Kerry and Brown react to Kagan being sworn in at the Pan Mass

[karynnj]

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12001891717114/

and

http://www.necn.com/08/07/10/Massachusetts-senators-react-to-Kagans-s/landing_politics.html?blockID=285631&feedID=4212

[wisteria]

1. Senator Kerry's comments are well thought out and enthusiastic, but

Brown seems to be defending his no vote-but still called her brilliant. I am glad he was asked to comment on Ms. Kagan.

[MBS]

2. I'd guess that his stated reason for voting against Kagan was bogus.

. .. a reason that he probably concocted as more acceptable to MA voters (of whom Kagan is one) than the standard Republican answer as "too liberal", etc. He voted against Kagan because that's what the Senate Republicans did, and he's one of them.

[karynnj]

3. I would bet you're right

especially because of the convoluted defense of Renquist, who also had no judicial experience. I would hope that some reporter between now and 2012 asks how he would have voted on Alito and Roberts. Roberts also had very little if any judicial record and had a less public record than Kagan and he refused to answer nearly every question.

Oddly, this is one of the few things where he briefly showed a genuine side when he did dispute the Republican nonsense of her hating the military. Not with JK's "case", which thoroughly explained the actions and defended her, but more with a declaration that he didn't think it an issue. (That seems to be ho he is on almost anything - he has a simple one line reason why he is for or against anything and he repeats it even if it doesn't fit or is debunked. (As the no judicial experience was by the long list of respected SCJs - nominated by both Democrats and Republicans - who didn't.) His favorite one liners are "it increases the deficit" and "it will lose jobs or it doesn't create jobs".

[karynnj]

4. NECN had a longer Scott Brown comment on the race itself

Going from the comment that after doing it, he then understood it. It really seems that he really did not get the point - which was to raise money and awareness for fighting cancer. This even though he had the connection of riding for one of his mentors and the fact that his daughter actually did get it. (She has been paired with a little girl with cancer who she wrote a song for and who she spent time with)

http://www.necn.com/08/07/10/Scott-Brown-reflects-on-his-PMC-ride/landing.html?blockID=285682&feedID=4215

(Interesting in that he speaks of starting out really fast and then stopping later to talk to people. It is also clear that JK pushed him to do this. It will be interesting to see if his new found awareness on this makes him more open to voting for medical funding.)

The Worcester Telegram coverage - with a little video. http://www.telegram.com/article/20100807/NEWS/100809763/0/BUSINESS

The comments of the two MA Senators shows yet again the gap between them:

"“It's very similar to doing a triathlon, in terms of the excitement before a race. You got to go to the bathroom. You got to eat. All that good stuff,” Mr. Brown said. “The energy here at 5:30 a.m. in the morning is pretty amazing.

“It's a big, extended family, and all are here for a good cause,” Mr. Kerry added. “People are excited. They're pumped. They're emotional. It's a fun day. A lot of people come out on the road with signs and pictures of their loved ones who have cancer. It's motivating. It's just a nice event. It's one of the nicest events that I have the privilege of taking part in.”

Funny that "man of the people" Brown speaks only of himself. (Imagine if the comments were flipped how Kerry would be mocked had he spoken of the "good stuff" being getting to eat. )

[wisteria]

5. You are so right. But, like many Republicans, he see things only in the ways these things

will affect or benefit himself.

[karynnj]

6. I think even most Republicans would see the need to speak to what the

event was. In fact, I think if you went to a random person there - not in politics - the comments would have been less eloquent versions of Kerry's.

Oddly, there is something almost abnormal - like high functioning autism - in Brown's comments. Seriously, starting a high energy, big, fund raising event, he speaks of getting food and being able to go to the bathroom? It reminds me of his bizarre BG interview that they almost ignored. He spoke of a highpoint of his first months in the Senate as "getting his office painted".

It is strange to me that things that make me see him as way out of his league are all treated by all MA's media as signs that he is a regular guy. (If that is what a regular guy is, I'm glad that Kerry has never been one per the Brown fans.)

[karynnj]

8. Ha ha - They eliminated all but the last sentence of Brown's idiotic comment in a new slightly !

re-written article - http://www.telegram.com/article/20100808/NEWS/8080436/1101

[MBS]

7. Venocchi takes on the Lesser One re Kagan votes

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/08/08/brown_strikes_out_with_his_vote/

scary to find myself agreeing with Venocchi, but. .

A few excerpts (read whole thing for full baseball metaphors)

. . . At least the Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, was honest about his decision. He voted against his party because of constituent concerns. Asked about critics who decried his vote to oppose President Obama’s nominee, Nelson said, “Are they from Nebraska? Then I don’t care.’’

An honest answer from Brown about critics who decry his vote against Kagan would sound like this: “Are they friends with Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell? Then I don’t care.’’

Instead of candor, Brown offered up the weakest of arguments for rejecting Kagan — she isn’t a judge. “I believe nominees to the Supreme Court should have previously served on the bench. Lacking that, I look for many years of practical courtroom experience. In Elena Kagan’s case, she is missing both.’’

Brown’s alleged rationale for rejecting Kagan highlights the irony of her personal history. The GOP kept Kagan from getting judicial experience in the first place. President Clinton nominated her to serve on the D.C. Circuit in 1999. But Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee blocked her nomination.

He also ignores the sweep of Supreme Court history. Of 111 people to serve on the high court, 40 did not have previous experience as a judge.
. .
In order to silence critics of his antics, A-Rod must step up to the plate and deliver.
So does Brown. Massachusetts will be the judge of that.

[wisteria]

9. Most people can see right through his vote on Kagan. n/t

[MBS]

10. another unflattering oped on the Kagan vote

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/09/shaky_start_in_big_league/
by local Globe columnist, Adrian Walker (for context, he wrote, in January, that Brown won mostly because Coakley and her non-campaign basically handed him the election, a perspective that I share. )

One of the best parts was the headline itself:
Shaky Start in Big League
. .. some excerpts below

. . .His explanation didn’t make any sense.

This isn’t really about Kagan, since his opposition was basically symbolic, a bone-toss to his conservative fan club. The real issue is having a senator who is torn in so many directions that he can be a conservative one day and a moderate the next.

. . . he is so enamored with being a swing vote, a player, that he can seem simply indecisive. He seemed to be for Elena Kagan before he was against her.

This stands in sharp contrast, obviously, to his legendary predecessor. Even his diehard opponents, and there were many, always knew where Kennedy stood. True, he was capable of forging unexpected alliances, but his willingness to cross the aisle was rightly viewed as effective statesmanship. Brown is starting to look like he’s just confused.

Brown’s ride from State House backbencher to Capitol Hill powerbroker is without recent precedent, and only sycophants expected it to be seamless. What we can expect from a senator, though, is a strong sense of what he is for and what he’s against. But what’s going on under Scott Brown’s terrific hair is getting more mysterious by the day.

[karynnj]

11. One weird part

"After all, Brown praised her when she was first nominated for the US Supreme Court, and led her around Capitol Hill — shouldn’t that be the senior senator’s job? — to meet the people who would be voting on her confirmation."

The senior senator introduced her first, with a far better statement. As to leading her around Capitol Hill, I never heard that either Senator did - but if it were left to Brown, it is because he is Junior and Kerry is far busier. (Climate change, the New Start treaty and Afghanistan/Pakistan were all pretty active during that time period.)

[MBS]

12. that struck me as odd, too- it didn't sound right

thanks for amplifying

[karynnj]

13. I really doubt that Brown took her from Senator to Senator

It really makes no sense and - junior as he is - it really would be a strange use of a minority Senator's time. As to having the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee walk her to see each Senator for her scheduled meetings - it would have been several days of his time. I think what each did was appear to the Judiciary committee to introduce her. (Kerry, who spoke of some personal interactions in the 1990s likely did lobby any wavering Democrats.)

I did find the CSPAN link to both speaking for her. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/294263-3

[ProSense]

14. I also think this part is weird

Brown is clearly not a slave to ideology, which is good. He seems to have gone out of his way to forge productive relationships with the rest of the delegation, working with Barney Frank and John Kerry on key legislation. On the other hand, he is so enamored with being a swing vote, a player, that he can seem simply indecisive. He seemed to be for Elena Kagan before he was against her.

Out of his way? He couldn't find his way to vote for the jobs bill and unemployment benefits.

[Luftmensch067]

15. Since he's in the Senate

Pretty much solely as a Republican tool (and I use the word tool advisedly!) anything he does to "forge productive relationships" at all is going out of his way. :evilgrin:

[karynnj]

16. I agree - he has gone out of the way of being McConnell Jr because otherwise he would be dead in the

water in Massachusetts. In addition, he has negotiated special deals - just like Ben Nelson - as reward for providing a key vote. When was the last time Ben Nelson's actions were praised as working ... on key legislation. Why praise the fact that he weakened the Volker rule - giving banks the ability to use 3% of their money to speculate on hedge funds?

The fact is he has yet to be seen in a committee quietly writing legislation. To be fair, I only watched him on the Armed Services Committee - and that only once. At that point, his questioning was almost up to the George Allen level in the SFRC! (Not to mention, he referenced his 30 years in the military.)

[Mass]

17. It is irritating to see that even these unflattering columns continue to

picture him as non ideological, and ready to work with the other side.

This is getting really irritating, particularly given that it is clear that, just like Snowe and Collins, all he does is take orders from McConnell that allows him to make a few votes with the Democrats in order to maintain his aura of independent. This blindness from the Globe reporters is very tiring (particularly given they dont give a half of this consideration to our other Senator).

[MBS]

18. Oh yeah, you nailed it: irritating AND, above all, tiring, for sure.

especially coming from people like Adrian Walker who should know better.
For almost 7 years now, I ask myself, "WHY won't they give this man CREDIT?" Yeah, you're right: that's at least half (maybe even most of) the reason why the Globe's blindness (as you put it so well) about both Kerry and Brown and general softball-treatment of Brown irritates me so much.