Scott Brown’s Statement Has A Familiar Ring

Weak, Scott. But unsurprising. - promoted by david

Remember this?

US Senator Scott Brown said yesterday that he was unaware a top adviser was mocking a potential political rival under a false Twitter account, but Brown added that he has “made clear to everyone on or associated with my team that this type of thing is not to happen again.”

Last August, Scott Brown made a clear statement to his staff that personal attacks is not to happen again after Fehrnstrom was caught attacking Alan Khazei via twitter account “CrazyKhazei”.

Scott Brown’s statement on his “Indian war whoop” and “tomahawk chop” staffers:

Senator Brown has spoken to his entire staff – including the individuals involved in this unacceptable behavior – and issued them their one and only warning that this type of conduct will not be tolerated.

Sorry, but it seems like the exact opposite, you do seem to tolerate this behavior. No staff members have ever been removed for personal attacks nor have you or any of your staff members issued apologies for this type of behavior.

Not sure how anyone could take this seriously, an old rehashed lame press release is not going to cut it.

Recommended by kbusch, RyansTake, petr.


20 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. I find it interesting

    Everyone here seems to be saying that Brown should apologize for his Senate Staff or fire his Senate Staff for their behavior.

    But I read the original post about this. Am I the only one who remembers this part?

    (Also present, though apparently not participating in the whoops and chops, are Greg Casey, Deputy Chief of Staff, (black polo near end of video), Jerry McDermott, State Director, (blue fleece and shades on head), and Jennifer Franks, special assistant, (plaid shirt, beginning).

    Should Brown apologize for or fire his Senate staffers for not participating?

    • you missed one

      Identified in video making the chop are Brown’s Constituent Service Counsel Jack Richard (camoflage shirt)

      This is indeed a Senate staffer, that Brown hired with our taxpayer $.

      • Legal or not

        I find it particularly appalling that someone whose job is specifically to be helping the people of Massachusetts was doing something like that. Constituent services counsel? Is he totally unaware that some of those constituents are Native Americans? And lots are Elizabeth Warren supporters? I don’t have a problem with the guy doing constructive work for hIs boss’s campaign if law allows, as long as it’s not during work hours. But not this. Is Brown’s constituent service, like Mitt Romney’s campaign, writing off even more than 47% of the citizenry?

    • Ever heard of the Hatch act?


      The original Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It forbids officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support.
      It provides that persons below the policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from “any active part” in political campaigns, using this language to specify those who are exempt:[3]
      (i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
      (ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
      The language was crafted so that the Secretary of State is covered by the Act’s restrictions on political activity.[3]
      An amendment on July 19, 1940 extended the Act to certain employees of state and local governments whose positions are primarily paid for by federal funds. It has been interpreted to bar political activity on the part of employees of state agencies administering federal unemployment insurance programs and appointed local law enforcement agency officials with oversight of federal grant funds. The Hatch Act bars state and local government employees from running for public office if any federal funds support the position, even if the position is funded almost entirely with local funds.[4]

      • Sorry, Charlie,

        Allegator tears

        but really, ’tis wiser not to count one’s boobies before they are Hatched:

        As to congressional staff working on campaigns, there are no Federal statutes, regulations or rules which specifically prohibit employees of the House of Representatives from engaging in general campaign activity. The broad prohibition against campaign activity by executive branch personnel, known as the “Hatch Act”, is not applicable to congressional employees. Thus, apart from certain restrictions in the area of campaign contributions and solicitations, House employees may participate in partisan campaign activities. There do, however, exist broad ethical guidelines which direct that House staff fulfill their official congressional duties for which they receive compensation from the Government. Consequently, congressional employees should not engage in campaign activities to the neglect of their official duties; and once they have fulfilled their official duties, they are then generally free to engage in partisan campaign activity.

        Happy days.

        • Thanks for the clarification and Thurber

          love it.

        • Just for clarification,

          while it’s correct that the Hatch Act does not cover employees of the legislative branch, the link you sent explains guidelines for House employees. The Senate ethics guidelines are here. They include this:

          “Senate employees are free to engage in campaign activity, as volunteers or for pay, provided they do so on their own time.”

          So it appears that if the rally was at night or on a weekend, Senate office staffers would be OK to attend. If they are working part-time in the office and only getting paid a part-time salary, then Senate staff would be OK to attend rallies during work hours. Otherwise, it’s not permitted to be doing campaign events during work time, unless I suppose someone has some kind of approved flexible schedule, but then they’d have to show that they’re still putting in a full workweek on government business in addition to campaigning.

    • The fish rots from the head.

      The voters will take care of the firing that needs to done.

  2. You're right.

    I did miss one. I don’t know Jack Richard. I watched the video multiple times and didn’t see any Senate Staffers that I knew.

    However it has been reported that multiple Senate Staffers took part. That is simply not the case.

    Oh. BTW. Since I am sure Bob or David will mention it…I did take part. But then again I’m not a Brown Senate or even campaign staffer.

  3. I thought it was ILLEGAL ...

    I am under the impression that it is ILLEGAL for federal employees to participate in campaign events while on the job. What am I missing?

  4. But--Boys will be boys

    We were just funnin’ around, teacher.

    Gee, who knew that Miz Warren was such a crybaby?

    Anyone else see a pattern here?

  5. Devil's Advocate

    I got to thinking about what I might write if I were trying to defend Sen. Brown’s staffers. So playing conservative for 5 minutes, I think this is what they’d say:

    Is the Art of Satire Dead?

    Yes, yes, yes, moonbats, I know that war hoops and tomahawk chops are not what real Native Americans do. But that’s the point isn’t it? Senator Brown is pretending to be Native American.

    But she isn’t.

    So being a fake Indian, we acted like fake Indians to bring home the point.

    fake-kbusch @ Thu 27 Sep 9:38 PM

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Fri 28 Apr 9:39 PM