Faced with several embarrassing revelations in the last few days, Scott Brown has apparently decided to stonewall, in the hopes that he can forestall having to address them long enough to get through 8 p.m. tomorrow.
On two of these, the guys at Think Progress have done some great work. So let’s begin with our favorite (since we broke the story): Brown’s doubts about Obama’s parents’ marriage. Basically, having openly doubted that they were married on TV, Brown now says that he “was asked” whether they were married, and that he “didn’t know.” But that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. Roll the tape.
I DID NOT!!
Next up: Brown’s embarrassing failure to take on a particularly appalling comment by one of his fans. Roll the tape:
This video – also very popular on YouTube with well over 30,000 views since it was posted yesterday – is so bad that the NY Daily News is referring to it as Brown’s “Rick Lazio moment.” And so, predictably, Brown’s campaign claims “he emphatically said he did not hear it.” But look at the video again. Someone shouts out “suicide,” which isn’t so great either. He clearly hears that, and says nothing. Then the famous curling iron comment pops out. And Scott clearly reacts to something; appears to think about what to do next; smiles; and then goes ahead.
I DID NOT!!
Lastly, the Think Progress gang have dug up a beauty with respect to Brown’s appalling vote against MA employees who volunteered for the Red Cross after 9/11. Brown claimed that we didn’t have the money. We couldn’t afford it.
Turns out, though, that the state could afford to subsidize building a golf course in his district at exactly the same time. Presented with this awkward coincidence, Brown said … well, roll the tape.
“We had to obviously take care of the people in Massachusetts who needed to stay employed.” So, “obviously,” a bunch of state-funded hack jobs at a golf course in Scott’s district is more important than compensating state employees who uprooted their lives to volunteer in the aftermath of 9/11. Oh – and by the way, that law (that Brown voted against) is now helping to send volunteers from MA to Haiti.
Well, he couldn’t deny sponsoring the bill, or voting against 9/11 volunteers, so he didn’t deny it. He just thinks golf course hack jobs are more important. Hey, whatever works, Scottie.
… people are voting emotionally rather than logically.
<
p>God forbid a candidate screw up a question about an athlete, but if he gets befuddled by his own policy proposals…. that’s ok in Tea Bag World.
<
p>Brown is not ready for prime time and will be the most neutered puppy in the Senate should he win. Hopefully his staff will be good at taking flag requests and giving tours, because those are the only things they will be doing…. aside from going to Tea Parties as “Celebs,” that is.
Greg, I could not say it any better than your first sentence. This vote is emotion, not logical, or based on facts. If Brown wins, those who care about the issues, but voted out of anger, will be waking up with the political version of a hangover in just a few, short months.
<
p>Moreover, I don’t think most people really understand the issues, or the fact that Scott Brown is not Bill Weld. People are starting to catch up to that fact, but Brown’s only faced scrutiny in the past few days — when the polls have shown he has a decent shot. There hasn’t been enough time for this information to spread through the office water coolers quite yet. It always takes an extra week or so before a candidate’s horrific past votes/decisions become widely known, when first unearthed.
<
p>I hope there’s enough time, because I can’t see very many moderates or unenrolled voters voting for a guy who would not believe Obama’s parents were married, or voted to allow hospitals and health workers to deny rape victims emergency contraceptives. This is not a man who represents the values and opinions of Massachusetts voters, whereas Martha Coakley very much does. If people go into the ballot box with the facts, Martha wins comfortably.
A fellow phone banker tonight said that at work today, at the cafeteria, everyone was talking about this race, where they weren’t talking about it at all before.
<
p>I asked her, “for Martha or against?” and she emphatically said, “for, they were talking about voting for her tomorrow.”
<
p>Of course we could use another week for people to realize what this guy is, but hopefully some of this is percolating.
<
p>I guess we’ll see tomorrow…
in his dreams of Camelot and perfectly coiffed beneficence toward, uh, saving people money.
<
p>I needed a bit of a laugh right now, so I googled up this quote:
<
p>
Does anybody really think that the national GOP will let Brown be successful at anything that isn’t a straight up GOP plank? Not that I think there is much daylight between Brown and a straight up GOP plank (no matter how many times he asserts that he’s an ‘independent’ voice – the guy is an empty suit). To the extent he’ll be supporting regular old GOP party line, he’ll just be one of many with no real power. Indeed, if during re-election the national GOP gets the sense that Blue MA is resurgent, they’ll drop the $$ support like a hot potato (and they should).
<
p>Make no mistake, a vote for Brown might as well be a vote for Mitch McConnel.
who might as well be wearing an earpiece connected to Harry Reid’s mic, telling her how to vote and when to do it.
But hey, par for the course. “Par” for the “course” — get it? Like the golf course that Brown thought was more important than 9/11 volunteers? Oh, I slay myself.
a right winger makes absurd unsubstantiated claims. Martha Coakley was not my first choice for this seat. To say that she will vote strictly along party lines is nonsense, especially given her record as AG. Of course, out of the other side of their mouths, the Brown-shirts also complain about her NOT supporting Obama on troops for Afghanistan.
http://www.instantrimshot.com/
Like that’s a small thing.
It’s stunning that they missed the golf course thing. Would have been exactly the type of thing to use as a zinger in a debate.
They would have done a better job if they had simply asked BMG volunteers to do this in early December.
is that it wasn’t even them that dug up the 9/11 bill in the first place. That was Greg Sargent.
… I cannot think of one piece of opposition research that made it out to the public. What’s up with that?
I am voting for Martha because of who she IS – not because of all the dumb stuff her opponents, may they return to richly deserved obscurity, are not.
…you could convince JohnD and billxi of that. My take is that she didn’t go too negative because she thought she had it sewn up and didn’t need to bother with oppo research.
I have not mentioned Martha Coakley’s opponents once in my posts…think about it. There is no such thing as “bad ink” in an election like this – you are giving away free advertising. Tsk Tsk.
Sincerely I do. However, I disagree with your notion that there is no “bad ink.” At this point, if there is anybody wavering, simple and straight-forward demonstrations of a candidate’s competency can be very effective.
<
p>Remember, if just 1 voter out of 20 switches, it is a 10 point swing.
If people like us don’t tell the world who Scott Brown really is, apparently no one else will. The old “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” adage doesn’t apply in this kind of situation, IMHO.
I think he might really be Katherine Harris in drag. But I know for a fact that he has a vapor density less than one. He has no accomplishments that make him worthy of being a United States Senator. What have we come to when lightweights like Sarah Palin and Scott Brown are given serious consideration for high office? It is shameful to me.
Better if you both bought Martha and Tom a pick up truck or showed photos of them over the bar-b-que and drinking beer! And they had made the rounds at events like the Billerica Annual Democratic Bar-B-Que and picnic.
<
p>And ran the photo in the Herald and the Billerica Town Crier of them being real people doing ordinary stuff.
<
p>Just my .02 and I have LOTS more thoughts from the trenchs where I live and work.
After all, anybody who’s seen me on facebook knows I’m VEHEMENTLY against Scott Brown in this race, but if, as the reporter claimed, that golf course was in Newton, Brown is right– that’s not his district.
<
p>Doesn’t take anything away from the fact that it’s silly to support a golf course over aid to 9/11 workers, and then suggest that “we couldn’t afford” to help those aid workers. His vote on the golf course shoots that idea right out the window. But I do want to make sure we don’t set OURSELVES up for claims that we’ve got it all wrong because that’s not actually his district.
<
p>Of course, if the reporter got the location of the golf course wrong, then my entire fact-check point could be totally moot.
Follow the link.
In that case, my point IS moot. Glad to hear I don’t actually have to back up any part of Brown’s account… phew!
We have people to help out in emergencies. If public employees want to go down there and “VOLUNTEER” their time, them why should the state PAY FOR THEM? I volunteer for things and I don’t expect anyone to pay me for VOLUNTEERING!
<
p>That goes for back in 2001 and it goes for now. If you want to go to Haiti to help out for the disaster, don’t expect me to pay you for it. We employ soldiers and millions of government workers whose job it is to go there. We don’t need to pay volunteers.
-Perhaps a quarter million people are dead.
<
p>-Some of our state workers have skills that come in handy once or twice in a decade and who rush to places like Haiti, the Asian Tsunami, the World Trade Center, etc…
<
p>-The state wants to encourage this kind of volunteerism, so it gives these employees paid time off.
<
p>-And you bitch about it.
<
p>Classic.
<
p>How do you feel about job security for those who “volunteer” for the National Guard?
I think the earthquake is an incredible natural disaster. The US is supporting the efforts to not only rescue people but to feed and care for the injured. Don’t try to mix my words.
<
p>If people want to go there (or any place else in the world to help other people) then I support them going. I would even support them getting an UNPAID leave of absence to go help out. But I DO NOT support paying someone from our hard earned taxes to go VOLUNTEER.
<
p>I have the same issue with Deval’s moronic state worker volunteer program. Whenever we talk about cutting the fat out of state government, people defend the workers and say there is no fat. How can the governor allow workers to “volunteer” a day a month to help out in all these areas? One day a month equals 5% of a state workers work time. Is he saying we can reduce our state workforce by 5% with no impact on the work being done? If so, let’s cut 5% of the state workforce and call it a day (and save 5% of the labor costs of the entire state work force).
Right there, John elucidates a big difference between Dems and GOPpers. Democrats believe government is supposed to make people’s lives better. This sort of support for volunteerism is a strong illustration of that.
<
p>It’s the same logic that gives us tax deductions for donating to charities — which John’s logic would argue is “moronic”. After all, people should feel free to donate to charities, but why is the government paying (through tax breaks) to do so?
<
p>Because it improves the quality of life for all, that’s why.
<
p>And if there’s ever a major natural disaster in Massachusetts (like another Blizzard of ’78), I certainly hope other state governments have similar policies.
they can send in help and pay the people for doing their jobs. I have no problem with MA sending their rescue teams or security or an other state worker and simply pay them for doing their jobs but not taking a “paid leave of absence”.