Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 26, 2010

I JUST DON'T GET SCOTT BROWN.... The poor guy is on TV all the time, but he just seems in over his head. (via Gerry Canavan)

Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., said today it's time to "collectively fix this [health care] bill" and that he's prepared to lead the charge to do just that.

"We're all in favor of the catastrophic care coverage and coverage for children," Brown told "Good Morning America." "But what about the backroom deals? What about all the bad things?"

What a garbled mess. "All" Republicans are "in favor" of some key provisions in the bill? That's very nice, except those same provisions would be scrapped if Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, as Brown's party is currently promising to do. Besides, if there was unanimous GOP support for those provisions, Brown's party kept this little detail carefully under wraps during the policy debate itself.

As for the "backroom deals," this weak tea is getting weaker all the time. For one thing, deal-making has been part of every major piece of legislation in American history. For another, the Senate approved a reconciliation package yesterday that removed the more notorious "backroom deals" from the package -- and Brown voted to leave the deals in.

"What about all the bad things?" That's profound, to be sure, but like everything else involving Scott Brown, it's noticeably short on substance and meaning.

He took at shot at President Obama's reaction to Republican plans to try to repeal the the health care reform bill.

"If they want to have that fight, I welcome that fight…My attitude? Go for it," the president told a rally on Thursday.

"I believe the president's rhetoric is inappropriate," Brown told "GMA."

Hmm. Prominent members of Brown's own party are using truly insane rhetoric about the ACA, telling all kinds of lies and whipping an agitated right-wing base into a sometimes-violent frenzy, but Scott Brown finds "go for it" to be "inappropriate."

Republicans sure do pick strange people as heroes.

Steve Benen 1:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Wasn't Constitution Hall the original "back room"?

Posted by: Bill Harshaw on March 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

This Brown hump is a weakling and a puzzy. He's also clearly not bright at all. He does, however, have a pickup truck, so that's good enough for Palin and Teabagger hillbillies.

MA voters = EPIC FAIL. SHAME ON YOU SHORT-SIGHTED FOOLS!

Scott Brown = a (less than) one-term Senator.

Posted by: J. Paul Ghetto on March 26, 2010 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans are still searching for that magic combination of half-truths, veiled threats, and fear-mongering that will make Obama's recent successes go away. But, somehow, it just isn't working.

Posted by: MattF on March 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Wasn't Constitution Hall the original "back room"?

Absolutely. They shut the doors and hammered out a comprehensive agreement like they were supposed to. Worked reasonably well, according to eyewitness David Broder.


Posted by: Midland on March 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

gotta wonder if this brownie thought "bring it on" was inappropriate, too

Posted by: dj spellchecka on March 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

I guess Obama should have just told them to "bring it on". Republicans seem to like that phrase.

Posted by: Julene on March 26, 2010 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

We have tests you have to pass to become a citizen, but any incoherent blowhard can run for senate. Can't we at least make them take the SATs?

Posted by: Midland on March 26, 2010 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Have they started the Brown for President rumour mill yet?

Posted by: firefall on March 26, 2010 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Brown is in line with the party when he uses these talking points, while not actually caring about effective policy making.

But the big problem with the bill IS the backroom dealing, IS the preservation of the root of the problem, the private, for profit, oligopolistic, anti-trust-exempt "insurance" industry.

This is not what Brown is referring to, of course. But it is still a very bad thing.

Posted by: jayackroyd on March 26, 2010 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

What Republicans say is always appropriate because Republicans are the good guys. What Democrats say is always inappropriate because Democrats are the bad guys. Duh.

Posted by: Shalimar on March 26, 2010 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

And yet I'll wager this vapid pea-brain just *loved* Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner too.

Talk about an "empty suit." Then again, this teabagging clown isn't exactly known for his CLOTHING now, is he?

Posted by: J. Paul Ghetto on March 26, 2010 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

You still have birthers insisting that President Obama show his birth certificate (even though we've already seen it). Fair enough. I'd like to see all members of the GOP House + Senate caucuses show me their IQ scores. I'd be somewhat surprised if the average exceeded 95 (where 100 is average).

-Z

Posted by: Zorro on March 26, 2010 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

And of course Republicans take no responsibility at all for creating the dynamic which made those backroom deals even possible to begin with. Without the threatened filibuster, Senator Nelson's 60th vote would not have been necessary, and his constituents would not have demanded he use this leverage which the threatened Republican filibuster created to get something of value in exchange for voting yes on a bill that, we must assume, they opposed.

Refusing to accept responsibility for anything seems to be a very common right wing trait these days. All those rocks through Democratic office windows? Why, it's the Democrats fault for making people mad -- and isn't it awful how Democrats are trying to capitalize politically on the issue!

Republicans hate being called the Party of No and so are peddling the absurd argument that Republicans obstructed nothing since Democrats (when they had a nominal 60 vote majority) should have been able to pass whatever they wanted by unanimous consent of their members. But that's the downside of having a party that represents more than just the deep South or a narrow sliver of the right wing political spectrum. It's hard to get people of very different minds to agree on anything, much less unanimously.

But it's this kind of unseriousness -- foolishness -- on Republican's part that is causing the American people to start recognizing that Republicans are, well, fools.

Posted by: Ted Frier on March 26, 2010 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Wait, by voting against the fixit amendment didn't Scott Brown vote in favor of making backroom deals like the "cornhusker kickback" law? by the standard of political ads I'd say that's an emphatic "yes."

Posted by: G. Francis on March 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Don't be so sure about this "hero" jive. Boston's right-wing rag of a paper, the Herald, had this headline two days ago: "Bay State Republicans Blue As Scott Brown's Election Backfires"

The general consensus among MA Republicans is that not only is the guy a lightweight and an embarrassment, his election was what spurred the passage of the ACA. They're pissed.

Posted by: Barmy on March 26, 2010 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

This is exactly why we need to vote for Rachel Maddow in November.

Posted by: Stuck with "Big John" Cornyn on March 26, 2010 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

I'd be somewhat surprised if the average exceeded 95 (where 100 is average).

They can have their own radio show. It can be broadcast from "Lake Woeisme," where all of the Congresspeople are below average.

Posted by: zeitgeist on March 26, 2010 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Scott Brown voted against the fixes that covered the back room deals just so he would have them to rail against. The "party of No" is also the poison pill party.

Posted by: Always Hopeful on March 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

"What about the bad things?

This fellow is too dumb to play dead in a cowboy movie.

Posted by: Mustang Bobby on March 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Pinning the tail on the pin-up boy

Fame is poison. It can ruin the most rational among us. So what then happens when a teabagger gets a heady dose of national worship? If that's not an OMG moment... what is?

In short: We are in chartless clueless territory with Sir Brownie. His fount of stupidity is potentially boundless. And everyone thought Sarah was the apex of foxed-up-beyond-all-repair? Wait until assboy sits down to a real interview. There will be goofs and guffaws for all...



Posted by: koreyel on March 26, 2010 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

You're right, MattF. I think the Republicans are experiencing the inevitable collapse of the Reagan narrative, which Rove's exploitation distorted into it's current unsustainable form. With Reagan there was substance. Though deeply flawed, there was an ideological foundation with a coherent structure. Enter Rove, taking the use of propaganda in politics to a whole new level. The shock and awe tactics were great for grabbing and keeping power, in the short-term. Then came the inevitable over-reach and crash.

Turns out that people really do expect their public servants to perform. There has to be *something backing up the cool kid image, otherwise the fraud eventually becomes obvious to almost everyone. Obama has many strengths but perhaps the greatest will prove to be his maturity. He's a real and true grown-up - "boring" as far as our entertainment-driven media is concerned, but maturity is a very good attribute, it turns out, for those in positions of power and responsibility. Maybe the American people are growing up a little bit too..? One can hope.

Posted by: FC on March 26, 2010 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

It's enough to make you root for the Yankees.

Posted by: Cazart on March 26, 2010 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Brown's low IQ isn't surprising. I've been calling the GOP the Party of Stupid (which, serendipitously, yields the mnemonic POS) since Reagan was elected.

Posted by: cmac on March 26, 2010 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP's whole organizing principle for 30 years is that they are the party of winners. The way they cast themselves, the party and its causes are always on the march, always victorious, and always smiting the weak, whiney, duplicitous Democrats (who are on the run, and are scared of the will of the people).

That narrative is crumbling. After all the mustache twirling and chortling and triumphalist rhetoric over the last year, all you have now is a bunch of Republicans on TV complaining about ... politics! We wuz robbed! It WASN'T FAIR!! WAAAAHHHHH! I'm gonna SUE!!

And they are scragging each other.

Holy cow. I mean ... seriously. I was born the year Nixon first got elected President, and started the modern conservative dominance. And I haven't seen this stuff in my entire lifetime.

Posted by: Bokonon on March 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

But it's this kind of unseriousness -- foolishness -- on Republican's part that is causing the American people to start recognizing that Republicans are, well, fools.

Ted, I always read your comments with interest. However, here in the 49th State, we're still waiting for people to take notice. I'll know that they are when we vote Don Young out of office.

Posted by: AK Liberal on March 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

If you watch the video, it's pretty clear that when Brown said "inappropriate," he actually meant "inaccurate" or "incorrect." His point was that Obama is mischaracterizing Republican opposition to the bill.

He's still wrong, and the whole episode shows how stupid and inarticulate the man is, but he's not wrong in precisely the way lefty blogs have been claiming today.

So he's got that goin' for him, which is nice.

Posted by: Rieux on March 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

As a resident of Massachusetts (who didn't vote for Brown) I hold my head in shame every time this dimwit pretty boy tries to say something coherent. For many of us here his election is still a shock, and attributable to the bone-headed behavior of the state Democratic Party and its candidate, Martha Coakley.

He will continue to embarrass us, but he will have to run in what is still a very blue state in two years. He can't be on the 'good' list of the Rethug fascists and also get elected again in Massachusetts. The effort to defeat him will be overwhelming, if he chooses to run, but the amount of out-of-state money he will raise will also be huge. He raised, very quietly, a million a day in the last ten days of the campaign in January, and almost all of it from out-of-state.

Rachel Maddow has a full-page ad in today's Boston Globe putting the lie to Brown's claim (for fund raising purposes) that she, the left-wing demon, is planning to run against him in 2012. Brown was an empty suit in the state senate, and won't learn anything by being in office. He will forever be a blight on the proud liberal record of the Commonwealth, but hopefully only a footnote.

Posted by: rrk1 on March 26, 2010 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

What, you thought Sarah! Palin was the only no-nothing bimbo the right would jump at the chance to elevate? I think Scott has many of her same qualities and deficiencies, also, too.

Posted by: bcinaz on March 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

I TRIED TO BE A LITTLE "FAIR AND BALANCED" THE OTHER EVENING, SO I TUNED INTO FOX NEWS. It is clear that they have become completely assimilated into the GOP apparatchik. Gretchen was playing straight man to an anti-HCR Senator (you can take your pick, since it doesn't matter), and O'Reilly had the very unfunny, ex-comedian hurling his brand of Republican humor. Pathetic.

Posted by: robert peeples on March 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Hey. Be nice. His campaign was based on the fact that he has a pickup, and his opponent didn't know something about a baseball player. That goes for high discourse these days .... :))

Posted by: bigtuna on March 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

This suggests a new movie: "Bedtime for Brownzo"

Posted by: J. Paul Ghetto on March 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

If you have the stomach for it, head over to the Boston Herald and check out the comment section for the story on the Maddow/Brown thing. Here's a sample of the level of conversation going on over there:

DisgustedDem
What a shame the Dyke wont run against Scott. Wouldnt that have been fun seeing her run on the MSNBC platform of fruits and nuts. Maybe Olberman could have campaigned for ger in Southie or Dorchester, that would have been most interesting to see

willybhardagin
I think Rachael needs to get some. It would straighten her out, calm her down and keep her in the yard.

willybhardagin
Most women on the news are pregnant right now. Rachael, not so much! She pees standing up!

eddieshack
I'm gonna guess that Rachel isn't big into maintenance in the southern region of the hip area. Can someone say 70's shag carpet? Damn, she makes Margery Egan look almost normal.

claspur
Her and Janeane Gerafalo should 'make' a movie.
I'd buy a copy to take to stag parties. lmao

eddieshack
Imagine if Maddow and Olberman procreated (I know she doesn't swing that way, but..), we would have to kill that child for the sake of humanity!! Rachel, what's up with the specs anyway?

claspur
Notice how women named Rachel, Kim, Tina, Meagan and others like that are in life, compared to Cathys, Kristys, Ashleys,Pattys, Annies and names like that, tend to be nicer people?
I won't get into the Muffys and Buffy names...they speak for themselves. ;o)

Posted by: BrendanInBoston on March 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Obama's "Go for it" is uncomfortably reminiscent of Bush's "Bring 'em on". Are the Dems up to dealing with a full gop repeal onslaught?

Posted by: CDW on March 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

"attributable to the bone-headed behavior of the state Democratic Party and its candidate, Martha Coakley"

Yup. Coakley just didn't campaign.

To be fair to Brown, he worked his ass off, and
had the smart strategy of

a) making it about personality rather than issues

b) saying as little as possible about policy,
which, as we've seen since his election, was a
good idea because he doesn't know a damn thing
and sounds like an idiot when he goes off his
script

c) distancing himself from the Republican party

In a special election with a campaign over the
holiday season, no-one paid attention until the
final two weeks, and Brown got away with it.

But after just a few more weeks, the buyers'
remorse is escalating. He gets crushed in 2012.

As for the idea that his election is some kind of
harbinger of a national Republican landslide, I'm
very skeptical: his strategy was to distance himself from the party. And that strategy dosn't
scale up: the RNC can't go out and recruit a whole
load of candidates nationwide who campaign on the
basis that they're not really part of the Republican party ...

Posted by: Richard Cownie on March 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

I TRIED TO BE A LITTLE "FAIR AND BALANCED" THE OTHER EVENING, SO I TUNED INTO FOX NEWS. It is clear that they have become completely assimilated into the GOP apparatchik. Gretchen was playing straight man to an anti-HCR Senator (you can take your pick, since it doesn't matter), and O'Reilly had the very unfunny, ex-comedian hurling his brand of Republican humor. Pathetic.

Posted by: robert peeples on March 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

What next, a pro-motherhood position paper?

It's really good to hear that Scott Brown is four-square against "bad things", and, we can presume, just to help him out on completing his philosophy of governance, for "good things".

Hey, it's a start, and one damn sight better than if he were the reverse, for bad things and against good things.

Now... If we could just get all the bad things to wear black hats, and the good things to wear white hats, I think Brown would be cooking with gas. Absent that, we've got a real pickle on our hands.

Posted by: Glen Tomkins on March 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

The same group of people that are threating Democrats are the same group that cheered the DEATH of 1,000,000 people in Iraq and Afghanastan. Keep that in mind.

Will sanity prevail? Not likeky if Scott Brown is any indication.

Posted by: D122 on March 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

"Are the Dems up to dealing with a full gop repeal onslaught?"

What does that mean exactly ? Obviously you don't
have the votes for a repeal right now. And Obama
wouldn't sign a repeal. So if you want Republican
candidates to run in November on a platform of
taking away insurance coverage from sick kids with
pre-existing conditions, and spending valuable
legislative effort over the next 2 years passing
a purely symbolic repeal that couldn't take effect
until Jan 2013 - well, yeah, go for it.

Talking about health care is good for Democrats.
Let's keep doing that, please.

Posted by: Richard Cownie on March 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

It's really good to hear that Scott Brown is four-square against "bad things", and, we can presume, just to help him out on completing his philosophy of governance, for "good things".

Well, I'm going to bust out of my silly mood long enough to Eeyore this a little bit. We know from way too much experience that the media is perfectly capable of picking up on this bullshit "There's bipartisan support -- but for the good things" post-passage talking point from the right. It is entirely possible that the GOP will pull itself together long enough to start a "repeal the mandate, keep the popular stuff" campaign and that our less well informed compatriots will take this up as their battle cry. Yes, the insurance companies will have a fit, but the GOP will run on this just the same.

Democrats, known as the party that always wants people to add broccoli to the all-cake diet the GOP espouses, have a great deal of work to do to explain, among other things, why the unpopular parts of the bill are necessary to make the whole thing work. We really can't assume that people are going to get this on their own or that no political hay can be made from absurdities like the ones Brown is spouting.

Posted by: shortstop on March 26, 2010 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

. . . . I'll wager this vapid pea-brain just *loved* Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner too.

As I recall it, Brown's "The People's Seat" backdrop was pretty much Mission Accomplished Redux.

The pairing of Brown and Palin gives new meaning to the word shallow.

Posted by: Squeaky McCrinkle on March 26, 2010 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

I can't wait for the Republican party to go the way of the Whigs. I just don't get how people can take the Republicans seriously. They stand for nothing but their own political future.

Posted by: Marvin on March 26, 2010 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

The emperor's old clothes are starting to unravel

Posted by: rab on March 26, 2010 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

I declare next July 4 "National Armageddon Day". Since it will be hot in most of the country, we'll "bare arms" and shoot off our mouth. Don't forget the hot dogs and apple pie for the Last Supper.

Posted by: ML on March 26, 2010 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

I've got a great title for that new ghostwritten book Brown's "writing" for Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins -- same house that published Palin's "book."

He can call it "A Pantload of Brown."

At least it would be honest.

Posted by: Hart Williams on March 26, 2010 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Or, come to think of it, "Brownie, Yer Doin' A Heckuva Job.'

Posted by: Hart Williams on March 26, 2010 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Campaign poster for the Democrat who runs for the Senate in 2012: "Scott Brown: Empty Suit and Dumb Weight:

Posted by: Sammy on March 26, 2010 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

Re Scott Brown, what about the word "bimbo" do you not understand?

Posted by: J. Frank parnell on March 27, 2010 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

I was sitting in front of the TV last Sunday watching the St. Patrick's Day parade in Holyoke, Ma. with my beloved 89 year old mother. The parade is an annual tradition; a three mile route and three hours from start to finish. A lot of folks in Holyoke use it as an excuse to see family and have a good time. The local PBS station does the broadcasting. Anyway, all the local and many state politicians show up for the event and march in the parade. They all get a brief interview and all talked about the glorious weather, how great it was to be in Holyoke, what a great turn out etc., except Scott Brown who proceeded to give a stump speech about why he was elected. What an ass.

Posted by: mudcity on March 27, 2010 at 7:53 AM | PERMALINK

mzybe we should send brown to massacusetts on air force 1

Posted by: jean meseravage on April 16, 2010 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

send brown back to massachusetts on air force 1

Posted by: jean meseravage on April 16, 2010 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly