If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Holding a 2-1 cash advantage at the time , Scott Brown probably thought getting his opponent to agree to a binding ban on spending by outside groups in the race was pretty smart. Now? maybe not so much   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 23
    More: Followup, Massachusetts Senate race, Tony Cignoli, League of Women Voters, Yahoo News, Massachusetts, League of Conservation Voters, tax and spend, independent expenditures  
•       •       •

2920 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2012 at 11:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-24 11:48:32 AM  
3 votes:
FTFA: Howie Carr, who hosts a conservative talk show popular in New England and writes a column for the Boston Herald, says he wishes Brown hadn't embraced the pact.

"I think it would have been better if Scott hadn't agreed to it, the way things worked out with the Indian stuff," Carr said. "It would have been nice to have some people come in and bang her over the head with the falseness of her claims to be an Indian."


What a shame. Poor Scott Brown's gonna have to run on the issues instead of letting the Koch Brothers flood the airwaves with petty, irrelevant bullshiat.
2012-07-24 11:57:23 AM  
2 votes:

keylock71: He knows he's got a fight on his hands and is trying to kiss up to Independents in MA (the majority of the Commonwealth are unenrolled voters).


I just want to make sure everyone else is aware: We're independents because the Democrats are too right wing for us, not because there is any chance in hell we'd vote for a Republican.
2012-07-24 11:55:58 AM  
2 votes:

Deneb81: How do you do that anyway? The two candidates agree to discourage anyone else from exercising their free speech?

I hate PACs as much as anyone, and think the candidate PACs are ridiculous, but it seems like an unenforceable and anti-democratic agreement.


TFA explains it: As soon as a PAC runs an add for a candidate, the candidate must then spend an equal amount of money on a charity of the OTHER candidate's choosing. So yeah, you can still run the ad. But no one in the world believes that your candidate wasn't aware of the ad before hand (Thanks Stephen Colbert), so it not only makes him look bad, it costs him money.

The first time this happened, Warren had a poll to see what charity Scott Brown should donate to. The overwhelming winner was Planned Parenthood, but she went with autism.
2012-07-24 11:51:56 AM  
2 votes:
Scott Brown is not a total douchebag, he's a moderate conservative, a rare bird in Washington.

Having said that, I hope he loses, the fewer GOP members we have in the Senate, the better. And Elizabeth Warren is awesome so I'd much prefer to see her in Washington than Brown.
2012-07-24 11:46:17 AM  
2 votes:
Howie Carr, who hosts a conservative talk show popular in New England and writes a column for the Boston Herald, says he wishes Brown hadn't embraced the pact.

"I think it would have been better if Scott hadn't agreed to it, the way things worked out with the Indian stuff," Carr said. "It would have been nice to have some people come in and bang her over the head with the falseness of her claims to be an Indian."


I like it when these people come out and ADMIT that they want to run a campaign that has nothing to do with the issues.
2012-07-24 03:27:41 PM  
1 votes:

Retard Wrangler: Being a liar isn't an issue? It reflects directly on her character.


60+% of MA voters don't care about this...

Since you seem to be in OH, your opinion on the subject is also of little concern to us.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-07-24 01:48:42 PM  
1 votes:

xanadian: Although, I will note that him SORT OF KIND OF being on board with women's health (OK with Roe v Wade)


He co-sponsored the Blunt amendment, which would allow an employer to deny health care to employees based on the EMPLOYER'S religion.

Link

Saying he's "pro women's health" because he's ok with a 30 year old law is kind of a stretch.

Look, you want him- you can have him. If you live in a state with Inhofe or Steve King as your rep, Scott Brown looks good.
2012-07-24 01:39:56 PM  
1 votes:
Yea, it's too bad they couldn't exploit the false controversy over the Native American thing, because without attack ads, they have to stick with facts and she is going to slaughter the Republicans with them.

/Go Warren, wish I was a Mass. Res.
2012-07-24 01:21:21 PM  
1 votes:

keylock71: xanadian: I'm reading up on Warren now. I like her consumer protection bureau idea, and it's something we need. What I'm reading in Wikipedia: "While liberal groups and consumer advocacy groups pushed for Obama to nominate Warren as the agency's permanent director, Warren was strongly opposed by financial institutions which had criticized Warren as overly aggressive in pursuing regulations..."

Oh, gee, overly zealous in enforcing the goddamned law? OH THE HUMANITY!!!

It would be ironic if Warren won, since the national GOP's hold on her nomination was one of the catalysts for her run here in MA... But yeah, I think the last few years have shown that the banking industry can't be trusted to self-regulate and the regulations currently in place are either too watered down (thanks to the banking lobby) and/or aren't being enforced as well as they should be.

I can certainly see why so many of them don't like Warren... She wouldn't be lining up to slob Jamie Dimon's knob in public like a number of Congressmen did recently, at any rate.


Remember 2004, when Barack Obama was just some guy running for Senate?

Hopefully, she'll give the DNC keynote and win the Senate seat. Then, maybe we'll see her again in 2016 or 2020.
2012-07-24 12:52:05 PM  
1 votes:

xanadian: Are you referring to this and this? Also, according to wikipedia, he's split on women's issues (OK with Roe v Wade, not OK with federal funding of elective abortions). But, yes, he dragged his feet on finance reform.

So. Just off of those 3 items, he has gone AGAINST the GOP on DADT, mixed with women's issues, and WITH the GOP on finance reform. That would be a bit less than 2 out of 3, if you ask me.


See here is the problem, you need to look at the cloture votes as well. Most of the time Scott Brown votes with the GOP on cloture and then only when it manages to squeak by he changes his vote when it no longer matters.

He is a moderate on paper but a coward in reality.
2012-07-24 12:49:07 PM  
1 votes:

keylock71: TyrantII: I wrote in Mayor Menino for Senate in 2010 as a protest vote (joke) against that horrible woman Coakley. So Scott Browns 2 year stint is somewhat owed to me not being able to pull the lever for someone who was a local party crony and would have been dirty as all hell. Hopefully the party learned it's lesson about forcing a patronage candidate on the electorate.

Warren both in integrity and ability to conduct a campaign has been night and day compared to that lemon in 2010.

Yeah, Coakley was the shiniest turd in the bowl... And it ended up as a big slap in the face to the MA Dems. Seems like they did learn their lesson as the Warren Campaign has been pretty much a well-oiled machine.


I'm reading up on Warren now. I like her consumer protection bureau idea, and it's something we need. What I'm reading in Wikipedia: "While liberal groups and consumer advocacy groups pushed for Obama to nominate Warren as the agency's permanent director, Warren was strongly opposed by financial institutions which had criticized Warren as overly aggressive in pursuing regulations..."

Oh, gee, overly zealous in enforcing the goddamned law? OH THE HUMANITY!!!
2012-07-24 12:32:53 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: Serious Black: Voting itself is an act of free speech. In a 1st Circuilt concurring opinion on Miller v. Town of Hull, Justice Samuel Alito bluntly stated "Voting has an expressive component in and of itself." Beyond that, the Nevada Supreme Court has recently ruled that voting contains "a communicative element" and is itself an important component of all political speech. If you prevent Kansas residents like myself from voting for Massachusetts Senate candidates, you are denying me my right to free speech. Why are YOU not okay with the First Amendment?

Voting isn't simply speech.


And spending money on political ads isn't simply speech either. Much like how voting is designed to elect somebody to office, political expenditures are designed to shape the legislative agenda and de facto buy votes on bills once people are elected.
2012-07-24 12:27:37 PM  
1 votes:

DeArmondVI: Wow, I didn't realize how awesome the Citizens United ruling was.

I mean, when there's an opportunity to have outside groups that are anonymously funded blanket the airwaves with character smears that are completely divorced from the issues of the day and you don't take it, IT'S A FARKIN' OUTRAGE!


Citizens United has nothing to do with anonymity. "Outside groups" could buy ads before Citizens United. They just couldn't run them (or distribute pamphlets or books or any form of speech) within a certain time period before the election.
2012-07-24 12:23:54 PM  
1 votes:

xanadian: He only votes with his party 2 out of 3 times.


Those aren't on actual votes. That's procedural bullshiat. We've been over this.

On every vote that mattered- from health care to DADT, to women's health to corporate finance reform, Scott Brown has voted with the GOP and against the interests of Massachusetts.

So excuse me if I'm not thrilled that my senator voted to end discussion about upholding DADT, but then voted to uphold the ban.
2012-07-24 12:19:29 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: Serious Black: Oh, I missed the follow-up question. Should Kansas residents be able to vote for Massachusetts Senate candidates? What about Afghanistan citizens?

What don't you understand about free speech? Where's the disconnect?


Voting itself is an act of free speech. In a 1st Circuilt concurring opinion on Miller v. Town of Hull, Justice Samuel Alito bluntly stated "Voting has an expressive component in and of itself." Beyond that, the Nevada Supreme Court has recently ruled that voting contains "a communicative element" and is itself an important component of all political speech. If you prevent Kansas residents like myself from voting for Massachusetts Senate candidates, you are denying me my right to free speech. Why are YOU not okay with the First Amendment?
2012-07-24 12:15:37 PM  
1 votes:

TyrantII: Yup, as always they're very, very much out of touch with the average voter in the Commonwealth, and their insistence on running the GOP here like it were Mississippi is the number one reason why GOP registration is down to only ~11%.


I volunteered at my local polling place for the MA Primary.

At the time, Romney hadn't secured the nomination, and there was NOTHING else on the ballot- no initiatives, no other candidates etc.

Obama got twice as many votes as all the GOP candidates combined.

Which means, twice as many people got up, walked down to the firehouse, and voted for Obama, even though he was already the candidate.
2012-07-24 12:12:41 PM  
1 votes:

SixPaperJoint: So, if I was a pro-Brown PAC could I buy ad time for ads that were tepid lukewarm support ads for Warren, you know just CV type stuff or "highlighting" Obama's choice for her to head the Consumer thing, and then force her to spend her campaign funds on these charities?

I mean, could you be a PAC for Brown and just disguise yourself as a really bad and poorly run pro-Warren PAC in order to force her to empty her coffers?


You could try, but when it's discovered that your PAC members are all registered Republicans, it will come back on Scott Brown even harder.
2012-07-24 12:07:02 PM  
1 votes:

what_now: keylock71: He knows he's got a fight on his hands and is trying to kiss up to Independents in MA (the majority of the Commonwealth are unenrolled voters).

I just want to make sure everyone else is aware: We're independents because the Democrats are too right wing for us, not because there is any chance in hell we'd vote for a Republican.


I can't speak for any other MAsshole besides myself, but I'm unenrolled, and it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for another Republican after their behavior over the last 4+ years.

Warren's the first candidate we've had in a while whom I'm actually voting for. Usually, I just vote against the biggest jackass...
2012-07-24 12:04:00 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: Serious Black: jigger: what_now: I have a choice between two senatorial candidates. Neither one of them would be elected in Kansas, so why the hell should a Kansas millionaire get a say in this race?

Their votes affect people in Kansas, so why the hell shouldn't people in Kansas be able to speak their minds about the candidates?

Their votes also affect people in Afghanistan. Should Afghanistan citizens be able to speak their minds about the candidates?

You bet your ass.


Awesome. I'm sure Hamid Karzai will be thrilled to know you're okay with him buying political ads for elections he can't vote in.
2012-07-24 11:53:30 AM  
1 votes:
Scott Brown is a moderate Republican, common in MA, who votes on behalf of his constituents, that is why the teabaggers hate his guts.
2012-07-24 11:52:24 AM  
1 votes:
The ban also prevents the party committees (the Republican and Democratic National Committees and the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for example) from making independent expenditures in the race.

Someone explain to me why this is a bad thing?

I have a choice between two senatorial candidates. Neither one of them would be elected in Kansas, so why the hell should a Kansas millionaire get a say in this race?
2012-07-24 11:50:51 AM  
1 votes:
Recently, Brown has voted for the President's Bill removing tax incentives for companies who move jobs overseas and stated he supports "assault weapons bans" at the state level...

He knows he's got a fight on his hands and is trying to kiss up to Independents in MA (the majority of the Commonwealth are unenrolled voters).

Also, the Indian "scandal" played well nationally, but the majority of voters in the Commonwealth didn't care about it. 60+% last I checked.

The debates are going to be interesting. I think Warren is going to talk circles around Brown on a number of subjects, but we'll see, I guess...
2012-07-24 11:44:13 AM  
1 votes:
Scott Brown is a goner come November.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report