Globe staff has article on Brown's pattern of never having an opinion until

[karynnj]

he votes. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/07/28/senator_scott_browns_stance_on_major_issues/

[Mass]

1. Yes. Great. I hope it makes the paper version of the paper...

[karynnj]

2. I really find it interesting that so few of the negative Brown articles make the print edition

Thank you for letting us out of state people know.

[Mass]

3. This article made the frontpage today

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/07/28/brown_sticks_with_strategy_of_reticence_on_specifics_of_debt_deal/

Says he has not offered a clear idea what the deal should look like, but at the same time, it tries to position his finger in the wind as a positive factor (Tea Party guy unhappy, and them likens him to Kerry. Grrr!!!

[karynnj]

4. I guess they would call that a more balanced version of yesterday's article

It is impossible for me to read the article as a neutral person, but trying to do so makes me see this as a transitionally negative article. Most past articles have been nearly 100% positive - and they trumpeted things - signing on as a co-sponsor - that they never consider mentioning in Kerry's case. This is more negative than positive.

As to likening him to Kerry - I see it more as a contrast. There is a solid paragraph on Kerry's positions on various alternatives. Only on details (albeit important ones) does Seth give a stock answer - likely because she does not have authority to say yes or no, maybe as it could depend what else is in a package or simply because Kerry has yet to make a definitive public statement. This is miles away from Brown's lack of position on much of anything.

Not to mention, the article then tries to argue that not putting all the cards on the table (for Brown) is good, but it doesn't really diminish the view that he is absolutely not a leader on anything. Implicitly, it makes their attempt to tie Kerry down on details when no plan is yet firm seems silly - and actually is a good reason for him not giving out exactly how far he could be pushed. (especially knowing that if he answered one way and voted the other - based on the full package, he could count on Glen Johnson having an article on that.)

I did like yesterday's article much, much better. It kind of seems that the (lower level) BG staff really is not in love with Brown and it sometimes shows. (Like with the Nov 2010 article when he incoherently spoke in the Senate while filibustering the extension of unemployment benefits.) But it seems the powers that be push back before things go into the paper.

Interesting that it appears not to allow comments - as I would love to have read them.