The Globe has a big bio profile on the worst parts of Scott Brown’s upbringing — if you can even call it that. An alcoholic mother; serial abuse by step-parents; being shuttled off to live with relatives who couldn’t deal with him; on and on. A lot of the details are predictably disputed by the parties involved, and indeed Brown may be remembering his childhood in a self-serving way — which is probably pretty typical of childhood memories, not a particular criticism of him. If a fraction of this stuff is actually true, it’s a hell of a story, and a hell of a journey.
And it’s not mutually exclusive that Brown was a rebellious, pain-in-the-ass kid and that he was abused and neglected. Holy smokes… bitterness, a bad attitude and a chip on your shoulder would be the least of your problems with what he had going on. It’s amazing that he didn’t end up with a drug addiction, in prison, or both.
I met then-State Senator Brown a few years ago, and found him to be a gentleman.He obviously has a successful family and professional life. Under the circumstances, that’s amazing, and I sincerely wish him the best luck in the world…
… Except in this Senate race.
We get caught up in celebrity politics in our culture. We want to vote for good, honest, and faithful people; and by voting for them we imagine we’re helping them along the way in their careers. This is all true as far as it goes.
But a politician is a public servant. Good is as good does, and we vote based on their voting record on issues that matter to us. To vote for Barack Obama because you wish for him to succeed, is to put the cart before the horse. One should vote for Obama because one wishes the country to succeed, because one thinks that he will give the country the best chance to do well.
There are any number of jobs that Scott Brown could do well. His record as a US Senator, unfortunately, has not been in the best interests of the country or the Commonwealth.
As a person, he has my sympathy and good will; as a US Senator, I need to support someone else.
Discuss
34 Comments . Leave a comment below.He’s personable. Having seen Elizabeth Warren, I can say she actually seems like someone I would like in person. I’d probably like Brown personally, but right you are, it’s what he does, not who he is, that matters. If it were just a matter of likability, I would have had a harder time deciding between W and Al Gore.
The Boston Globe:
• June 29: A 729-word Op-ed by Scott Brown
• July 01: Sunday Page One 2925-word six -photo article good father and husband – messaging straight out of his campaign
• July 4th: Letter to the Editor by Scott Brown
• August 5: Sunday Page One 4948-word 11-photo article including two basketball shots — a five-column one of him shooting and four-column one on his high-school basketball team about his journey from victimhood to victory, pretty much a summary of his book. In other words, the story he wants you to know.
For contrast- Boston Globe on Elizabeth Warren’s heritage:
• May 1, 2012: 931 words (including Brown’s assertions)
• May 3, 2012: 615 words (including Brown;s assertions)
• May 5, 2012 798 words – Negative op-ed
• May 5, 2012 990 words – Negative story on page 1
• May 10, 2012 708 words – Negative op-ed
• May 10, 2012 640 words Negative Metro column
• May 11, 2012 945 words – Negative Metro article
• May 15, 2012 1145 words (Headline is “Brown and Warren honing messages” but whole piece is about Cherokee issue)
• May 17, 2012 769 words op-ed that mentions it
• May 18 Op-ed cartoon
• May 25 1510-word article
• May 30 657-word Metro column
• May 30 1253 word-article
• Jun 1, 2012 1166-word Metro column
• Jun 4, 2012 1010-word article
• Jun 5, 2012 728-word negative Op-ed
• Jun 5, 2012 548-word negative Op-ed
• Jun 12, 2012 695 word- negative op-ed
As for Brown’s likeability, The Globe has that covered,too.
Glen Johnson wrote a 754-word piece on the topic in the Metro section on April 22nd. The headline was:
Brown banks on likability, but Warren has room to grow
and in it was this paragraph:
“Whatever the reason, US Senator Scott Brown is a likable sort, a Republican who even some Massachusetts Democrats supported when he won a special election in January 2010.”
According to whom Glen?
I can’t tell whether the front-page piece is a hit piece or a puff piece.
None of it informs anybody about who will be the better Senator. Nothing about how his experiences (if true) inform his politics, his philosophy, or even his integrity.
I note that ALL of the people around him discount or outright reject his descriptions of what happened.
I’m not saying that I don’t believe him, necessarily — I’m saying that this piece is yet more human interest fluff that has no business on the front page of a major metropolitan daily.
And even here in deep blue MA, one is enuff. Both come across as know-it-alls, kinda phony, very distant from the people. Neither go on talk shows and take questions from the public, all talk talk talk talk.
The Globe is only doing these Brown pieces for cover when they endorse Prof. Warren. I still thing Obama drags Wrren across the finish line to victory, unless Menino endorses Brown.
Elizabeth Warren gave me the impression that she was pretty genuine. Of course, she was talking to a room full of teachers, but she was energetic and candid and likable.
Her likability also came across in the very hostile St. Paddy’s Day Breakfast. The audience was prepared and maybe continued to dislike her, but she got them laughing.
Talk shows? The public? Do you follow Scott Brown much?
Takes all sorts of calls, taken one from me. Deval took a call from me not too long ago. Why is she afraid?
Some here don’t even know her position n a carbon tax. Do you?
How about a Town Hall style meeting with his constituents?
Gutless
on a talk radio show with a friendly host and mostly friendly listeners?
Congratulations on reading the Globe this morning. I trust Warren to make the best decision when it comes to the environment. Not say she cares, and then vote with the GOP.
What is her position on the environment? Anyone can say they are for clean energy and less fossil fuel, but will she vote to manipulate the market prices artificially with a carbon tax, in order for alternative energies to be viable? Is she for XL Pipeline or not? Is she for a moratorium on new oil exploration in the Gulf? Let’s get to brass tax on the issues, not hide them from the voters.
Actually, Brown took heat from voters when he supported Dodd/Frank but still being a standup guy, took the slings and arrows. Deval is not afraid to go on, neither is Steve Lynch or Barney Frank. Why is she so chicken? How can she stand up to Jeff Sessions if she can’t take a little old question from me. Callers are not allowed to engage for several minutes, just a question and that is all.
Let me know when she is on Al Sharpton’s show, we will learn a lot, I’m sure.
Go to her website. She has issues statements there as does Sen Brown on his. Instead of letting BMG spoon feed you info that you then question, why not go to a direct source. Scott Brown weakened DF by successfully pushing to cut off the funding source to allow proper oversight. And just how many callers get to talk to the good Senator on such talk shows that filter who they let on? If you seriously want to learn candidate’s stances then some homework from direct sources is in order.
Clicked on energy and read fluff. Nothing about cap and tax. I was told I should facebook to get her position if she supports a carbon tax!!!!!! This is my 10th time asking for her position on this. If nobody here can give me an answer, then that speaks volumes about her. I know where Scotto stands.
Not sure what DF is. As far as callers, the number taken is based on how long they answer a certain question and stay in the studio. Do you think I am a Deval Patrick Kool- Aid supporter? I got through to him and he took my call. I think she can do well, just let her try it. I don’t bite……hard.
She supports the pipeline once environmental concerns are addressed as is the President’s position. She also knows it is not a tremendous job creator in spite of Republican expressions to the contrary. Also it does not bring cheaper oil since the price is set in an international market based on global demand artificially created or not. However she has called for major investment in renewable energy. Perusing Scott Brown’s website the environment is not even mentioned. However there hasn’t been a oil or gas subsidy he hasn’t supported. Again to get specifics you will have to contact her via email on her website or ask in person at some event. Good luck.
At least she is somewhat for the pipeline. Most of us don’t have time to attend an event and hope to ask a question and emails are not my cup of tea. I could call the HQ but they will want a donation or personal info.
She should go on Dan Rea’s show. I guess next time Brown is on the radio, I could ask him if he knows where she stands.
She is an accomplished and respected teacher, researcher, and author. Time and time again she has been recognized for her insightful work. She established the Federal Consumer Protection Agency against major odds. She showed considerable political skill doing this. Words like “know-it-alls” and “kinda phony” are not descriptions that are even close to describing her. Do yourself a favor and go and hear her speak. It might just give you a different take on this committed, intelligent, and empathetic candidate. In the meantime I am reading between the lines that this recent Brown bio is a bit unsettling to supporters. This so called man of the people may be a prevaricator.
business people have approached her to say only she can save capitalism, is somewhat delusional, borderline inferiority complex. Again, she needs to step out of her comfort zone, out of the lecture auditorium, and take some questions from real people.
“…she needs to step out of her comfort zone, out of the lecture auditorium, and take some questions from real people.”
She hasn’t been talking to real people? She’s only ever in lecture auditoriums? You seem to have a desperate need to see here as inaccessible.
people, Mr. Lynne. Just ask Dr. Phil–I mean, Dan.
go to a public gathering and she will answer any questions you have if you get to a microphone. She is around enough in meet the voters events that this should be possible. Instead of whining in whatever liquid you drink decide first hand instead of off hand. As for Scott Brown bolstering capitalism his financial industry supporters were a large part of our present problems. How come you don’t call him out? Sen Brown is not speaking at the Republican Convention and has not appeared prominently with Mitt Romney. He obviously chooses to avoid displaying his Republican views since they are poison with Massachusetts voters.
The fact is that since Scott Brown became Senator, Kerry has had at least 5 open town halls where he has answered all questions asked. Scott Brown has had none. If Brown does not have town halls when he up for reelection, when will he EVER have them.
In addition, Kerry has always had press availabilities where he answered any question asked – here’s a link to one from this week – http://www.jkmediasource.org/node/195 that I found on the internet. Brown has not done these open forums with press that I can find. (I did find an extensive BG interview from early in his time as a Senator — and I can understand why he is nowhere as comfortable as Kerry answering press questions in public – http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/05/09/transcript_from_the_interview_with_scott_brown
As to radio talk shows, it does not take a genius to know that even in Massachusetts most of talk radio leans to the right. Even so, Kerry has called in to talk radio – he was on the Imus show last week – speaking of his support – even in 2004 when running for President – to extend the assault weapon ban and making a case for Obama versus Romney – even though Imus openly supports Romney.
As to phony, Kerry is one of the least phony politicians there is. The strange thing is that both Brown and Romney are far more guilty of that charge than Kerry ever was. He has never pretended to be anything other than who he is.
Kerry would not be the highly praised diplomat he is – whether overseas or chairing the SFRC and managing the START treaty if his people skills were not excellent – and he has been praised on both of these even by Republicans such as Lugar, McCain and Corker. Reading many articles on his diplomacy, one thing that stands out is that he is seen as someone who listens and respects others – and it is sad that this is seen as rare among people at his level.
I say hypocrite. I dont find him credible on cutting the deficit, in fact, I knew Obama was not serious when JFK was named on the debt commission a couple years ago. He has been in the senate since 83 and I can’t name any bill he championed that became law. What Kerry bill is the law of the land, good or bad?
and Obama did not assign who was on it. I actually watched the public hearings online. I completely disagree with you on Kerry’s seriousness – as it was very clear that he was serious. In fact, many on the left were concerned that he might be too eager to find a grand compromise. He was excellent in explaining why they didn’t find a compromise. The reason was that none of the Republicans would agree with any real tax increases. Kerry’s seriousness on this issue goes back to Kerry as a Freshman being the only New England Democratic Senator who voted for Gramm/Rudman – which forces legislation to have offsets to balance new costs.
It neither made sense or was fair to cut the deficit totally by cutting programs that aid those with the least and to cut Medicare and Social Security – betraying the promises made when the personal deductions for them were raised in the 1980s to insure enough was there for the babyboomers’ retirement. The “surplus” from that actually funded things in the general budget – such as the Reagan tax cuts and the later Bush tax cuts.
As to his life style, he married Teresa Heinz and all but the Boston home belong to her and are the legacy that will pass to her sons. Teresa actually led by example in Pittsburgh by building a “green” office for her foundation and ensuring that the convention center there that she among others funded was green. Both have worked for decades to push the development of alternative energy.
Kerry won election to the Senate in 1984 – and became a Senator in 1985. Many bills that aid veterans were cosponsored by McCain and Kerry – and per McCain’s book, Kerry was the author of them. I assume that you approve of them. In addition, Kerry wrote the legislation that was incorporated into the Patriot Act that allows the government to “follow the money” in tracking non-state terrorists. He wrote it as a bill after his investigation of BCCI in the 1990s, but it was then blocked by Senators on both sides who were allies of the banks. This was the element of the war on terror that had the most success in the Bush years. Kerry was also the Senator that wrote the legislation that became the bill to fight AIDS in Africa. He succeeded in getting Frist to agree to cosponsor it and Frist got Bush behind it.
In 2010, the Kerry/Baucus amendment made it a little harder to shelter money in the Cayman Islands and other places – and almost as important, it was the funding that offset the cost of the small business stimulus measures that were the main goal of the legislation. Kerry and Snowe wrote and passed many small business bills. There are also several foreign policy bills that are listed as Kerry/Lugar.
The 2004 canard that he didn’t write legislation that passed relied on misusing the Senate record. Only bills that had a rollcall vote counted and they only counted if your name was first. This misses bills that are introduced and sent to a committee and then become law as part of a committee bill. You might note that Scott Brown’s insider trading bill fails this. His and Gillibrand’s versions of the several years old House bill were sent to committee – his name is not listed as the first sponsor – Lieberman’s is.
But I recall Howard Dean hitting him in a debate out this issue, and he gave the smug answer about Howard not knowing how the senate works, and that he (Kerry) worked behind the scenes. Lame if you ask me.
A perfect description of your entire line of argument, Dan.
This thread is about the Globe’s depiction of Brown and somehow you manage to make it about your ill informed view of Kerry’s legislative accomplishments.
Can you please, just stick to the topic at hand?
bait. Having seen this, I will not respond to any further Dan responses.
Warren, who was instrumental in defining the consumer bureau really has the potential to be an excellent Senator. It is interesting watching the committee hearings because it is possible to see that some Senators are pretty useless after the initial questions that their staff likely wrote and others are very good pursing discussions based on the responses they get.
it was very informative. Unfortunately, Dan has never met a topic he couldn’t change.
of a collaborative body. Making your “piece” a part of a comprehensive bill is a good way to get things passed that help people. Sometimes that may be done in committee and sometimes even on the floor of the Senate.
In early 2005, Kerry got two very meaningful pieces of legislation passed by presenting them on the floor of the Senate when a defense bill was being discussed. One was a bill that would allow a widow of a serviceman to stay in military housing for a year. He explained that military families asked him for it because of the hardship of having to move quickly after losing a spouse, This does not show up as a bill with a rollcall because Senator Warner, the Republican chairing the committee agreed to accept it into the main bill.
I don’t fault Dean. Every candidate uses what helps them and all the others argued that Dean as a Governor had no foreign policy experience. (In Dean’s case, not being in the Senate let him slide a more aggressive fall 2002 position to a very antiwar one by early 2003 – which benefited him in the primary.)
In 2005, there was a very interesting example where insisting your name be on the bill could limit your ability to help. Immediately after Katrina, Kerry and his staff wrote a small business bill that was modeled after the 911 small business bill – written by Kerry and Snowe – to help people hurt by the hurricane. It was introduced as Kerry/Landrieau. It then became Snowe/Kerry when it went to the committee where Snowe was the chair. When it came up for a vote, on CSPAN it was listed as Snowe/Kerry then changed to Snowe/Vitter because otherwise it could not get the needed Republican votes. Kerry took his name off the bill and the bill passed with something like 70 votes.
…as he did after all win his last elections pretty convincingly, though if anything Warren is better. I thought it was Brown who had trouble taking questions from the public; I’ve seen Warren do it plenty. Your first paragraph is speaking for yourself, which is fine, but please don’t try to imply you speak for others unless you can back it up with a poll.
It is a habit that Democrats are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt in political battles. Some notable exceptions like Harry Reid’s accusations aside. However too much has been put in the public arena to dismiss Scott Brown’s possible propensity to embellish. Unless there is a family conspiracy against him I counted 7 people who challenged his version of his life events in the Globe article. Matching this with his baseless smearing of Elizabeth Warren, his faux audiences with Kings and Queens, and his “I’ve seen the pictures” of OBL this is beginning to present a pattern that is quite troubling. His support of the Blunt amendment giving employer’s control of a person’s health and his snide remark about Elizabeth Warren’s appearance seem like flashbacks revealing some real personality problems. My tendency is to let the media sort this all out now that there is blood in the water . If there are exaggerations, vengeful distorted memories, or outright lies that are substantively given more credence then he is unfit for his office. He becomes unreliable and untrustworthy. I suspect this is not the end of this bio examination so we’ll have to wait for Chapter Two.
I will never completely buy the Scott Brown “story.” His votes show he is not a “regular guy.” Besides, why is it relevant? How much of Clinton’s story did he where on his sleeve?
In fact he may be an “irregular guy.”
I really hate soap operas and reality shows.
The only thing that the Senator’s challenges – which are hardly unique – in childhood tell me, is that he is oddly disconnected with policies that help humanity.
Can we not make more noise about the state’s primary media outlet’s ‘propensity to lean toward entertainment and away from solid news journalism?
How about analysis of policy? D’uh!?!?
I saw all of this on the 60 minutes interview, it’s why I tried not to make fun of him for the modeling since he came from nothing and has become something due to that job and I’m sure plenty of menial ones along the way. A friend of mine in the Guard and Cambridge Fire Department a his brother in the Police department all tell me Brown is a nice and down to Earth guy. Why infuriates me is that someone from this background is trying to pull the latter behind him and demonizing the very class of people he came from as “moochers”. In the case of Brown especially, he didn’t build that and government was there every step from the welfare and healthcare that kept him fed and healthy when times were tough to the judge that have him a second chance. Brown and I have a lot in common, we come from New England white working class, had moms on welfare, and we’re the first kids in our family to go to college. The difference is with my sister still on Section 8 and my parents living off of SSI and SSD there is no way I’d have his voting record if I was a Senator-Conways never forget where they came from but apparently Browns do.
Until he produces documentation.
That’s what he demanded from Elizabeth Warren regarding what her parents told her about her heritage. If that’s his measure of what is ‘believable’, why shouldn’t he be held to the same standard?
If it’s our guy it’s good.
If it’s the other guy it’s crap.
If you think humble beginnings (and trials and tribulations) are important then Brown beats Warren in this category. I think they are both pretty much in the same part of the socio-economic spectrum today.
If you don’t think so, then in Romney v. Obama you’ll be making your mind up on other issues. Has anyone noticed that Romney is not just rich but super-rich (joke)? I think the Globe has covered that extensively.
As far as the Globe’s coverage of Brown- Warren it’s like the old game of Kremlin watching- you watch a lot of confusing signs and then guess.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 22 May 5:14 AM