If my schedule allows it, yeah

Now that’s a ringing endorsement if I ever heard one.

That quote is one of the saddest thing I’ve heard, and it was brought to you courtesy of Scott Brown. The Globe asked Brown if he would campaign with Gomez.

That’s got to hurt.

For their part, the Gomez campaign said it is comfortable with Brown’s level of support on the campaign trail.

Scott, please show up somewhere with the guy. I’m starting to feel bad for him.

While Gomez was a director, Keystone consolidated facilities, merged call centers, and “implemented a cost reduction program throughout the company,’’ according to filings with securities regulators. Total employment at Keystone fell from 1,800 to 1,444 over three years.

In one round of cutbacks, 22 accounting workers in Pennsylvania were let go, according to a Labor Department report, because their work was shifted to a foreign country.

The Globe is also reporting that in another company, one here in Peabody, Gomez was part of a team that bought Synventive. Gomez moved jobs to China and Germany.

“It was a good company, except things changed a lot over the years,’’ said David Scatterday, a mechanical engineer who worked at Synventive for 20 years before being laid off, with a year’s severance. “You lost a lot of the good qualities you had with the original owners.” And, he recalled, “A lot of business went to China.”

That the jobs went overseas is acknowledged by federal officials. In March 2009, 18 laid-off Synventive workers, many over age 50, were offered government aid to retrain, specifically because their jobs were being moved overseas, according to the Department of Labor.

When asked about his role in moving jobs overseas Gomez’s response?

when the Globe asked about his record of helping create jobs in China, rather than in the United States, Gomez said, “That’s not true.” Then he slammed his car door and an aide drove him away.

Gomez can’t run away from his record, he’s going to need to discuss his investment career if he’s going to tout his business experience.

He also favored giving tax incentives to encourage companies that moved jobs overseas if they moved jobs back to the United States.

Gomez was elected Director at Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. in February 2008. During his tenure records show that a subsidiary was set up in India.

SEC Filings of Keystone Automotive subsidiaries lists Keystone Automotive Operations (India) Private Limited registered in November 2008.

Company Name: Keystone Automotive Operations (India) Private Limited
Cin: U74200KA2008PTC048448
Registration Date: 28/11/2008
Registeration No. 048448

Employees at job review web sites have vented about jobs being moved overseas:

Keystone jobs began to be sent to India. Now the cronies are using fear tactics by telling the A-P and A-R staff that if they tell anyone about their jobs being moved to India they will be fired and loose any severance.

Advice to Senior Management – First things first, close the India operations and bring American jobs home. It’s pathetic that you even sent these jobs overseas. People will work a lot harder when they don’t fear losing their positions to another country.

Cons – Outsourcing of jobs to india.

Maybe Gomez could give us some background on his thought process which lead the company to set up shop overseas and not put his faith and trust in the people of the United States.

By Gomez’s standards, using his own words is mean. Maybe Gomez really is a new kind of Republican, just ask Mitch McConnell.

But the funny thing is, Gomez, just by chance I guess had his cutoff of tax returns released as 2006. Gomez made headlines with his questionable historic home $281,500 tax dodge in 2005. Funny how that worked out.

The best excuse that Gomez’s team could come up with is that a Senate term is 6 years, so he’s going to release 6 years of returns. See, he’s not trying to hide his bogus, slimy tax filings in 2005 at all.

Gomez did not release his tax return for 2005, a year in which he claimed a tax credit worth $281,500 for maintaining the façade of his historic home in Cohasset, as the Globe has previously reported. Gomez’s campaign aides said he had agreed to provide six years’ worth of tax returns, the duration of a Senate term.

That’s pretty weak.

If Gomez wants to show any credibility at all, he’s going to need to release his 2005 tax returns, playing the public for fools is not a good campaign strategy.

This is Gomez defending his most recent position opposing the ban on assault weapons and limiting high-capacity ammunition magazines:

Gomez said he does not personally own guns but that he has a “unique perspective” on weapons, having fired many of them during his time as a Navy SEAL.

Gomez’s thoughts on the weapons ban in his letter to Deval Patrick just a few months ago requesting the interim appointment to the Senate:

Two main issues that will dominate the political discussion during this appointment will be Immigration Reform and Gun Control. Given my Latino and Navy SEAL background, I have credibility to contribute thoughtfully on these issues. I support the positions that President Obama has taken on these issues and you can be assured I will keep my word and work on these issues as I have promised.

Got it? Gomez has a “unique perspective” on weapons and opposes banning assault weapons, but he also has the credibility to contribute thoughtfully on the issue and supports Obama’s position to ban assault weapons.

Has Gomez addressed any question without talking out the side of his mouth?

I have some advice to Gomez, this is how you should address any question asked of you; Don’t know, don’t care. I just want to be appointed or elected to the Senate.

Markey 48
Gomez 41

Public Policy Polling’s newest survey of the US Senate election in Massachusetts finds Ed Markey’s lead over Gabriel Gomez growing to 7 points at 48/41, up from a 4 point margin right after the primary election 2 weeks ago

Gomez favorables are going south as well, down 6 points.

When Republican US Senate nominee Gabriel E. Gomez was seeking a lucrative historical tax deduction for his Cohasset home, he rejected the first appraisal he received because it was too low and then refused to pay the appraiser’s bill, according to a claim filed this week.

That appraiser, Shaun Fitzgerald, said Gomez hired him in late 2005 to determine the amount he could deduct on his federal tax return in exchange for agreeing not to alter the home’s facade. But Fitzgerald said Gomez then failed to pay the $1,000 appraiser’s fee.

The appraisal amount? A measly $245,640.

Apparently, that’s not what Gomez was looking for. Note to appraisers you need to value the home exactly how Gomez wants you to value it or you don’t get paid.

After being granted the easement and tax deduction Gomez had work done on the exterior of the property anyway, it seems that the easement agreement for the tax deduction only covers areas that is visible from the street. Cohasset’s historical commission does get involved in the approval on any changes to the home. Gomez didn’t seemed to to have any issues getting approvals even though the renovation included the removal of “character-defining elements” of the historical home.

That construction included removal of a brick chimney, one of the two on the house. A survey commissioned by the Trust in August 2005 to evaluate the historic significance of the home had determined that the chimneys were “important character-defining elements’’ of the property.

Gomez’s wife Sarah serves on the Cohasset Historical Commission.

When asked about his robocall, which has since been denounced by the Lynch campaign, Edward McHugh came back with this truly bizarre statement (emphasis mine):

“There was no intention of upsetting everybody or trying to shine a light on anything in an unkind way. That was never, ever the intention,” he said.

Told that some voters felt uncomfortable with the language, McHugh responded, “I guess as an ironworker we get mad about issues like this. We don’t get squirmy or squeamish, we run at them.”

Am I missing something? What are you running at Ed? This is your robocall:

“All of us share the shock and sorrow of the recent events in Boston, but as Americans we’re not going let the perpetrators of this tragedy or anyone else stop our democracy from moving forward. Wouldn’t it be great to have a real working person representing you in the Senate? Not another millionaire, someone who truly understands the day to day problems facing working families?”

So what exactly did Edward McHugh do? Did he advocate to create policy, what? Edward McHugh did absolutely nothing. What tough guy Edward McHugh did was create PAC which hid it’s identity and mislead people to believe his robocall was somehow influenced by the Occupy movement. Ed, is that what iron workers do? They cower and hide? Maybe you should poll a few iron workers they might give you a different answer.

Ed you used a tragedy as a cheap political prop to achieve political goals, while you don’t get squirmy or squeamish about it, people find it disgusting. Congratulations.

I am not familiar with the PAC, but the call politicized the tragic events over the past week in Boston for the Stephen Lynch campaign. I wanted to note that Stephen Lynch is in no way connected to this outside group, but I would call on him to tell this group to stop.

My caller ID listed the phone number which I searched and found a site which allows users to comment on the robo-call. Here is a Lynch voter’s thoughts:

i received a call from this number a few minutes after the memorial service in cambridge ma was completed. it was pushing my vote for a senate candidate here in massachusetts. until that call i was firmly in his camp. the timing of that call together with wording that tied that candidacy to the horror of boston this past week lost him my vote.

It’s slimy and disgusting. To Lynch, it’s not doing you any favors get this group to stop.

If you are interested on who and what happened. Michelle McPhee has it.

This is for Dan, your know the one from Waltham? In case your were wondering, he endorsed Lynch.

So much for the huge swell of grassroots support for his campaign. But who cares about him, that campaign is a dud, let’s get back to Scott Brown or should we refer to him at Scott Brown™.

As is turns out Brown hired a marketing firm who’s job is to pimp out his email lists for a quick buck:

A Sullivan campaign spokeswoman said the campaign rented a list of e-mail addresses from the now defunct Brown 2012 reelection campaign, and that the fine print was included automatically as a disclaimer through the third-party marketing firm that manages the list.

Now it’s one thing to lend your support to a candidate and using your mailing list to send out a message to those who signed up receive email from you, but Brown’s PR staff let it be known that he’s not supporting anyone in the primary.

A spokesman for Brown declined to comment but said Brown is refraining from endorsing a Republican candidate until after the April 30 primary.

IRS details political and business activity including mailing lists, Brown is pushing the idea that this is business activity, so it’s out there for anyone to purchase or rent if you will. This is an example listed:

Example 18: Theater L is a section 501(c)(3) organization. It maintains a mailing list of all of its subscribers and contributors. Theater L has never rented its mailing list to a third party. Theater L is approached by the campaign committee of Candidate Q, who supports increased funding for the arts. Candidate Q’s campaign committee offers to rent Theater L’s mailing list for a fee that is comparable to fees charged by other similar organizations. Theater L rents its mailing list to Candidate Q’s campaign committee. Theater L declines similar requests from campaign committees of other candidates. Theater L has intervened in a political campaign.

Seems like a straight money grab and your e-mail is there for any campaign to buy. Wonder how those who signed up feel about the political spam Scott sent their way for a few bucks in his account.

With time running short, Washington Republicans have begun a “full court press’’ to persuade an increasingly reluctant Scott Brown to run in the special election to replace John F. Kerry, say two leading Massachusetts GOP figures.

The eleventh-hour effort, coordinated by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, comes as those familiar with Brown’s deliberations are becoming convinced that he will not run and instead will look for a job in the private sector.

Could be that Brown is getting cold feet that polls have shown that he does not have any kind of substantial cushion against potential Democratic challengers?

Interestingly, Scott Brown cheerleader Boston Herald had floated out a bizarre story that Brown’s candidacy somehow is hinged on the MA GOP Chair election.

Former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s entrance into the special Senate election could hinge on a bizarre battle brewing between his pick for chairwoman of the Massachusetts Republican Party and a dark horse candidate who could take the seat after tonight’s GOP election.

“He’s going to have to run in a special election and face another election two years down the road if he wins,” said House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading), who said the election of Brown’s former deputy finance director, Kirsten Hughes, is playing a role in Brown’s decision. “He might find it daunting if the party isn’t united behind him.”

Odd, since prior to the election Rick Green stated that they were fully committed to Scott Brown’s Senate bid.

Big #MassGOP election tonight. @hughesforchair & I will do everything we can to help @scottbrownma if he runs for #MaSen despite who wins.

— Rick Green (@RickGreenMA) January 31, 2013

This might be getting ugly, but it’s starting to seem like Brown’s interest is waning. I would think the people of Massachusetts would want to elect someone who is “all in”, really wants to serve us in the Senate and not someone who gets backed into an election.

Just walked passed Senator Brown’s office and in the hallway was the man himself, lamenting into his cell phone, ‘I don’t understand how she can be down 20 points one week and is now up 2. What is going on?

Funny, PPP just released a new Senate poll. Republicans might recall that PPP is the pollster that pretty much nailed it on the Senate election.

Well, in a head to head contest between Ed Markey and Scott Brown, it’s a statistical tie.

In a hypothetical matchup tested by PPP, former Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) held a narrow edge over the Democratic frontrunner, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), 48 percent to 45 percent.

Yes, I know, I know, primaries, we don’t know who the candidates are, it’s a long way from June. Yes, I agree. But it’s pretty damn funny that Brown is setting up his announcement on the heals of a big lead that doesn’t exist.

Welcome to the race Scotto.

I am challenging all of the candidates — Democrats and Republicans — in this special election for the United States Senate to join me in committing to the people’s pledge upon entering this race,” Markey said in a statement released by his campaign. “If all the candidates agree, we can give the voters the kind of debate they deserve. This election should be a forum for the voices of everyday voters, not attacks from Karl Rove and other outside special interests. This election should be focused on big issues and ideas, not big-money outside groups.

No one can argue with the results, candidates couldn’t hide behind special interest groups, if they wanted to relay a message, positive or negative, they had to do it themselves. Kudos to Ed Markey for putting this challenge in the forefront, let the candidates carry their own message and let the primaries begin!

“I’m not going to be coy. It’s not anything I’ve ever been good at,” Frank said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I’ve told the governor that I would now like, frankly, to do that because I would like to be a part of that. It’s only a three-month period. I wouldn’t want to do anything more. I don’t want to run again.”

Governor, it’s an easy decision.

Imagine how great that would be.

The state Senate yielded no net gains. Democrats were able to keep vacated seats.

The House on the other hand had a bunch of pickups for the Democratic party (net 4):

Pick up for Democrats
Jonathan Zlotnik (D) beat incumbent Richard Bastien (R)
Danielle Gregoire (D) beat incumbent Steven Levy (R)
Paul Heroux (D) beat incumbent George Ross (R)
Frank Moran (D) won. Incumbent: Paul Adams (R) ran for State Senate (and lost to Finegold).
Josh Cutler (D) won. Incumbent: Daniel Webster (R) didn’t run for re-election.

Pick up for Republicans
Harriett Stanley (D) didn’t run for re-election. Leonard Mirra (R) winner.

Was Donald Trump’s Announcement A Gigantic, Pointless Waste Of Time Promulgated By A Venal Con Artist?

Yes.

Donald Trump teased that he was going to make an announcement that would impact the presidential race, as it turns out the announcement was some nutty birther crap.

Donald Trump will give $5 million to a charity of President Barack Obama’s choosing if he provides Trump his college transcripts and passport records by Halloween. Since this is not going to happen, that means that inner-city kids with cancer and AIDS will suffer, or something. Basically, Donald Trump, having gotten nowhere in proving any of the innately stupid conspiracy theories he’s promulgated about Obama

Might make a nice gift for Donald, via the Obama Store

*Update* Yahoo compiled some comments:

“Our expectations about @realDonaldTrump’s Obama announcement were clearly not low enough,” New York magazine said on its Twitter feed.

“BREAKING: Donald Trump demands to know what medical school Dr. Dre went to,” @BScalabrine24 wrote on Twitter.

“Trump will give $5 million if Obama releases his college records,” Twitter user @WatchJ tweeted. “I’ll give a crackhead $3 if Trump releases that squirrel sittin’ on his head.”

“BREAKING: Donald Trump replaces bed bugs as Americas #1 Pest,” Lizz Winstead tweeted.

“We’re going to make a very important cat announcement shortly that will change the Internet,” Buzzfeed declared.

“Sorry Trump, but in the same way the U.S. doesn’t negotiate with terrorists, presidents shouldn’t negotiate with idiots,” @the_moonface wrote.

“This Donald Trump character is Andy Kaufman’s greatest bit ever,” Aaron Blitzstein tweeted.

“Donald Trump is the Honey Boo Boo of rich people,” the fake Morgan Freeman said.

“Trump, would you be a dear and offer 5 million dollars if Romney will reveal ANY PART of his economic plan?” Alex Baze wrote on Twitter.

The Onion tweeted: “‘I’m a sad, pathetic human being and a complete waste of life.’ — Donald Trump.”

The Republican Party in Massachusetts has found a way to get black voters to campaign for Sen. Scott Brown — pay them $8 an hour.

The state GOP’s MassVictory program is funding a group called “Obama Supporters for Brown” to campaign for Brown in an inner city Boston neighborhood that strongly backs his Democratic challenger, Elizabeth Warren.

And that report comes courtesy of the conservative Boston Herald, not the liberal Boston Globe.

Benjamin Thompson, a black former city elections commissioner, told The Herald he pays about 20 campaign workers a per diem that “works out to” about $8 an hour.

At least four of the 20 or so volunteers are homeless, Thompson admitted.

Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown and challenger Elizabeth Warren are accusing each other of “not telling the truth.” Brown says Warren worked to “restrict payments” to asbestos victims, while Warren says she worked to “get more money” for them. We find Warren is correct; Brown’s ad is a distortion.

Something we already knew, and documented, but it’s nice to have an independent group provide an analysis.

Now that an independent group has outed Brown’s attacks as distortions, how will he respond? Will he still push these ads, and what does that say about him?

Which Candidate is Most Responsible for the Negative Tone of the Race:
Scott Brown 51%
Elizabeth Warren 21%

Others blamed both candidates or had no opinion. But what is striking is the 30% swing towards Scott Brown by likely voters on what kind of campaign he is running. The everyday guy image is quickly fading with voters. WNEU did ask who was responsible for the positive tone, guess who they favor?

Which Candidate is Most Responsible for the Positive Tone of the Race
Elizabeth Warren 47%
Scott Brown 39%

Again, pretty substantial spread favoring Warren. Let’s see how this plays out in the coming weeks. It’s already looking like Brown is conderned enough as he is shifting his campaign strategy in the latest round of ads pushing a more positive image.

According to Sunlight Foundation’s Political Party Time database, Brown has held 30 D.C. fundraisers and exactly zero Massachusetts town hall meetings.

In exchange for access, Scott Brown opened up shop with a who’s who on big time lobbyist groups:

In 2011, the D.C. lobbying firm Patton Boggs, whose clients include Wal-Mart, Northrop Grumman, Citigroup, Bristol-Meyers Squibb and Goldman Sachs, amongst many others, hosted a fundraiser for Scott Brown. You know, because the Walton family, defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies and banks really need that much more access.

Brown’s everyday man image he tries to portray is a facade, in his time as Senator he has not made himself available to voters in an open public meeting, the only way Scott Brown will allow you to get access is by invitation only fundraisers. If you are not on a donor list I guess you are out of luck.

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.

Via the Glen Johnson at the time of the website’s release:

The website is a grab bag of virtually every attack Brown has launched on Warren in their race for the Senate. The site asserts the “real Elizabeth Warren” is “not who she says she is” and exhorts voters to “stop her!”

Brown has an entire section called “Fake Indian”:

The site includes seven sections, each one a knock against Warren.

One section, dubbed “the rant,” includes a link to Warren’s much-discussed speech about the role of government in building businesses, which the website calls “the anti-capitalist tirade heard ‘round the world.”

In another section, “fake Indian,” the site includes snippets of news stories about Warren’s claims to Cherokee and Delaware heritage.

(added link via Politico in quote)

ATR is spending $215,617 on direct mailers that target the former Harvard professor, who has recently leaped ahead of Republican Sen. Scott Brown in polling. The expenditure is by far the largest amount of money that’s been spent against Warren independently at one time in the race to date.

Direct mailers are not a direct violation of the “People’s Pledge”, but it’s another example of the change in the Scott Brown campaign which as initiated personal attacks against Warren.

the group’s foray into the race comes at a tense moment, as Brown is attacking Warren over her claim to Native American heritage and her past legal representation of corporations in controversial cases.

One Democrat monitoring the race acknowledged while ATR’s move is not a literal violation of the agreement, “it’s certainly a violation in spirit.”

“His behavior in the debate adds to the sense that his team and his side thinks they are in trouble for the very first time this year”

Seems that Brown has now embraced the far right in his line of attacks and now with money being spent on his campaign.

One of Scott Brown’s strengths is his likeability, and he has been able to successfully use it to avoid debate on positions. It seems like he’s going to throw that out the window and focus on personal attacks on Elizabeth Warren. The first item for attack is her heritage.

Sad.

It seems like a decision based on weakness, maybe he doesn’t think much of that Herald poll after all. (could not embed, trouble with videos using “iframe”)

But what really stood out to me was the first comment on the video:

This is a disgusting video that uses race-baiting tactics to distract voters from Scott Brown’s voting record. Some naive individuals have a deep-rooted fear that minorities use race to gain unfair advantages, and this ad plays into that type of blind bigotry. All of Warren’s attacks on Brown have dealt with his voting record, not his character. Shame on Scott Brown for resorting to this garbage. Massachusetts deserves more.

Well said.

“If somebody’s dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something, they’re gonna have to take what they get.”

Initial preference (without leaners)
Scott Brown 40%
Elizabeth Warren 45%
Some other candidate 2%
Don’t Know / Undecided 12%
Refused 1%

A significant percentage, 12% is still undecided.

Vote preference with leaners
Scott Brown 42%
Elizabeth Warren 47%
Some other candidate 2%
Don’t Know / Undecided 8%
Refused 1%

Leaners split evenly between Warren and Brown, but 8% still remained undecided. Only the topline is currently available (pdf). UPDATE (by David): Crosstabs are now available at this link (PDF).

And despite being a veteran politician and member of what has been dubbed “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” the senator cast himself as the underdog in the debates.

“She’s representing Harvard now, has been there teaching, lecturing, and debating at Harvard.

I have a few thoughts on this.

First, Scott Brown is a career politician, for over fourteen years he has debated political positions being a State Representative, State Senator and representing Massachusetts as U. S. Senator. As Glenn Johnson aptly put it, the Senate is described as “the world’s greatest deliberative body”. Brown, unlike Warren, is the experienced political debater, Scott Brown is the seasoned pro, maybe he is hoping people have forgotten his debates from 2010. Brown coined the “People’s Seat” phrase which he rode to his election during those debates.

Secondly, these debates are in essence a job interview, we as voters get the opportunity to watch the interview and determine who we want to hire. So let me pose this question, upon meeting a potential job candidate, the first thing they tell you is that they don’t do well in interviews what would be your reaction? This is Scott Brown’s opportunity to tell us why he is best to represent us in Washington, but instead of making the case for himself, the first thing he wants to tell us is to lower our expectations. If I walked into a room, shook someone’s hand and the first thing they told me was to lower my expectations, it would be a pretty quick interview. I wouldn’t waste my time.

Unlike what he wants us to think, Scott Brown needs to nail it on Thursday, the pressure is on him. He needs to address his voting record and why it was the best course for our state and our country. He needs to tell us why he is best to represent us in the years ahead. If he isn’t able to do that, it could be devastating to his campaign.

Maine, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Wisconsin won our vote on where to poll this week. Virginia and Wisconsin we’ll do over the weekend (like we did for North Carolina and Ohio last week) and Maine and Massachusetts we’ll do early next week (as we did for Minnesota and Montana this week.)

Minnesota and Montana were released today, so expect the release at the end of next week.

TPM added Republican leaning Kimball Political Consulting polling results in their polltracker. Don’t know how much I trust Kimball’s numbers, but they are trending Brown losing ground and back to a tie:

09/07 – 09/09 Brown 46.0 Warren 45.0
08/21 – 08/21 Brown 49.0 Warren 43.0

Let’s see what PPP brings next week.

But that’s where they stop, neither wants Wall Street to be regulated, they blame individuals and ignore the structural problems in the financial industry which created the problem in the first place. This is were Wall Street traders and Scott Brown meet.

A review of Larry McDonald’s book sums it up nicely:

The eagerness of the Street and the media to pin this meltdown, which has ruined millions of lives and cost trillions of dollars, on a couple of old guys (however greedy, vain and stupid they were), rather than on an out-of-control financial system desperately in need of reform, speaks volumes about who creates the narrative in this country, and how much those narrators feel they have to gain by retaining the status quo.

Let’s not forget Scott Brown’s letter to the head of JPMorgan Chase:

While regulations are necessary, it is also very important that when unprecedented mistakes do occur, banks will use the internal policies that they have set up to promote employee accountability

Taxpayer backed financial meltdown based on risky behavior, to Scott Brown, it’s an internal company matter.

The scariest lines in the fundraising newsletter?

Above all, I want Scott on the Senate Finance Committee next year, he’s the right choice, not his opponent.

Yikes. This is what Wall Street is hoping for.

The Herald (of course), posted an AP story stating:

U.S. Sen. Scott Brown is planning to deliver what he’s calling a major policy speech about the need to keep taxes low.

Brown was in Randolph for a town hall meeting South Shore Chamber of Commerce meeting.

Okay great, personally I welcome a debate on policy. Let Brown lay out his plan for taxes and the economy and let’s have a discussion on his positions. Can’t wait.

The remarks, delivered to the South Shore Chamber of Commerce at Lombardo’s in Randolph, were billed as a major policy speech, but did not make any new policy pronouncements

Then we have this:

he did not take questions from the chamber audience or the press, walking out the back door with a cellphone on his ear

Psst Scott. Didn’t want to be the one to tell you, but attacking Warren’s heritage is not a major policy position.

Brown billed this as a speech on policy, not only that, it was a “major” policy speech, so get the reporters out there Brown is going to make a major announcement. Brown’s pathetic dog an pony show was obviously to deflect the anvil that teabagger Paul Ryan now has wrapped around his neck. The Washington Post asked Republican candidates if they want to have Ryan campaign for them. Brown’s response?

Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) campaign declined to comment.

Sadly, Brown can’t speak of policy. His campaign is built on deflection and attacks, anything to avoid discussion positions and policy.

I was quoted at the far-left Huffington Post on Saturday. While I despise the America-hating, radically anti-liberty publication, I must admit in all fairness, I was quoted accurately, and the reporter portrayed my comments correctly.

Just as a reminder on what Dondero confirmed was an accurate depiction of his comments:

The third accolade comes from Libertarian Republican, which has suggested or stated that Obama is a Muslim on several occasions, although the president has repeatedly described himself as a Christian. As recently as Saturday, Libertarian Republican editor Eric Dondero wrote a blog post about the start of Ramadan under the headline “America’s Muslim President celebrates Islamic holiday.”

Dondero told The Huffington Post on Friday that he was pleased to hear the Brown campaign was promoting his endorsement of the blockbuster ad.

“I think Sen. Brown has always had an appeal to the libertarian wing of the GOP,” Dondero said. “He’s a fiscally conservative, socially tolerant Republican, kind of like a William Weld-type from the 1990s, and we love him.”

Dondero added that it is a “fact” that Obama is Muslim

At this point in time Scott Brown has refused to address the use of Dondero by his campaign.

click on image to enlarge

What I want to know is if Brown stands by Dondero as he has brought his opinion into his campaign. Does Scott Brown back Dondero’s extremist views in calling Obama’s religion into question?

Here is Dondero’s recent response in Politico to a comment about Obama’s transcripts in a comment thread that only the Herald could love in rebuttal to Romney’s tax returns.

We’re less interested in the college transcripts. Obama needs to release his records from his time at the Indonesian Madrassa, and his 1982 trip to Pakistan. Sure, moderately interested that he was a ‘D’ student at Occidental, and got passed through by affirmative action. But this Muslim Marxist has far more dangerous skeletons in his closet.

This is not isolated nor is it from years past, Dondero’s comments are current and he seems very proud of them. This is disgusting, Scott Brown needs to make it clear if he stands with Dondero or if he intends to disavow him and his comments.

The Senate rejected the Republican proposal for extending the Bush-era tax rates in a straight up-or-down vote Wednesday.

GOP Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Scott Brown (Mass.) joined Democrats in voting against the GOP plan, which would have extended the Bush-era tax rates and other current tax policies. Brown faces a difficult reelection battle this fall.

Scott Brown had previously joined Republicans in maintaining the Bush Tax Cuts without the changes Obama and the Democrats wanted let expire breaks for those who make over a million dollars.

Voting on the Democratic proposal passed, no vote details yet:

There you have it: Senate Democrats just prevailed 51-48 a vote to extend the Bush tax cuts only for incomes up to $250,000.

But it will probably die in the House of Representatives.

Oops.

Mitt’s team trying to bail themselves out from the devastating Firms ad put together a response that featured Obama signing Al Green’s “Let Stay Together.” How unoriginal.

But Romney managed to still to screw it up. BMG (the other one, the record company) owns the rights to the song and and issued a copyright claim.

Image of Mitt’s website via Gawker:

Brown stated that Dana Bash who interviewed him from CNN asked specific questions, and he was answering them. Here is Brown’s response (emphasis mine):

We were talking about very specific issues. We were talking about Dodd, Frank. We were talking about insider trading. We were talking about start treaty. We were talking about the Guaman case. We were talking about the kidnapping in Egypt working with the administration and speaking to the representatives on these very important issues affecting Massachusetts

(video on Fox25 link, could not embed)

In true irony, to defend himself, Scott Brown claims that he discussed the kidnappings in Egypt with Dana Bash during his interview as an example of his contact with the administration. While Glen Johnson’s piece in the Globe about Brown boasting that Obama, Biden and Hillary call him all the time was posted on July 13th, it was based on the CNN interview that occurred on July 11th, two days before the kidnapping of Rev. Michel Louis and Lisa Alphonse in Egypt.

It’s getting sad Scott.

Each and every day that I’ve been a United States senator, I’ve been discussing issues, meeting on issues, in secret meetings and with kings and queens and prime ministers and business leaders and military leaders, talking, voting, working on issues every single day

Brown’s staff later had to walk back Brown’s remarks and said that he misspoke, MA Dems released a video where Brown used the same language repeatedly on the campaign trail. Brown campaign’s response? No comment.

Now we get this (via the Globe):

I can name a litany of Democratic-sponsored bills that I’ve done that never would have passed hadn’t it been for me, and the president had called me, and vice president calls me, and Secretary Clinton calls asking for my vote all the time.

Brown’s campaign now says that Scott only had one conversation with Obama, and as it turns out Biden and Clinton don’t really call him all the time.

Really? I was wondering how Scott is able to get any work done, he’s spending much of his day talking to Obama, Biden, Clinton, kings, queens, prime ministers, business leaders and military leaders.

Not sure what’s going on with Brown, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to take him seriously.

Interesting note that Independents show that 45% agree while 42% disagree.

But Democrats, Republicans and Independents seem to all lean that politics played too great a roll on the SCOTUS decision which seems to reinforce what pundits have been saying or praising the court for over the past day.

Seems that bastion of liberalism CNN had a Fox moment too, TMP has a nice mashup.

During Dimon’s testimony today he said:

“We will take proper corrective action and it is likely there will be clawbacks,” Dimon told the Senate Banking Committee today.

So Scott Brown comes up with this beauty, via the Globe:

“The way for Jamie Dimon to demonstrate his seriousness about the mistakes that led to JPMorgan’s $2 billion trading loss is to take back the bonuses and incentive compensation from those who were involved in the failed London trades, including himself as CEO,” Brown said in a statement distributed by his Washington office.

Shorter Brown: Dimon should do what he already said he would do.

Thanks Scott! That’s the way to drop the hammer. Are you sure you weren’t too rough?

…e-mails obtained by the Globe show that Brown’s work on behalf of the financial sector did not stop when the law was passed. In the second stage, as regulators began the less publicly scrutinized task of writing rules amid heavy pressure from the banking sector, Brown urged the regulators to interpret the 3 percent rule broadly and to offer banks some leeway to invest in hedge funds and private equity funds.

First was a memo in March 2011 from Brown’s legislative director Nat Hoopes which was sent to the Treasury Department, which was coordinating the five agencies writing the rules. A second email was from Scott Brown himself in June 2011 directly to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoing the earlier memo trying to futher water down rules.

The memo’s impact summarized by former FDIC lawyer Anne Graham:

Ann Graham, a lawyer formerly with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and an advocate of strict regulation who teaches banking law at Hamline University in Minnesota, said Hoopes’s memo urges regulators to “substantially undercut the Volcker rule’’ in ways that would allow banks to skirt the 3 percent limit on hedge fund ownership and delve into riskier investments.

Hmmm, seems like JPMorgan Chase and Scott Brown have more things in common than we realized.

Oh, by the way, Brown’s office declined to make the senator available for an interview on the Globe story.
(Shocked expression on face.)

Head-to-head in our exclusive 7News/Suffolk University Poll it’s Scott Brown 48%, Elizabeth Warren 47%…with just 5% undecided.

In February, Brown was up 49 to 40; so he’s flat, and she’s growing.

Suffolk does not have the poll posted yet.

UPDATE [by David]: Suffolk now has details of the poll posted at this link.

Also, check out some great stuff in The Hill’s writeup:

“This has been like a fender-bender on the side of the road,” said Joe Malone, the former state treasurer and a major GOP player in Massachusetts. “They’re slowing down to look, but it’s not changing where they’re heading.” …

“You’re always surprised by something, but that overall ballot test number — it really did change,” said David Paleologos, the head of polling at Suffolk University. “What we can conclude is people do not believe it is a significant story.” …

“Unless he’s got something else that reinforces the seed he’s planted, that indicates a pattern, he’s going to have to move on,” said Malone. “Pretty soon the media will bail. If this is a yawner to the voters, let’s move on to something else.”

You go, Joe.

FURTHER UPDATE: Check out this very interesting discussion of the poll results on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.  Joe Scarborough, a Republican, calls Warren “maybe the best I’ve ever seen.”  Remarkable.

Scott Brown’s, ahem, concerns:

In that letter, Brown calls for only one thing: a clawback on the compensation of “the responsible parties in your company.” The problem is that Dimon already said that was likely to happen.

How tough and independent — telling a bank to do what it already said it would do!

What’s more, the Dodd-Frank Act makes clawbacks mandatory in some cases. So what does Brown do? He tells Dimon that clawbacks are mandatory in some cases. What a maverick.

Just in case anyone at JPMorgan thought he was in any way serious, Brown made sure further down in the letter that *wink* *wink* *nod* *nod* that he’s still Wall Street’s favorite Senator:

Lest his pointless letter seem too threatening to his scores of friends on Wall Street, Brown slips in some language that they would understand: “While regulations are necessary, it is also very important that when unprecedented mistakes do occur, banks will use the internal policies that they have set up to promote employee accountability.”

Translation: When Wall Street screws up on an unprecedented scale and engages in risky behavior that undermines confidence in the market, they should treat it as an internal matter. No need for the government to get involved — just move along, folks.

This, incidentally, is the same message as the one being spread by extreme conservatives like Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Of course, it was the lack of government involvement that allowed the financial crisis to happen in the first place.

I’m sure Scott Brown doesn’t want anyone to remember his role in Dodd-Frank was to water down regulations on risky trading which was at the center of the 2008 banking crisis. Taxpayer backed JPMorgan’s now 3 billion dollar loss to some is a test scenario to see if the rule should be strengthened.

Sounds like Scott Brown is singing a different tune, keep the money comin’:

image via Kos

I’ve earned it!

The state legislature stepped in and wanted to remove control from Romney and make the commission independent after Romney’s threats. Romney vetoed making the group independent. But Romney’s acts were so egregious Democrats and Republicans came together and all joined in to override the veto, well except for one person.

Our now junior Senator, Scott Philip Brown:

Brown’s campaign did not return a request for comment about why he supported Romney’s veto.

Shocker.

At some point Scott Brown needs to explain and stand up for his votes, not run and hide like a coward.

Today, Brown injects himself personally into the made up Warren heritage controversy:

Serious questions have been raised about the legitimacy of Elizabeth Warren’s claims to Native American ancestry and whether it was appropriate for her to assume minority status as a college professor. Her changing stories, contradictions and refusal to answer legitimate questions have cast doubt on her credibility and called into question the diversity practices at Harvard.

Maybe it’s a cry for help, but it all seems desperate. Brown agreed to not have Karl Rove spend millions of dollars in made up attacks on Warren, finds himself in a position which he is now personally involved in mudslinging. Not a good development for his campaign.

Let’s get past how obnoxious it is to call yourself amazing for one minute and lets instead focus on the importance of the topic Brown and his campaign wanted to bring to our attention. The campaign’s press release was about a jobs bill, no a position that he wanted to discuss, wait, shooting a basketball from half court.

Nailed it! Scott lifting his arms in the air and the children joining in after an “amazing” shot! Even though some sports bloggers might have thought otherwise (link not for work).

Well, as it turns out, the Brown campaign staged the entire video.

The video seemed to lead you to believe that Brown hit the short with his only attempt. Glen Johnson at the Globe found out that Brown repeatedly took the shot until he finally made one, they edited the video to make it appear the way it did.

It’s amazing alright, amazingly pathetic.

“I am a hard-working teacher, I have won teaching awards, I’ve written books that have won acclaim,” Ms. Warren said. “I applied for one job in 1978 by letter, and every job I’ve had since then has been from someone who recruited me into that job. And they’ve come to me and said – and they have now said publicly – ‘Because of your work, we’d like you to come here.’ ”

“The only one, as I understand it, who’s raising any question about whether or not I was qualified for my job is Scott Brown,” Ms. Warren continued. “Frankly, I’m a little shocked to hear anybody raise a question about whether or not I’m qualified to hold a job teaching.”

Unable to post video, here is the link of Brown being questioned about his campaign pushing Warren being unqualified meme.

Coward.

UPDATE [by David]: I’ve added the video on the flip – can’t turn off autoplay, so when you open the post it should start. It’s pathetic – once again, Scott Brown desperately tries to hide behind his staff and refuses to take responsibility. Man up, Scotto.

In Brown’s defense, alert commenter bradm noted the amount of money that is dedicated for Pell Grants when arguing against the Warren ad. While Scott Brown later decided to get on board with Elizabeth Warren on Stafford Loans (I wonder if he signed her petition). Scott Brown’s quote from the hard hitting Jon Keller piece about what kind of hamburgers Brown likes:

“Yeah, I’m for (the new bill). It’s something we’ve been working on for awhile,” said Sen. Brown.

Well it has been something that Brown has been working on for a while, March 2011, Scott Brown voted for Republican budget bill H. R. 1 which would have slashed Pell Grant funding by 5.7 Billion, that’s billion with a “B” folks, or nearly 25 percent of Pell Grant funding.

Candidate Scott Brown has a problem on his hands, he can’t pretend to champion helping students with secondary education while Senator Scott Brown votes to gut programs.

Today, Scott Brown decided that it would be a good idea to attack Elizabeth Warren, who supports the Buffett Rule by asking if she is an “Elitist Hypocrite?” It was not only a press release, but he felt that it was important enough to place it on the front page of his campaign web site.

The only thing that I could think of when reading the attack was how desperate it all seemed. The fact of the matter is Brown voted down fairness in the tax structure, something that is supported by voters and by 63% of independents. Instead of telling why he voted the way he did, Brown instead made up some nonsense attack about the voluntary Massachusetts tax rate.

Bottom line it’s how you vote Scott, Warren would have voted for the Buffett Rule and you voted against it.

While the pathetic attack doesn’t deserve a response, the Warren campaign summed it up nicely:

“The Buffett rule is about making sure that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share, it’s not about funding government through voluntary contributions, so this question misses the key point in this debate – which is not just about economics but about our values”

Scott, instead of dumb attacks, you need to tell us why you feel the middle class should carry the tax burden.

Brown has been on a full court press over the past week to try to win back supporters. Once such event last week involved Olympia Snowe and his wife Gail Huff.

Brown was introduced at the press conference by his wife, former Boston television reporter Gail Huff.

Huff wasn’t actively involved in the campaign that led to Brown’s 2010 special election win to the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy, but said she’s able now to be more involved since she’s no longer a reporter in Boston.

Brown said he’s used to being surrounded by “strong willed women”

Huff continued or jumped in to prevent Brown from sticking his foot in his mouth, since I’m not sure where he was going with the “strong willed women” comment, that in their family, the couple and their daughters have open discussions.

When pressed by reporters to actually provide an example rather than generic statements, the only thing that Scott Brown could come up with on the influence of women in his life was “how to cook”.

Brown declined to be more specific about the family discussions, but when a reporter asked Huff to name an issue that she and the couple’s daughter have educated Brown on, Brown chimed in and said “how to cook.”

Google cache of the page:

Run a Google Search for the following:
cache: bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220328elizabeth_warren_etch_a_sketches_sen_brown

A few hours later the same link is changed to Pundit: Warren’s Etch A Sketch attack erasable. While it’s not shocking that Chabot or the Herald are doing the bidding for Scott Brown, what is questionable is that a run of the mill story is yanked and re-written under the same url to benefit a candidate.

FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.

“What the lobbyists want, what Wall Street wants, is they want Etch A Sketch Senators. They want the ones who will clear the screen and change their minds to do whatever big money tells them to do. That’s what they want. But let me tell you — I’ve been fighting for middle class families for years and nothing — nothing — will shake that commitment.”

Scott Brown is currently in the process of making a second charitable donation in breaking the People’s Pledge, the largest oil lobbying firm, Washington D. C based, American Petroleum Institute started airing radio ads and newspaper ads which tried to circumvent the People’s Pledge by a loophole advertising legislation that Scott Brown already supports, big tax breaks for oil companies instead of helping the middle class. Scott Brown has already raked in about $200,000 in contributions from the oil industry.

Warren 46%, Brown 41%

Money quote:

In the head to head with Warren, Brown has the GOP base completely locked up 89-3. And the 17% of Democrats he’s winning is comparable to the 19% we found him getting against Martha Coakley in 2010. But he’s only up 48-36 with independents, a far cry from his 64-32 advantage with them against Coakley, and that’s the main reason he trails by this narrow margin.

Warren is reclaiming the middle from Brown. We find her up 42-40 with moderate voters, a group that we found Brown leading Coakley 55-41 with.

But a reminder that it’s still March.

Interesting tidbit for Scott Brown:

One other note: Republicans love to label Warren as a Harvard professor, seemingly thinking voters perceive that as a negative. We polled Harvard’s image on this poll and 57% of Massachusetts voters see it favorably to 19% with an unfavorable opinion. Republicans are split on it (37/38), but Democrats (72/9) and independents (50/22) both see it quite positively. Not sure that’s an effective strategy…

Hate to say it, but it also makes him sound like an ass after a while.

Let’s put some of that Tea Party money to good work!

During an interview with Warren, Braude quoted from Scott Brown’s campaign that the Blunt Amendment would have no impact on coverage as the Obama compromise would kick in and cover services (4:00 mark of the video):

Scott Brown’s campaign by the way, someone in the campaign, told me said today that they believe and support the notion that the Obama compromise would kick in and in fact health insurers would pick up the cost of the services.

So Brown “believe(s) and support(s)” the notion that the Obama compromise would cover services which an employer does not based upon a moral conviction.

This bring us to yesterday’s response, the Brown campaign’s third attempt at explaining co-sponsoring the Blunt Amendment

“Scott Brown opposes Obamacare and wants to repeal it,” said spokesman Colin Reed. “Elizabeth Warren supports the federal government’s takeover of our health care system, and trusts in the authority of the federal government to control the most personal aspects of our lives.”

Whoa, wait a minute, what happened to the bill would have no impact and that Brown “believe(s) and support(s)” that the Obama compromise would cover services. That was only a few days ago Scott?

Could the Brown Campaign please explain how they got from supporting coverage to this is really about repealing the Affordable care Act.

The Senate has reached an agreement that it be in order for the Blunt amendment #1520 (contraception) to be called up. Further, at a time to be determined on Thursday, March 1, the Senate will proceed to a vote in relation to the Blunt amendment. No other amendments are in order prior to the vote in relation to the Blunt amendment.

The Blunt amendment is now pending.

It would be downright hilarious if Brown votes against his own bill (again), should be an interesting day tomorrow.

US Senator Scott Brown is in Florida today raising money for his campaign with fellow freshman US Senator Marco Rubio, the Cuban-American Republican and Tea Party darling who was elected the same year as Brown.

But Brown’s campaign wasn’t exactly eager to broadcast his whereabouts.

Asked yesterday about the senator’s schedule for this week, a spokesman said he was unsure about Brown’s plans. In a separate interview today, he said he did not have details about the Florida trip.

Turns out, Brown has been on a two-day fundraising swing in Florida. Last night, he attended an “evening reception” at a private home in Bal Harbour, according to a list of the senator’s out-of-state fundraisers obtained by the Globe.

Today, Brown attended a Palm Beach luncheon whose hosts were listed as Pepe Fanjul and Darlene and Jerry Jordan, along with Rubio.

Tonight, Brown will attend a dinner hosted by Rubio and Ned Siegel, the former ambassador to the Bahamas.

Interesting timing there Scott.

When Massachusetts junior senator Scott Brown last week signed on to support a Republican initiative to nullify President Barack Obama’s birth-control compromise, Brown joined the vast and growing right-wing war on women.

Brown’s new archconservative position on birth control stands in contrast to the stance he took 10 years ago when, as a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Brown favored legislation requiring all health-care providers to offer contraception coverage.

That law provided a narrow exclusion for churches or “church-controlled organizations,” but it was benign when compared to the pending Republican anti-birth-control legislation. In fact, since 2002, Massachusetts has been operating under what is essentially the Obama compromise.

The GOP scheme would allow any business, not just those allied with a religion, to opt out of providing insurance coverage for birth control if the business deemed contraception to conflict with its moral or religious beliefs.

Another interesting point is that Scott Brown left the usual group of moderates in the Republican caucus behind, both Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will not support Blunt/Brown, even when hedging support on the compromise.

Brown’s fellow Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, may not have found Obama’s birth-control compromise perfect, but they have said, in effect, that it is perfectly workable.

In case anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent believes that Brown is taking a moderate position, he’s not, centrist Republicans have abandoned him.

Scott Brown is still trying to figure out a way to squirm out of responsibility for co-sponsoring the Blunt Amendment which allows employers to take away health coverage from employees. Yesterday, Scott Brown rolled out that he’s Ted Kennedy, given that Ted’s life work was to provide health care coverage for the nation and Scott’s desire is to repeal it, it’s not surprising that it went over with a big thud.

Round two.

This time the Brown campaign tries out this head scratcher. They are now saying that it doesn’t matter because the Obama’s compromise would still require employers to provide coverage even if the Blunt/Brown amendment passes.

Scott? If it doesn’t matter then why the F even have the amendment in the first place? You want us to believe that you co-sponsored an amendment, went on media outlets to fight for the amendment because it really doesn’t do anything? This is seriously the best your brain trust came up with?

Elizabeth Warren was on Braude yesterday and Jim asked her about Brown’s latest response:

“So excuse me, what I think he’s saying then is he’s advocating for an amendment that will leave the law exactly where it is right now with President Obama, oh come on! Then all he’s really saying is I’m just trying to stir up trouble and see what I can do here. Because if this doesn’t make any difference in the law then why are they trying to get this amendment passed. Why is he arguing so hard for it? That doesn’t make any sense.”

I would recommend watching the whole interview it was very good, after this Brown fiasco and word twisting, it good to hear basic commonsense from a candidate.

Adding video (hopefully it works):

Greg Sargent gives the blow by blow:

“You acknowledge that Senator Blunt’s amendment that you’re supporting goes far further than religious objections, no?” The reporter asked.

“No, I don’t,” Brown answered, adding that “one of the cornerstones of our Constitution” is “to allow for religious freedoms.”

The reporter then incredulously pointed out that the bill also allows for denial of coverage due to “moral conviction,” and pressed Brown again and again.

“That’s the language,” the reporter said. “I’m repeating it verbatim, Senator Brown.”

“I disagree with your interpretation,” Brown said. “It’s very clear that this is about the ability for religious groups — churches, universities who want to practice their faith in adherence to our Constitution.”

The video is a must see, Brown had difficulty getting this thoughts together, kept on throwing Coakley’s name out there, religion, attack by Warren, etc. almost like he was given his talking points but couldn’t put them together. But by far the most bizarre was the “I disagree with your interpretation”, Braude exasperated, tells Brown “I’m reading this verbatim”.

One of our most fundamental rights as a people is the freedom of religion. It was right here in Plymouth, Massachusetts that pilgrims from Europe established a colony because of religious persecution at home (emphasis mine).

Now, it is Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren who has assumed the mantle of oppressor. She and her allies on the left are dictating to Catholics and other people of faith that they must do as they are told when it comes to health care or face the consequences, regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

Mantle of Oppressor?

Hear that Scott? That’s the sound of your poll numbers nosediving.

I was glad to see this in my Inbox, a message from Elizabeth Warren standing up to the slander and setting he record straight on the bill that Scott Brown is Co-Sponsoring with the extreme right of his party and detailing her true position.

Like many of you, I was shocked to learn that Senator Scott Brown is supporting the Blunt amendment — a dangerous measure being pushed by Senate Republicans that would allow insurance companies and employers to deny health care coverage to anyone for any reason, just when people need it most.

I was even more shocked Senator Brown emailed his supporters just a couple hours ago attacking me personally — and basically everyone who opposes this radical bill — claiming that I had assumed “the mantle of oppressor.”

Let me be clear: I support President Obama’s solution to make sure that religious institutions are not forced to cover contraception but that women can get the health care they need. This new bill that Scott Brown is supporting is not about religious institutions — it’s about something very different. It would allow any employer or insurance company to refuse to cover any person for any treatment. Not only is it an attack on women’s ability to get the vital health care we need, it is an attack on every one of us.

Think about what this will mean to you and your family. Are you pregnant? Elderly? Disabled? Do you have a chronic problem like diabetes or heart disease? Do you go for routine screening tests or rely on daily medications? Any medical test, treatment or prescription your boss or HMO doesn’t want to pay for could suddenly become morally objectionable — and under this amendment, your employer or insurance company would not have pay for it. You would lose your health care coverage.

Is this Scott Brown’s idea of standing by the middle class? Is this what he means when he says he wants to make this the “People’s Seat?” He wants to help families by letting employers and insurance companies take away health care coverage?

Tell Scott Brown that you want your United States Senator to stand up for the middle class and protect health care. Call his Senate office at (202) 224-4543 or (617) 565-3170 — and tell him you disagree with the Blunt amendment. Then ask your friends on email, Facebook, and Twitter to call Scott Brown, too.

This election is about whose side you’re on.

The economics around health care are huge for families. Skyrocketing costs have been a big factor in the financial squeeze facing middle-class families.

Despite all that, Scott Brown wants to give even more power to corporations and insurance companies to deny basic health care coverage and undermine a fundamental principle of the Affordable Care Act — namely that everyone in this country deserves a basic standard of health care coverage.

Right now, while Scott Brown is fighting to eliminate health care reform, I’m fighting for families to keep that coverage. I’ll fight for it now, and you can be sure I’ll keep right on fighting for families in the Senate.

Call Scott Brown’s Senate office at (202) 224-4543 or (617) 565-3170 and tell him to stand up for middle class families. Then forward this email to your friends and ask them to call, too.

Massachusetts families deserve better — and they need health care. Stand with me and join this fight.

Bill S. 1467 Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011

Declares that nothing in PPACA shall be construed to authorize a health plan to require a provider to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.

PPACA is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Elizabeth Warren responded to Scott Brown’s position:

“This election is about whose side you stand on,” she said. “Here’s an example of giving power to insurance companies and corporations to undercut basic health care coverage. I’m going to fight for families to keep that coverage. The economics around health care are huge for families.”

“I don’t think this will go over well in Massachusetts,” she said. “I think the people of Massachusetts will want to hear about it.”

Scott Brown’s response:

“It’s elitist for Elizabeth Warren to dictate to religious people about what they should believe and how they should act. She wants to use the power of government to force Catholics to violate the teachings of their faith,” Brown spokesman Colin Reed emailed. “That is wrong. This issue deals with one of our most fundamental rights as a people — the freedom of religion. Like Ted Kennedy, Scott Brown supports a religious conscience exemption in health care.”

It seems that Brown is not telling the whole story, while the amendment does have language on religious exemptions, it also includes what is called “moral objection”, Mother Jones explains that this bill:

would allow any insurer or employer, religiously affiliated or otherwise, to opt out of providing any health care services required by federal law—everything from maternity care to screening for diabetes. Employers wouldn’t have to cite religious reasons for their decision; they could just say the treatment goes against their moral convictions. That exception could include almost anything—an employer could theoretically claim a “moral objection” to the cost of providing a given benefit. The bill would also allow employers to sue if state or federal regulators try to make them comply with the law.

I don’t see the upside of co-sponsoring this legislation.

TABLE INCLUDING LEANERS ALL RVs
Joseph Kennedy III, the Democrat 60%
Sean Bielat, the Republican 28
Neither/someone else (VOL.) 4
Don’t know (VOL.) 7
Refused (VOL.) -

Obviously, it’s way too early at this point but I rather be at 60% than 28%.

“Down in old D.C., where they make policy

“We need her, we need her, we need her, the new nominee

“Fighting corporate greed, the tough economy,

“She’s everything the country needs,

“She’s the girl with the serious plan …”

The Herald quizzed Digney about how Huff was selected for the video, he revealed the grueling interview process and said “she fit the dress”.

But my favorite part of this Herald masterpiece was from Colin Reed. Reed is Brown’s spokesperson, his comeback?

We’re still waiting for Elizabeth Warren to hold a fundraiser that is not at the home of a Harvard professor.

Good one. How much is Brown paying you again? Dude, that’s weak.

It’s pretty much even:

2 more people picked Mitt than Newt out of about 600 people we polled tonight…that’s how close we’re talking

Pass the popcorn, it’s going to get ugly.

Warren’s spokeswoman, Alethea Harney, responded that “Elizabeth has been very clear that we need a clean and simple agreement to stop third party advertising in this Senate race.”

She added: “She is happy that Scott Brown has moved her way on this issue, but unfortunately, the proposal he has put forward still includes loopholes that Karl Rove could drive a tank through. She remains confident that a strong, enforceable agreement can be reached, and is committed to getting something done that is more than political rhetoric.”

If Brown walks away it might hurt him with voters who he is targeting as the anti-establishment candidate. You don’t want to be perceived as using Super PAC ads issue as cheap political rhetoric, his credibility would be at issue. It will be hard to be the outsider when the NRSC, K Street and Wall Street funding your campaign.

Warren called him on it, but at this point it looks like he’s ahem limiting his efforts to public statements. Hopefully Brown will put actions behind his words.

Warren says if Brown really wanted the ads pulled, they would go. She described Rove as Brown’s political “wingman” and said it’s hard to believe he’s really is trying to prevent the ads.

This is a fairly accurate assessment, Brown has of stated often times said that outside groups should stay out of the election but it’s usually in the context of ads against his record. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I have not come across a Scott Brown statement condemning Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS ads, just a blanket statement that groups should stay outside the race and referring to ads about his record playing the victim. Brown had done absolutely nothing to stop outside groups in this election other than to use them in a craven attempt at political jockeying.

It will become more difficult for Brown to be believable as more groups enter the fray and start spending money on this race, what’s Scott’s response to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce attack ads?

At this point, this is Brown’s response:

Brown said he’s limited his efforts to public statements.

Wink, wink, thanks Scott for coming out against outside groups.

As we all know, the consumer watchdog CFPB was created by Elizabeth Warren. It seems that Scott Brown so moved by the appointment that he felt compelled to release a statement:

I support President Obama’s appointment today of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB. I believe he is the right person to lead the agency and help protect consumers from fraud and scams. While I would have strongly preferred that it go through the normal confirmation process, unfortunately the system is completely broken. If we’re going to make progress as a nation, both parties in Washington need to work together to end the procedural gridlock and hyper-partisanship.

Kind of an odd statement given that several months back Brown with a few other Republican Senators sent a strongly worded letter to President Obama stating that the CFPB post was too critical to be handled by a recess appointment. The letter went on to detail that constituents expect greater transparency from their government.

We have been deeply disappointed by recess appointments in the last few months and trust that you will agree that the role of the CFPB is far too critical to be handled without the advice and consent of the Senate and the full public airing of relevant issues that that entails. Our constituents expect greater transparency from their government, and we look forward to your cooperation in making that possible by avoiding a recess appointment for this key position.

Scott can hold whatever position he wants, everyone is looking forward to a vigorous debate during this election. I understand that he’s trying to walk a fine line here, but the problem for Brown is that people are not stupid, they can see through a phony. Why not take a position that you think is right and debate why you think it’s best? At this point no one knows what you believe, was it a craven political move earlier, is it one now, or was it both times? Kind of reminds me of what David Axelrod said about Mitt, (paraphrasing) if you take both sides of every issue it does not make you a moderate or a centrist. It makes you a charlatan.

Brown did mention that he wanted more debates, maybe the Herald could set up Brown with a debate against himself.

Brown, who used a South Boston diner yesterday for a round of brief, 15-minute sit-down interviews with Massachusetts reporters, sought to paint himself as a bipartisan, moderate Republican.

He even seemed to leave the door open in the future to move away from his no-new-taxes pledge when he said was open to raising tax rates in an overhaul of the federal tax system.

“If you want to raise rates or do something as part of overall tax reform, I am all ears,’’ Brown said as he sipped a whipped-cream covered hot chocolate at Mul’s diner on West Broadway.

That seems to be a flip flop on his signing of Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge(pdf), where he pledged to not raise taxes, eliminate deductions or even reduce deductions for that matter.

Scott Brown’s handlers to the rescue, you see, when Scott said that he was all ears in raising rates, what he really was saying is that he’s opposed to raising rates:

“Scott Brown is opposed to raising taxes,” spokeswoman Marcie Kinzel said in an email. “He knows that Washington is not a good steward of taxpayers dollars. Until Congress can show that it will manage taxpayers’ hard-earned money responsibly, he believes we’re better off stopping all tax increases and forcing Washington to do more with less.”

No fencing sitting here kids, now run along. Is there anything that Scott Brown actually stands for? I’m starting to doubt it.

Late Monday night, House and Senate negotiators unveiled a final version of the bill, hatched in secret, that surprised nearly everyone who was paying attention. It proposed taking an additional $15 million in gambling profits once designated for cities and towns, and diverting the money to the state’s horse racing industry.

Deval Patrick’s interview on WTKK on why :

Patrick defended his political ally, House Speaker Robert DeLeo against charges that he held up the bill to ensure more funding for the horse racing industry. Suffolk Downs is located in the Winthrop Democrat’s district, and his father used to work at the track.

When co-host Jim Braude suggested the $17 million horse racing development fund was DeLeo’s “entry fee” for permitting casino gambling, the governor replied, “I think that’s unfair.”

Patrick unfortunately decided to continue speaking.

He said the money will be used not only to support the tracks, but also the breeders, blacksmiths, and other related businesses in Massachusetts.

“The industry is not just about racing; there is an agricultural dimension,” the governor said.

On Monday, two prominent Houston GOP boosters hosted a reception and dinner for Brown and Texas Senator John Cornyn, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Yesterday, Brown held a luncheon at the San Antonio Country Club.

Scott Brown’s campaign offered no details on his fundraising trip to oil country except the following:

Brown’s campaign declined to provide details about his visit to the Lonestar State. “All of Senator Brown’s donations will be made public at the end of the quarter,” said his campaign spokesman Colin Reed.

Doesn’t really sound like they want to talk about it.

First, Scott Brown voted to filibuster President Obama’s job bill, which granted was a party line vote. Scott Brown was quoted noting that the bill was a charade and they could instead pass portions of the bill that had bipartisan support. Not my first choice, I would rather that we pass a robust jobs bill:

called the push by Senate Democrats for a vote on the entire bill “a charade” and “political posturing.”

Brown had urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to instead pull out elements of Obama’s bill that both Republicans and Democrats could agree on and pass that.

Harry Reid did just that, he promised to force Republicans to display their obstructionism over and over again by breaking up the jobs bill and force votes on popular bipartisan proposals. The first of these votes was a key portion of the jobs bill, which would have provided states $35 billion to hire or retain teachers, police and firefighters. Scott Brown got what he asked for, how did he vote? Scott Brown filibustered again.

Brown filibustered the opportunity to, as President Obama noted: “keep hundreds of thousands of firefighters on the job, police officers on the streets, and teachers in the classroom.”

Second, the confirmation of the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been going on for quite some time, and last week’s vote had Republicans more than just Snowe and Collins, in fact, the likes of Corker, Graham and Kyl even voted for confirmation. Heck, even Republican Senator Portman of Ohio, who once headed the OMB joined in and voted for confirmation. Do you know who voted to obstruct? Scott Brown. Globe reported that he didn’t even bother to make a statement.

Scott Brown really needs to defend his voting, but I’m not holding my breath. I keep on reading Brown’s campaign make statements about Brown working to create jobs, but I really don’t see any evidence of it. In fact, it’s just the opposite, all I see is filibusters and obstructionism. Maybe I’ll get my answer when that Small Business owner gets her answer from Scott as to why he repeatedly filibustered tax credits and loans for small businesses.

Unlike Scott Brown, Warren didn’t have her campaign team attack the senator, she didn’t play the victim, she didn’t have other senators make remarks for her.

You know what else she didn’t do? Ask for an apology. She’ll survive Scott Brown’s attacks.

Scott could do wonders for his image by owning up to his stupid remarks and apologizing, but that is not in his makeup. It’s starting to be a pattern, instead of substance his campaign has been about sock puppet twitter accounts attacking opponents, registering attack web domains and now trying to denigrate opponents with sexist remarks. Not a path to victory Scott.

“How do you compete on a global basis when other country’s (corporate tax rates) are dramatically lower?” Brown asked the crowd.

When one small business owner asked the senator why he voted three times to filibuster tax credits and loans for small businesses, he couldn’t provide a definitive answer, noting he would have to pull those specific votes in order to address her question at a later date.

Hey Scott, here’s the roll call vote. Just to help you recall, you filibustered a jobs package for small businesses comprised mostly of tax cuts. Ring any bells?

Can’t wait to hear your reply.

Koch Industries is owned by Tea party bank rollers and Republican activists David and Charles Koch. Scott Brown was famously filmed begging David Koch for a campaign contribution. It seems that the Koch brothers are knee deep in trouble, but I wonder if Scott Brown will release a statement as he sponsored a bill earlier this year, No Contracting with the Enemy Act of 2011.

Here is the summary of the bill:

No Contracting with the Enemy Act of 2011 – Requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to prohibit the awarding of a federal contract to an enemy of the United States and to provide that any such contract shall be null and void and may be immediately terminated or rescinded. Extends similar prohibitions to subcontracts. Defines “enemy of the United States” as any person or organization determined by the Secretary of Defense or State to be hostile to U.S. forces or interests or providing support to any person or organization hostile to U.S. forces or interests during the time of a declared war, peacekeeping operation, or other military or contingency operation.

The wording of the summary does make it sound like Scott Brown is defining the Koch brothers enemies of the United States.

Hopefully he will make a statement and push to pass the bill, don’t want him to filibuster his own bill again.

But the fact of the matter is that Republican sheriffs Hodgson, Evangelidis and McDonald signed on to an ICE program called 287(g). The opportunity for Hodgson has been available for years, the Barnstable County sheriff’s department signed on to 287(g) only to withdraw from the program in 2009 when ICE decided that retraining was needed, the Framingham Police Department had also signed on and withdrew.

Hey Tom, funny I don’t read anything in 287(g) that has ever excluded Bristol County from participating in the program, you could have participated in the program like Barnstable County did the entire time Patrick has been in office. Do you know the only Massachusetts entity that is actively participating in the program? The Massachusetts Department of Corrections, which checks fingerprints of convicted criminal aliens.

Governor Patrick who appeared on WTKK responded to Hodgson:

“We already send all of our fingerprints to Washington. We sent all our convictions to Washington … The fingerprints go to the fingerprint people. ICE takes it from there. The federal government doesn’t need governors or sheriffs for that matter to, say, share information.” he said. “The interesting thing is, [the sheriffs] are doing nothing more than we are doing already, but with the big exception of grabbing headlines.”

Hodgson responded to Governor Patrick’s quote with it’s “as moronic as it gets”.

But I think we know who’s the real moron.

It seems to be that behind all the grandstanding is a sheriff who is more interested in covering his own ass when tragedy strikes rather that protecting the public. The next time Hodgson starts his baloney on going around Patrick on Secure Communities when the opportunity has always been there, ask him if he thought this was so important then what has he been doing over his past term in office. Other counties have already evaluated the program. Now years later he decides it’s important? What has he been doing?

Scott’s response:

There’s going to be plenty of polls. I don’t think about polls. Never been a big poll guy

That seems reasonable, I agree, there will be plenty of polls and it is still very early in the campaign. But Talking Points Memo reported Scott Brown overheard in the hallway of the Capitol:

Just walked passed Senator Brown’s office and in the hallway was the man himself, lamenting into his cell phone

I don’t understand how she can be down 20 points one week and is now up 2. What is going on?

When asked about the Talking Points Memo story Scott replied:

Excuse me, I’m all set

Ha ha ha ha, that’s just hilarious.

Politico notes that Brown’s Communications Director noted that his wife arrived and she steered him away ending his lengthy 45 second interview.

Breitbart’s war fantasy pits Janeane Garofalo, the SEIU, and “public sector union thugs” vs. him and America’s gun-owning anti-liberals. “They can only win a rhetorical or propaganda war,” he told a gathering of Tea Partiers in Boston. “We outnumber them and we have the guns.” When the gatherers laughed, he reiterated: “I’m not kidding.”

Oh, boy.

Breibart goes on to brag that “Major-named” people in the military have his back. Major-named? What does that mean? Ollie North? Who? Sure Andrew, now go run along and play nice with the other kids. But in all honesty, who hasn’t had a war fantasy against the mean liberals on twitter.

File under nut job.

UPDATE (by David): Here’s the video.  There really isn’t any mistaking his remarks – he seems pretty clear that he actually wants some shooting to start.  There’s laughter from the crowd, but as it becomes clear that he’s serious, it seems to me that the laughter gets a bit nervous.

*Update* Globe reports that MA Democratic Party calls on Brown to fire staff involved in web domain fiasco, Brown statement pending.

Fresh from being caught in political dirty tricks on August 24th. Scott Brown’s campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom and his New Media adviser Rob Willington were involved in creating a sock puppet twitter account and registered the web address which attacked other candidates. Scott Brown made no apologies for the negative attacks, nor did he remove any staff from his campaign, but he did promise that it will not happen again.Scott Brown’s statement on August 25th. (emphasis mine)

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.”

A few days later on August 28th, after Scott Brown says that this type of thing is not going to happen again, Rob Willington registers QueenElizabethWarren.com.

These are my questions:

Have you lost control of your team?

Do you know what’s going on in your own campaign?

What are you going to do about it?

Seems like Scott Brown needs to make some wholesale changes to his campaign, unless this is what we could look forward to over the next year as part of his strategy.

She may be an undeclared candidate, but potential Democratic U.S. Senate contender Elizabeth Warren appears to be gaining support among Massachusetts voters. A WBUR Poll released Tuesday puts the Harvard law professor the closest of four Democrats to incumbent Republican Sen. Scott Brown.

Here are the numbers:

Scott Brown 44%
Elizabeth Warren 35%
Another Candidate 2%
Don’t Know / Undecided 18%
Refused 1%

There seems to be a lot of votes up for grabs with the undecideds at 18%, plus Brown unable to hold a plurality of votes might be a concern as his popularity beings to slip. Tough race ahead, but Brown might be paying the price of ignoring constituents during the August recess, oddly not conducting a single open town hall meeting since being elected and voting with Republicans to filibuster jobs bills during the summer.

This can’t be a one way street … what are Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Scott Brown going to do? anything? or nothing?

Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Scott Brown campaign was caught in a dirty tricks scandal, crudely attacking candidates. What is Scott Brown’s response? Scott, where are you?

These are Gretta’s thoughts:

No, this is not the worst political dirty trick (see below) but it is dirty — and the guy behind it is a senior campaign adviser to both Senator Scott Brown and Governor Mitt Romney. It will be interesting to see if Senator Brown and/or Governor Romney ‘look the other way’ or if they do something in response to this. If they ‘look the other way,’ they better not complain later when something dirty is done to them. It can’t be a one way street…

One other thing…this is a chance for either or both to show leadership and to send a message that they want clean campaigns.

And let me repeat, this is not the dirtiest political trick but it is slimy and part of that slippery slope.

Hmmmmm, Scott Brown showing leadership? Not in his makeup.

Rounding out the Bobble Head schedule is the return of Sen. Scott Brown Bobble Head Night, August 22. The senator, who is scheduled to be in attendance, will be honored in his iconic Ford pick-up truck

Gag.

The folks at Mass Uniting, are starting an ad campaign tonight and will play through the week which shows why a bobble-head is a perfect symbol for Scott Brown. Mitch McConnell got his money’s worth from his bobble-head, shipping jobs overseas, slashing medicaid and social security, ending benefits for out of work Massachusetts residents, gutting job training assistance and eliminating youth job programs that he directly benefited from in his youth.

Brown was invited to participate in the video, which was organized by Kerry’s office, but declined to take part, said two congressional officials.

As usual, Scott couldn’t answer for himself, queue talking head Colin Reed who released a statement saying that Scott was too busy:

“His main focus right now is on creating jobs and getting our economy back on track.’’

Really? You mean by filibustering his own job bill, or filibustering a non-partisan jobs bill renewal, not creating or cosponsoring any legislation, or has he spent his time ducking questions and establishing no position whatsoever. Is that it Colin? We know he found time to get out of DC to line his pockets at a Stoughton fundraiser this past weekend while party leaders were working on their own alternative bills if that’s what Colin was talking about.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reviewed Scott Brown’s busy schedule and found out what he did do over the past few weeks.

They also responded to the Senator’s suggestion he’s focused on jobs and the economy by noting that Brown recently filed legislation to increase the penalty for killing seals.

“I guess he has time to save seals, but not gay kids,” Democratic Party Communications Director Kevin Franck said, sarcastically adding, “I mean, who doesn’t love seals?”

But alas I was wrong, Scott Brown took time away from his busy schedule in DC and prioritized attending yet another fundraiser over meeting with his constituents.

Always good for a few laughs, the folks over at RMG argue that sometimes a fundraiser feels like a town hall meeting.

On the heels of news that Elizabeth Warren was not selected to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Brown’s camp decides to release their own internal poll to the media. The Herald breathlessly reports that Brown’s popularity soars.

While I’m not going to argue that Brown is unpopular, Scott Brown in legitimate polls has shown to be quite popular in Massachusetts. But, I use the term legitimate polls here for a reason, Scott’s polling group Public Opinion Strategies (POS). POS is an extreme right wing outfit which had never met a Republican candidate that it didn’t poll winning or in their analysis finding a path to victory. Their work was humorously shown in the Charlie Baker campaign where the folks at RMG posted monthly that there was no way Charlie could lose, POS even had Charlie winning in October just prior to the vote.

Scott Brown’s rush to push his internal poll now has the odd feeling of desperation which is needless as he is in a strong position. Could just be in his character.

“Since he was sworn in nearly a year and half ago, Scott Brown has not held an open town hall meeting to allow members of the public to ask him questions and express their concerns,” party Chairman John Walsh said today in a statement. “Unless they belong to a business group, attend a campaign fund-raiser, or go to a Republican Town Committee meeting, Scott Brown doesn’t seem interested in listening to the concerns of folks in Massachusetts.”

Brown has also held a series of public and private book signings for his autobiography, “Against All Odds.”

Brown’s response:

A spokeswoman for the senator did not dispute the contention he had not held a town hall meeting but said he routinely interacts with the public. All told, he has held 220 events across Massachusetts since taking office.

So let me get this straight, the best spin Brown’s talking heads could come up with for turning his back on his constituents and not let their voice be heard is that he found enough time to pitch his book around the state, attended special interest group meetings and met with Republican activists to the tune of 220 times, but couldn’t find time for voters? Really? That’s the explanation?

It gets better:

“Senator Brown has met and will continue to meet with constituents around the state,’’ said Brown Communications Director Marcie Kinzel. “Right now, his priority is jobs. Today’s bad employment report is a reminder that we need to focus on pro-growth policies that will put Americans back to work.”

Ha ha ha ha ha. Good one.

You mean Brown filibustering his own jobs bill, or the other jobs bill that he filibustered recently, you know the one that has been creating jobs for decades? Is that what you are talking about Marcie?

Brownie this is your two year sales pitch to voters, the initial dating period where people are normally on their best behavior and this is what you do? Vote with Republican leadership when you know you are killing jobs? No show to voters? What are you going to do if you get six years?

Some details of the bill (pdf):

* For nearly fifty years, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has helped to create jobs and spur growth in economically hard-hit communities nationwide.
* Reauthorization of the EDA will help ensure that the agency is able to continue creating jobs and investing in distressed communities.
* Since 2005, the EDA has awarded more than $1.2 billion in grants to hundreds of communities nationwide – investments that are expected to create more than 314,000 jobs.
* Every $1 dollar in EDA grant funding is expected to leverage nearly $7 dollars worth of private investment.
* S. 782 makes changes to the EDA that will: increase flexibility for grantees; lower threshold requirements for grantees to receive an increased federal share; and, make more investments available for planning assistance if EDA funding increases.

Amazing that Inhofe filibusters his own bill.

Scott Brown talks about fighting for jobs but when push comes to shove Brown packed it in and didn’t fight, he bowed down to the Republican leadership and voted down jobs. At a time when we need someone in Washington to fight for jobs Brown has failed us miserably.

Asked if he would be concerned that a woman without legal immigration status was raped and beaten as she walked down the street might be afraid to report the crime to police, Mr. Fattman said he was not worried about those implications.

“My thought is that if someone is here illegally, they should be afraid to come forward,” Mr. Fattman said. “If you do it the right way, you don’t have to be concerned about these things,” he said referring to obtaining legal immigration status.

One posting that really hit the point home.

That anyone would just wave aside the rape or assault of any human, is enough to me to disqualify them for politics. The sad fact is that this is what passes for mainstream in the Republican Party today. No one is calling for this man’s resignation, no one is pointing out that he has a completely wrongheaded and skewed view of our system of law. He is just one of a group of Republicans bashing Gov. Patrick for not signing on to a failed and flawed program.

Well, enough is enough and I challenge anyone in the MA GOP to stand by his remarks. Should Fattman resign?

A Leadership PAC is setup to fund expenses such as travel in support of other candidates.

A leadership PAC in U.S. politics is a political action committee established by a member of Congress to support other candidates.

So if you want S. C. O. T. T. to show up, you need to pony up the cash for the private jet and luxury hotel. Scott Brown, a different kind of politician. Scott maybe you could gas up the old Saab pick up truck and do some campaignin’ instead.

On a funny side note, Dan Winslow’s crack team screwed up filing the basic form to create the PAC and needed to refile an amended form. Dan, dot the I’s and cross the T’s, can’t forget the email address.

Kudos to the Patrick Administration and those working to reduce crime in our state.

The Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development reported today that the total unemployment rate in April was 7.8 percent, down 0.2 of a percentage point from the 8.0 percent March rate. The preliminary April job estimates show 3,228,000 jobs in Massachusetts, an increase of 19,500 jobs. The private sector added 20,500 jobs.

The Commonwealth continues to move in the right direction.

“America’s economic destiny depends upon maintaining and enhancing our lead in technology, innovation, science and research,” says Mr. Porter, now chairman of Research America, an advocacy group in Alexandria, Virginia.

He is horrified by what House Republicans want to do to N.I.H. “These are blind cuts that take us exactly in the wrong direction; they are wrong-headed and short-sighted,” he said.

Economic impact quote from Peter Lynch:

With the economy as a priority, says the legendary investor Peter Lynch, health-research spending should be at the top of the agenda. “The N.I.H. has been one of the great elements of our economy,” said Mr. Lynch, who managed Fidelity’s Magellan Fund from 1977 to 1990, when assets grew 630-fold. “We should be expanding, not reducing this investment.”

Most importantly the impact on health:

the progress in battling disease, especially in recent years, has been noteworthy, with the United States leading the way. Heart disease and deaths from strokes are decreasing. In 2007, cancer deaths declined for the first time. Much of this is owed to the N.I.H.

“N.I.H.-funded research has revolutionized how we think about cancer,” Francis Collins, the agency’s director, has said, noting that much treatment has gone from reactive to proactive.

Scott Brown who has been pragmatic about job growth for the state and always notes how legislation impacts our state. If he didn’t know, he should, Massachusetts is the second largest recipient of NIH funding, there will be a negative impact to jobs in our state, “research employs about 70,000 people statewide“.

Heckuva job Brownie.

.