Archive for Scott Brown

Wanna Drive a Kennedy Crazy?

Admittedly a very short drive (like off a bridge, say).

Quote ‘em. Remember this two years ago?

Brilliant move—brilliant. It drove them absolutely bat-[bleep]. And you can bet wrapping himself in the (John) Kennedy mantle helped get him elected.

But this. This has them choking on their ice cubes:

US Senator Scott Brown’s suggestion that he shares with the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy a position on religious exemptions for health care providers is “misleading and untrue,’’ said Kennedy’s son, Patrick, who wants Brown to stop citing the elder Kennedy in radio advertisements.

“You are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but I ask that, moving forward, you do not confuse my father’s positions with your own,’’ Kennedy wrote to Brown. “I appreciate the past respect you have expressed for his legacy, but misstating his positions is no way to honor his life’s work.’’

Patrick Kennedy, a Democrat and former eight-term congressman from Rhode Island, complained to Brown in a letter e-mailed yesterday morning and then released publicly.

Kennedy takes issue with Brown’s new radio ad, in which the freshman Republican senator states: “Like Ted Kennedy before me, I support a conscience exemption in health care for Catholics and other people of faith.’’

Kennedy asked that Brown take the ad down.

“I respectfully request that you immediately stop broadcast of radio ad and from citing my father any further,’’ he said.

Brown will not pull the radio ad, his campaign said yesterday afternoon. The senator replied with a short, open letter back to Kennedy, in which he said: “When your father told the Pope in his 2009 letter that he supported a conscience exemption for Catholics in health care, he did not mean to put himself on the opposite side of the church or to suggest that he would force them to accept a situation with which they could not abide.

“And yet, that is exactly the situation we are faced with today – despite a failed attempt at compromise, the church remains opposed to the federal government’s intrusion into the affairs of private conscience,’’ Brown wrote. “I’d like to think your dad would have been working with me to find an accommodation that all sides found satisfactory.’’

You’ve been pwned, son!

Ted’s mantle is a little bigger, still a little damp from seawater, and smells a bit of stale whiskey and vomit. But it’s still a Kennedy mantle. I knew Scott Brown was biding his time. Let Betty Warren take the early rounds. But she’ll tire, her arms will get heavy. It’s like Muhammad Ali’s rope-a-dope, only with a Harvard law professor (though still a dope).

Comments (1)

A Rude Little Pig

No, not Elizabeth Warren—though I have started to see her bumper stickers around, and while I can’t find an example on line, they are based on this typography:

It’s a lovely blue, isn’t it? Brings out her eyes. And the font is similarly soft and warm.

And utterly illegible at 60 mph on the Mass Pike!

Seriously, she’s going to be responsible for a lot of accidents of people squinting to figure out what it says. Ezekiel Warden? Edible Wrangler? For Mussel Shoals?

But then, her supporters can’t see too clearly anyway:

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has been getting some love from Hollywood.

Actor Danny DeVito tweeted a link to one of her speeches earlier this week and has donated to her campaign. Actress Barbra Streisand, who also contributed, has publicly declared her support, too.

Another star singing the candidate’s praises: Cher. “Elizabeth Warren is my HERO!” the entertainer tweeted late last year.

Via NECN, Warren said on Thursday that if she’d been told 10 years ago about Cher’s admiration, she would have said: “That’s an alternative reality.”

A perfect description of Hollywood liberaldom, Betty.

Alas, not everyone has got Warren Fever:

Warren’s getting so big, her peeps even blew off Alec Baldwin.

“My office called Eliz. Warren re doing my podcast. They said if I flew 2 Boston, she’d give me 15 minutes. Politicians are so . . . thoughtful,” the “30 Rock” star tweeted yesterday, his political crush turned sour.

Maybe if you threatened to “straighten her a** out” (NSFW), she’d get with the program. Anyhow, there is another candidate, Alec:

Sen. Scott Brown wants to use it against her.

“To go off to Hollywood and get the Barbra Streisand and Danny Devito crowd and get all that Hollywood money smacks in the face of what she’s fighting for, which is the middle class,” Brown said yesterday.

Comments (1)

The Best Senator California Democrats Can Buy

Rush calls these “random acts of journalism”, which indeed they are—but I wonder if “unintended journalism” isn’t closer to the mark. Yesterday the Boston Gob examined Scott Brown’s fundraising, and found most of it was in-state:

US Senator Scott Brown continued to draw a large share of his campaign money from within Massachusetts in the final quarter of 2011, tapping wealthy suburban enclaves across Greater Boston, according to an analysis of campaign finance documents.

About 66 percent, or $1.5 million, of the itemized contributions Brown reported in the last quarter came from donors within the Bay State.

Brown, a Republican who won his US Senate seat in a 2010 special election, raised about $3.2 million in total over the last three months of 2011, including about $400,000 in small contributions that do not have to be reported individually.

He collected at least $764,000 in itemized donations from out-of-state donors, including $146,000 from Texas and $141,000 from New York, his two biggest-contributing states after Massachusetts.

The percentage of in-state money raised by Brown, “is high, particularly for an incumbent,’’ said Colby College professor Anthony Corrado, who studies campaign finance. Incumbents, in general, tend to more easily attract money from national sources due to their high profile and access to national networks based in Washington.

So, where is the national money going? We found out today:

Elizabeth Warren’s campaign to reclaim a US Senate seat for the Democrats is drawing on deep out-of-state support, with 61.3 percent of her itemized donations coming from beyond Massachusetts’ borders during the last quarter of 2011.

The Cambridge Democrat, who outraised Republican incumbent Scott Brown $5.7 million to $3.2 million in the fourth quarter, received nearly 20 percent of her listed contributions from California and more than 13 percent from residents of the state of New York, according to a Globe analysis of a campaign finance database released yesterday.

By contrast, Brown received about two-thirds of his support from Massachusetts, which accounted for about 66 percent of his itemized donations.

To summarize, Brown is getting two-thirds of his money from Massachusetts; Warren is getting about the same percentage from everywhere else—especially California.

Brown proved last time he is a shrewd campaigner, and he’s barely started. His radio ads so far have been to congratulate the Patriots on their strong run to the Super Bowl and to highlight his opposition to insider trading among congressmen. They could be generic infomericals, except they are paid for by his campaign committee. He hasn’t even begun to deal with Warren yet, but you can bet her celebrity status among the rich liberals out of state will be a big target.


One of These Things is Not Like the Other

A researcher reveals that our representatives in Congress are making out like the bandits that they are, and the Massachusetts junior and senior senators spring into action.


A new book about congressional investments prompted action from both of the Bay State’s senators, with Republican Scott Brown proposing restrictions on what Capitol Hill insiders can do with their money…

Brown told the Herald he is pushing for tough new congressional investing rules after seeing a “60 Minutes” interview Sunday with Peter Schweizer about his book “Throw Them All Out,” which suggests links between stock trades members of Congress make and inside information they obtain on the job.

“I was quite frankly shocked by the ‘60 Minutes’ report,” Brown said. “A lot of people are hurting out there due to the bad economy and the last thing they want to see is members of Congress gaming the system.”


A new book about congressional investments prompted action from both of the Bay State’s senators, with Republican Scott Brown proposing restrictions on what Capitol Hill insiders can do with their money and Democrat John F. Kerry demanding a retraction over the book’s portrayal of him.

His office vehemently denied any wrongdoing yesterday, saying independent trustees manage financial holdings for both the senator and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

In a letter to Houghton Mifflin on Monday, Kerry wrote: “The notion that any public official would use inside information in the management of their investments is deeply troubling — but to link me to such behavior is beyond inaccurate. I am writing today to seek a public acknowledgement that Mr. Schweitzer — who did not present these accusations to me or my office for a response — erred in making these assumptions and accusations in my case.”

Doesn’t sound like he’s going to get one:

Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, said he looked at the committee assignments of members of Congress and their stock trades in related areas. Schweizer told the Herald he noticed “a curious pattern to Kerry’s stock transactions that often correlated with his committee activities.” But he said he would not call Kerry’s actions “insider trading,” saying he has no evidence of that.

“It could just be an amazing coincidence,” he said, calling for a broader investigation of congressional investing.

Hey, a lot of them did it, Republicans too. And I would be fine with “throwing them all out”.

PS: Massachusetts used to be represented by Kerry and Kennedy in the Senate and 10 Democrats in the House. Now, it’s Kerry and Brown (R-MA) and nine Democrats in the House. It ain’t much, but we’re trying!


Occupy Nuremberg

Yesterday, we noted the story of the O-cow-pie Boston maggots who briefly occupied the Israeli consulate here, noting especially that a Yahoo news search of such an alarming action had been covered in only two outlets, one in Iran and one in India.

Well, either Scott Brown reads us or he reads the Calcutta Times:

“This group of protesters has a poisonous message which needs to be loudly refuted,’’ Brown, a Massachusetts Republican, said in a statement. “Israel is a friend and ally to the United States. It was shocking to hear the protestors chanting anti-Israel slogans in support of the terrorist-backed intifada uprising, which has created so much misery and death in Israel.’’

The Boston protest came after Israel’s navy intercepted two small boats carrying about two dozen pro-Palestinian activists of several nationalities on Friday, according to the Associated Press. The vessels that tried to breach Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip were towed to a port north of Gaza, AP reported.

Brown’s statement included a link to a YouTube video that showed about 20 demonstrators sitting in the lobby of the Israeli consulate at Park Plaza in downtown Boston, shouting chants including: “Hey hey, ho ho, Israeli apartheid’s got to go’’; “Occupy the consulate, not Palestine’’; and “Militarization is a crime.’’

In the video, Boston police are shown escorting protesters out of the building, as the demonstrators chant, “We will be back.’’

In his statement, Brown said: “There should be no mistaking which side America is on in the fight against terror, and I want to make it clear that I stand with Israel.’’

It’s pretty clear, isn’t it? Elizabeth Warren clutches the Occupiers to her bosom. Scott Brown calls them out for the Jew-haters they are. (And no, I don’t think Scott Brown reads us. It took a day, but the story got out. Interesting that the Glob didn’t cover the Occupiers break-in until Brown shamed them into it by making it a story.)

On the other hand, one of their chants, “Viva, viva Palestrina!” suggested they are not totally without soul. Though I’m more of a Josquin man, I give Palestrina his props:


The Next Senator From Massachusetts

Don’t shoot the messenger, guys. I think she will take Scott Brown out.

BTL, can we have a ‘class warfare’ tag? Can you ask the guys in IT to get on it?

- Aggie

Comments (9)

You’re Going Down, Brown

The Democratic establishment in this state can’t stand that the “Kennedy Seat” (as they still think of it) has a Republican butt in it. And they’re doing more than just something about it.

First came the Plague of Women Voters:

Our airwaves are finally free from the attack ads against Scott Brown produced by the League of Women Vultures. Despite their numerous claims of wanting more transparency in campaign funds, the League has refused to disclose who paid for the ads. It is just another example of liberals telling us what to do and then doing the failing to live up to their own standards.

Then SEIU joined the fray:

One of the largest unions in Massachusetts launched ads statewide on Thursday against Sen. Scott Brown (R), pressuring him to vote against the 2012 Republican budget in the Senate.

1999 SEIU, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union representing healthcare workers on the East Coast, produced a minute-long radio ad hammering Brown over the Republican budget and its plan to reform Medicare.

The ads will run statewide until the Senate vote, expected next week, on the budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that passed the House earlier this year.

Scotty voted no.

Brown may be a disappointment to those who thought he’d be a consistent voice of conservatism in the Senate. But he’s being true to his mission. He said his top priority was to represent all the people of Massachusetts, and that’s largely what he’s doing. Sometimes, he votes with the Republicans, sometimes with the Democrats. We Bay State conservatives would still sacrifice our firstborn in gratitude for his victory over Martha (Marsha) Coakley.

But while odds are good for Brown’s reelection (though by no means a lock), he has no friends in high places, as local scribe Howie Carr reminds him:

Hey Scott Brown, I’m sure you never really trusted the mainstream media, but let this be an even greater lesson for you.

Not only are they never going to be on your side, but they have absolutely no compunction about making up lies about what you said or did. The Globe, Channel 4, they’re all in the tank. What more proof do you need?

It’s amazing. Some left-wing blog site manufactures a quote, and the Globe picks it up and runs with it. Paging Jason Blair, Patricia X. Smith, Mike Barnicle …

Poor Scott Brown. Sure, he can vote against Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan, and the Globe and all the rest of the moonbats will be glad to say that he’s “grown.” But come November 2012, who are they going to be with? The Democrat, whoever that might be.

So here we have two major Boston media outlets manufacturing lies about you out of whole cloth.

Meanwhile, the hyenas are beginning to gather:

Democrats desperate to find a strong challenger to popular GOP Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts are actively courting consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren to jump into the race.

Democrats say the party could blow its best opportunity to reclaim the seat held for nearly a half-century by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy that is steeped in party history.

The “Kennedy Seat” was steeped in Chivas and Tanqueray until Scott Brown occupied it.

But if the Democratic establishment wants to run a Harvard Law school marm who’s never run for office before in her life (unless it was for class president at Smith) against a retail Republican who has won locally and statewide in an overwhelmingly Democrat state, I say bring it on.

What, you don’t like the school marm line? What would you call her?

“What do you mean the dog ate your homework?”


Scott Brown Got Snookered

He gave two interviews saying he’d seen a photo of bin Laden after the assassination.

He saw the same photoshopped image that everyone else saw. But the rest of us knew that it was photoshopped.

Amid controversy this week regarding whether the White House should publicly release photos of Osama bin Laden’s corpse, several lawmakers claimed to have seen the photographs and attested they did indeed provide evidence of bin Laden’s death.

But not so fast.

It seems that at least one senator, Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts, was duped by fake bin Laden photos, Michael Levenson reports for the Boston Globe.

“Let me assure you that he is dead, that bin Laden is dead,” Brown told cable station NECN in an interview Wednesday. “I have seen the photos and, in fact, we’ve received the briefing and we’ll continue to get the briefings.”

“Listen, I’ve seen the picture,” Brown said in a separate interview with Fox25. “He’s definitely dead. And if there’s any conspiracy theories out there, you should put them to rest.” He described the photos as “gruesome.”

But NECN posted a statement on its website Wednesday retracting Brown’s assertion: “Senator Brown’s office tells NECN this afternoon that the bin Laden photos the Senator mentions seeing about 2 minutes into the clip here were not authentic.” And a similar statement appeared after the Fox 25 interview, Levenson reports.

Brown’s office has yet to respond to The Globe’s request for comment, but fake photos–one in particular of what is purported to be bin Laden’s face–have been widely circulated on the internet.

It’s unclear if other senators claiming to have seen the photos were actually duped. Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire reportedly claimed Wednesday that another senator showed her the images.

Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia also claimed to have seen the images, according to the Nashua Telegraph.

This brings back memories of 7th grade, hiding in the bushes, looking at pictures. Pictures of things that you don’t normally get to see. You would think that these Senators would be just a tiny bit smarter than that. Now, on top of wondering if bin Laden died on Sunday night, I will be inclined to question anyone who claims to have seen the photos, no matter who they are.

I got to thinking today about individuals who lose loved ones to criminals. If the criminal is convicted and eventually executed, the loved ones are offered the opportunity to observe the execution. This is done to help them gain closure. What Obama did today was to deny closure to the tens of thousands of American citizens and to citizens from other parts of the world, who lost loved ones to that monster, Osama bin Laden. This is simply a terrible decision.

- Aggie

Comments (1)

The Funeral Crasher

Who invited him?

Concerned Massachusetts voters ensure Ted Kennedy stays put.

Scott Brown, R-Mass., taking the stage in an unadvertised appearance, addressing Kennedy’s widow, Vicki, and grinning, “I told you I’d come. Little surprise to everybody, isn’t it?”

With fiscal negotiations consuming Washington, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick opted to use his remarks at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate to scold the “conservative movement, so-called,” for “sapping the optimism out of our country,” positing Kennedy as the quintessential optimist.

Brown, elected to replace Kennedy last year in a historic stunner, said, “Me of all people, I understand the large shoes I have to fill.” He praised Kennedy’s knack for working across the aisle for compromise, then looked at Patrick and addressed him directly: “I have to go and do the people’s business, Governor, as you referenced. There are good people who do want to move things forward, regardless of their political party.”

While the exchange between a GOP rock star and one of President Obama’s top surrogates raised eyebrows among the assembled political illuminati, Brown’s remarks brought high praise from the late senator’s son Patrick, a former congressman, who hustled out of the tented ceremony to hug Brown.

“You were fantastic,” Patrick Kennedy said.

Hittin’ the Chivas and Ambien again, were ya, Patches?

But you want the biggest laugh of the day?

Kennedy’s widow, Victoria Kennedy, said it’s fitting that the two centers will be set next to each other, because it was John Kennedy who inspired his younger brother Edward’s enduring love of the Senate and public service.

She said she hopes the institute will do the same thing for future generations.

“My husband didn’t want a memorial to himself or his achievements,” she said. “He wanted to create a place that would spark an interest and nurture the belief that public service can be a noble endeavor.”

The only love John inspired in Ted was for Marilyn Monroe’s… no, I can’t say it on a family blog.

Anyway, watch out, Kathy Griffin. Vickie Kennedy is out to replace you as the most outrageous comedienne.

PS: I’ve always thought there was a more appropriate place for a Ted Kennedy mausoleum.

Comments (3)

Putting the Ick in Victim

One thing we conservatives have to acknowledge is that liberals have it all over us on bleeding hearts. From the Free Tibet bumper stickers on their cars to the (stuffed) endangered pandas they cuddle at night, members of the left spend more time feeling sorry for stuff than we do.

But they’re working to correct that:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is circulating a number of clips to reporters suggesting that Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) revelations of sexual abuse as a child is either a political stunt or a hypocritical move in the light of his endorsement of a congressional candidate who was accused of insensitivity to sexual assault — including this column by the editor of a Cape Cod website:

Many have questioned how Brown could let a pedophile run free instead of stopping what could be a serial molester who may now have been at it for upwards of 40 years. Among the “believers” are many who are appalled that a U.S. senator would throw a literary grenade at a respected Christian summer camp and not disclose a name so that Cape officials can pursue the attacker and defend their reputation.

On the other side are alumni and friends of the camp who accuse the senator of fabricating the whole matter for political purposes – or at least to sell more books – leaving Camp Good News with a damaged reputation and no way to refute his accusations.

Neither story line is playing well with readers of Those who believe Brown’s story feel that his political career cannot survive his sheltering of the molester. Those who feel he fabricated the account feel he should step down from office if he is proven to have lied.

It is entirely fair to ask if Brown should do more with this information than just reveal it. People have been doing so on radio and in print since the story came out. My own view is that it’s his call. He was dealt a miserable hand as a kid and came out pretty good. Let him deal with it in his own way. Besides, given the possible outcomes—from the besmirching of someone’s reputation without proof, to the attempt to prove the allegations after 40-plus years—I think his decision was the best. At what point does the terrified victim become the empowered adult, and who are we to tell him how to build his life? Maybe he wishes he hadn’t told the story—even his family didn’t know—but “keep it to yourself” a terrible message to abuse victims.

And for a national political party to seize sexual abuse of a child as a campaign issue (Brown’s up again next year) is despicable beyond my powers of description. The beating and buggering that he suffered as a boy are nothing compared to the degradation he’ll have to endure from the Media-Democratic Complex for the effrontery of winning “the people’s seat”.

To that mob, conservatives are not victims, but targets. Don’t turn your back on them, Scott.

Comments (1)

The Boston Glob Discovers Sarah Palin

Not as a pretty face to sell newspapers, God knows. Their taste runs more toward Sheryl Crone, or maybe somebody less masculine, like Sean Penn.

But today, Palin makes the cover of the Gob not to present the merits of limited government or to explain the Tea Party movement (imperative, more like), but to bi**h-slap Scott Brown:

Sarah Palin, in an unexpected poke at Senator Scott Brown, said that while Massachusetts may “put up with’’ the GOP lawmaker and “some of the antics,’’ Republicans in states across the nation wouldn’t tolerate his more moderate views and compromising ways.

Palin, whose criticism strikes at the core of discord among top national Republicans over how closely to hew to the Tea Party movement, suggested in comments aired Wednesday on Fox Business Network that Brown is ignoring conservative voters’ wishes.


But maybe we should read exactly what she said, rather than relying on them to tell us what she meant:

“But up here in Alaska, and so many places across the US, where we have a pioneering, independent spirit, and we have an expectation that our representatives in D.C. will respect the will of the people and the intelligence of the people, well, up here, we wouldn’t stand for that,’’ she said.

Wow, I guess that really is a b-slap. Unless the first word of that passage, “but”, implies there was more that came before.

Was there?

“By the way, is Scott Brown on notice? I mean, he’s gone along with the Pelosi-Reid message for the past couple of votes,” the anchor asked.

Palin nodded. “Well, you know, take the consideration, though, that’s Massachusetts, and perhaps they’re not going to look for such a hardcore constitutional conservative there, and they’re gonna put up with Scott Brown and some of the antics there,” she said.

So the Boston Globe is breaking the story that Massachusetts voters and Alaska voters respond differently, and ask different things of their elected representatives.

HOLD ON!!! Why weren’t we told before?!

And why didn’t the Gob provide the whole quote, which makes an allegedly incendiary remark into a mere statement of the obvious? (Rhetorical question.)

BTW, I’m not saying that there isn’t a gap between Brown and Palin. He studiously avoided talking about her, much less campaigning with her, during his election bid. But that’s just smart politics. I may have a Sarah Palin blow-up doll, but that doesn’t mean she’s popular among everyone up here. I mean, come on, she shaves her legs—only the guys around here do that.

PS: While the Glob was obsessing over Sarah, they were studiously avoiding Barack—at least this gem:

As the president walked around the restaurant, some cordoned-off reporters shouted out to him questions, including one about the war in Iraq. Next Tuesday night, the president will deliver an Oval Office address at 8 pm ET, in which he will mark the occasion of the withdrawal of US combat troops from the country.

But the president was in no mood today to discuss the issue with reporters in that setting. He ignored questions for a bit, then turned to the reporters.

“We’re buying shrimp, guys,” he said, smiling. “Come on.”

Barack grills while Baghdad burns.

Obama fried, people died!

Comments (2)

How Long Did It Take The Dems To Seat Byrd’s Replacement? How Long Did It Take Them To Seat Kennedy’s Replacement?

Let’s see… Senator Byrd died at 3am on Monday, June 28.

His temporary replacement was seated on July 20th, twenty-two days later

The swearing-in of the new senator — on the same day West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin announced his candidacy for the seat’s November special election — sets the stage for a whirlwind of political activity from Charleston to Washington.

Now, what did the democrats do with the Kennedy seat? Senator Kennedy died on August 25th, 2009

Because the late Senator did not want then Governor, Mitt Romney, to chose the replacement for Senator Kerry, on the assumption that he would win the 2004 Presidential race, the powers that be in Massachusetts re-wrote the law. The governor no longer had the right to choose an interim replacement for a Senator who could no longer serve.

Then Kennedy passed away. He had been terminally ill for many months, and knew that he eventually would have to give up his Senate seat, but held onto it until the very end. After his death, the State of Massachusetts magically produced a letter, said to have been written by the Senator (although it was dated in July, and by then his brain was ravaged by the brain cancer that killed him a month later), requesting that the law be changed back so that the now-Democrat governor, Deval Patrick, could appoint his successor.

Got that? In the middle of a Saturday night, our brave legislators changed the law. And Paul Kirk was appointed and seated almost immediately.

Sadly, for the Democrats, the people still have a vote in Massachusetts and on January 18, 2010, Republican Scott Brown was elected.

The Democrats delayed seating him until February 4th, 2010. If you do a quick internet search, you will find many articles about how Harry Reid delayed seating Senator Brown.

Bottom Line: Remember In November.

- Aggie


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »