s elite.

    There was quite the fuss on BMG when Republicans were calling Elizabeth Warren elite but now you seem to freely use the label. Would you be ready to call John Forbes Kerry (yes, the old money Forbes family), the guy who recently bought a 76 foot, $6 million dollar yacht in New Zealand (not New England) and moors it in RI… a Senator whose new worth puts him #1 richest member of the Senate, educated at Yale, BC Law, lives on Beacon Hill…

    How does he compare to Scott Brown on the “elite” scale?

  14. I don't think there's any question that John Kerry is of the elite.

    I think the objection here is to the notion that Scott Brown is pretending to be something he’s not. The Senate collectively is a very elite body and most credible candidates from both sides come from society’s elite to some extent. This is not to be confused with being an elitist which implies that one looks down on people who are not elite.

    • Exactly and Kerry, to his credit, has never pretended he was not priviledged

      - even in the early years in the Senate when he really did not have the money to afford homes in DC and Boston. The funny thing is that in their adult lives, there were likely more years when Kerry had relatively little money than years when this was true of Brown.

      Even so, Kerry’s background made him the more privileged one with connections to many powerful people.

  15. Patronize and Plagiarize

    Time was abundant in the days of camps Tufts and BC Law with long, leisurely ROTC study weekends and girlfriends to help with papers. No need to plagiarize….that’s only an option when alternate resources like tax funded scholarships and girlfriends are not as readily available and one has to uphold the status of higher office.

  16. Brown is comparing his education with Warren’s position – not legit. Let’s do the straight comparisons. Position: He’s a US Senator, she’s a law school professor – which is more “elite”? Education: He’s Tufts and BC Law; she’s Houston and Rutgers-Newark – which is more “elite”? One’s a champion of consumer protection, the other a champ at bait-and-switch.

  17. Thank you for the polite discourse.

    I realize that many of my views are not popular. I am just here wondering if there actually is no middle ground in the US today, and that’s why Congress is at stalemate.

    I like ELizabeth Warren (from what I had seen of her over the last year on TV).

    But I do like Scott Brown as well. I think he has voted to match the overall sentiments of the state, and that has gotten him flack from both sides. He has to do some things, it’s politics.

    Contrast that with my own rep, Niki Tsongas, who votes to the clear left of her district. That may cheer others (BMG), but it’s not representative of her district.

    I hope that the projected Warren v. Brown race can be about issues.

    So again I appreciate the exchange. Sorry I missed the disctinction earlier between “shut your mouth” and “keep your mouth shut.” :-)

  18. Or he should stop voting against Jobs bills

    The authenticity debate is all in good fun as we continue to learn that a poser Republican is authentic while a poser Democrat is inauthentic, but meanwhile as the media burble on about chicken and beer Scott Brown votes against yet another jobs bill.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Wed 23 Jul 9:47 PM