The Youth Jobs Coalition came to the State House today to ask for additional state funding for summer jobs programs.
According to the Globe and Herald stories
Several of the young people at the rally said getting a job helped them stay out of trouble, stay in school and help their families make ends meet.
“When I was young, I ran with the wrong crowd,” said Anthony Fowler, 14, a freshman at Brockton High School.
State jobs funding helped him land a job as a summer counselor with the Boys and Girls Club of Brockton, Fowler said, and helped him turn his life in the right direction.
The Youth Jobs Coalition might have pointed to Senator Scott Brown as a role model for success. In his 60 Minutes interview, he acknowledged that he had come “perilously close to being a juvenile delinquent,” and that he had benefitted from a federal youth jobs program called CETA.
But the Youth Jobs Coalition would have been very disappointed. During the interview, Brown was asked about his recent vote against funding for jobs programs for low-income teens.
“I see what you’re trying to, you know, infer somehow that I’m not, you know, focusing on people that are unfortunate,” Brown replied.
The Senator steadfastly refused to make the connection between his own youthful troubles and those facing kids today. So, why did he vote against funding for jobs programs?
“These are votes that are real. They’re today. And it’s 45 years later. And in this day and age, with the deficit running so high, we have to find a way to use the money that’s there in the system. It’s critical.
You’re right Senator. We’re somehow inferring that you’re not focusing on people like you were once — unfortunate.
This is the third instance I have seen in the last few weeks, where he seems unable to equate what he went through as a youth and people struggling now.
<
p>The first is the fact that he angrily rejected anyone who saw a similarity between his fear and pain when he was abused and that of Ms Allen, who was abused by an officer reporting to Jeff Perry. The fact that Perry went to her home and tried to intimidate her family and her did not seem to both Brown when he – almost alone among major MA Republicans – continued to stand with Perry after Allen spoke out.
<
p>The second was in his answer to welfare programs his family used and people needing help now. His answer was similar to the one documented.
<
p>This summer job one is really telling because it was a bill that very successfully would have created both summer jobs and an extension of the TANF program that had successfully created jobs needed in low income areas. His vote against it was pathetic – especially as he caused $19 billion of taxpayer money (TARP) to be spent to create a fund that will be used if financial companies fail instead of having it funded by the banks, as the bill originally was written. The change was made because they needed one more vote for cloture – Brown’s.
<
p>What seems clear is that Brown’s hard childhood rather than making it easier for him to understand and have empathy for people struggling now instead seems to have in some way made him less sensitive than most people.
<
p>Ironically, considering the credit Brown gets for being an “everyman”, “man of the people”, the summer jobs/TANF bill was sponsored by Patty Murray and co-sponsored by John Kerry, whose childhood was one of great privilege. On that bill and on getting funding for almost 2 decades for Youthbuild, which helps underprivileged kids, it is clear that personal experience with hardship is not necessary to have empathy for people who do. (Here is Kerry’s statement from today on funding for a Somerville Youthbuild program ( http://www.facebook.com/notes/…
<
p>In Brown’s case what is clear is that personal experience does not always lead to any empathy at all. I sympathize with the tough childhood that Brown had and see that Brown has succeeded in overcoming everything. He seems to have a very happy marriage and family and he was successful enough to become a Senator, but his complete inability to see that the very tools he used and needed are needed by people now (more than the money that could have come by letting the tax cuts expire for the wealthist.) is stunning.
Part of me reads his response as more of his ever-growing self-regard. Because he’s a good and wonderful guy, by definition, he cannot be against the less fortunate. He’s too wonderful for that!
<
p>Similarly, he’s so wonderful that he won the most dramatic election of the last fifty years and — it shook up Washington!
<
p>Similarly, he’s so beautiful that everyone will want to see a naked picture of him.
<
p>These things are connected.
<
p>An opposition campaign against him should tie all this together.
That is really clear in some of his nearly incoherent and rambling Senate speeches and the fact that he talked endlessly of being number 41 – when in fact, on any bill ANY Republican could be the number 60 that the Democrats needed – and it often was someone else – Collins, Snowe, and even Voinivich or LeMieux. He really bought the PR that some wrote about him.
He thinks he’ll get more votes by shutting down government programs than by helping disadvantaged members of his constituency, many of whom don’t vote anyway.
<
p>I think one underestimates Brown by asserting that he doesn’t understand what he is doing.
I realize that he is very popular – and though I don’t completely understand why he seems to have charmed the media – print and broadcast – it is obvious that he has.
<
p>What I really don’t get is why he appears to have succeeded in getting people to think he is a “regular guy”, like them – when I seriously doubt he would give them the time of day, if he didn’t need their votes. One question I have is whether repeated observations like these will chip away from that facade enough to lose sufficient votes.
<
p>As to so many potential beneficiaries of programs he votes against voting – it may be that in a Presidential year they might vote in higher numbers. It might help if the Democrats find a candidate who inspires them to vote.
I’ve got mine, forget you.
As David noted, a man-bites-dog moment occurred recently, when Senator Brown criticized President Obama for proposing to cut the Low Income Heating Assistance Program.
<
p>So I wonder why LIHEAP is exempt from the Senator’s otherwise spotless record of opposing spending on human services?
<
p>1. He’s like a misanthropic bank president whose only act of charity is to sponsor a Little League team (best PR value for the buck).
<
p>2. He knows that, unlike job support programs, LIHEAP is very popular among seniors, who not only get cold but also vote regularly.
<
p>3. The oil and gas industry, which would prefer that the government continue to spend $5.1 billion on LIHEAP, is among the Top 20 industries donating to Brown’s campaign fund.
<
p>Check all that apply.
We’re coming back to votes and issues, and that’s how you beat Scott Brown.
<
p>As Brown wants to defund at risk programs, votes to take away health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, take away benefits for prescription drugs for seniors, etc. and make that the focus the better position we’re in.
<
p>In this instance he voted to cut funding for youth jobs. He’s the poster child that it works!
<
p>I like it, good post.
Scott Brown is an excellent, excellent politician in the worst possible sense of the term.
<
p>He is brilliant at offering evasive answers and changing the subject while smiling and being handsome.
<
p>A remedy to this is to expose his hypocrisies, which are so legion as to be definitional.
<
p>The local media has singularly failed at this task — to the point where they often enable him and provide cover for his fallacies rather than doing what is nominally their job. Fortunately, there is another … you, readers.
It says a lot about Brown, none of it good. Rather than drawing on his personal experience to find empathy for people who now find themselves in situations similar to where he once was, and to figure out ways of helping those people, he seems to be using his personal experience as a shield. In effect, Brown seems to be saying, “hey, you can’t accuse me of not caring about those people because I was once one of them” – regardless of how he votes.
<
p>Profoundly cynical, and profoundly disappointing.
There are
twothree types of politicians:<
p>1. Those people like instantly: Brown, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama come to mind. Although the fates of these people can change, the default setting is always like, among the public at large.
<
p>2. Those people can be convinced to like: Mike Capuano comes to mind, and Martha Coakley. Deval Patrick is a borderline case; he might be group 1. Sarah Palin is in danger of falling into this group, with little chance of recovering — that’s rare.
<
p>3. Those people will never like: I’d rather not name examples, but I can think of a few. People might vote for someone in this group, but they will never like them. Richard Nixon, maybe.
<
p>The key point is that, if you make the story ABOUT someone in group 1, THEY WIN. Every time. So please stop helping Scott Brown.
<
p>
The election for
Brown’sthe people’s seat in 2012 is 85% about Brown. It’s a referendum on an incumbent, like every other race in which the incumbent seeks reelection. Sure, it matters who the Dems nominate. But people will inevitably know Brown much better than whoever the Dem ends up being.Go after his votes, go after his party. What does HE say about what’s going on in Wisconsin?
<
p>If it’s a referendum on him as a person, he wins. I’d love to be wrong about that, but you know I’m not.
allowed him to succeed.
<
p>In fact, I would bet that the coach who helped him was a committed teacher, likely now enjoying the pension that he earned working above and beyond his job description – as many teachers do, changing the life of a bright but troubled young boy. Does Brown feel that this coach deserves the benefits that his union won for him?
<
p>I do agree that attacking him as a person is useless and it likely is for almost any politician.
The issue is the budget. Period. Either this program is worthy of funding, or it isn’t.
<
p>Calling him a hypocrite, as this diary does if indirectly, deflects the issue to him. Winner, SB. Loser, a broader debate about budget priorities. I think this hurts us.
…if the person you are debating is incapable of taking a consistent position and doesn’t even base policy decisions on personal experiences, beliefs, etc and thus you have no idea where he will end up. No principals 9i don’t call cut when conveinent and popular a principal) creates a huge uncertainty in the policy debate.
<
p>So, while I have chosen to advocate for youth programs that will keep kids safe and off the street, shaped by my life experiences and belief in such programs, such that budget priorities should include these programs, others choose to drive all over the road and have no plan on where to steer the country and analyze the impact of a cut cut cut mentality.
<
p>You can’t debate these people when they won’t listen to the rational behind the argument for keeping a program.
But one could easily say, a vote to cut a program despite a personal tie to a similar program, is morally consistent for a Republican.
…but on 60 Minutes, Brown was unable to explain the moral consistency of his position. Instead he (1) defensively accused interviewer Leslie Stahl of making the inference that he didn’t care about those less fortunate than himself, and (2) in a very rote fashion invoked the current budget deficit (which he helped to aggravate) in order to end the discussion. The result was that he added validity to Stahl’s inference.
<
p>I understand the truism that, especially for the Telegenic Classes, there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but I doubt that this part of the interview helped him much, even with people prone to falling for his meticulously contrived “authenticity.”
<
p>But a good reminder to watch out for such traps – thanks.
<
p>
problem is not that his family used them. The problem is that people need them and they are worth it. I would say this if it were Senator Romney (had he run and won) and he voted against it.
Not among anyone I know – and that includes Republicans!
<
p>I think what Brown has is that he is handsome and the media loves him ans has covered for him. They have rarely reported any details of his speeches in the Senate – which often verge on incoherent or what he says when he decides to answer questions.
<
p>Frankly, ANY politician would be considered well liked with the sycophantic press that Brown has received from every media source. In fact, think hard and try to remember one or two examples of stories where someone describes a kind action – NOT LIKELY TO BE REPORTED – that Brown has taken. I can’t think of them.
<
p>The fact is his popularity was achieved by branding him as the everyman, wearing a barn coat and driving a truck. This somehow has been labeled by the media as “authentic” – yet it is far too simplistic to be who anyone is – and in his case, the jacket was bought for the campaign and cost $900 and the truck was bought to tow his daughter’s horse. Some everyman!
She was an instant sensation. She drew huge crowds and raised money at record levels.
<
p>Whenever Tina Fey played her on SNL, ratings doubled. When Palin herself appeared on the show, ratings tripled.
<
p>I don’t like her either, but a lot of people do. And a lot of people still like her. She may have finally jumped the shark by misplaying the aftermatch of the Giffords shooting so badly, but I wouldn’t count on it.
<
p>
especially by bringing up Tina Fey. Yes, those show drew huge ratings. But they sure didn’t help Palin. To the contrary, I think Tina Fey had nearly as much to do with Obama’s winning the election as Obama did. Those parodies were devastating, and made it almost impossible for anyone who had seen them to take Palin seriously as someone who should be a heartbeat away from having the codes to the missiles.
<
p>Yes, a lot of people liked her then, and like her now. But those numbers were not enough to win in 2008, nor are they now.
It’s my fault, for bringing up SNL.
<
p>But really, David, this is EPIC FAIL on your part.
<
p>
<
p>ABSURD! TROLLISH! I don’t care if you run the place, that is just plain terrible analysis and completely wrong. People have been watch Obama closely since he appeared at the convention in 2004.
<
p>But again, it’s my fault — I went to Palin the pop culture phenomenon. So let’s start over.
<
p>Put that aside if you like, but then explain the massive crowds at her railles, and her enormous prowess as a fundraiser. As recently as the last election cycle, her endorsement was highly sought, and not just by Tea Partiers, but by high-profile, star-in-the-makiing candidates like Kelly Ayotte, R-NH.
<
p>
But I think what she did was quite significant, particularly in changing the media narrative about Palin. The Palin die-hards will always be there – and a lot of them like to go to rallies. But there are 300 million people in this country. Most of them don’t love Sarah Palin.
don’t vote either.
… she only has to please the GOP base, and get enough indepdendents to win. She can do that while being well short of a majority of the public, because only about 40% of the electorate votes.
<
p>
OK – everybody, including me, agrees that David’s comment about Tina Fey’s influence on the 2008 election was an overstatement for dramatic effect.
<
p>But McCain’s last lead over Obama was in mid-September. Tina was Sarah on SNL on Saturday, September 14.
<
p>
<
p>More detail and better resolution here.
This is a very interesting comment, JimC.
<
p>It doesn’t remind me of Palin so much as of Reagan whose popularity seemed impervious to exposure of his bad policies. Those of us on the Left “saw through” Reagan’s motives and tried to communicate that to others, but Reagan was very good at communicating authenticity, so accusations of hypocrisy bounced off him. Not for nothing was he compared to Teflon. Nothing stuck.
<
p>Likewise, perhaps, Scott Brown: We can interpret his motives cynically. We can be certain that he acts out of hypocrisy. We can even hypothesize that he knows he’s being a hypocrite.
<
p>But if he appears authentic under the television lights, it doesn’t matter. Not a bit.
<
p>We should remember that people vote on the basis of amateur theater criticism (because that’s easy) and not on the basis of policy (because that’s hard). We’d be better off plotting our win in the theater criticism battle. As I wrote above, I even think that’s doable.
What has he done to draw on his experience as an abused youth? I was abused as a youth. Has he worked with youth organizations, like I have, to make their life better? Has he filed legislation, like I have, to make our kids safer? Is he and those he hires sympathetic to the plight of the abused and harrassed? Would he get rid of a staff/aid/counsel/advisor/etc. if he knew they treated people wrongly or harrassed them or acted inappropriately toward women or children? I don’t think he would frankly. Maybe he has done some of these things, maybe he would take action. I have just seen no evidence of it. Brown is all about Brown.
Strikes me as a fitting Republican tradition from Goldwater to Reagan to Palin to Brown. I have more respect for the blatantly plutocratic Republicans out there like the Bushes, at least they aren’t responsible for their plutocracy since they were born into it. But for the life of me I don’t see how conscientious people who pulled themselves by the bootstraps can allow the same government that helped teach them how atrophy and wither instead of helping another generation. Adlai Stevenson once said ‘vote like a Democrat so you can live like a Republican’, apparently these guys added another sentence “…so you can live like a Republican and ensure no one else can”.
Well one explanation is the following:
We might couple that with the charming superstition in GOPerville that, if we just let private enterprise work its magic in a free market with near zero taxes, then prosperity will roll in and we will all become more affluent. These guys are dedicated, ardent utopians. They are certain that their policies are good for everyone.
At the end of the day, while his ignorance on foreign affairs, his Jack Bauer approach to torture and civil liberties, and his knee jerk opposition to health care reform should rank as his most offensive offenses, its the fact that he, like me, is the son of a welfare mother, but unlike me he has forgotten where he came from and insists on cutting those that helped him in the past. His radical assault on working people has to be the centerpiece of our nominees campaign. His rhetoric and style won over the blue collar crowd, lets win em back with a no nonsense, tough, street fighting populism.