Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

You’re a Good Sport, Scott Brown

By

Got an email from my buddy Scott Brown today. Here is his self-described record:

This past year, I opposed the federal takeover of our health care system, refused to support economically disastrous Cap and Trade legislation, voted against amnesty for college-aged illegal immigrants, and supported the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, which are vital to our economic future.

I also take serious the challenge of reducing federal spending and debt, which is why I refuse to sponsor spending earmarks.

I point without comment to:

–the federal takeover of our health care system

–economically disastrous Cap and Trade legislation

–amnesty for college-aged illegal immigrants,

–continuation of the Bush tax cuts, which are vital to our economic future.

That’s three things opposed and one supported. That’s not how an aspiring politician is supposed to position him/herself, is it? And no mention of his crusade against extending unemployment benefits.  This is the best he can do to advance his re-election prospects? Come on, folks, let’s make him a historical footnote.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. By selecting “government takeover’ as Lie of the Year, PolitiFact is not making a judgment on whether the health care law is good policy.

    The phrase is simply not true.

    Said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill:  “The label ‘government takeover” has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government authority in health care as a ‘takeover.’ “

    http://politifact.com/truth-o-…

  2. What a world where his “accomplishments” are a series of things he didn’t do, and the one thing he did wasn’t even his idea.

    <

    p>Additionally, I have to say, what a patriot.  Voting “against amnesty for college-aged illegal immigrants,” what a champion.  We all know how horrible those college students are, out there all “bettering themselves.”  I can’t tell if this is a part of the crusade against illegals or another phase of the “education is an elitist detriment” political narrative.

    <

    p>Dare I say both?! Ugh.

  3. progressives think that if you are against expanding the role of government that you don’t have ideas.  Being against the expansion of government is the highest ideal in my book.  

    <

    p>The government is regulating healthcare by draconian measures in obamacare.  That is a takeover whether politifact wants you to think that or not.

    • Dude, you are on. So on. A talking point drive-by.

      <

      p>Eabo, if you have an actual argument somewhere, that’d be great. You know, some kind of provable/disprovable thesis, with some factual backup, that kind of thing.

      <

      p>No, “regulation” is not a “takeover”. And “draconian”, well, be specific.

      • Just think of the melamine loaded cat food that killed 100,000 pets – because the chinese “gluten” wasn’t gluten and wasn’t regulated.

        <

        p>Or the effect of deregulation on [pick one] airlines, banks, mortgages…

        • I’m not going to let evidence get in the way of my neat theory.  

          <

          p>Seriously, though, use of evidence is not a strong suit for Republicans these days, so we shouldn’t expect anything other than the fantasyland talking points.

          <

          p>  

    • if you have absolutely no positive solutions to any of our problems. Republicans only solution to just about every problem is tax cuts combined with lots of hand waving and wishful thinking.

    • …Can you elaborate?

      <

      p>

      progressives think that if you are against expanding the role of government that you don’t have ideas.  Being against the expansion of government is the highest ideal in my book.

      <

      p>I can understand why that notion (and it is, as yet, and until you elaborate, merely a notion…) might appeal to a Benjamin Franklin or even an Oliver Cromwell…  But you ALREADY live in a rather stable Republic. Why would such a notion even occur to you?  Why would you oppose a government that you could actually join and yourself influence?

      <

      p>What does it even mean?  How is it that “being against the expansion of government is the highest ideal” is even plausible when your involvement in the government goes beyond any ‘ideal’ and becomes a practical option?

      <

      p>Assuming that you are now resident in Massachusetts, you therefore live in a CommonWealth.  Very well.  If you don’t like that you have several options:

      <

      p> — Get elected to the state government and work to implement the change.

      <

      p> — Move to some other state or country

      <

      p> — Piss and moan about how being against a CommonWealth is somehow a noble  ideal and the very possession of such a noble ideal places you squarely in the path of an oppressive… what?  I dunno?  An oppresive majority? How can that be ?

    • Usually, I think that EaboClipper posts here to test out talking points. Some tests fail. Maybe this was one of them.

      <

      p>Yet perhaps, the goal is to get us to all underestimate the intelligence of conservatives. Honestly, there has to be a conservative somewhere that can make the case against the healthcare Act.

      <

      p>EaboClipper wants us to believe there isn’t.

  4. Whether or not you think earmarks are good fiscal policy, they don’t represent a cent of increased spending, and therefore have no impact on reducing federal spending nor debt.

    <

    p>Now, if he wants to argue that Dept XYZ had $abc in earmarks last year, and therefore could have their budget cut by $abc this year and get no earmarks, that’s a different story altogether.  It’d at least be an honest story, even if it’s a foolish one.

    • Earmarks direct spending rather than creating it.  One argument in favor of them is that our local electeds understand better where money should be spent in our state than the federal government would.

      <

      p>On the other hand, earmarking can and does lead to each legislator adding his or her own projects and increaing the bottom line by enough to pay for it.  Since everyone gets something they all vote for it and spending ticks up.  A line item veto would mitigate this problem but has been ruled unconstitutional thus far.

      <

      p>Not to go off on a complete tangent but I think a line item veto could be constitutional if it allowed for an override by simple majority.  This would keep the spending powers firmly in the hands of the legislative branch but would force an up or down vote on individually selected items. For what its worth…  

      • On the other hand, earmarking can and does lead to each legislator adding his or her own projects

        <

        p>certainly

        <

        p>

        and increaing [sic] the bottom line by enough to pay for it.

        <

        p>I think this is actually untrue.

        <

        p>

        <

        p>Personally, I’m not so sure that earmarks are what results in legislators voting for or against a given budget.  Earmarks are such a small portion of the budget, and it’s just not clear to me that the pet projects swing votes.

        • I don’t think earmarks swing votes.  I think individual legislators push for their own earmarks and that paying for all of the earmarks can result in a higher bottom line.

  7. Since, given the nature of Brown’s remarks, there are some understandably skeptical commenters here, below is an exact copy of the entire email text.

    <

    p>Dear Friend,

    <

    p>It’s hard to believe it’s been one year since we rocked the political establishment with our victory in the Special Election on January 19 for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.

    <

    p>One year ago today, you sent a message to Washington that it was time to say no to business as usual.

    <

    p>Since becoming your Senator, with every vote that I have taken, I have always had a citizen’s perspective with your interests in mind.

    <

    p>This past year, I opposed the federal takeover of our health care system, refused to support economically disastrous Cap and Trade legislation, voted against amnesty for college-aged illegal immigrants, and supported the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, which are vital to our economic future.

    <

    p>I also take serious the challenge of reducing federal spending and debt, which is why I refuse to sponsor spending earmarks.  

    <

    p>I campaigned with the promise of making jobs my number one priority. As your Senator, I have been focused on getting our economy back on track and allowing American innovation to flourish without heavy regulations from Washington.

    <

    p>I wanted to send this email to say thank you for all your help. From the bottom of my heart, I am glad to call you a friend and a supporter. I am so grateful to serve you in the United States Senate and I look forward to continuing the work we started a year ago.

    <

    p>Our Massachusetts miracle was the beginning of a Republican revolution that swept the nation this past November. Great victories have been won, but the fight continues.

    <

    p>As you have undoubtedly heard, the political machine in Massachusetts is working hard to defeat us and will spend whatever it takes to unseat me. I need your help to win again.

    <

    p>Please take a moment to make a donation on this anniversary of our Special Election win.  For those who can contribute today, we have some very special gifts.  Donate $19 and receive a specially produced anniversary pin.  Donate $100 today and receive an autographed “Peoples’ Seat” cushion.

    <

    p>Your Senator,

    <

    p>P.S. If you text BROWN to 68398 you will be able to receive infrequent text messages from me while I’m on the road.  

Archives