« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Democrats are Worried in Massachusetts

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 5th, 2010 at 11:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

First read Moe.

Then know that I’ve got more and more people telling me the Democrats are actually worried about Scott Brown now.

We have to be careful though. This race is going to be won or lost on Massachusetts issues. Gov. Patrick is not exactly popular right now. There are other issues up there. Our temptation is going to be to make it a national race about health care.

It is true that were Scott Brown elected, health care would pretty much be DOA in the Senate. But, if this race is nationalized and Scott Brown loses, the Dems will try hard to spin it as a victory for Obama. We’re in a catch 22 over it.

That said, given that no one would be surprised if the Democrat won up there, we might as well see what we can do for Scott Brown. If he does not win, we are hold steady at the status quo. If he wins? Game changer.

Hopefully the Scott Brown campaign is paying attention and also not getting tempted to make a Doug Hoffman mistake. By that, I mean Hoffman really ran as a national candidate, not a local candidate. Owens, in contrast, related issues back to the local issues and people. Scott Brown is going to have to make this a race about Massachusetts and its issues.

On the outside though, we all know what’s at stake.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Sundayjack

    You’ll see the Drudge alarm go off, and this will turn into the biggest Massachusetts media event since the Louise Woodward trial – which, coincidentally enough, also involved Martha Coakley.

    Part of me wants to see that. I need to know what it feels like to be Ohio every four years.

    Snow birds and military folk – get your absentee ballots in.

  • makemyday

    Be verwy verwy quiet………….

    Just send in the money

  • swami7774

    …his internals show a dead heat.

  • josh_kahn

    I sent $50.

  • AceInTX

    what would it say about the national Republican Party, the NRSC, and the RNC if Brown wins this after they contributed a paltry $15,000?

    This just feeds into everything I’ve been saying about the Republican Leadership for the last 2 years!

    There’s an old WV expression that fits well here…”worthless as teets on a boar hag” comes to mind!

  • AceInTX
  • joayn

    on Brown this morning: “Scott Brown banks thousands in per-diems”

    Attention grabbing, no? Apparently, the evil and greedy Scott Brown had the nerve to take his legally alloted $26.00 per diem for 136 days:

    “As of Dec. 23, Brown, who commutes 35 miles to the State House, pocketed his $26-per-day travel allotment on 136 occasions in 2009 – for a total of $3,536. That was on top of his $77,000 Senate salary.”

    The comments on the article were about 95% BIG FRICKIN’ DEAL! And there were quite a few reminding readers of Martha Coakley’s sordid past and scandals. Heh.

    If this is all the desperate dirt Coakley and her scary donkey pals can dig up, I’d say Scott Brown has a great chance of winning. That said, I fully expect the Dems to pull out all the stops to defeat him.

  • Kevin Allen

    Erick writes: “It is true that were Scott Brown elected, health care would pretty much be DOA in the Senate.” I have read several places that if the Democrats use the Ping-Pong strategy that the filibuster cannot be used in the Senate. That doesn’t sound correct to me but if that were the case then Brown winning would not mean defeat of HCR. Can anybody clarify the status of the filibuster if the Democrats use the Ping-Pong plan.

    Also, does anyone know Brown’s position on abortion.

  • joayn

    http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1223160

  • joayn
  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    I’ve heard he was pro-choice, which is the primary reason you won’t find this site endorsing him. We don’t endorse pro-choice candidates. That said, I’d take him.

  • Taniwha

    He came within a handful in a 3 man race where he was the only candidate not on the line of a major party. That is a ludicrously good result. His only ‘mistake’ was belonging to a party that insisted on running a socialist instead of a conservative.

  • joayn

    the Libertarian candidate, Kennedy, will take votes away from Scott Brown.

    http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1223036

    Idiocracy in action.

  • ceili_dancer

    n/t

  • dhorowitz3

    Here is what I don’t understand. If a reasonable candidate could run a spirited campaign in the bluest state, and possibly come within 5-7 points then why is it so hard for the GOP to run against Dorgan and Bayh in states with far more favorable demographics? Based on this poll the gop should crush any rat in a red state and win every purple state.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    I have to say, I don’t like him. First off, as has already been mentioned, he is pro-abortion. I would hate to elect another person to a 6 year term that believes that the killing of babies is OK. But I understand the argument that he will not have any real effect on this law. Fine.

    Secondly, he fully supports the 2006 Massachusetts Health Care Reform Statute. From his website: “In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage.” This law “requires nearly every resident of Massachusetts to obtain health insurance coverage.” That is unconstitutional. Why do we want a senator who favors the individual mandate?

    On the environment, he comes out against cap-and-tax, but still sounds a number of the talking points used by left-wing environmentalists. “I realize that without action now, future generations will be left to clean up the mess we leave.” Horsecrap.

    All in all, I believe he would be another Collins, Snowe, or McCain. Is this really the best we can do, and do we really want to spend resources and efforts here?

  • KeepOhioRed

    Abortion
    While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.

  • http://twitter.com/JoeKenHa joekenha

    If Brown wins, maybe Congress will get the message, but after the elections of last year, (Pelosi: We won!), I seriously doubt it.

  • joayn

    From his website:

    Abortion
    “While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.”

    His statement reads as very politiciany, but my take is that he would side with the pro-lifers. Wishful thinking? Plus, Coakley is running/focusing on her pro-choice stance vs. his on the abortion thing so I guess I concluded his position incorrectly (no, not assumed, cause you know what they say about assume).

    That’s what I get for reading it somewhere and not checking for myself. Thanks, Erick.

  • ceili_dancer

    Besides that, The abortion issue won’t come to the fore until we have a Republican president. There is no way Obama will nominate a pro-life justice. That being said, I don’t think Brown would vote against a pro-life justice when one is nominated.

  • http://www.mysimplehomegarden.com tbaleno

    At least he would vote for parental consent. Most people agree with energy independence.

    I agree that I don’t like our mandated coverage. But at least he would be willing to look at the bad part of the law and not vote blindly for the same thing. A no vote for Brown is a vote for all those things you dislike about him as well as a vote for all the things you dislike about Coakely. You may as well be shooting babies in the head yourself if you will allow more babies to be killed because of an abortion law that doesn’t include parental consent. You have to chip away at abortion, you can’t just get rid of it overnight. This is how Democrats have taken over the country and this is the way we have to take it back.

    No pro-life candidate would win in MA so take what you can get and push the abortion laws the other way instead of allowing another Democrate to make abortions easier. For whats its worth I have heard him say he is “personally pro-life.” So I think his heart is in the right place and is on our side.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • aeaeren

    While is he far from what I would want he is still loads better then Coakley beside would a real conservative have a snow balls chance of winning in the Republic of MA? This is one of those better then the alternative picks.

  • masquerade

    Crossing my fingers and toes that the folks up here in MA will discover they actually do have ‘common sense’ and vote for Scott Brown.

  • masquerade

    Crossing my fingers and toes that the folks up here in MA will discover they actually do have ‘common sense’ and vote for Scott Brown.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    And I do see your point. Sure, Brown is better than Coakley.

    I just hate that this is the best we can do at a time when we are trying to bring the republican party back to its conservative roots. A Coakley win would be terrible, but the election of yet another squish is still not something we could hang our hat on.

  • masquerade

    Why is it my posts are posted twice?

  • masquerade

    Why is it my posts are posted twice?

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Its the best we can do. We need to spend resources. I like him.

    Besides, I’m sick of the holier-than-thou conservative attitudes.

    In my book, anyone who isn’t doing everything they can to stop ObamaCare is the real RINO or just foolish. Hopes of overturning this legislation is a pipe dream.

    Real conservatives fight socialized medicine tooth and nail. Period.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Especially in an atmosphere like that in Mass.

  • joayn

    WOW.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiyqvuTxaEs

  • eburke

    Even Ace & I (2 of the resident ‘purists’ on the site) recognize that this *is*, after all, the People’s Republic of Massachusetts we’re dealing with here. My shorts get bunched a whole lot more looking at GOP ‘moderates’ from deep red states (like Bennett from UT and Grahamnesty from SC) where there’s no reason for us not to have a Coburn/DeMint type Republican than they do looking at the ME sisters or a Scott Brown.

    I don’t agree w/Scott Brown on more than a couple issues, and he wouldn’t be in my top 100 choices for a senate seat in Oklahoma, but then again, I *do* recognize that someone who hewed to my political philosophy would, unfortunately, have less of a chance to win in MA than mbeckers dead white cat.

    That said, I agree whole-heartedly with a poster upthread who talked about incrementalism on the right. We’d didn’t get to be the socialist ‘paradise’ we are in one fell swoop; the libs got there one step at a time. We can’t get back to constitutional principles in places like ME, VT, MA, CA, etc. in one swift move either. But that doesn’t mean we don’t keep preaching conservative philosophy ’cause if you never make the case, you’ll never move the needle.

    We just need to recognize that we need to take a bite of the loaf when it’s available even if we can’t get the whole enchilada (how’s that for being multi-cultural in my metaphors. I’m *so* sensitive…for a conservative rube)

  • Scope

    Ace could have left it at hag and it would still be equally fitting, if not more so. Yes the house is filled with boar hags, it’s a requirement for Liberal women.

  • dnlchisholm

    Watch the two latest ads from the Brown campaign at http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/01/04/tv-ad-scott-brown-and-his-trusty-aide/

    Please donate whatever you can to the campaign and recruit others to do the same!

  • Scope

    of the Washington Post trying to trash McDonnell with a 20 year old college thesis. When they ran the trash the first time, McDonnell dropped a little in the polls, but, eventually came back and then some. When they tried to trash him again, the people turned on them and his opponent Deeds in droves. I believe it was in Moe’s post that Brown is leading by a wide margin with the unaffiliated voters. That’s what gave McDonnell the landslide win. I was of the impression that that whole area up there is mostly made up of independents.

  • swami7774

    …and conservatives who aren’t anti-abortion in every instance. I count myself among them.
    Brown is not nearly the pro-abortion nut job Coakley is. We shouldn’t pan him because he’s not perfect on the issue.

  • http://www.mysimplehomegarden.com tbaleno

    Not in his issues page he said “I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion’

    Thats as close to pro-life you can get in this state and get elected.

  • rightklik

    Cool. Let’s make this local. Let’s make this about Massachusetts’s unpopular and shamelessly corrupt local Attorney General…Martha Coakley. Liberals in MA are fed up with Coakley: Her stance on abortion. Her stance on the death penalty. Her stance on big business cronyism.

    Let’s bring up Fells Acres, the Big Dig tunnel collapse, John Geoghan, the Menino ?emailgate? affair…etc., etc.

    And let’s not forget that 36 % of local Massachusetts voters strongly oppose ObamaCare, and only 27% strongly support it.

    GO BROWN!

  • rightklik

    Read about Coakley’s stance on the issue of partial birth abortion here:

    http://redmassgroup.com/diary/6230/martha-coakley-was-for-partial-birth-abortion-before-she-was-against-it

  • joayn

    Coakley is running an incredibly lazy campaign – she seems to be banking on the conventional wisdom that third parties hurt Republicans the most.

    That will be her fatal error: putting her faith in conventional wisdom of past elections. Neither she nor the Dems realize there will be nothing conventional about the elections in 2010. Plus, they are ignoring their typical ignorant and lazy Dem voter who is more likely vote for the Kennedy name rather than Coakley or Brown.

    These are two important factors, all favoring a Brown win. I know it’s a stretch, but considering the arrogance of Dems in power, it’s something to consider. And this is why, to some degree, Coakley and the Dems have been so complacent.

    Let’s hope their arrogance and denial doesn’t wake up until Nov. 20th.

  • AceInTX
  • joayn

    From one purist to another.

  • bk

    if Brown barely loses this after they contributed a paltry $15,000!

  • Richard Mullins

    in fact it might be bad in the fact that most independents might figure that this is a bad handed of getting more of the same. As long as Brown is focus like a laser beam on Coakley, he has a good shot. The Libertarian is false choice there to get something that like the republican message but isn’t even close anything different from the Donks. I wonder if Coakley is funneling money to Mr Kennedy?

  • Darin_H

    The RNC or NRSC giving money to/for Brown would be a good issue for the Democrats. He needs to run an insurgent campaign, an outsider. Money from them would go a ways to making this a nationalized campaign, the last thing he needs. Plus, if we can give small amounts to his campaign, he can keep his ads on the air without them.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Up here, you realize the difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.

    He certainly wont be a thorn in the sides of conservatives on the issue. Its largely moot, other than judges and I suspect he wont apply a litmus test on either side.

    He will get pressure from Mass liberals, but people should remember that Mass voters hate the liberal SJC and their imperial positions on gay marriage and gay marchers in the Southie St Patricks Day Parade.

    The public was opposed to the SJC on both accounts, so I think Brown will support reasonable judges.

  • makemyday

    Long time Dems (influential Dems) are going for Brown. This guy grew up on Nantucket and played with the Kennedy boys over on MV so you know that something is afoot in MA.

  • gekster

    Hannity says he will watch the race closely.

  • itsjoanne

    I think you are absolutely right, this race is about Massachusetts, which is exactly why Sarah Palin should stay out of it and not endorse.

    Scott seems like a great candidate for Massachusetts. No question he seems to be the one with momentum.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    He’s everywhere. He debated Coakley on TKK this morning. On turn on the other talk radio station, now I hear him on Howie Carr. And he’s doing Hannity today.

    I respect that. There was some conventional wisdom that Scott just wanted to run a good clean race to boost his chances for AG in 2010, but he is campaigning like a man who believes.

  • itsjoanne

    Scott is campaigning like a man who wants and BELIEVES he can win!

    Go Scott!

  • 1stRichard

    As one person explained that many of her FaceBook Friends that are friends of here daughter want to vote for Joe Kennedy because of the name. This in turn created a moral dilemma, do you tell them Joe Kennedy is not related or let them vote for the wrong person. From another on the phonebanks a person reported that she had thought Coakley had already won. Some that I have called did not even know there was an election of such national importance. The uninformed is a large majority up here thanks to the liberal media and education system. Make a call now and educate them!

    Also see

    http://brownbrigade.ning.com

    We have the ?TeaParty PhoneBank Brown Brigade?

    http://brownbrigade.ning.com/group/teapartyphonebankbrownbrigade

    Now we also have the American Brigade

    http://brownbrigade.ning.com/group/americanbrigade

    again, If you can,

    https://www.icontribute.us/scottbrown

  • eburke
  • Swamp_Yankee

    Really. The odds are that people that stupid will ultimately vote for Coakley. Let them think she already won or something.

    Brown is doing a delicate dance. Inform and rally Republicans and independents and give the Dems no reason to show up at the polls, if that means they dont even know about the election. Good.

  • joayn

    But after going to check out his website, I discovered he’s a recovering Democrat. So let’s just say he won’t feel too badly if Coakley benefits from his run.

  • joayn
  • http://www.mysimplehomegarden.com tbaleno

    I just donated more money. I don’t want to be outspent by Coakely and the seiu and acorn.

    Lets show them we can respond in kind.

    This is where I’m going to dig in and plant my heals against Coakely and the Obama agenda.

    I hope others are with me. All we need is 8,000 people giving $35 each and we can match it without breaking a sweat.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    She may be broke and she may be nervous. Dems are going to start boosting her coffers. I hope its not enough.

    New Scott Ad:

  • 1stRichard

    Yes, I agree that there are those that are that stupid and they need to be ignored, but there are those that are simply out of touch with what is going on. This is much more then a balancing act with Brown, we also have the Boot Barney and others. This is only one battle in a much larger war, especially on the local level here. As a local activist, I seem to have been voted in as information czar on some and we have a number of campaigns going on now. These mostly center on education and an occasional field trip to antagonize the moonbats. In this, we have found that is bad to center on a candidate and good to attack a bad policy. At the same time we much choose our battles carefully, know when to antagonize and when to educate an individual or group. So do we pass up an individual that could win the war or do we consider this the only battle? It is much more of a balancing act and not a simple one to figure out.

    Inform Republicans and Independents/Unenrolled, hopefully the pone list is good

    https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dFl4R2FWbkM2NlVObHE3aHF6OWdINHc6MA

    As for the Dems, keep up the pressure on policy and ignore the candidate for now.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    I was a captain for Romney back in 2002, been to the last three state GOP conventions. Worked on dozens of other campaigns in the state and region.

    Mass is a mess. Right now, it is all about Scott Brown and Scott Brown only.

    I went to UMass Amherst, Suffolk Law, live in Boston. Antagonizing moonbats is fun, but useless. There are some people you just cant reach, maybe over time, but that is the long war. There is strategy and there are tactics. Right now, its all tactics. State strategy takes a back seat for two weeks.

    Ignore the moonbats for two weeks. Let them beleive Brown can’t win.

    (Barney Frank’s been my Rep most of my life. Even though now I live in Charlestown, I keep an address in his district.)

  • eburke

    bad (worse, if possible?) than having Al Franken as your Senator (which I have the dubious distinction of having).

    My sympathies, my man. That would definitely explain your POV at times.

    Sheesh! How depressing. Is there *any* way *any* Pub could *ever* take him out?

  • Richard Mullins

    no wonder when he was in the debates, he seems on that outset to make some sense, but the further you go in his answer seems to be slightly like the Donk and slightly like Scott Brown. I’m sure he hasn’t been recovering quite long. So remember, I vote for Kennedy is a vote for Coakley. We can’t have that.

  • jeffreywturner

    On the Senate level, it doesn’t really matter if you are “pro-choice” or “pro-life”. What matters is whether you are “pro-Roe” or “anti-Roe”, and in a broader sense, whether you think it is acceptable for judges to simply “make up” things and declare them to be constitutionally protected, rather than applying the Constitution as it is actually written.

    There are plenty of people who are in “pro-choice”, but are intelligent enough to see that abortion is not in the Constitution and that Roe needs to be overturned.

    You can’t tell me that someone like Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki wouldn’t be a huge improvement over someone like Kristen Hillibrand or Chuck Schumer on abortion.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    … Barney isn’t going anywhere. And even if he gets busted with a prostitute, they might re-elect him anyway.

    As awful as he may be, he’s one of those guys that you have to admit that he is good at what he does. Plus, he has a gerrymandered district that is mostly liberal. It pains me to say it, but he’s real tough to debate. He can make people look stupid, so most people are afraid to engage him in tough interviews or debates. And he understands local issues and delivers the goods.

    Coke and hookers. That’s the only way.

    Get those two ACORN busters on the job and you may be able to take him down (just make sure the guy is the hooker and the girl the pimp)

  • 1stRichard

    Local taxes double every ten years out this way, Springfield tax increase along with an increase in fees has sent them in revolt. My water bill went up and the justification was that everyone is using less, well yes it was costing too much. Local town and city logic is let?s see how other towns and cities are screwing over the people so we can justify more taxes. Public schooling costs are over 11K a year, I don?t know how bad other states are but some think this is outrages. I live across the river from what was once ?The Queen of Industrial Cities, Holyoke Massachusetts, but now it is a burnt rotting corpse of its former self. The largest employer in most every town and city around here is that town and city and all this is unsustainable. Taxes and fees is where everyone out here is hurting most, not so much for those in government, they gave them selves a nice pay raise. Taxes, it is all about taxes, the taxes are even starting to turn off some diehard democrats. The big democrat/liberal killer here was cuts to veterans and they are fighting mad. I think the tax message is good

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    Does not exist in Massachusetts. Said on John Batchelor’s radio program tonight.

  • ohiogirl82

    I’ve lived here for 20 years now, and the last Republican we sent to Washington DC died 19 years ago. House or Senate. But this election is different. I have never felt this level of hatred for the status quo before. The energy for Brown is huge. My local selectman, a well-known, outspoken Democrat who is running for state rep told me today he was voting for Brown.

    Regarding his views — he is pro-choice — that is not the same as pro-abortion. That is my view, too. I’ve been to a number of his fund-raisers, talked to him, and heard him speak. He’s good. He’s not a “squish”. He is definitely NOT Snowe or Collins or Specter.

    More telling than his brownforussenate.com site is his state senate site. You can see what he has focused on over the years and what legislation he has sponsored. He is all about the money and the ethics. (Remember, this is a state where the last three speakers of the house have been indicted — Attorney General Martha Coakley has ignored all of them.) He doesn’t talk social issues. He doesn’t sponsor legislation about social issues. Those issues are lose-lose in Massachusetts.

    Right now, he needs money. He doesn’t need endorsements from national figures or RNC or anything of the sort. He needs to get the Republican and Unenrolled vote out, but simultaneously keep voter turn-out low. It’s a tricky balance, but I think he can do it. If you have money to thrown at politics — this is probably the best money you can spend right now if you want to stop Cap&Trade, and possibly this Healthcare debacle.

  • eburke

    *running* a male prostitution ring out of his apartment, I’m not even sure that would do it. I can understand his constituents not caring that he’s openly gay but I’ve never been able to understand how anyone of *any* political persuasion being ok with criminal activity.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    nt

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Not sure either. But people just dont care much as long as their interests are being represented in D.C. I myself think conservatives invest too much in politicians. The best ones can only do so much and they are all self-serving and guided by survival.

    But I consider myself a “real” conservative too. I just wrote somehing about C.S. Lewis just in case you think I’m a complete cynical, RINO sympathizer.

  • tokm908

    Yesterday it was announced that the Dems are going to be making changes in committee to the Senate version of Obamacare.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/74515-dems-agree-that-house-will-take-up-tweak-senate-healthcare-bill

    That decision makes this race an even bigger deal.

  • sarge324

    to the great state of massachusettes.we the people are hoping you do the right thing.the american way of life is at stake.i pray that scott brown takes the seat.people stay mad all thru 2010,our freedom is at stake.

  • eburke

    I think you bring a needed dose of realism to the boards which is simply that Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint just ain’t gonna win in some places in the country except under extraordinary conditions.

    The reason folks (well, at least me) don’t get upset with you is because you don’t use that reality to continually carp that we need to ‘change our message’. And on top of that, when there *is* a good conservative in an area where conservatism sells in spades, you are a full-throated advocate of supporting him/her.

    And, if I ever *was* tempted to view you as a ‘complete, cynical, RINO sympathizer’ (which I’m not :-) , just knowing that you have Barney Frank as your Congressman puts things in a totally new perspective. Yeesh! Just about *anyone* (Maxine Waters being the possible exception) would be an improvement over Barney.

  • http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish/ reelman

    ALL I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS 2010
    ?10 federal budget cuts, 9 defeated Obama bills, 8 tax cuts, 7 indicted democrats, 6 dozen democrat House defeats, 5 demo-Senate seats lost, 4 moslem body scan laws, 3 real health care reforms, 2 conservative court justices, a term limits law?and a balanced lamestream meeee-dee-ahhhh.
    http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish

  • http://www.gopmom.com GOPMOM

    According to the campaign, they have provided what was asked for. This is MA – if the RNC invaded imagine what the Dems would do – they would think they actually needed to fight. It is better left perceived that even the RNC doesn’t think they can win.

    I head the Greater Boston Tea Party and Scott has won the independent support of 95% of TP statewide because he has kept the race about MA. He calls being able to go to DC and vote against the HC bill is just icing on the cake – it’s not good for MA so why would he vote for it. He has always worked for what is best for MA as a State Rep and State Senator and has us all trusting when he says that is what he will continue to do. We have no reason to not believe him.

    That said, at the TP breakfast with him last Saturday, when asked about the big three – re: HC bill he said, and I quote – “I can stop this.” Regarding Illegal Immigration – “Illegal is illegal.” And for Cap and Trade – “No way, no how.”

    He’s our man. Send a donation. Check out the website www.brownforussenate.com to make GOTV calls from home anywhere in the US. And if you’re nearby, come to MA that last four days! We can do this – or MA and for all of us.

  • navet

    Don’t forget, we need a 2000 mile long Mexican border wall. (ala Israel, that one really works!), As well as a 100,000 Border Patrol paramilitary.