Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), who snatched the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat with an improbable special election victory in January, has turned down an invitation to attend a Sarah Palin-headlined tea party rally this week, the Boston Herald reports.

Some suspect that Brown may be seeking to distance himself from the enthusiastic -- and at times unrestrained -- Tea Party members who helped secure his Senate win.

"He wants to mainstream himself before the election," Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, told the Herald.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/1 ... 33961.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks to Republicans Scott Brown, George Voinovich, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe voting with Democrats, the Senate has moved past a GOP filibuster and will hold a final vote on a legislative package to extend unemployment benefits. The 60 to 34 vote puts an end to Tom Coburn's attempts to prevent the cost of the aid from being added to the deficit. Scott Brown, who helped break another GOP filibuster in February, defended his aisle jump, saying, “I have pledged to do my best to change the tone in Washington and my vote to continue the debate rather than obstruct it serves as a step in that direction.” His Facebook friends are going to be pissed.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/04/sc ... nothe.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Poor teabaggers. They worked so hard for him.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), who snatched the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat with an improbable special election victory in January, has turned down an invitation to attend a Sarah Palin-headlined tea party rally this week, the Boston Herald reports.

Some suspect that Brown may be seeking to distance himself from the enthusiastic -- and at times unrestrained -- Tea Party members who helped secure his Senate win.

"He wants to mainstream himself before the election," Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist, told the Herald.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/1 ... 33961.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks to Republicans Scott Brown, George Voinovich, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe voting with Democrats, the Senate has moved past a GOP filibuster and will hold a final vote on a legislative package to extend unemployment benefits. The 60 to 34 vote puts an end to Tom Coburn's attempts to prevent the cost of the aid from being added to the deficit. Scott Brown, who helped break another GOP filibuster in February, defended his aisle jump, saying, “I have pledged to do my best to change the tone in Washington and my vote to continue the debate rather than obstruct it serves as a step in that direction.” His Facebook friends are going to be pissed.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/04/sc ... nothe.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Poor teabaggers. They worked so hard for him.

He better walk right, the Kennedys are going to spend a freaking fortune to get that seat back.

Good for Brown. In the grand scheme of things the extra cost to the deficit pales in comparison to what we've managed to heap onto the deficit in the past 2-3 years and what we have planned now for the next decade or so. Not worth fighting over something like that - save it for the big fights. And he did campaign to change the tone in Washington and to try to work with the other side - that didn't pan out with Health Care as the other side ignored him and went their own way, but it's a start.

James Carville had a good point about this last night. He said the Tea Party groups aren't all the same and just because he rebuked one group of them doesn't mean those were the folks who even helped him get elected in the first place.

There is a huge variation in Tea Party members right now. Its too bad they have no leadership or unity. I thought for a minute we'd get a third party choice out of this.

danefan wrote:James Carville had a good point about this last night. He said the Tea Party groups aren't all the same and just because he rebuked one group of them doesn't mean those were the folks who even helped him get elected in the first place.

There is a huge variation in Tea Party members right now. Its too bad they have no leadership or unity. I thought for a minute we'd get a third party choice out of this.

That's a good point - people, especially on the Left apparently, like to paint the Tea Party as one monolithic group and dismisses them as just crazed whackos. Of course, what they are missing, is that there are plenty of people in that movement that aren't crazed and do raise some very good points and arguments. Trying to dismiss the movement as simply something on the fringe that doesn't need to be paid attention to is a really risky proposition. As Carville says, they're not all the same.

GannonFan wrote:That's a good point - people, especially on the Left apparently, like to paint the Tea Party as one monolithic group and dismisses them as just crazed whackos.

But many are.......and they are the ones that shout the loudest and get the most media attention.

If the Tea Baggers would stick to monetary policy/tax issues........and stay out of social/immigration issues.......they might actually get some traction.

mainejeff wrote:

GannonFan wrote:That's a good point - people, especially on the Left apparently, like to paint the Tea Party as one monolithic group and dismisses them as just crazed whackos.

But many are.......and they are the ones that shout the loudest and get the most media attention.

If the Tea Baggers would stick to monetary policy/tax issues........and stay out of social/immigration issues.......they might actually get some traction.

The thing is, media attention is geared to whatever can sell stories and increase ratings, so media attention always gravitates towards the ones shouting the loudest and (coincidentally of course) the more fringe elements.

However, traction comes in the Fall with the elections. Politicians would be a little wise to recognize that just what they see in the media isn't necessarily what is going on under the radar - there are plenty of legitimately normal people who agree with the monetary policy/tax issues that the Tea Party is identified with. Thinking the Tea Party is just a bunch of yokels complaining about the social/immigration issues is something you only get by looking at the fringe.

mainejeff wrote:

GannonFan wrote:That's a good point - people, especially on the Left apparently, like to paint the Tea Party as one monolithic group and dismisses them as just crazed whackos.

But many are.......and they are the ones that shout the loudest and get the most media attention.

If the Tea Baggers would stick to monetary policy/tax issues........and stay out of social/immigration issues.......they might actually get some traction.

Why stay out of immigration issues?

Do you support the attacks on this country? 99% of them are from...........illegals. Many in the CIA believe that ALL of the attacks and ALL of the attempts could have been stopped if we had tighter, more strict immigration.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
Do you support the attacks on this country? 99% of them are from...........illegals.

What "attacks on this country" are you talking about? 9/11... pretty sure most of them had visas and were here legally.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?p ... entersc582" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meh, voting to break a filibuster? No big deal. Brown is still lots better than Martha Coakley!

mainejeff wrote:

GannonFan wrote:That's a good point - people, especially on the Left apparently, like to paint the Tea Party as one monolithic group and dismisses them as just crazed whackos.

But many are.......and they are the ones that shout the loudest and get the most media attention.

If the Tea Baggers would stick to monetary policy/tax issues........and stay out of social/immigration issues.......they might actually get some traction.

Coincidence? I think not....

GannonFan wrote:Good for Brown. In the grand scheme of things the extra cost to the deficit pales in comparison to what we've managed to heap onto the deficit in the past 2-3 years and what we have planned now for the next decade or so. Not worth fighting over something like that - save it for the big fights. And he did campaign to change the tone in Washington and to try to work with the other side - that didn't pan out with Health Care as the other side ignored him and went their own way, but it's a start.

While I'm glad Brown isn't going to just be a yes-man for the republican leaders, I can't say I'm not disappointed in him defecting over this one vote. I don't understand why the donks don't want to cut out some very wasteful and unnecessary spending in the stimulus bill and redirect those stimulus dollars to the unemployment benefits.

And I don't really care how it compares to what was added to the national debt in the last 3 years. That's just like the college student living off of loans that says "I'm going to have lots of debt, so it doesn't make a lot of difference percentage-wise if I get the premium cable package instead of the standard one, get a top-of-the-line lap-top instead of a regular one, and go out to eat twice a week instead of twice a month.