Scott Brown: I was sexually and physically abused as a kid

posted at 4:01 pm on February 16, 2011 by Allahpundit

People get understandably fatigued by America’s “confessional culture,” but insofar as this encourages abused kids to speak up and aim high, it’s all to the good. It sounds like the molestation took place over a relatively short period of time but the duration of the beatings is less clear. Probably not “relatively short,” though:

Brown told also Stahl that he endured brutal physical abuse by more than one stepfather and even considered purchasing a Wakefield home where he’d been battered, “just so I could burn it down.”

“I actually called the realtor and went in and took the tour and relived kind of where everything was … to make sure I wasn’t … dreaming. As I left, I said, ‘Man, I wish I had the money. I’d just buy this thing and burn it down,’” Brown said.

He told Stahl that opening up about his tough upbringing, and revealing details that his wife and mother didn’t even know about, was cathartic.

I asked this on Twitter but didn’t get a response, so let me ask it here. Has any American politician this prominent spoken openly about childhood abuse before? There must be others but I’m drawing a blank.

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

I’ve went through most (but not all) of these comments, and I believe I can answer AP’s question of whether a politician this prominent ever came out about being sexually abused as a child. While I don’t agree with everyone’s opinion on this site, I certainly recognize the intellectual heft displayed by many on here, so I’m surprised I think I’m the first person to mention her.

I remembered her first name immediately, but I had to go to Wikipedia to remember her last name.

It was Senator Paula Hawkins, a one-term Senator from Florida in the 80′s who was beaten by former Governor Bob Graham when she ran for re-election.

Here’s her Wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Hawkins

asc85 on February 17, 2011 at 9:03 AM

It was Senator Paula Hawkins, a one-term Senator from Florida in the 80′s who was beaten by former Governor Bob Graham when she ran for re-election.

Not the best wording there considering the story, she lost to Governor Bob Graham.

kerncon on February 17, 2011 at 9:56 AM

You know what lady, us guys have a right to go to the john without some nutbag thinking we’re child molesters. I’m a single guy, and I’m afraid to even interact with a child that I’m not related to, and it’s because of people like you.

DFCtomm on February 17, 2011 at 3:11 AM

I have a son, and I never did that.
Btw: I was a cashier at a Wendy’s and there was one time where I said hi to a little girl who was standing there with her mother. I’m a 5’2 woman. The girl immediately started screaming ‘Stranger!’. I looked at her mother-stunned- and the mother responded with something like ‘Oh, she was taught to scream anytime she’s approached by a stranger.’
Is it getting ridiculous?
Yes!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM

The people here who are whining that Scott Brown would dare to harm their delicate sensibilities by bringing this to light, or the truly bottom-scraping pukes who have the audacity to attack him for his or claim to know that it’s a lie are part of the reason I don’t come to HA nearly as much as I used to.

MadisonConservative on February 17, 2011 at 11:17 AM

‘Stranger!’. I looked at her mother-stunned- and the mother responded with something like ‘Oh, she was taught to scream anytime she’s approached by a stranger.’
Is it getting ridiculous?
Yes!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Zero tolerance: Creating a generation of paranoid sheep.

SKYFOX on February 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM

I apologize to MBS, since I overreacted, but you’re right.

DFCtomm on February 17, 2011 at 11:55 AM

He’s a Progressive………and we were sold a bill of Goods!

That’s what concerns me.

Sorry about the abuse……but can we get back to his record?

PappyD61 on February 16, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Apparently not. He played his absolute moral authority card and a number of folks on this site have folded and decided his abuse history makes his politics unassailable.

SKYFOX on February 17, 2011 at 12:02 PM

I apologize to MBS, since I overreacted, but you’re right.

DFCtomm on February 17, 2011 at 11:55 AM

My attitude is that just because I was abused doesn’t make every male my father. both my ex-husband and my husband are good men.
I was taught stay away from strangers too-as was my ‘almost adult’-but in everything-there’s context.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 17, 2011 at 12:12 PM

The people here who are whining that Scott Brown would dare to harm their delicate sensibilities by bringing this to light, or the truly bottom-scraping pukes who have the audacity to attack him for his or claim to know that it’s a lie are part of the reason I don’t come to HA nearly as much as I used to.

MadisonConservative on February 17, 2011 at 11:17 AM

And hypersensitive a-holes like you, and a bunch of other people on this thread, who ATTACK anyone whose opinion differs from theirs are the reason that this place has gone downhill, IMO.

JannyMae on February 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Okay… tell it to Dr Phil… get on with government…. he is a RINO… he is fishing for lib votes…. yawnnnnn

charmingtail on February 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM

or the truly bottom-scraping pukes who have the audacity to attack him for his or claim to know that it’s a lie are part of the reason I don’t come to HA nearly as much as I used to.

MadisonConservative on February 17, 2011 at 11:17 AM

So, putting aside your mature civility, is it your position that we must take everything any politican states as gospel truth? We aren’t allowed to be cynical or not believe something that is merely an allegation with no proof whatsoever?

Is that the new standard to which you adhere?

Monkeytoe on February 17, 2011 at 3:04 PM

I honestly don’t understand the vitriol and anger.

I simply stated what I believe to be a completely reasonable and rational opinion, which is that based on the sheer number of famous people claiming to have been sexually or otherwise abused as children, I simply don’t take any of those claims at face value any longer and no longer believe any of them.

I did not “attack” Scott Brown or say that he is a RINO that should be punished or defeated (both things that I don’t believe). I did not say that anything should happen to him or that anyone else should necessarily believe what I believe on this subject.

I merely pointed out my position, which I came to well before Scott Brown’s story came out. I actually posted it wondering if other people are starting to feel as I do, that based on being inundated with these stories and claims by celeberities and semi-celeberities, it is looking more like publicity stunts then anything else.

I note that a few people do seem to agree with me generally. But a number of people have really taken a personal interest in this claim by Scott Brown being true and are defending it with such passion, it is actually a little disturbing.

Monkeytoe on February 17, 2011 at 3:10 PM

I honestly don’t understand the vitriol and anger.
Monkeytoe on February 17, 2011 at 3:10 PM

People like to be believed, people also have their vices and lying is one of them, people also like to defend those they have an alliance with, regardless of the truth.

Some are liars who do not think it is right for anyone to demand evidence, and thus shaming you into silence protects themselves.

some people have allied with him, and will defend him regardless.

astonerii on February 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM

People like to be believed, people also have their vices and lying is one of them, people also like to defend those they have an alliance with, regardless of the truth.

Some are liars who do not think it is right for anyone to demand evidence, and thus shaming you into silence protects themselves.

some people have allied with him, and will defend him regardless.

astonerii on February 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM

I’m sure that is partially correct, but I think some people just can’t fathom that anyone would lie about or exaggerate such a thing.

I am allied with Scott Brown in the sense that I want him re-elected and that I donated money to his campaign against Coakely. This does not change my mind about that. I don’t know for a fact that he is lying and won’t act as if he is, I simply am cynical about such claims by anyone in teh spotlight.

Monkeytoe on February 17, 2011 at 4:51 PM

So, putting aside your mature civility, is it your position that we must take everything any politican states as gospel truth? We aren’t allowed to be cynical or not believe something that is merely an allegation with no proof whatsoever?

Is that the new standard to which you adhere?

Monkeytoe on February 17, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Go ahead and enlighten us about your rational basis to call him a liar about what he claims happened to him, that has nothing to do whatsoever with your disagreement over his politics.

I won’t be holding my breath.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2011 at 1:16 AM

And hypersensitive a-holes like you

JannyMae on February 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Funny thing. There’s almost no one on this site whose opinion I have always attacked, apart from a couple of lefty and Ronulan trolls.

You, however, have always attacked me, and rarely do I actually address you.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Go ahead and enlighten us about your rational basis to call him a liar about what he claims happened to him, that has nothing to do whatsoever with your disagreement over his politics.

I won’t be holding my breath.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2011 at 1:16 AM

You have clearly not read a single one of my comments in full. First off, I don’t disagree with his politics – or at least not in the way you think. I diagree to the extent that I think he is too liberal, but I believe that he is the best that conservatives – like me – can hope for in MA, a state in which I once lived. I also donated to him in his campaign against Coakely.

For the record, I will put money on it that I am more conservative than you. I know you are going to immediately believe that I am not simply b/c I disagree with you on this issue – but go ahead and do a search of my comments on this site and see whether a) I have ever supported a liberal position or b) have ever attacked Scott Brown’s politics. You will find that I have never supported a liberal position adn that I have never attacked Scott Brown’s politics. And, also, just b/c I don’t believe this claim does not mean that I want him to lose the next election – I do not.

My conservatism does not color every single thought or opinion I have about everything though. I don’t idolize politicians just because they are conservative or republican, nor do I believe everything any politician or anyone else says.

I came to the opinion that I would not believe anyone with a modicum of fame claiming 20 or more years after the fact that they were sexually or otherwise abused as a child more than a year ago. I actually had this conversation with my wife many times and we both roll our eyes every time a famous person starts to claim they were abused as a child. It has become cliche.

I came to this cynical position after about the 100th person pushing a book or movie or otherwise seeking publicity made the claim. I came to this position because there is absolutely no way to prove the person’s story one way or the other and it is generally too convenient and if I believed every single one of these stories, I would have to believe that America has a 100% child abuse/molestation rate. In other words, I don’t believe it is statistically possible for all of the people writing books, etc. to actually have been abused as claimed. Therefore, I simply don’t believe any of them anymore. It is not personal to Scott Brown. It is not becuase he has done anything else to make me think of him as dishonest, I just don’t believe these type of claims anymore. I know that some of them are probably true, but most probably are not. And, since there is no way to know which is which, I don’t believe any of them.

In Brown’s case he is semi-famous as a U.S. Senator, politicians always want publicity, and he is pushing a book. A book that nobody would buy or read absent some salacious material. He certainly would not be a 60 Minutes interview without these claims. Do you honestly believe that his book would sell absent these claims? That people are lining up to hear about Scott Brown’s life? I don’t think he has made that much of an impact or done that much yet to make people want to read his book. His election was national news b/c of Obamacare and b/c it was “Ted Kennedy’s seat”, but I think most people who don’t follow politics closesly have already forgotten his name. And out of the people who follow politics closely, like those on this site, how many would really care to read his biography? So, a convenient claim of child abuse. Just like every other celeberity who has done the same to sell a book.

I’m not sure why you are so emotionally invested in his claim being true, but you have no proof of it, just his claim. I have no proof that it is not true. All we have is our opinions. I hardly think that my opinion is irrational or unreasonable. You may disagree with it, but you are disagreeing with it b/c you chose to believe Brown, not because you have some logical or factual argument that supports your belief, aside from the “why would he lie” argument. So why the anger?

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 8:39 AM

So any childhood trauma is immediately to be disbelieved if someone has a modicum of fame. Marvelous.

I’m not emotionally invested in anyone’s claim. I’m disgusted by douchebags who call others liars for recounting something about their own life, for which said douchebags have no evidence, or factual basis, to back up their libel. Smearing a person because they say something you have utterly no rational reason to disbelieve is nauseating narcissism. “He/She’s famous, so it must be untrue.” Tell me something, if a liberal made the same assertion, but replaced “famous” with “rich”, how sensible would their rationale be?

Like I said, once again, when you can demonstrate a rational basis for calling him a liar, let me know. Until then, you’re smearing a man for his status, with no actual basis whatsoever to call him a liar.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I’m not emotionally invested in anyone’s claim. I’m disgusted by douchebags who call others liars for recounting something about their own life, for which said douchebags have no evidence, or factual basis, to back up their libel.

An opinion can’t be libel you idiot.

You have no proof that what brown said was true idiot.

What law says I have to believe everything anyone says idiot?

You are a child, a jerk, and an idiot. You are incapable fo adult conversation or reading comprehension.

You seem to think you’ve made some logical point. You have not.

You simply state that b/c Brown is a republican, you must believe ever word that drips frmo his mouth. What kind of idiocy is that you douchebag idiot jackass?

Grow up and learn to think rationally instead of on emotion over your lover’s idol worship of scott brown you douche.

Prove to me taht what he said is true. Until then you have no point to make. Your opinion is based on your idolotry of Brown, nothing more. You have no rational basis or even though behind your opinion.

I guess the new standard is that if someone says something, we have to believe it until there is absolute proof it isn’t true.

Marvelous.

Grow up.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Smearing a person because they say something you have utterly no rational reason to disbelieve is nauseating narcissism

Don’t use words you don’t undertand you simpleton. Narcissism does not fit here.

And, stating my opinion is not smearing anyone. You have no grasp of anything, do you. What institution are your writing from?

I have a rational reason to disbelieve brown you scumbag. Unforatunately, you are too stupid to understand it.

Maybe someday you will grow up and join in an adult conversation based on logical thought. I doubt it will ever happen though. Good luck with learning the definitions of words you throw out trying to look smart.

What a dunce you are.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Tell me something, if a liberal made the same assertion, but replaced “famous” with “rich”, how sensible would their rationale be?

It depends on what the circumstances are. People develop rules of thumb for credibility of things all the time. I guess you are too damn dumb to understand something like that.

I don’t believe claims of racism unless I hear substantial evidence backing it up, b/c such claims are thrown out so cavalierly these days. I guess that is wrong too? I should immediately believe it every time a democrat makes a claim of racial discrimination?

Or, when a union makes some kind of claim that management did something illegal or unethical with regard to an employee or the union, I generally don’t believe it absent proof.

See what I did there – I just demonstrated perfectly reasonble beliefs based on facts and logic that define credibility decisions I make. Just like this one. There are hundreds people use every day. It’s not so incredible as you seem to think.

You really have little in the way of thought, don’t you? YOu travel entirely on emotion – “my side good, their side bad, therefore anyone no my team must always be telling the truth.”

Why are you so emotionally invested in my not believe scott brown? You should really see someone about your wierd attachements to people you don’t know.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 12:57 PM

So any childhood trauma is immediately to be disbelieved if someone has a modicum of fame.

that’s right. I guess you believe that every celeberity was molested as a child at some point and every one of them suddenly decides to tell teh world when they write a book or are promoting a movie.

I’m not quite as willing to suspend my disbelief. Not sure why you care so much what I believe. But, if it keeps you up all night, I guess that’s something.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Don’t use words you don’t undertand you simpleton. Narcissism does not fit here.

And, stating my opinion is not smearing anyone.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Famous person: I was molested as a kid.

Monkeytoe: My opinion is that you’re lying.

Famous person: Why?

Monkeytoe: Because you’re famous.

Famous person: Do you have a real reason?

Monkeytoe: That is a real reason. My opinion is that any famous person who talks about abuse as a child is lying, which is totally rational, and a legitimate reason to call you a liar. And it’s also my opinion that the first opinion is not attacking you by baselessly calling you a liar, because my opinions override whatever the facts are about whether or not you were molested, none of which I know. Also, I’m not narcissistic, because it’s my opinion that I’m not, and my opinions are more important than facts.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM

So any childhood trauma is immediately to be disbelieved if someone has a modicum of fame.

that’s right.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:00 PM

That’s revolting. What the hell is wrong with you?

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Like I said, once again, when you can demonstrate a rational basis for calling him a liar, let me know. Until then, you’re smearing a man for his status, with no actual basis whatsoever to call him a liar.

For god sakes, my stating what my opinion is is not smearing him. I don’t believe it. So what?

You have no basis to claim what he is saying is true. What basis do you have for believing that Scott Brown never lies? You have no rational basis to believe him. You believe him based on faith alone. That is not a rational basis.

Not believing someone absent proof is a hell of a lot more rational that believing someone you don’t know based entirely on faith.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM

That’s revolting. What the hell is wrong with you?

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Revolting? Really? My having a different belief than you is revolting?

You are really an ass.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Narcissism does not fit here.

What institution are your writing from?

…you scumbag.

…you are too stupid…

…grow up…

…dunce…

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Awesome.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Monkeytoe: That is a real reason. My opinion is that any famous person who talks about abuse as a child is lying, which is totally rational, and a legitimate reason to call you a liar. And it’s also my opinion that the first opinion is not attacking you by baselessly calling you a liar, because my opinions override whatever the facts are about whether or not you were molested, none of which I know. Also, I’m not narcissistic, because it’s my opinion that I’m not, and my opinions are more important than facts.

Wow, you really are something. Totally incapaple of reading what I wrote – or at least of understanding it.

Totally incapable of argunig honestly. You actually ahve all of the traits of a lefty.

I said that my opinion is just that and is not based on any facts. That is all. I said that absent proof, I chose not to believe.

You seem to think that is some kind of horrible thing, to not believe what someone else says. That makes you a complete moron.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Awesome.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Go back and re-read our exchange. See who started calling who names first. SEe who was civil and adult and tried to have a conversation.

You will see that you were the child throwing out insults and names. I simply responded in kind.

so get off your high horse and at least be honest about something today.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:07 PM

You have no basis to claim what he is saying is true.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM

I don’t need one. Do you assume that everytime someone says something, it’s a lie? Or only famous people? Or only Scott Brown?

In any of those cases, you’re a horribly sad, sick, bitter person.

Unless you have real reason to believe that Scott Brown is lying about this(which would include, say, a history of lying about his personal life, your personal acquaintance with him, or having been in his proximity when he claims these events happened), then all you’re doing is smearing him(yes, baselessly calling someone a liar is smearing them, even when you do it, and your refusal to admit this is the narcissism I was talking about) by calling him a liar.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2011 at 1:07 PM

You really need to look narcissim up. It does not mean whatever it is you think it means. You are making yourself look even more foolish.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:07 PM

I don’t need one. Do you assume that everytime someone says something, it’s a lie?

Really, you are here calling me names and telling me I’m a horrible person for not believing something someone says.

But, to believe it with 100% certainty, as you do, you need nothing.

And somehow I am irrational.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:09 PM

I have a reason to believe he is lying.

He is pushing a book that nobody would have bought absent these claims. He never told anyone before trying to sell this book. there is no evidence that what he is claiming is true.

You have no evidence to support your worship of Brown.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Gotta go. YOu are not worth my time (because I’m a narcissist). I don’t believe Scott Brown’s claims and absent proof, never will.

Aside from naming calling, you made no arguments to try and persuade me. Not sure what you hoped to accomplish with your insane, childish rants and name-calling. but, have a wonderful weekend.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM

You have no evidence to support your worship of Brown.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:11 PM

So if you don’t assume Scott Brown is lying when he says he was sexually abused as a child, or assume that any person that is even mildly famous is lying, you “worship” that person?

You’re a f**king lunatic.

MadisonConservative on February 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM

One last point I just thought of before I go.

“smearing” someone is generally regarded as spreading false information about the person.

I don’t believe that anyone has ever used “smearing” as simply reacting to someone else’s story by saying you don’t believe the story. You are really stretching the meaning of “smear” to try and make some silly point.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:18 PM

No, you worship Scott Brown because you are absolutely insanely coming after me for simply stating that I don’t beleive his story.

Only someone with some kind of very weird hero-worship would react the way you have. That is why you worship Scott Brown. YOu are very strange.

Being this outraged simply b/c someoen you don’t know disbelieves a story told by someone else you don’t know is the very strange thing here. Your reaction is way overboard. You are somehow personally invested in everyone believeing Scott Brown or keeping their damn mouths shut if they don’t.

Under your new definition of smear, it is wrong to even state that you have trouble believing something someone else states. That is insane.

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Evil is the hearts of those who use Brown’s childhood sexual molestation and abuse to attack him on policy issues.

andy85719 on February 16, 2011 at 7:19 PM

My feelings exactly, this is what some of the same people here would complain about when it comes to Sarah Palin- the press & the libs do it to her constantly and it is wrong.

kg598301 on February 18, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Monkeytoe on February 18, 2011 at 1:00 PM

I’m guessing from the tone of your comments that you don’t have a close friend or loved one you know about who has been abused as a child. I don’t think you would use that tone if you did, and I hope no one close to you ever went through that- for more reasons than one.

kg598301 on February 18, 2011 at 5:21 PM

I’m guessing from the tone of your comments that you don’t have a close friend or loved one you know about who has been abused as a child. I don’t think you would use that tone if you did, and I hope no one close to you ever went through that- for more reasons than one.

kg598301 on February 18, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Oh please. Don’t use victomhood. I did not use any “tone” until people started attacking me for simply stating that I did not believe Scott Brown’s story. Go back and read my comments. I never said anything bad about Brown except for that I did not believe his story. I never called anyone else any names until I was called names.

As to your informationless guess as to whether or not I have ever known anyone who is abused, it makes no difference whether I do. Are we to believe every story told by everyone where there might be a victim of similar circumstances out there? Can we not disbelieve claims of racism because someone somewhere suffered from real racism? Can we not disbelieve claims of rape because someoen somewhere was raped?

That is silly reasoning.

All I did was say that I no longer believe these stories that are pushed just in time for book sales. It has nothing to do with Brown personally, just with the convenience of coming out with such a story right in time for a marketing campaign.

This idea that one has to “know” a victim to know that child abuse is terrible is ridiculous. I certainly am not in favor of such abuse and I entirely realize that such abuse is a tragedy. I just am cynical about this slew of people coming forward and claiming such abuse (which cannot be proven or disproven and happened long ago) by people trying to sell something.

Monkeytoe on February 23, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3