Good news concerning the lesser senator

[Mass]

His vote against DADT after having said he would support it was blasted throughout the media, including by Jon Keller last night (who made fun of his argument that he wanted the tax deal voted upon before and said sticking to the Republican position on this issue was not a sign of the independence our lesser senator claims) and all major broadcast media I saw presented it in negative terms.



Of course, BlueMassGroup and other local blogs blast him (Note to BlueMassGroup and other bloggers, that somebody says something good does not make him a good guy. Neither him, nor Collins).

Though the media seem to ignore that he voted against help to 9/11 rescue teams and help to seniors.

Only negative, of course, is the nearly universal reference to Kerry for the "I voted for it before I voted against it".

[karynnj]

1. It is strange that they didn't add in the seniors and the 911 workers

From what I remember firemen from across the nation came to NYC at the beginning when it was the worst.

All I can think of is that they are still kind of protecting Brown, as they may feel that large parts of his base may not disagree on gays, but would be offended for especially the 911 workers. That really is unconscionable. (The seniors is something that should be done, but it is a bit more iffy as the reason for no COLA is that there is very little inflation. )

[Mass]

2. It is more the senior part that surprises me. The 9/11 responder bill concerns only

a handful of people. It is very important for these people and their families, but the senior thing is more important for people. First, many seniors will not get anything from the tax deal or very little. In addition, the inflation measure is not necessarily adapted, as gas prices go up as do many food prices.

In fact, attacking Brown on DADT is good, because he cant win MA without the moderate vote, and this vote makes him look like a peon of the GOP leadership (which he is).

[TayTay]

3. The later statement is a diversionary tactic.

There are many, many people in MA who can't talk seriously about John Kerry and other Democrats. They can't argue the facts either because they are too lazy to do proper research or lack the ability to produce an argument on the merits. They therefore base any and all arguments on diversionary tactics.

They posit that Scott Brown is a "Man of the People." All arguments to the contrary are not allowed by these folks. Attempts to have this argument come up against the wall of "he did it too" or pure baseless insults. This is a failed argument, the kind made by a three-year old having a tantrum.

Scott Brown voted against giving life-saving aid to the Heroes of 9/11. There is no excuse for this. There is no refuting this. It is a fact, no matter what idiotic logic Brown people uses to justify this despicable act. Those who argue for Brown can't justify it either, so they deflect the argument to a "well the other guy is worse" argument hoping to turn the conversation around to their advantage and stop talking about something that doesn't favor them.

there is no defense against this tactic, as long as we remain on "their turf," so to speak. The counter-argument is to restate the original case, cite that the only way Brown supporters can wiggle out of this is to change the subject and retate the original charge. Brown's actions were Brown's actions, regardless of what John Kerry did. Scott Brown says he is an independant, but he doesn't act that way. When push comes to shove, Brown is a child as are his supporters who whine when confronted that "John Kerry did worse, why aren't you picking on him." This is a childish tantrum, not an argument.

There are a lot of Mom's in this group. What did you do when your 3 year old had a tantrum?

[MBS]

4. lovely Globe oped today taking him to shreds

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/12/11/how_now_brown/

columnist Adrian Walker has had Brown's number for a while (and he also correctly (IMHO) deduced that Brown won because the Dems threw the election away), so this is hardly an unexpected perspective for Walker, but still, this column , about Brown's vote on DADT, was very satisfying. :evilgrin:

Our junior senator was one of 40 senators who helped prevent the measure from coming to a vote. Mostly, they voted against it because the Senate’s GOP leadership was adamant that extension of the Bush tax cuts be enacted first. Brown is among a handful in the group who helped block the vote despite being on record as favoring repeal.
. . .
This has not been a good fall for Brown, whose aura of invincibility now has as many dents as his famous truck. Most of the Massachusetts candidates he supported in November lost. Most of the candidates who were expected to win, in the wake of his supposedly seismic victory, lost. He supported a measure to ban federal spending earmarks — a drop in the bucket, budgetwise — but supports extending tax cuts that will have a far larger effect on the deficit, which he professes to be worried about.
. . .I had hoped to ask Senator Brown yesterday why immediately extending tax cuts was more important than social justice, but his office didn’t return my call. Maybe he wasn’t in a hurry to explain the contradiction of blocking a vote on something he supports.

. . .
Brown was elected on the assurance that he was his own man, but it hasn’t taken him long to figure out that it doesn’t pay to be a senator without a party. He may be popular, but after Thursday few will mistake Scott Brown for a profile in courage.

:evilgrin:
Come on, MA Dem party: surely we can mount a decent senate candidate in 2012 this time?