Scott Brown responds to Palin’s criticism: Hey, I’m a Massachusetts Republican
posted at 1:12 pm on August 30, 2010 by Allahpundit
So he is, and every last one of us was fully aware of it when Scott Brown fee-vah was raging on the right before the special election. Even the Big Red Wave that’s a-comin’ isn’t enough to paint Massachusetts red, so it’s either Scotty B or Generic Massachusetts Democrat X in Teddy’s old seat. I’ll take Scotty.
Sarah Palin, who is pushing tea party candidates further to the right, dissed Brown, saying he was not conservative enough to pass muster in a state such as Alaska.
Brown is brushing off the intraparty attacks, making no apologies for the pledge of independence he preached during his campaign and says he is living out in Washington.
“I’m a Massachusetts Republican. When I go down to Washington, people say, what are you doing? They say, well you are working with the Democrats. I say, so what’s the big deal? I do that all the time. I’ve been doing it for 15 years,” Brown said.
“I don’t know what the surprise is,” he said of the attitude of critics from the far right. “I said I was going to go down there and be an independent voice, an independent thinker and vote accordingly,” he said.
The media’s hyping this as some sort of “true conservative”/RINO intraparty smackdown but both sides are more equivocal than you think. Palin, while dismissing Brown’s “antics,” acknowledged that he might be a better fit for Massachusetts than a Joe Miller type; meanwhile, in today’s interview, Brown saluted the “outsiders” in this year’s candidate crop who are bringing “a new perspective and new ideas, I think a new accountability,” which I assume is a reference to tea-party candidates like Miller. In fact, per what I said two weeks ago about Palin being a savvier politician than even her biggest supporters sometimes give her credit for, I wonder if her knock on Brown isn’t something done deliberately to boost him with Massachusetts voters. As any Chuck DeVore fan will tell you, Palin has no qualms about supporting a more centrist candidate over someone more right-wing in a blue state if she thinks there are electoral advantages to doing so. She knows that the left loathes her too, so beating up on Brown for not being enough of a “Sarah Palin conservative” will only endear him to the Democrats he needs to win. (It also gives him a little extra space to vote with the GOP since, even if he annoys Massachusetts lefties by doing so, he can always comfort them with the thought that their Wicked Witch thinks he’s a bleeding-heart liberal.) I’m not sure that that’s what she’s doing here — maybe she just really doesn’t like Brown — but for someone whose endorsements attract so much attention, maybe she’s realized that an anti-endorsement under the right circumstances can also help the GOP. Turn that polarizing effect to your advantage, Sarah!
Exit question: Speaking of polarization, what can she do now to turn this around?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6
tigerlily on August 30, 2010 at 11:15 PM
Not to mention the BS she pulled on the poor peeps at that Chicago hospital.
Gob on August 30, 2010 at 11:26 PM
You’re either huffing paint or are addicted to crystal meth.
Jenfidel on August 30, 2010 at 11:27 PM
All of your comments directed at me are personal attacks.
I have insulted no-one on this thread.
You are violating TOS here and at the very least, are way O/T.
Jenfidel on August 30, 2010 at 11:31 PM
The systematic, methodical, relentless destruction of this nation, down to the last detail of how to take over GM/Chrysler while violating 150 years of bankruptcy law; the shredding of the Constitution; the THOUSANDS of actions being taken daily by forty czars running shadow politburos that all harmonize and have as their purpose decimation in all sectors – is the work of pure, albeit evil, genius. And not just one genius, there are many involved here, experts in finance and destroying economies, such as George Soros, the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, banking and NWO mega-players who have played at the highest levels, the invisible levels, for decades.
These are the men, and globalists like them, giants in there wicked ways, but giants nonetheless, who are obama’s puppet masters.
It takes all of these “great” minds to acheive the breathtaking scope of destruction that is being carried out with a merciless rapidity and severity that is hard to fathom and points only to a plan so finely tuned as to be the work of many masters.
obama is a useful puppet in fronting for the execution of these plans, and humility has nothing to do with it. These global power brokers have promised little barry his kingdom, and he will do whatever he can to get it. He is not in their league, but he hopes by doing their bidding, that someday he will be.
To think that any one single person, let alone a boob like obama, could plan and execute the mayhem that is being perpetrated daily is to deny reality.
These actions are the execution of plans that have been in the making for decades, just waiting for a useful idiot like obama to align with the stars so that the trap can be sprung. That time has come.
tigerlily on August 30, 2010 at 11:38 PM
Cue theme from Shaft, aaannnnd:
“That michelle is one bad mother-” “shut yo mouth!”
“I’m just talking ’bout ‘chelle!”
tigerlily on August 30, 2010 at 11:44 PM
And maybe there’s no ulterior motive at all. Maybe she’s just (correctly) observing that a more centrist Republican like Brown *isn’t* a good fit for Alaska, particularly right now. I watched that interview and didn’t hear any attack in it, just a perceptive analysis.
Sometimes a banana really is just a banana, AP. :)
irishspy on August 31, 2010 at 12:00 AM
That kind of talk is completely uncalled for, inappropriate and unacceptable.
tigerlily on August 31, 2010 at 12:19 AM
Amen, tigerlily!
Her comment was VILE.
Yours are wonderful, though!
Jenfidel on August 31, 2010 at 12:30 AM
Jen, you’re the worst kind of “Christian”. You reek of hypocrisy and are completely lacking in integrity and honor. You’re a dim bulb and a liar.
dakine on August 31, 2010 at 2:13 AM
I’m sure I read that the 2007 budget was over $11 billion. Be back later if I can find out why.
alwaysfiredup on August 31, 2010 at 2:18 AM
No one cares anymore. It’s been two hours. Let it go.
alwaysfiredup on August 31, 2010 at 2:19 AM
You may be right. Good lord, man, are you a Benjamin Harrison fan?
AshleyTKing on August 31, 2010 at 2:21 AM
alwaysfiredup on August 31, 2010 at 2:18 AM
All the numbers are there, just add up capital and general spending and ignore Permanent Fund expenditure because that comes from fund earnings based on a five year average.
AshleyTKing on August 31, 2010 at 2:23 AM
Best roundup I can find:
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/04/governor-sarah-palin-is-fiscal.html
Apparently it all depends on where you start: She wasn’t responsible for budgets for FY 2007. She seriously cut spending from FY 2009 to FY 2010. But spending did rise a lot 2008-2009. C4P points out that this was due to an unforeseen spike in oil revenues (in gov’t accounting, every dollar that comes in must be spent/allocated somewhere) and much of this “spending” was put to savings and tax rebates.
I will now have to revise my standard Palin defense because I really had thought she reduced the AK budget overall during her tenure. But I would still rate her as having fiscally conservative instincts.
alwaysfiredup on August 31, 2010 at 2:32 AM
dammit C4P took out the supporting links. Off to the intertubes again…
alwaysfiredup on August 31, 2010 at 2:39 AM
It looks like you and C4P are looking at the same source, except they count permanent fund revenues and you don’t. 2007 is different, maybe it got amended. 2008 and 2009 are the same. The only thing is you really should give her credit for the FY 2010 cuts as that was her final budget.
alwaysfiredup on August 31, 2010 at 3:03 AM
Sheez. Looks like all the nutbaggery occurs around midnight around here.
Badger40 on August 31, 2010 at 7:58 AM
silly exit question
as if Palin can do something about a CBS poll
cbs can’t even accomplish a general head count of people attending the Revive Honor DC rally last weekend.
maverick muse on August 31, 2010 at 8:00 AM
Palin’s comment about Brown not only made him look better in Massachusetts, but made her look better to conservatives.
So what’s “right” of right? I disagree with John J. Monahan’s assessment that Palin leads the Tea Party to the right of its own contingencies; she is neoconservative rather than constitutional Libertarian, though she maintains political alliance with Rand & Ron Paul. The only way to victory is ALLIANCE. Smart.
maverick muse on August 31, 2010 at 8:06 AM
I hope I get my feedback through after coffee time. After revising what I wrote, everything’s out of order but I need some extra rest-I do get my point across. Read on:
1-She has to show that she’s a “numbers” person. Go to specifics. I know she is, tons of people too, but the lapdogs and lame stream media don’t. Call it “Ryanspeak”. :D Dumbfounded liberals are a fun thing to watch.
2-Slowly for surely, get some news articles written by her, on said media. She has written some, but pick up the pace a little bit. Start slowly a cross-over approach. Wait for usual reaction, then fire back.
3-Gawd knows how badly I want a Palin-Behar encounter at The View (I am laughing as I type), no body language analysis needed. Someday, I hope she gets there. That’d be freakin’ awesome. With that said, wqould Dubya visit The View to promote his book, after all the crap she’s thrown at him? I am crossing fingers; maybe she’ll be “sick” that day. Sweet.
4-I’d start with Larry King. Then go from there.
ProudPalinFan on August 31, 2010 at 8:06 AM
typo, “would”.
ProudPalinFan on August 31, 2010 at 8:08 AM
There’s a major argument that Americans must wage against Washington, and demand a position from candidates.
KEYNESIAN FALSE ECONOMICS?
Anyone supporting that, regardless of “conservative” qualifications, is another HACK leading America down the primrose path of doom.
maverick muse on August 31, 2010 at 8:13 AM
Palin’s vocal timbre would pierce Behar’s.
maverick muse on August 31, 2010 at 8:15 AM
For a second I thought I was on Huffpoo, kind of nasty thread going here.
wi farmgirl on August 31, 2010 at 12:26 PM
No, it wasn’t, though it was for some people. And no, my wording isn’t. I mean two different things by that, but naturally you grammar troll because it makes you feel superior.
You told me I needed knee pads implying I want to get down on my knees for Obama, you’ve insulted my intelligence and reading comprehension multiple times in this thread alone and have also made attacks on my Christian faith and even my party affiliation.
If they do that, you’re out. You always start this, every single time. Have some self awareness.
I’m a hell of a lot younger than you, Jen, as I’ve told you repeatedly. I was born during Reagan’s first term. Obviously telling you that my first vote the year I turned 18 was for Bush wouldn’t make any more of a difference than telling you I donated to McCain’s campaign specifically because of a Palin email that was sent to me.
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 1:29 PM
All three of you have attacked me, specifically CW who just can’t stop obsessing over me. I am not attacking you and did not attack you.
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Yes, it is. That was my point actually. That’s precisely what Jen told me and minutes later defended her talk as being Christian.
I was using sarcasm, to point out that Jesus indeed would never have said that, that, that kind of comment was beyond the pale and not appropriate here, especially for a Christian. Glad you agree, but it’s so typical that you’re calling me out for something I was pointing out Jen had said, instead of saying anything to Jen about what she said to me.
Because somehow, even when I don’t attack Jen, I’m attacking her. And when she attacks me, insulting me personally with the most vulgar things she can come up with, she’s still somehow the victim when I point out that what she’s said is inappropriate.
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 1:36 PM
Here’s the comment, tigerlily:
Think what you want of me, but I’m not attacking either of you. I’m pointing out bad behavior that gets ignored just because she agrees with you.
I don’t know why she gets away with this and using racial slurs while she threatens to get the rest of us banned for pointing our her remarks, but just because she has doesn’t make it acceptable.
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 1:41 PM
Catfight!
darwin on August 31, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Is it really necessary to start this back up again?
You and Jen were both acting pretty ugly to one another last night. Pox on both your houses.
alwaysfiredup on August 31, 2010 at 2:10 PM
I’m beginning to think she shares her account with a couple of people. It begins as a scree and escalates from there and goes on for 8 or 10 hours.
For some reason there are a handful of posters who try to get people to say something that is banworthy.
Ed and AP don’t have the time to go back over an entire thread to play judge and jury. A couple of people got banned because they quoted someone else’s comment which was over the top.
Just have to be cautious.
Bradky on August 31, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Start? It never ends. It begins again anytime we’re in the same thread, and I disagree with her. Even here, I was only responding to things people said to me or about me.
I did nothing to her. I never even insulted her except to point out that her behavior was nasty, like you’re doing here.
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 2:30 PM
why is jen not banned?
CarpalTunnel on August 31, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Good point. I was trying to prove how disgusting the comment was, but that was a stupid way to do it. Really, there was no smart way to do it.
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 2:33 PM
I hear ya. I let myself get pulled under on occasion. What I wouldn’t give to see an ignore feature on the threads!
Bradky on August 31, 2010 at 2:38 PM
That would help. I know how unproductive these things can be, but I don’t like to let personal attacks to go by unanswered. No one does.
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 2:47 PM
So Scotty boy is a “Independant voice” or “Independant Thinker” Hmmm sounds like code words for “RINO”
It’s very interesting that Palin is slamming Scotty boy for not being conservative enough when a while back she endoresed McCain (Mr RINO Himself)for his senate race. Maybe she (Like McCain)is a political opportunist riding this recent conservative wave to help her own political asperations for 2012.
gboy63 on August 31, 2010 at 4:14 PM
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Wow. Read what happened last evo. It was truly the bizarro world.
You are always using reason and facts. I’m glad you were able to defend yourself.
Gob on August 31, 2010 at 4:56 PM
Jen was far quicker with the insults, but I disagree that you never insulted her. It’s possible you interpreted it differently, like when unseen was trying to get you to acknowledge that some of your word choices had specific connotations but you wouldn’t acknowledge her point. It all seemed rather heated and it does take two to argue.
Go away. You never have anything nice to say about Palin or her fans. You’re just butting in here out of schadenfreude.
alwaysfiredup on August 31, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Thanks. It often gets like that when things get heated. One poster (not in this thread) once brought my husband into the conversation.
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 6:17 PM
I don’t agree that arguing (I’d call it disagreeing instead) is the same thing as insulting. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing from time to time. As I said earlier in the thread, darwin and I seem to disagree on most issues, even passionately I believe, but somehow when we get into these discussions, we’re usually able to find some sort of common ground instead of insulting each other.
I’ve done that with plenty of people without it being an issue.
You say that I refuse to acknowledge unseen’s point, seemingly assuming that it was something I could do but chose not to, just to be argumentative. I simply disagree with her on that, no malice intended. I said multiple times that I view quit and resign as equal words both in denotation and connotation and even mentioned that I’d use resign from then on out if it made such a difference.
I’m not sure how that makes me the bad guy there. It seemed to me that the only way to cool down that conversation would be to lie and “admit” I’m a liberal who hates Palin. I don’t and find it insulting to be called a liberal, Democrat or Leftiest, as I imagine you do.
Things did get heated, and yes, I could have just let them speak ill of me without saying anything in return, but I don’t see how I’m wrong for not allowing their words to stand unchallenged.
You seemed to believe it was important to call me out instead of just letting my words stay. What’s the difference exactly?
This is how it started with me, except that when I did what you did, I was insulted personally. If I were to insult you personally now, I suppose the correct thing would be to simply ignore me, but I don’t see how it would be wrong (or pox-inducing) for you to challenge my incorrect assertions about you.
After all, while these comments are time-stamped, this isn’t a chat room. These comments are timeless. I’ve had people bring up things I’ve said in other posts countless times. Using my screen name and Hot Air, you can Google a good portion of my comments here.
If you think there was something else in this thread aside from my word choices with unseen that I need to apologize for, I’ll consider it, but I made a conscious effort to leave personal insults out of this thread. I even rewrote a few comments before posting them for that purpose.
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 6:51 PM
You seemed to believe it was important to call me out instead of just letting my words stay. What’s the difference exactly?
alwaysfiredup on August 31, 2010 at 7:57 PM
I probably would have taken issue with your tone as insulting rather than anything particular you said. You are frequently disrespectful to Jen and that more than anything else makes her flip out. Maybe you think she doesn’t deserve respect, but without it everything just devolves into a flamewar like it did last night.
I’m not saying she’s innocent or in the right, because she’s not, but you were making things worse and that’s not blameless.
alwaysfiredup on August 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM
And I’m done. Promise.
alwaysfiredup on August 31, 2010 at 8:08 PM
Esthier, the truth is that you are willing to debate Jenn and as I previously stated, I have learned a lot from those debates.
Jenn flips out because you use context and facts to counter her point of view. Hardly ever see invective from you. The facts speak for themselves.
Gob on August 31, 2010 at 9:46 PM
Alright, I can understand that but just disagree, simply because of what I said earlier, that it never stops. It’s stopped here because Jen hasn’t come back to this thread.
It’s not that I think she doesn’t deserve respect but that I don’t see how my tone makes a difference whatsoever, which isn’t to say that I intend to adopt a disrespectful tone either, though I can see how after being told that I don’t know how to read it might come out that way regardless.
In all sincerity, I don’t know how to address her in a more respectful way than I have. This has been ongoing between us for months, and once I even tried treating her like a friend thinking it would help. Obviously it didn’t.
I’m not trying to start a flame war and specifically try not to resort to insults, but I don’t see any value in treating someone who does result to them at my expense with kindness, especially since tone is so hard to detect in the written word. Kindness is often taken for something else online.
I respect your opinion and that of the Hot Air community on this and don’t wish to offend, but I get heated in this discussions as well. Being insulted, especially by someone whose points are less than convincing (to me, anyway), makes it difficult enough not to respond in kind. To take it one step further and respond with a more dispassionate tone, is a bit much.
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 10:44 PM
And I’m still a bit surprised by that. You’re the only one I’ve seen write that before. People have commented the way alwaysfiredup did, though usually not as polite and usually because they’re “joining a side” in the argument. I’m glad something useful came out of it. I never intend to degrade the site. I’ve been a fan of it for a few years.
I’m glad you say that, because I accept that I don’t have an unbiased view of the situation but have felt that was the case. I know I’ve written things that crossed my own line and have said things I regret, but it’s something I try to work on. I actually like reading different points of view so long as things stay clean and relatively kind.
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Esthier on August 31, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Everything you say is just as I saw it. Actually, I prolly paid attention more because I noticed you mostly keep your cool with Jenn and keep it to debating points. In lieu of it being a flame war.
You’re right about it coming down to sides though. You can see it in the way people approach you and when peeps try to tell Jenn she is out of line, some prolly even agree with her, but her approach is so off-putting. You can tell sometimes that people wanna stay out of it but she rubs them the wrong way they can’t help themselves.
I always remember when I was only able to LOOK at the post and so wanted to join in. Because not anyone can join, there are so many lurkers, and I learned so much during those days.
So I like the debate because if one is not privy to the subject, you learn so much as long as it is mostly constructive. And I am in the middle with SP so I don’t get so heated about the haters and lovers. It’s been educational for me.
Gob on August 31, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Me too. It was killing me to wait and not be able to respond. I even emailed AP once. I assume most people appreciate having the privilege to post here, even those who complain a little.
I’m somewhat in between myself, but I was very excited about her when I first looked her up. I was actually hoping at the time that McCain wouldn’t pick her because I thought she’d be a much stronger candidate if she’d had a few more years as a relatively unknown Alaskan governor with an approval rating in the 80s.
Thing is, while I became excited about her as a VP candidate once she was elected, I still believe my initial impression was correct. I just imagine it would have been so wonderful to have Palin as a full term or even two term widely popular Alaskan governor then considering the presidency. People would still find ways to hate her and dismiss her as dumb, but she’d have four to eight years worth of executive experience calming the fears of non partisan undecideds.
Bristol would still have had a baby as a teen out of wedlock, but her dirty laundry with Levi would likely never have been aired so publicly. And without being in the national spotlight, no one would assume she’d faked a pregnancy to hide her daughter’s, i.e. Trigg Birtherism.
I don’t mean to dismiss all she’s done the last two years, but the cost seems a little high.
Esthier on September 1, 2010 at 12:13 AM
I am soooo disappointed that a fan of Palin, supporter of freedom of speech (except when it comes to slurs about her own child) would tell someone not to exercise their freedom of speech.
A dark day indeed… /sarc
Bradky on September 1, 2010 at 7:19 AM
AP & Ed, if you can’t get these repetitive, boring and frankly outrageous personal attacks to stop as a substitute for discussion or even argument, I have grave doubts as to how long HA can continue to be known as a top quality site.
I personally do not appreciate being personally attacked at tiresome and whiny length for umpteen posts by Esthier and Bradky.
Jenfidel on September 1, 2010 at 8:43 AM
“only marry billionaires, and you can have a huge yacht as well” Lurch John Kerry wispered to Scott Brown.
“I have married two of them”, the windsurfing sniveling elite commented while eating brie cheese and sipping 500 year old wine.
Cleveland Steamer on September 1, 2010 at 9:34 AM
State actual ideas and policies that can be implemented. The problem with her right now there are too many generic ideas out there without a specific plan to show how it could be implemented and why she is just the same as all the other politicians.
JeffinSac on September 1, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Care to explain how I’m personally attacking you? Maybe then you can get me banned.
Esthier on September 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM
If John Kerry got as close to me as he got to ol’ Scotty there in the picture, I would by-pass the shower and go straight to decontamination facility.
kens on September 1, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6