There’s an old saying: “Anybody who calls themselves a realist is steeling themselves to do something of which they are secretly ashamed…”
On Scott Browns Campaign Website there are to be seen many iterations of the words “independent” and “moderate”. There are even some allusions to “opponents” clearly of the Democratic stripe. But startlingly few allusions to Scott Brown as a member of the REPUBLICAN party. Is he ashamed? Why would there be so very little mention of the political party Scott Brown has long been affiliated with… Not even his “Bio” pages refers to the party that supported him as a state senator and then, later, as a Senate candidate. (note bene: it was in just this Senate Candidacy when Scott Brown was heard to say “it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, and it’s not the Democrat’s seat, it’s the people’s seat.” Even then, it appears, he had trouble admitting to a party affiliation.)
But the entire website reads like a denaturated mime (it will act it out, but it won’t say it) of Karl Roves id: a congerie of Republican talking points, anti-democratic venom, faux-populist sloganeering, vividly vague pronouncements about “Obamacare” and “border protection”, braggadocia about never having voted for a tax increase, and gripes about ‘partisan bickering’ where only one partisan does any bickering.
One is left to wonder exactly whom it is that Scott Brown and his supposedly brilliant tactical staff thinks they are fooling? Who is that they think will swallow this notion of lopsided independence without question?
Republicans? One can imagine a few Republicans who are mercenary enough to overlook subtle attempts at subterfuge like the occasional reference to “independents” and “moderate” Any Republican, however, worth his/her salt can’t be too comfortable with this level of head-in-the-sand: after all, if it’s a superior orthodoxy it can’t possibly hurt to trumpet the good news far and wide…Right? Don’t hide your light under a bushel, right? I can’t imagine it can be all that easy for his campaign staff, many of whom are, sheepish grin, admitted Republicans. And will hard-core Republican donors pony up the cash for somebody who’s, at least publicly, a little squishy about where they might stand? How does That conversation go…?
Independents? It’s hard to square the notion of ‘independents’ and ‘moderation’ with a relentless trumpet of ‘democratic opposition’ and denuded Republican talking points. Does the Brown brain trust think that true independents are that easily fooled? I’ve often thought that many independents are those most sensitive to the notion that the parties are manipulative and are declaring ‘independence’ from just this sort of manipulation. It that’s the case then Scott Browns naked manipulation, in concert with his denial of his own Republicanism, probably won’t sit to will with those independents. And even those independents willing to give the benefit of the doubt… how will they know to trust him when he does, or doesn’t, act independently? Is there a base posture from which deviations can be measured? Is he merely a political sand-dune, washed to and fro? Is he really just mealy-mouthed and wishy-washy? Where does he truly stand, if he can’t self-identify with a party? What if he does, quite clearly, self-identify with the Republican party… but doesn’t trust the independents with that information? What about him is truly ‘independent’ rather than simply entropic?
And if he is truly independent, why doesn’t he just run against Elizabeth Warren (or whomever) in the Democratic primary? If he really is not a Republican, then what does it matter?
Is he trying to soften up Democrats? Well, in the only thing close to an admission of party affiliation, Brown brags several times of “reaching across the aisle” (why don’t you start by describing which particular side of the aisle from which you are reaching, hmm, Senator…?) in an effort, the only real effort, to entice Democrats. It’s a small ray of hope in an otherwise dismally partisan, in act if not in speech, website: a well polished turd trying to sell itself as a ‘gem quality’ stone.
Scott Brown won’t even say who he is. He won’t even say “this is what I believe and where I stand. All my choices will reflect this somehow” Instead he opts for a process independence withal spreading a caricature of a Democratic bogey-man and passive-aggressively trumpeting all but the most blatantly Right-Wing talking points… without ever feeling the need to say “I am a Republican”. It’s patently obvious to all but the meanest intelligence. Maybe he is just ashamed.
He ought to be, in any case…
I noticed again, in reviewing his website, that he has never worked in the private sector.
Scott Brown is wealthy. He attacks Elizabeth Warren for being “elitist” — yet, the source of whatever wealth she has is readily discerned. Where did Scott Brown make his money?
If Elizabeth Warren’s faculty appointment is suspect, or perhaps her career as corporate attorney, then isn’t it fair to ask similar questions of Scott Brown?
Did Scott Brown’s wealth come without strings? Is he an exceptionally shrewd real estate speculator? Is he benefiting from the celebrity of his wife? Is he perhaps one of those public servants who is very accomplished at using his position to advance his own economic interests?
Is it perhaps time that somebody follow the money?
Scott Brown was a practicing real estate attorney. Pretty sure that qualifies as private sector.
You mean he’s ashamed of his source of wealth, just as he’s ashamed of his party affiliation?
… But doesn’t see fit to list that in either his Bio or the ” timeline” section of his website? Perhaps he ought to hire you to fill in the gaps?
Or,maybe, there is a secret, Republicans only, section of his website where he happily displays his party affiliation to the elect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Brown
Or if you want to know more about his life and times:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Odds-Hardship-Chances/dp/B005MWJ08E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329843669&sr=8-1
… but this is not really about what information is out there, but rather the wide chasm between what Scott Brown says he is, and what his rhetoric and past actions have shown him to be… It’s about HIS website.
Some months ago, the media listed his known assets. They included a house on the NH coast, the house in Wrentham and a mortgaged property w/ three units in Brighton near BC. However, the units do yield an investment because they are rented out. I think the analysis was that he brought in at least 150K between being a member of the legislature and a real estate attorney. Less clear was his wife’s earnings on TV. However, they had to have money if they were buying horse for their daughter w/ a matching truck to move said horse.
The first occurrence of the word “Democrat” doesn’t appear until her “News” page, and then it’s part of a headline by the Associated Press.
Correct me if I’ve missed something but goose and gander come to mind.
or both candidates are pushing individual records and not party affiliation.
… Elizabeth Warrens rhetoric is clearly and straightforwardly Democratic to the extent that she doesn’t feel the need to ‘direct’ the voters attention to any label.
Whereas Scott Browns rhetoric (and past actions) are sufficiently distinct, and partisan, that he feels the need to conjure some misdirection with a label he feels the electorate will find more palatable.
That’s gotta hurt, if you’re a straight up Republican: the more or less blatant admission that you can’t win an election as a straight up Republican…
employ the same tactic and you see virtue in one and villainy in the other? Time to remove the rose colored lenses.
Elizabeth Warren is NOT putting forth a label that is at distinct odds with her rhetoric. Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have to trumpet her Democratic bona fides: her rhetoric does that for her.
Scott Brown, using decidedly Republican rhetoric and with a clear Republican record, is making strident efforts at misdirection.
In short, no matter how much he says he is, he’s neither ‘independent’ nor ‘moderate’…
are so decidedly Republican then why is the label necessary? Her bona fides can be assumed but his must be labeled?
When is the last time anyone other than Scott Brown in the MA delegation bucked party leadership?
Your entitled to your view that Scott is neither moderate or independent. Scott is also entitled to make his case to the voters. My view is Scott is both independent and moderate – and he has a voting record that supports that conclusion.
My question exactly…. Why does Scott Brown find it necessary to label himself an independent when he so clearly isn’t?
We’re fast approaching violent agreement, you and I…
The thrust of this diary was that Scott did not mention his party affiliation on his website and that he must be doing something dastardly in hiding the party affiliation.
That argument came crashing down when it was pointed out that Ms Warren also doesn’t talk about party affiliation. (I will go one better – neither does Barack Obama)
The first argument having collapsed, you are off on a new tangent, arguing that Scott Brown does not have the right to claim a Moderate and Independent record. An argument that you make, without proffering any evidence other than your own opinion.
You are very quick with applying labels, referring to Scott as “partisan”, while blind to the fact you make a better case for Ms Warren being a “partisan” by your argument the she herself is so indistinguishable from “democratic rhetoric” that it must be a given that she is a democrat.
Look, there is nothing wrong with being “partisan” in a healthy political environment where conflicting perspectives are offered by multiple political parties — and where reason, rationality, and the good of the whole is valued more than short-term self-serving expediency.
I’m glad that Elizabeth Warren is a partisan Democrat. I’m glad that Barack Obama is belatedly pursuing a “partisan” economic agenda. That’s because I’m sick to death of a GOP dedicated to, for example, the destruction of the Obama administration above all else. Can anyone seriously argue that the GOP actions around the debt ceiling were anything other than self-destructive foolishness?
I’m happy to explore the record of Senator Scott Brown. I think that record shows a representative who happily takes every side of every issue, except when his vote actually matters — and then votes lockstep Republican. Oh, was I confusing him with Mitt Romney? No, that’s right, Mitt Romney hasn’t cast any votes yet.
that there is something wrong with being partisan.
Petr is attempting to make the case that Scott Brown is strictly a GOP partisan. Where I believe that Scott has the most bi-partisan voting record of the MA delegation.
You can try to diminish his record by claiming his votes against GOP leadership were inconsequential. But I don’t see it that way. He was a crucial vote in getting Dodd/Frank passed. He did get some concessions to remove provisions that would have been harsh on the Massachusetts Financial sector companies and cost us jobs. You know – compromise.
… that deviate from GOP script is that they are only allowed to if the party has already determined that their vote isn’t necessary to change the outcome (one way or the other). As such, even an ‘independent’ GOP person because their independence doesn’t help one iota for enacting or stopping a policy question.
I wish it were otherwise.
More here.
But Elizabeth Warren isn’t trumpeting herself as an “independent voice” stridently in contrast to both her record and her rhetoric….
on which she disagrees with the President on.
Scott Brown has crossed the aisle on a number of pieces of legislation that republicans weren’t happy about (Dodd/Frank for example).
…You are using the phrase “crossed the aisle” like it is the very definition of independence. It is not.
Independents don’t ‘cross aisles’, because the existence of the aisle is a blatant admission of divisions, and the benefice of crossing it is an even more blatant admission that YOU START ON ONE SIDE OF THE AISLE. If Scott Brown simply said, “I’m a Republican you can work with..” he’d garner more respect and less cognitive dissonance.
I am proud that she’s a Democrat, and I would prefer her party affiliation to be more prominent on her campaign website.
It’s really beneficial to Massachusetts to have a voice in the Republican party, as a way to reach the best possible compromise position, instead of having to negotiate without having a single voice on the other side. We really should try to elect a moderate Republican to the House too, to get the ear of Boehner once in a while.
Brown only “crosses the aisle” on votes that are sure things: repeal of don’t ask don’t tell was inevitable as was Dodd Frank. He voted for Dodd Frank after gutting the financing of it, putting on the taxpayer, and got hefty contributions from Wall St for doing it. In Brown’s world he thinks voting to repeal DADT makes him a libertine when it only exposes him as obvious – the worst of all sins.
Otherwise Brown is walking “down the aisle” with the Senate leader on a daily basis.
Ah, that’s Senate “Minority” leader. Good grief.
and no campaign literature up my way mentioned Democrat at all. All Democrats claimed to be “independent” even when they voted with leadership 98% of the time.
The only person that uses “Democrat” freely is Lawrence Mayor Willy Lantigua. He and his chosen candidates put it on their signs and literature, even in nonpartisan elections.
…there really are DINOs, but John Walsh is always talking about how we should be proud to be Democrats. Lantigua using the label is ironic considering he’s only a Democrat when it’s convenient. He ran for Rep. the first time as an indepedent (literally, as in not the Dem nominee) and only looks out for himself; party loyalty is not his forte.