During Perry's tenure with the Wareham police department he defended an officer against two separate charges of sexual assault – one of which Perry was present at the scene of the crime. Astonishingly, Perry is apparently remorseless of his handling of the two cases. In a May 2010 investigative report by the Globe, Perry said “I did what I think is good police work.” The people of Massachusetts’ tenth congressional district rejected Perry's candidacy. However, Brown stood by Perry's side, even as the allegations of misconduct were well documented. As Peter Gelzinis points out in this morning's Herald:
Even as Lisa Allen came forward to accuse former state rep and Wareham police officer Jeff Perry of doing nothing while a fellow cop sexually assaulted her eight years ago, Brown didn’t just ignore her, he pooh-poohed the story. … “Voters don’t want to hear about this (the sexual abuse of Allen),” Brown told a Hyannis crowd in June after they ponied up $1,200 a head to attend a fund-raiser he hosted for Perry. “They want to get back to the issues,” Scott insisted.
Brown even went so far as to record a radio ad defending Perry’s integrity and attacking critics of Perry’s handling of the sexual assaults:
Sadly Jeff’s opponent in the race, Bill Keeting has decided to focus almost entirely on negative attacks concerning an incident that took place almost two decades ago and which didn’t directly involve Jeff. These are the same ugly tactics that were used against me in my campaign for the United States Senate. … Jeff is a decent and honorable person and I would be proud to have him join me in bringing common sense back to Washington.
Now, just a week after Brown shared his painful personal story, questions are being asked about Brown’s apparent double standard. In fact yesterday, Brown refused to answer a question about the blatant hypocrisy:
As Brown and his staff entered the State House, he said he would not be taking any more questions, not even acknowledging one final query about former police officer and state Rep. Jeff Perry and the allegations during his run for Congress last year that he failed to intervene when another cop sexually harassed a teenaged girl. “We’re all done,” Brown said.
All of this just raises a host of tough questions about a politician we actually know fairly little about. If he could overlook his past to stick by Jeff Perry so strongly – even explicitly defending him – what does this say about his principles, about what's really important to him? Why is his past useful as a story during a book promotion tour, but not important enough to guide him when he does the politically expedient? What exactly is Scott Brown's compass, what does he really care about? Judging by the non-answers so far, I'm not sure we'll get an answer we can trust from Scott Brown, but I'm listening.
I really do not think it is appropriate to turn a personal revelation such as we got from Senator Brown this week into a political football. Sounds like he feels there’s not much to the story about Jeff Perry, which may be an unfortunate interpretation of the evidence, but it’s not as if Brown is condoning molestation.
I think it is a question of whether he has empathy for people, who like he suffered abuse. There is a connection in that Brown speaking of his own experience speaks of the fear he had of not being believed or hurt if he did.
<
p>In the case of Allen, her parents did stand behind her and push the case and the molester was punished. However, Perry was among those who tried to prevent that justice from happening. The fact that he went to her house essentially to intimidate her and her parents is a problem – and that district obviously thought so – as it was what turned the election.
<
p>Brown endorsed a man known to have tried to coverup this abuse to protect an officer he supervised. As his supervisor, you would think that rather than going to her home as he did, he would be doing his best to investigate what happened and to have been the one recommending he be indicted if, as there was, enough evidence.
<
p>Throw in that in spite of having survived due to welfare programs and many people in the school system who were able to mentor him, he has no empathy for people in similar situations today – instead seeing funding as a line that should be cut to trim the deficit.
<
p>Here is a link to his rambling speech when he kept the extension of unemployment payments from passing in November – partially because there were more important (to him) things that needed to be decided first – such as what the estate tax would be. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/pro…
<
p>Listen to that speech – he is so self centered and narcissistic. “More than anybody here I want to do this” – more than the 58 Democrats willing and fighting to pass this. Also, he is often wrong in his rambling comments – for instance, the reason he voted against the Fall jobs bill was that it raised taxes. The taxes it raised were from removing a loophole to force some offshore money to be taxed. This was a Baucus/Kerry provision. Yet he says this was not done – meaning he had no idea it was why he voted against a bill!
<
p>He deserves credit for surviving his terrible childhood and creating a successful career and family life. However, this lack of empathy and his self absorption show he did not emerge unscathed.
And counterproductive.
This doesn’t seem like an appropriate angle to take.
Fifthing the above. This is grotesque.
is maintaining a code of silence unless you are an overachiever.
<
p>What happens to those of lesser means and clout? If you’re a poor snuck without the resources or talent to make a splash in the public arena, better keep it to yourself.
<
p>Those who put their reputations on the line at the time of bringing Bernard Law and his minions to account get my vote of confidence and trust. I have no idea of the good Senator’s motivation other than his own words(paraphrasing): You can still pull yourself up by the bootstraps even if those in authority are torturing you. Is this the right message?
<
p>He had his chance at the time of the revelation of abuses by the Catholic Church. I’m sorry but his uncovered secrets(actually unproven at this juncture) are hollow statements designed to advance a political career, not as a service to the thousands scarred by such assaults.
I don’t think attacking Brown over this issue is the right thing to do or the politically smart thing. Personally, these revelations, in the context of Scott Brown’s career, just make me think he’s an a-hole. He doesn’t seem to care about anyone except himself, despite having a variety of reasons to (including specific, personal ones).
<
p>The remarkable thing about this post, however, is the response in the comments. The BMG commenters are nearly uniform in their condemnation of this sort of political attack. This is something that could never happen in today’s Republican party. If Scott Brown was a Democrat, I guarantee the attacks would be more widespread and much more vicious on sites like RedMassGroup (let alone scarier places like FreeRepublic), and the voices condemning these attacks would be fewer and quieter. For example, where are the leaders in today’s Republican party fighting back against birtherism or even just the absolutely moronic attacks of Palin and Bachmann against Michelle Obama’s support for breastfeeding?
Besides being unseemly, it would backfire.
<
p>But, even before he spoke of that, it was thought that his endorsement of Perry could hurt him – especially with the independent women he needs to win in 2012. I don’t think that endorsement should be off the table – and it can be questioned without mentioning his own history.
<
p>Not a single Democratic politician has said anything negative about Brown’s book – and that is how it should be. It shouldn’t give him a pass on this issue. (His legitimate counter would be his own MA Senate record on the issue – but some may not be able to get past that endorsement.)
I was sexually assaulted in early adulthood. I knew nobody would believe me, as my assailant had done such a good job convincing everybody that I wasn’t to be believed. It took me years just to acknowledge what had happened to me was a violation and that it wasn’t my fault.
<
p>As a survivor, I wish the senator a healthy journey to healing. It’s a tough slog, for sure.
<
p>As a constituent who almost got stuck with that enabling slimeball Perry, I want to scream at Brown. He may have been a great legislative advocate on Beacon Hill for survivors, but his insistence on standing by Perry the enabler sent me the message loud and clear: I’ll stand by you, survivor–unless you’re a political inconvenience, in which case I’ll publicly doubt you and stand by while people call you everything bad under the sun. That’s a chilling message to get from your U.S. senator.
<
p>Sen. Brown will have a host of resources that most survivors won’t get, including a basic level of respect for his revelation. He’s not just some anonymous survivor–he’s SENATOR survivor. His words and actions carry a much greater impact than the words and actions of us little people.
<
p>I think there’s a way to respect his revelation and set the expectation that he now needs to own his actions and their consequences. I don’t want to see him the object of a Karl Rove-style slash-and-burn campaign–no politician should be subject to that, much less a survivor of sexual violence. I DO want him to take responsibility for his adult, senatorial actions, and as his constituent, I have a right to expect that.
I’ve read this post several times and I think the first five commenter’s completely miss the point. This is not about scoring cheap political points, this is about understanding who Scott Brown really is.
<
p>It is becoming increasingly apparent that Scott Brown’s primary objective is power – not any real sense of ideological conviction. It was politically convenient for him to back a Tea Party candidate in the 2010 primary. Now he’s willing to play victim (and he is a victim) on the national stage, even as the allegations against Perry were well documented. Brown is a narcissist in the truest sense and it all just seems incredibly convenient for him now to reveal his very tragic past to boost his book sales.
<
p>This isn’t about politics, this is about understanding Scott Brown and I just find the way he has paraded around with the revelation to be unseemly.
<
p>I hope that Scott Brown will use his celebrity to become an advocate for the victims of sexual abuse instead of using his office to reward political allies, even when they seem to dismiss the seriousness of sexual assault.
Howie Carr thinks that this whole question of how could Scott Brown support alleged molester-enabler Jeff Perry in light of his own molestation is a “very good point”:
<
p>
<
p>Personally, it makes me uncomfortable to re-examine every single action a person has taken just through the new prism of the knowledge that he has been molested. If you want to look for personal-history hypocrisy there are much more relevant and clear cut examples such as Brown’s families reliance on public programs for food while he was growing up and his hostility to such programs as an elected official. Brown was gently pushed on this point by Lesley Stahl last night on 60 Minutes:
<
p>