The Lowell Sun is a lively, controversial, and reliably conservative newspaper. Pretty solid part of the Scott Brown base, you say? Not really, at least not today.
Check out some of the comments about Scott Brown in today’s editorial. Apparently, the Sun knew Ted Kennedy, and views Scott Brown in much the same way Lloyd Bentsen viewed Dan Quayle. Here’s an excerpt.
Will the real Scott Brown please stand up?
Brown’s 2010 election was historic in a number of ways, the least of which is that he was able to wrestle a seat that had been firmly in the grasp of a Democrat for several decades: Edward M. Kennedy.
As Brown’s constituents and pundits try to decipher what Brown is for and what Brown is against, Kennedy never triggered such speculation or doubt.
The “Liberal Lion’s” constituents, colleagues and columnists usually knew where he stood on the issues, regardless of how distasteful some of them may have found Kennedy’s stances.
In that regard, Kennedy won respect for standing up for the issues he believed in.
And that hard-earned respect came from both sides of the political aisle.
Brown will never earn that kind of respect if he continues to be intentionally ambiguous on the issues.
Research a position, stand up and fight for it.
The respect will follow.
Brown’s constituents deserve absolute disclosure of how their senator views the issues, and far less fence-sitting.
Quite a nasty sunburn you have there, Scott.
President Truman believed that the people, given enough time, would always figure out who the political fakers were…although it seems to be taking them (and the media) a little more time than usual, I believe they will catch on to Brown’s act eventually and boot him to the curb. Unfortunately, he may get another 6 years to posture at our expense before that happens.
Perhaps the Sun is not shining on the key to the conundrum. I would posit that it’s adoration that the Senator seeks and needs, not respect. They are two different words with very different meanings. But even the Sun seems clouded by the subtleties of the Senator’s psyche.
What, they can’t pre-write stories on Brown the way they could on Kennedy?
<
p>I’m happy to be represented by somebody who takes each issue individually, rather than a predictable archetype (cartoon?).
explained why he intended to vote as he later would. The complaint is not that he doesn’t vote 100% with any ideological group, but that his offices answer to everything is that he “is reading the bill and has no comment yet”.
<
p>Now, it would be commendable if he were indeed reading the bills – or detailed summaries of them. However, where Kennedy or Kerry were always willing to answers reporters or constituents questions in detail, I have rarely if ever heard Brown give an answer explaining any parts of the bill in question.
<
p>I would speculate that the ONLY reason that Brown does not “fit” an archetype is because he is a Republican representing a very blue state. The counterpart is more Ben Nelson, the rightmost Democrat than a more issue driven politician – like say Russ Feingold. Feingold and Nelson both often voted against the main group of Democrats, but they were extremely different.
<
p>Brown, like Nelson, has a tough job – there are votes where they have to go with the other party. You could say they were voting the will of the people they represent or you could say that they are voting the way they are to get re-elected.
<
p>With Brown, there is an additional complication – he obviously loved the star status and may have aspirations to run for President or VP in the future. That is the ONLY reason – other than pleasing the Koch brothers, I can think of for his votes on climate change. Which is the true Scott Brown – the one who voted for the regional cap and trade in the MA Senate or the one who voted against the EPA having the ability to monitor greenhouse gases and not allowing higher CAFE standards?
<
p>What you see as independent, I see as balancing 2 masters – the MA voters and the Republican party – who are not going in the same direction. With Kennedy, there was reasonably little difference between his vision and that of the MA voters.
Too bad that man is not Scott Brown. He is someone who votes lockstep with Mitch McConnell on 85% of votes, and only takes the ‘moderate’ position on issues that are not controversial North of the Mason-Dixon line (gays in the military, the budget deal, etc.). He is a follower in either capacity, either the GOP leadership or the polls back home and he is always calculating and balancing between those interests. It is a criticism you and other conservatives have consistently levied against our other Senator, particularly when he gets more conservative in election years, years when he was thinking about running for President, or now that he is auditioning to be Secretary of State and has reoccupied the foreign policy ‘center’ after a few years of actually speaking his mind on the folly of Iraq and Afghanistan. Brown is cut from much the same cloth. He is a pro-choice social moderate?
<
p>We heard not a peep from him about Pence’s plan to defund Planned Parenthood and I am sure he was happy the issue did before he had to vote on it. Have we heard anything substantive about Libya beyond vague platitudes? I give Live Shot credit for at least staking a strong position (though would not put it past him to reverse it when the going got tough). Nothing about his own Romneycare delimma (voting for it in MA, while repealing the same proposal on a nationwide level was the basis for his campaign) which the media, still infatuated with him, has given him a pass on. Give Collins and Snowe credit for sticking with a dying ideology (Rockefeller Republicans) and actually forcing others to reckon with it. Brown has none, beyond the fact that he drives a truck, listens to talk radio and sports radio, and is an average Joe like you and me. And its obvious he has become adept at playing it safe rather than taking risks. The Maine twins actively oppose the leadership on issues they care about, they have rebuked their anti-labor, anti-gay, racist sounding Governor even though he is of the same party. Brown is always silent unless its easy. It means an easy 2012, but it makes him a lousy Senator.
Never got that joke- it’s a Howie Carr-ism, right?
It was to make fun of him for killing a bird while hunting to show how manly he was (hence he used ‘live shot’) and also because like with Schumer they are few more dangerous places in Washington than between Kerry and a camera (‘im ready for my live shot’)
The RW have said that since the 1990s, it had nothing to do with his shooting a goose. I agree that that was lame, in spite of the fact that he has hunted since he was young. (Unlike Cheney, he does this in the wild, not at a place where hundreds of birds are simultaneously released.) The reason was to try to get some of the gun people to consider him. (Frankly, war hero Kerry, who played 4 sports in college, and actually flies planes really did not have to shot geese to out do high school cheer leader Bush, who hid in the Texas Air National Guard, where he lost flying privileges – at least not to any unbiased observer.
<
p>As to chasing cameras, that never was true, The vast majority of issues Kerry took on were not likely to get a huge amount of media attention. Very little attention was given to his BCCI investigation. In fact, in terms of chasing the camera, he is not even near the one most doing this even if you consider just MA Senators. The one always looking for a camera is Scott Brown.
but thats where the tr comes from
Nikki Tsongas votes with leadership 93% of the time but I imagine she isn’t lockstep. She’s a solid progressive voice.