Tea Party to Scott Brown: Good luck with that election, buddy

posted at 9:25 am on October 7, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

He may have been the first major victory of the Tea Party on a national level, but Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown may wind up looking a bit lonely in that regard has he prepares to run for his first full term in the upper chamber. The Daily Caller is reporting that Tea Party activists are feeling rather lukewarm toward Brown at best.

…Scott Brown was the tea party movement’s first electoral victory. But now that he’s up for re-election for a full six-year term in 2012, tea party activists tell The Daily Caller they’re not going to bother putting together the same operation that swept him into office the first time.

That’s not to say tea partiers will not vote for Brown, or even put up much of an effort to oppose him since a serious primary challenger has yet to be found. The movement has matured into realizing that sometimes the “least of two evils” — as one activist put it — is necessary in a traditionally blue state like Massachusetts.

But don’t expect tea partiers to be happy about it.

“Scott Brown has disappointed us a few times,” Carlos Hernandez, state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, told TheDC. “So are we going to go out there and hold signs for him everyday? I don’t think so.”

The “disappointments” by Scott Brown were not only evident, but predicted long before he was sworn in to office. Many of the same people who were celebrating the stunning victory during the 2010 congressional races began falling out of love with the upstart as soon as he began voting like a … Massachusetts Republican. And let’s be realistic here. We grow some pretty fluffy RINOs here in New York, but we don’t hold a candle to the Bay State. I’m fairly sure that all nine of the registered Republicans in Boston are pro-choice, among other things.

But Brown knows his own state and clearly can sense which way the wind is blowing. He had every intention of being competitive in this race, and he’s less concerned with impressing conservatives in Alabama than he is with the independents back home who he will need to vote for him next year. The good news in this is that there doesn’t seem to be any momentum to getting a primary challenge going against him. It will be hard enough sending Scott back for a full term, even if he is the most popular politician in the state. And while he’s at it, he might want to avoid any more references to Elizabeth Warren getting naked.

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

So they prefer the alternative?

Mr. Bingley on October 7, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Mitt Romney = Scott Brown on a national level.

Good luck with that, too.

Bat Chain Puller on October 7, 2011 at 9:28 AM

We are in MA of all places. Not supporting Brown helps E
Warren.

Rich on October 7, 2011 at 9:28 AM

He may have been the first major victory of the Tea Party on a national level

Popular myth. There was no national Tea Party involvement.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM

tea-party “leadership” once again demonstrates their idiocy

gatorboy on October 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Well that just makes sense. Why have some squish in office whop only votes with you 40% of the time when you can get some one in there who votes your way 0% of the time. Yeah, that socialist will really help out us TEA partiers.

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM

It has to be hard to be a republican, even a moderate in Massachusetts.

ObamatheMessiah on October 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM

So stupid. Cutting off the nose to spite face isn’t a sound strategy.

changer1701 on October 7, 2011 at 9:30 AM

The good news in this is that there doesn’t seem to be any momentum to getting a primary challenge going against him.

That’s good news? Really? Yeah, because having Republicans vote just like liberals is always a good thing.

Gregor on October 7, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Well, duh!

Scott Brown has turned out to be such a blatant RINO, it’s a wonder he hasn’t grown a horn on his face!

pilamaye on October 7, 2011 at 9:31 AM

I posted this on the earlier Brown v. Tea Party thread, but it bears repeating:

I don’t think anyone ‘owes’ Scott Brown anything, least of all their vote. I DO think that he is the incumbent, and a Republican in a blue state. I would vote for him if I could. We’ve seen what primary challenges from ‘pure’ candidates can do. Harry Reid, after all, is still the Majority Leader.

I’m frustrated too. Over and over, the squishes have said to the Conservatives: “Okay, the nomination fight is over, now we need you to fall in line.” And we have. The conversation has very rarely gone the other way. Conservatives aren’t generally asking the squishes to fall in line.

In Massachusetts though, the squishes ARE the conservatives. In a national election, the conservatives are the conservatives.

District by district, we need to take the most conservative candidate we can get. In Mississippi, that will be a more conservative candidate than in New York. Nationally, we have the strength, the facts and the will power to run a conservative and win.

Of course the ‘crazy person’ caveats apply, and of course I will vote for whomever our eventual nominee is but I think we need to look at district and state races differently than we look at national races.

Washington Nearsider on October 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM

Nose, face, knife – some disassembly required.

Vashta.Nerada on October 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM

Any conservative in MA who doesn’t recognize the damage Elizabeth Warren could wield for decades would be foolish not to get behind Brown.

onlineanalyst on October 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM

We are in MA of all places. Not supporting Brown helps E
Warren.

Rich on October 7, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Yep. And the RINO Republican elitists count on you thinking that way. That’s how they survive and that’s why they continue to force us to choose candidates like Juan McCain and Mitt Romneycare. Congrats sheeple.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Gregor on October 7, 2011 at 9:34 AM

So stupid. Cutting off the nose to spite face isn’t a sound strategy.

changer1701 on October 7, 2011 at 9:30 AM

No kidding. Big picture, folks. Scottie is the best we’re gonna do in MassachusettEs. We need to do everything we can to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2013 and handing this seat back to the Dems won’t help in that regard.

Doughboy on October 7, 2011 at 9:34 AM

As someone who travelled a long distance to phonebank for Mr. Brown hoping he’d be the 41st vote against Odeathcare, I relish sending back his mailers and emails stuffed not with money but with fond disregards. While the Dums did polevault in with nanzicare, Brown is the reason we have Dodd/Fwank/FinReg, and other reach across the aisle pork bills. Live and learn. It’s not like we’re supporting Elizabeth Warren, but Brown can Rino his way to victory or defeat based on what he really is as opposed to what we hoped he’d be. He’ll probably lose, because he has no guts.

Western_Civ on October 7, 2011 at 9:36 AM

The fall-out between Scott Brown and the Tea Party did not start with his votes…

Right after his re-election, which was fueled by the Tea party, here is what Scott Brown had to say.

Scott Brown: I’m not a Tea Party member, I’m a Republican

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), the freshman legislator who won a special election in the blue state of Massachusetts thanks in part to widespread support from the Tea Party, said Tuesday that he doesn’t consider himself a member of their ranks.

“I’m a Republican from Massachusetts,” Brown told USA Today when asked if he identified with the Tea Party.

Brown later continued, saying that he had no plans to be a “social crusader” or an “ideologue,” and that he was prepared to test his record against that of a potential challenger from the right.

“If you’re talking about a primary for me, hey, nothing wrong with a primary,” he said. “I welcome all challengers.”

Reading the above, do you blame the Tea Party for deserting him?

I actually predicted this scenario earlier on. Scott Brown was expecting a primary from a more conservative challenger, who he could crush with help from the RINOs in Mass. and then roll on to the general.

Fortunately, Tea Partiers are craftier than he gives them credit for. They didn’t primary him but he is welcome to fight his own battles and good luck.

Maybe he can appeal to the Dems and ‘independents’ he was courting to help save him.

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 9:36 AM

His goal is to win. It’s not to tie himself to the Tea Party. Unless you win, you can’t do anything.

RBMN on October 7, 2011 at 9:36 AM

tea-party “leadership” once again demonstrates their idiocy

gatorboy on October 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Of course. Obviously, without the Tea Party, the country would be much more conservative and we probably wouldn’t have Obama. Yep. It’s all the Tea Party’s fault. Man, they just keep screwing everything up, don’t they?

I would suggest, you might consider that if zombies such as yourself would get over this myth that conservatives MUST move to the left in order to survive, that we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place.

Gregor on October 7, 2011 at 9:37 AM

When the alternative is Elizabeth Warren, I’ll take Scott Brown every time.

It’s called incrementalism — move the politics in the right direction one step at a time, you aren’t going to get deep, permanent, dramatic shifts all at once.

rbj on October 7, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Hold your nose, and STOP ELIZABETH!

Please, Massachussettes voters.

listens2glenn on October 7, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Scotty B was pretty fortunate to have Tea Party support to begin with. He emerged as a surprising and opportunistic chance to beat back the Democrats and we did that. He just simply failed to realize where he got his bread buttered at. He never even bothered to thank many of us for supporting his a$$.

best of luck, scotty B. Please have your daughter STOP emailing me for pete’s sake (AYLA BROWN). Girlfriend puts out these emails about “Dad’s birthday” or “Dad’s Truck”…..step off.

ted c on October 7, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Any conservative in MA who doesn’t recognize the damage Elizabeth Warren could wield for decades would be foolish not to get behind Brown.

[onlineanalyst on October 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM]

Agreed. The Tea Party there will come around once the campaign reaches the general level. There’s no guarantee, though, that Warren will be the opponent, is there? Anybody got some poll data on the Dem primary?

Dusty on October 7, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Nose, face, knife – some disassembly required.

Vashta.Nerada on October 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM

Absolutely. You’re 100% right. Conservatives who vote for liberals pretending to be conservatives are doing exactly that. They are allowing liberals to continue running as Republicans.

You hit the nail on the head. Nose, face, knife. Good job morons. Keep sending them that message that you’re too stupid to learn from past mistakes.

Gregor on October 7, 2011 at 9:40 AM

So they prefer the alternative?

Mr. Bingley on October 7, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Does it really matter? Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren will all vote in lockstep with Dems on the votes that really matter and only diverge on unimportant votes.

Sorry, this conservative doesn’t much care about ‘naming Post Offices’.

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Same idiots who threatened Brown with a primary for months. how’s that going or you Judson Phillips?

Anyone spend a week in MA knows the stupidity of those “threatening” a primary.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM

he may likely get in-state Tea Party support (the Lowell MA Tea Party is pretty active), but from out of state, ehhhh, not so much.

ted c on October 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM

I’m sure Scott Brown does not appeal to the more conservative Republicans in the state. But – hello! Your choice is not Scott Brown or someone like Sarah Palin or Santorum. Your choice is Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren! Do Republican voters and Tea Partiers really want to see a woman who thinks that the government is the reason why people are successful be their senator for six years!?!?

Please. Hold your noses and vote for Brown. Maybe you could live with Warren for 2 years in the House – but this is a six year gig. Spare the rest of the nation from your ideal of perfection. Remember; the glass half full is superior to a glass with four drops of water in it!

pbundy on October 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Hold your nose, and STOP ELIZABETH!

Please, Massachussettes voters.

listens2glenn on October 7, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Purge him!

He doesn’t deserve the gift that the TEA party gave him. If not for the TEA party, he would never have gotten elected.

The pogrom against the RINOs must start now!

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM

During the special election, many of my Ohio friends traveled to MA to help get Brown elected. Some of them are disappointed and wouldn’t go again, but for the most part, we have our own senate race to worry about in 2012.

myrenovations on October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM

His goal is to win. It’s not to tie himself to the Tea Party. Unless you win, you can’t do anything.

RBMN on October 7, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Then he should try winning without the Tea Party.

That should be easy, right? Think of all the ‘moderates’ and ‘independents’ rearing to go knock on doors and campaign for the ‘moderate’ Sen. Scott Brown.

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Any conservative in MA who doesn’t recognize the damage Elizabeth Warren could wield for decades would be foolish not to get behind Brown.

onlineanalyst on October 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM

Any conservative in MA who doesn’t recognize the damage it does when they continually show liberals that they will support their candidates if they pretend to be Republican …

Don’t you get it? They know you’re going to say this crap. They count on it. They bank on it. And you, being too blind to see it, just keep on rewarding them.

But no. You don’t get it, do you?

Gregor on October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Gregor on October 7, 2011 at 9:37 AM

If you know someone in MA who is more conservative, and could challenge Scott in a Republican primary, then by all means encourage them to RUN!

listens2glenn on October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Brown wittled a 30 point lead to 0, from November to the first week of January without “Tea Party” help.

The last week a bunch of people jumped in and these jokers want to take credit for his election.

Anyone on the ground knows Brown won that on his own. He doesnt owe anyone anything.

Most national conservatives thaought his campaign was a joke for months.

Tea Party is starting to jump the shark

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM

I am certain that not only will Brown win, Warren will implode. She has a thin skin and a definite, “Do you know who I am?” attitude that comes with her Harvard gig. She’ll crack, she’s never had this kind of scrutiny on her utterances before.

roy_batty on October 7, 2011 at 9:46 AM

There’s a little quid pro quo here, in that so-called moderates balked at supporting/voting for conservatives more than once (Mike Castle comes to mind, as does DeDe Scozzofava). Why should conservatives be the ones always excoriated for holding to their principles, especially when moderates can’t be counted on to go the other way?

JohnTant on October 7, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Any conservative in MA who doesn’t recognize the damage Elizabeth Warren could wield for decades would be foolish not to get behind Brown.

[onlineanalyst on October 7, 2011 at 9:33 AM]

Ms.Warren’s political career was made on the the back of the Dodd Frank Bill… Where did Mr. Brown stand on that????…

kringeesmom on October 7, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Do Republican voters and Tea Partiers really want to see a woman who thinks that the government is the reason why people are successful be their senator for six years!?!?

LOL… you make me laugh.

You know who else thinks ‘government is the reason for why people are successful’? McConnell and all the pork-hungry RINOs already in the Senate. We need to thin their ranks not add to them.

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Regsitered Republicans make up 11% of the electorate in MA.

IF the GOP candidate wins 100% of GOP vote and 75% of indies, he still LOSES.

This is what some retards masquerading as activists and analysts dont get. Math is too complicated for them. Believing in establishement conspiracies is much easier.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM

His goal is to win. It’s not to tie himself to the Tea Party. Unless you win, you can’t do anything.

RBMN on October 7, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Maybe you haven’t been paying attention, but he hasn’t done anything ANYWAY, except vote against us. What is wrong with you people?

Gregor on October 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Tea Party is starting to jump the shark

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM

This bunch in MA appears to at least. I’d never heard of them before this. Do they even have coffee & donuts at their meetings?

roy_batty on October 7, 2011 at 9:48 AM

You’re not going to do better than Brown in Massachusetts these days, and the alternative is Elizabeth “we’ll let you keep some of it” Warren.

I think we need to hold our noses and actively support Brown. You take it where you can get it.

CatoRenasci on October 7, 2011 at 9:48 AM

There’s a little quid pro quo here, in that so-called moderates balked at supporting/voting for conservatives more than once (Mike Castle comes to mind, as does DeDe Scozzofava). Why should conservatives be the ones always excoriated for holding to their principles, especially when moderates can’t be counted on to go the other way?

JohnTant on October 7, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Yep, the GOP mainstream sure worked hard to get behind the candidates who won their primaries…

kringeesmom on October 7, 2011 at 9:48 AM

You mean Scott “I’ll be the 41st vote” Brown who won Teddy’s seat in the socialist republic of Massachusetts—a Tea Party candidate? This is like thinking Obama could balance his own checkbook.

Rovin on October 7, 2011 at 9:48 AM

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Repeating:

If you know someone in MA who is more conservative, and could challenge Scott in a Republican primary, then by all means encourage them to RUN!

listens2glenn on October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM

listens2glenn on October 7, 2011 at 9:48 AM

And while he’s at it, he might want to avoid any more references to Elizabeth Warren getting naked.

Why? As long as we don’t have to see actual photos of her naked I see no reason why Scott Brown shouldn’t respond to her stupidity exactly in the manner which he did. Which is to make her a joke….

Buy Danish on October 7, 2011 at 9:48 AM

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM

No wonder you support Romney.

Go campaign for Scott Brown then. Your ‘moderate’ brother needs your help.

Myself and other conservatives – we do NOT care.

If he wins, fine – he can choose to vote in lockstep with Dems or not. If he loses – too bad. One more Coons (remember Delaware?) wouldn’t be bad.

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 9:50 AM

The Tea Party didn’t say they wouldn’t vote for the guy, just that they wouldn’t be standing behind him.
I wouldn’t either.
MA will send him back anyway, he’s the centerfold/

ORconservative on October 7, 2011 at 9:50 AM

I’m removing my self-ban just to say this one thing: Without electing Scott Brown, the Dems would have passed the Dream Act in the lame duck session.

The Mega Independent on October 7, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Believing in establishement conspiracies is much easier.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Thanks for the tip.. Now when I pay my $4 monthly bank fee, I can tell myself.. “this is not real, it’s just a conspiracy”… Now, what should I do with my tinfoil hat?

kringeesmom on October 7, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Scott Brown with a 75% ACU rating.

Who stood with conservatives on things like ObamaCare, earmarks, Omnibus spending, Cap and Trade, the DISCLOSE Act, amnesty and the DREAM Act, Elena Kagan, Arizona SB 1070 and border security, tax increases, civilian trials for terrorists, GITMO, the war on terror, supporting the troops…

is just like that marxist trojan horse Elizabeth Warren. One and the same.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Regsitered Republicans make up 11% of the electorate in MA.

IF the GOP candidate wins 100% of GOP vote and 75% of indies, he still LOSES.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM

ayup!

roy_batty on October 7, 2011 at 9:54 AM

The Tea Party didn’t say they wouldn’t vote for the guy, just that they wouldn’t be standing behind him.

ORconservative on October 7, 2011 at 9:50 AM

If it makes him feel better, yes they did.

However, he is ‘dead man walking’ minus the passion and groundwork of Tea partiers behind him.

Say hello to Sen. Warren. State rights and all that. If Mass. loves them some wacko leftist, who are we to stop them?

Tee hee hee…

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 9:54 AM

listens2glenn on October 7, 2011 at 9:48 AM

To heck with that, ideologically pure or the commies win!

Get rid of all republicans who aren’t as pure as the driven snow!

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 9:55 AM

The votes will still probably be there, just not the road signs and rallies.

But as everyone keeps saying, this is MA we’re talking about and those voters are some the stupidest in America. Warren shouldn’t get so much as 50 votes, and if the voters want to elect a moron like her then they will.

Bishop on October 7, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Brown wittled a 30 point lead to 0, from November to the first week of January without “Tea Party” help.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Were you there? Didn’t think so. There was massive Tea Party support. so STFU.

Western_Civ on October 7, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Elizabeth Warren makes Ted Kennedy look sane and conservative. You’ll see. Good luck America.

TheBigOldDog on October 7, 2011 at 9:56 AM

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Coming from MA, and going through the things I’ve went through, I know you have no clue.

People like you like to scream “Saul Alinski” “marxist” “Bill Ayers” and pretend you understand radicals, but all you know is what Glenn Beck and some blogs tell you.

You empower and embloden them because a MA senator wasnt with you 100%. Sit out. I doubt you’re even from MA. Seem like a spoiled brat, who doesnt understand the real fight.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Must be a lot of issues with reading comprehension among the commenters. No where did I read that Tea Partiers would not vote for Scott Brown…rather there would not be any real enthusiastic get out the vote efforts. Two different things. If he needs to be a Mass Republican to win in Mass then he can do it with Rino, squish and Independent get out the vote efforts. After all, this is the constituency that he has aligned himself with and the only real way that a Republican can win in Mass. There was nothing said about the Tea Party members sitting this one out and not voting and we know they ain’t voting for Warren or any other Democrat. The Rinos and squishes need to step up to the plate. Frankly we do not need any Tea Party affiliation with Brown if he votes with us only a small part of the time. This is not a cut off your nose issue. You put tea party enthusiasm behind candidates that espouse your views. Putting the brand behind candidates like Brown just waters it down.

JohnnyL on October 7, 2011 at 9:58 AM

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:53 AM

How many of those things actually hinged on Scott Brown? We still have Obamacare. Kagan is still a SCOTUS justice.

I don’t see anything in your list where Scott Brown’s seat actually made a difference.

JohnTant on October 7, 2011 at 9:58 AM

This is short sighted and stupid.

I live in MA, this guy is about the best they can do up this way. He can’t be straight line conservative, he would NEVER survive re-election that way. He’s a MA Republican and this is the way it has to be. I don’t like it either. This place still embraces guys like Barney Frank, for God’s sake. It’s a miracle he got elected in the first place, and it was probably just because Coakley was so mushy and couldn’t generate any excitement at the time for the Dem base.

NickelAndDime on October 7, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Conservatives who vote for liberals pretending to be conservatives are doing exactly that. They are allowing liberals to continue running as Republicans.

Gregor on October 7, 2011 at 9:40 AM

The choice for this seat is a liberal republican versus a socialist. The winner of the race is 1% of the senate, who will have a vote affecting the life of every American. You are suggesting that only a moron would support the liberal republican over a socialist? I question who is the moron.

Vashta.Nerada on October 7, 2011 at 9:59 AM

A Republican from MA with a 74% ACU rating isnt the problem:

http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2010/House-Senate-combo.htm#MA

Pretending it is for hopeless nitwits. The movement would probably be better off if they did leave. Stay home, forever.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Scotty B was pretty fortunate to have Tea Party support to begin with. He emerged as a surprising and opportunistic chance to beat back the Democrats and we did that. He just simply failed to realize where he got his bread buttered at. He never even bothered to thank many of us for supporting his a$$.

best of luck, scotty B. Please have your daughter STOP emailing me for pete’s sake (AYLA BROWN). Girlfriend puts out these emails about “Dad’s birthday” or “Dad’s Truck”…..step off.

ted c on October 7, 2011 at 9:39 AM

I sent money, too. Then, I got all those emails after he told me where I could stick that tea.

Good luck, Scott.

Saltysam on October 7, 2011 at 10:01 AM

This bunch in MA appears to at least. I’d never heard of them before this. Do they even have coffee & donuts at their meetings?

roy_batty on October 7, 2011 at 9:48 AM

If you read the whole article it’s the Tea Party Express and Freedom Works who say they won’t help re-elect Brown. I can understand that, if they really stand for Conservative principles and have other more Consrvative candidates in other states who need it. On the other hand, these two organizations don’t represent the Tea Party as a whole, if there is such a thing.

The Repub party will still give Brown money and support, and the Tea Partiers will still vote for him over Warren.

No big deal really.

Deanna on October 7, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Why would Sen. Brown expect continued support from Tea Party folks in Alabama? Back when I had a job, I donated a tiny bit to him but I can’t do it for him or anyone else. Why complain about not getting behind him, he can win or lose on his record and his constituency. That’s the way it works most of the time.

Cindy Munford on October 7, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Bishop on October 7, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Want to place a wager that Warren will lose to Brown?

I predict a 52-48 win for Warren, or at worst 51-49.

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 10:02 AM

If you know someone in MA who is more conservative, and could challenge Scott in a Republican primary, then by all means encourage them to RUN!

Except that they would never win. Do you think a state that would keep sending Barney Frank back to Washington could possibly elect a true blue conservative to the Senate? To seriously think a hard line conservative could get elected in MA is like believing an Elizabeth Warren could get elected in Utah. The Republican brand is radioactive in MA. I know because I live here. It takes a perfect storm to get a Republican elected in MA. Brown won his seat in MA because 1) he was perceived as a moderate by many voters, 2) it was a special election so there was no down-ticket voting taking place, 3) his DEM opponent was simply awful, and 4) he’s good looking.

Conservative purists need to stop acting like crybabies and start being realistic. If Texas elects a RINO, then it’s time to get mad. But Massachusetts? You should be thanking your lucky stars it happened and at least be grateful that the election of a RINO in a state that would NEVER elect a conservative helps the true conservative Republicans from other states who can’t get their agenda through without a strong filibuster proof majority.

frank63 on October 7, 2011 at 10:03 AM

It’s called incrementalism — move the politics in the right direction one step at a time, you aren’t going to get deep, permanent, dramatic shifts all at once.

rbj on October 7, 2011 at 9:37 AM

I understand your point, but one man’s incrementalism is another woman’s progressivism. And please cite for me every congress since 1960 which has reduced government spending and/or reduced the Federal debt. Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal — spending goes up like clockwork and so does the national debt.

And douchebags like Scott Brown are the reason. With a $1.7 trillion deficit, Scott Brown couldn’t find any spending that he needed to reduce.

Tell me how that is a “social conservative” issue, an abortion issue, or has anything to do with “conservatives in Alabama”, precisely.

Jaibones on October 7, 2011 at 10:03 AM

However, he is ‘dead man walking’ minus the passion and groundwork of Tea partiers behind him.

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Brown got 18% of the Dem votes here. I’d bet that chunk is represented the ones that gave Hillary her crushing win over Obama here in the primary. He’s most definitely not a dead man walking.

roy_batty on October 7, 2011 at 10:03 AM

JohnTant on October 7, 2011 at 9:58 AM

He was decisive in killing the Omnibus spending bill that funded ObamaCare. He fought Dream Act when Dems still controlled Congress and was a major playing in killing it. And he was also highly influential in killing DISCLOSE ACT.

Plus it a strawman’s argument. Really, how often is 1 senator resposible for killing an agenda item? Can you tell what votes from Jeff Sessions were decisive?

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Vashta.Nerada on October 7, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Dangit, don’t you know this is about purity.

Some TEA partiers are upset that the protests going on now like the one on Wall street are getting the attention and comparison. Its time to get the narrative back on the TEA party. Brown must go. Then every one will see that only the pure can get elected.

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 10:03 AM

To heck with that, ideologically pure or the commies win!

Get rid of all republicans who aren’t as pure as the driven snow!

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 9:55 AM

For the third time,

If you know someone in MA who is more conservative (ideologically pure), and could challenge (beat) Scott in a Republican primary, then by all means encourage them to RUN!

listens2glenn on October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM

If someone can be found who meets the criteria, then we’ll get behind him. Tea Party and all.

listens2glenn on October 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Putting the brand behind candidates like Brown just waters it down.

JohnnyL on October 7, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Exactly. You can’t have a movement which prides itself on upholding conservative principles compromise itself by endorsing a Scott Brown. That means its other endorsements lose their luster as they become tainted by political expediency as opposed to sincere beliefs.

Sure, if you’re a conservative, hold your nose and vote for the guy (but knowing if the tables were turned it’s more likely he wouldn’t do the same for you…), but don’t expect exuberance for that vote if you’re a “moderate.”

JohnTant on October 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Except that they would never win.

frank63 on October 7, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Case & point, Sean Beilat vs. Barney Fwank.

roy_batty on October 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Were you there? Didn’t think so. There was massive Tea Party support. so STFU.

Western_Civ on October 7, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Where was I Western_Civ? The first person pushing Brown nationally.

Frontpaged in November 28, when the Tea PArty didnt care:

http://www.redstate.com/swamp_yankee/2009/11/28/meet-scott-brown-do-you-believe-in-miracles/

So STFU.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 10:06 AM

He can’t be straight line conservative, he would NEVER survive re-election that way.

NickelAndDime on October 7, 2011 at 9:59 AM

In other words, he is a politics-as-usual guy with an eye only on his re-election and the perks that come with his office. No wonder Mitt Romney loves him.

Sorry, I like my politicains with principles and so do many conservatives.

He should try voting in accordance with a set of principles and see where that gets him. He might indeed be surprised.

One thing you can say about his predecessor, Ted Kennedy – love him or hate him, he had a set of principles, albeit the wrong set.

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 10:06 AM

The “disappointments” by Scott Brown were not only evident, but predicted long before he was sworn in to office. Many of the same people who were celebrating the stunning victory during the 2010 congressional races began falling out of love with the upstart as soon as he began voting like a … Massachusetts Republican.

Given that liberals hate the Tea Party, having the Tea Party come out and talk about how Scott Brown is “disappointing” is probably helpful to Brown’s re-election campaign. The reality is that we need Scott Brown to hold that seat.

Trust me–you do NOT want Elizabeth Warren in the Senate. She’s a super hard core left liberal who will not only vote party-line for every crazy liberal bill Harry Reid proposes, but will propose legislation herself that will also be super left-liberal.

Scott Brown is a squishy RINO, but I submit it’s not possible for anyone more conservative to actually win state-wide office in Massachusetts. I’ll take a squishy RINO over a radical leftist any day, thank you.

Outlander on October 7, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Want to place a wager that Warren will lose to Brown?

I predict a 52-48 win for Warren, or at worst 51-49.

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 10:02 AM

I’d wager you are a paid concern troll and not in MA.

roy_batty on October 7, 2011 at 10:07 AM

If someone can be found who meets the criteria, then we’ll get behind him. Tea Party and all.

listens2glenn on October 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM

And for the whatever time, destroy all RINOs. Feel the intensity.

Or, you could just go look at the post from 9:29.

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Some TEA partiers are upset that the protests going on now like the one on Wall street are getting the attention and comparison. Its time to get the narrative back on the TEA party. Brown must go. Then every one will see that only the pure can get elected.

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Just a quick question…do you think the Wall Street protestors would lend their time and money to get McCain elected or worse yet, Santorum? So why should the Tea Party organizations do that for Brown? And no one said Brown must go, they simply said they wouldn’t spend time or money on him. Must be difficult being paranoid.

Deanna on October 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 10:03 AM

All stuff that would have happened had Brown not been there.

As for it being a strawman argument, I’m actually addressing your talking point of Brown’s ACU rating. Since the point of your cite was to say it’s better to have a Brown who agrees with the GOP 74% of the time, the rebuttal is that it makes no difference if that 74% is something that would either get broad bipartisan support anyway OR if Brown’s vote didn’t make a difference in the final result.

More simply, 74% isn’t that impressive when that 74% is made up of naming post offices and passing non-binding resolutions, nor is it impressive in a Dem-controlled Senate when liberal legislation passes outside of a 1 vote margin…even assuming Brown would be a reliable conservative vote on the things that matter in the first place.

JohnTant on October 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM

One thing you can say about his predecessor, Ted Kennedy – love him or hate him, he had a set of principles, albeit the wrong set.

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Yeah, you could also say he knew how to swim above the fray.

roy_batty on October 7, 2011 at 10:09 AM

And for the whatever time, destroy all RINOs. Feel the intensity.

Or, you could just go look at the post from 9:29.

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Never mind. Three strikes and all that.

listens2glenn on October 7, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Deanna on October 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Hey! I’m on your side here. Get rid of all RINOs. Even the one’s in blue states, or are only RINO on some issues. Then we can get pure TEA partiers in office. It worked so well in Delaware and Nevada in the year of the TEA party.

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 10:12 AM

People who dont live in the state.

They wont have to live with Elizabeth Warren for 30 years. To see her and listen to her espouse socialist priniciples every week in the Boston Globe and Boston Herald, on local TV, at local graduation cermonies…

Watch as she staffs marxists and empowers local marxists groups with her graft and shilling.

No they will empower her then walk away, back there secluded conservative enclaves and live ignorant lives.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Despite moonbat Warren being a potential disaster as a senator, it’s smart for the Tea Party to take this stance at the time. Gives Brown pause to think about losing valuable support as he considers upcoming senate votes. No matter what he does he can never win the Warren vote. Yes he could lose the “moderates” by being stridently and outspokenly conservative in bluest MA, but careful support of Republican budget moves will get him Tea Party votes in the end.

philw1776 on October 7, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Conservative purists need to stop acting like crybabies and start being realistic. If Texas elects a RINO, then it’s time to get mad. But Massachusetts?

frank63 on October 7, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Except that left to Cornyn and his band of Establishment RINOs, every state (red, blue, purple) must elect a RINO.

RINOs/Establishment have shown that they do not really care much about wins if the person winning is a conservative. Murkowski vs. Joe Miller ring a bell? How about Christine O’Donnell? Crist vs. Rubio?

Turnabout is fair play… or do you want me to go on air and unleash on Scott Brown the way Rove did on Christine O’Donnell?

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Hey, if he’s not in the tea party, and he’s going to focus on wooing independents, then let the independents hold his signs.

Kensington on October 7, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Outlander on October 7, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Good luck then. :)

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 10:15 AM

JohnTant on October 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Straw man argument. Every senator is 1% of the vote. Unless the vote was by 1, you can make that argument about every single senator. Again, name one “decisive” vote from Jeff Sessions.

Plus your argument is false. He was the decisive vote in killing Omnibus. Once he came out against it, it went down in flames, along with ObamaCare funding.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Also, a 60th Senator RINO will be largely useless for a “filibuster-proof” Senate.

Kensington on October 7, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Why? As long as we don’t have to see actual photos of her naked I see no reason why Scott Brown shouldn’t respond to her stupidity exactly in the manner which he did. Which is to make her a joke….

Buy Danish on October 7, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Point of order! Perhaps some of us would like to see those photos before making a decision.

a capella on October 7, 2011 at 10:18 AM

A decisive influence that killed ObamaCare funding in Omnibus:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/134073-sen-scott-brown-slams-outrageous-and-inappropriate-omnibus

Brown, who was thought to be a potential swing vote on the measure, called the bill “outrageous” in a statement Thursday, announcing his intention to vote against it and demanding a veto from President Obama should the bill reach his desk.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 10:19 AM

a capella on October 7, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Uh, really? Seen the pictures of her clothed?

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Hold your nose, and STOP ELIZABETH!

Please, Massachussettes voters.
_________________________________

Im doing my best.

Rich on October 7, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Helping to stop legislation that would have stifled conservative fundraising from Texas to Virginia, just like Elizabeth Warren:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/108681-i-cannot-support-the-disclose-act-sen-scott-brown

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Why? As long as we don’t have to see actual photos of her naked I see no reason why Scott Brown shouldn’t respond to her stupidity exactly in the manner which he did. Which is to make her a joke….

Buy Danish on October 7, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Point of order! Perhaps some of us would like to see those photos before making a decision.

a capella on October 7, 2011 at 10:18 AM

OK, I got a chuckle out’a that.

Beyond that, words fail me.

listens2glenn on October 7, 2011 at 10:22 AM

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Then that shouldn’t be a problem. He should win regardless. We will see.

antisocial on October 7, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Brown, A MA senator, a stout defender of border ecurity and a strong opponent all forms of amnesty being an influential voice in killing the DREAM ACT, just like Elizabeth Warren:

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/sen_scott_brown_dream_act_amnesty.html

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3