Updated: I misremembered that Brown ultimately voted against the Ryan budget.
Dan Kennedy has a reasonably well-balanced account of the Scott Brown/Elizabeth Warren senate race in a Huffington Post colum, with two puzzlers.
Kennedy says that “[t]he outlier” to Brown’s “not taking strong stands on divisive issues” is the Blunt amendment. Seems curious to omit
Brown’s support for Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to eliminate/replace/transform Medicare and Brown’s support for the Balanced Budget Amendment. Both are extremely conservative answers to the challenges of the day.
Maybe Kennedy didn’t include Brown’s positions on
Medicare or the Balanced Budget Amendment because they are not, in the current conversation, divisive issues. Let’s call them potentially divisive issues. If so, then Kennedy’s dismissive note that “no one is really angry at Brown other than liberal activists” is also curious*. Maybe nobody’s angry because nobody (outside the liberal-activist echo chamber) knows Brown’s positions. Which might be because the media (Kennedy in this piece included) have spent more time admiring Brown’s skills at appearing moderate than analyzing the positions he’s taken.
What do you think? Are there other “outlier” positions that might make those who don’t hate Brown rethink how moderate he is?
The dynamic driving #masen is that no one is mad at @ScottBrownMA except for activist Democrats and liberals. #mapoli
Activist Democrats and liberals telling us how much they detest @ScottBrownMA doesn’t change that dynamic. #masen #mapoli
Activists Democrats and liberals are using social media to share why we detest Brown’s positions (not Brown, it’s not personal), with the hopes of changing the dynamic. That’s the point of social media.