Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Scott Brown schmoozed tea baggers and MassResistance before voting with Harry Reid

By

The Brown people seem well aware who his base is, and he genuinely wants to stay connected with them. And among his base, it goes without saying that Scott Brown represents more than just a politician, but an entire movement. You can still feel the excitement over his victory. [snip]

A meeting like this in Massachusetts is really quite astonishing. Although the liberals get this kind of meeting all the time (e.g., the current governor regularly meeting with MassEquality), the idea of a U.S. Senator (or any major politician) sitting down with real conservative activists is simply unheard of. Certainly no recent Republican governor – Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift, or Mitt Romney – would have ever done this. They often met with liberal activists, but they were uncomfortable around conservatives and kept them at a distance.

But Brown’s message was that he’s willing to listen to us and take us seriously. And despite years of politics and sudden national fame, he hasn’t become elitist or condescending — which also makes him an oddity among politicians here.

After discussing Brown’s vote on the jobs bill, Camenker ends the essay unwilling to be critical of The Man Who Ate Pancakes with Brian:

On Tuesday morning there was wide range of reaction from Brown supporters, and it was the buzz of most of the talk shows. Did he do the right thing? We’ll let you decide.

Love at first bite?

Cross-posted at Pam’s House Blend.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. It bothers me that our Senator is taking the time to have lunch with the leader of a hate group. I don’t care if he didn’t vote the way Mass Resistance wanted him to, it’s the principle of meeting with a hate group…

    <

    p>I’m forwarding this  to all of the people I talked to that said I was making up MR’s support of Scott Brown during the campaign. The people who couldn’t see beyond the truck.

    • it wasn’t independents in the state.  Extremist groups out of state bankrolled Brown.  He gladly accepted the cash, we’ll see how the love affair plays out.

    • I have mixed feelings about this.  On the one hand, lending legitimacy to a fringe ugly group is probably not a good thing.  On the other hand, they’re US citizens, and they’re just as entitled as the rest of us to give the man an earful.

      <

      p>When Senator Brown turns down an invitation from another group on the grounds that they’re “a hate group” then there would seem to be a double standard.  Until then, it’s hard to convict him of anything but being accessible to all the flavors of citizen.

      • As I’ve noted before, Camenker and Brown have history:

        <

        p>

        Like most groups involved with Massachusetts politics over the years, we’ve known Scott Brown for quite a while. Occasionally he’s co-sponsored legislation that we’ve written. Occasionally he’s disappointed us. But he often bucked the trend and voted pro-family. He stood his ground on the same-sex “marriage” issue when other Republicans caved in. While not a particularly distinguished legislator, he was one of the better Republicans in the Legislature. Plus, he was friendly and fairly accessible.

        <

        p>To repeat myself: Brown voted against same-sex marriage three times.  He’s their boy.

  2. Camenker is a publicity hound.  In his world, anything that gets him media attention gives him cred.  Getting his picture taken with Brown and getting invited to speak at teabag gatherings associates him with the new hot thing.  He’s got to be overjoyed.  

    <

    p>It is interesting that the photo isn’t up on the MassResistance site, but Camenker’s article slamming Brown for palling around with the centrists is.  

    <

    p>All that said, the connection between Brown, the teabaggers, and Camenker is highly disturbing.  

    <

    p>Don’t forget: Brown voted against gay marriage THREE TIMES.  He’s their boy.

  3. This is more of a follow-up to the discussion of Ryan Sorba at CPAC, but the issues dovetail nicely.  Here’s Accuracy In Media on the subject of homosexuality and conservative vs. libertarian.  There’s a war a brewing:

    <

    p>

    Sorba said the negative reaction he got from some in the CPAC audience came from those in libertarian and pro-Ron Paul groups whose purpose is “to infiltrate the conservative movement and take it over from within.” He said that he received strong support after the event from traditional conservatives.  

    Proving the point, McCobin’s SFL is based at the libertarian Cato Institute, which has a conservative view on federal spending issues but promotes a U.S. military withdrawal from much of the world and very liberal social views, such as legalization of marijuana and other drugs.

    Adding to the controversy, the Cato Institute has been funded by the ultra-liberal billionaire George Soros, a major financial benefactor of many different “progressive” organizations. The Open Society Institute of Soros has put tens of thousands of dollars into Cato for such purposes as a “lecture series” on the dangers of a war on drugs, a project to prevent a national system of identification under the immigration laws, and a “Civil Liberties and Counterterrorism Initiative” that protects the civil liberties and human rights of accused terrorists.

    <

    p>The article goes on to give one of the weirder defenses of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell I’ve seen:

    <

    p>

    In fact, GOProud’s commitment to constitutionally protected homosexual sodomy (i.e., anal intercourse) is not a position that appears on the agenda of any conservative groups. Hence, using the term “gay conservative” to describe these people is either a deliberate deception or an oxymoron that doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

    Mauro claimed, “I know many conservatives who do not have a problem with homosexuals openly serving in the military, and many more who find banning sodomy to be an act of big government.”

    Of course, the “banning” of homosexuality is not realistically possible at this stage in the United States because the Supreme Court has effectively legalized it.

    But how will open homosexuals in the U.S. military be greeted on Muslim lands where homosexuality is still illegal?

    <

    p>

Archives