Posted on 11/11/2010 5:48:27 AM PST by GOPsterinMA
U.S. Sen. Scott Brown — a sometime Tea Party darling who’s been tagged as a potential 2012 target after the Bay State’s Democratic landslide in last week’s elections — yesterday downplayed the importance of the controversial conservative movement and its new foothold in Washington.
“I’m not sure who they are,” said Brown when asked about the election of senators with reported Tea Party ties. Brown said he’s known U.S. Sens.-elect Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) before the election and, “They don’t come and say, ‘Hey, I’m a Tea Party member.’ They come and say, ‘Hey, I’m a U.S. senator representing my state.’ ”
Brown dismissed the Tea Party’s influence on the U.S. Senate despite national claims that self-described Tea Party candidates such as U.S. Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) represented wins for the growing grass-roots movement.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
It’s important to learn this lesson: There are no conservatives in MA.
seems to drive Freepers nuts that MASS has a Senator who voted against Elena Kagan and they will be well-pleased when he is replaced with a progressive in 2 years.
Please, can’t you see that this is psyops working to break us up.
not NO conservatives annie....
about 30-35%....
NOT ENOUGH? Yes not enough.
about the same as your Washington State or my NY.
I am remembering now why I have always hated the Senate. Ungrateful elitists. Does Scott Brown at least recognize that the six gains last week was the largest Senate gain in many decades? If we included his additional se at gain, which was the start of this wave election, we gained seven in one year. He is a goner if he is abandoning this that brought him here. He ran on conservative ideas and appealed to the middle in a great campaign. Now he is going to abandon the right in hopes of winning the middle, directly opposing the strategy that got him to Washington.
Yep - translates into DEM rule in those areas. Heck, even those who claim to be GOPers in MA are fakers.
Ah, so you will vote for his liberal democrat opponent?
He's marginally better than Kennedy, or any other Dem. That's about it, though.
So lets say in 2012 its Scott Brown vs. Deval Patrick. You’re not voting for Brown?
Like I just wrote, he does not have to publicly piss in the punchbowl.
Granted, his election over Coakley was damaging to the Rats - no doubt.
However, when Snot pulls crap like this, he loses his support from the people that donate money and time, people like me.
In CT, less than 5% of the electorate could be described as Reaganites (50,000 out of 1 million to 1.5 million). Another 50% are the “Independent Majority” that are indifferent about Reagan Conservatism, but they equally want nothing to do with the Democrat Liberal Insider class.
These folks have a right to elect people. In CT, it’s been Jodi Rell, Chris Shays and Joe Lieberman. They are the “base” here in CT, not the Reaganites. Same in MA, RI, VT. GOP candidates who don’t understand this, they ...... lose!
So we’ve got a candidate of the independent majority who you say is “dissing” the 5%.
I’ll do what I did last week when the choices for MA Governor and Lt. Gov. sucked: vote third/forth party and/or write in someone.
yeah, I sent the guy some $$ back during his election.
and now I get emails asking for more.
The delete button has never gotten hit faster.
OK, I agree that is your right to do so. However, how come when people suggested doing the same with Christine O’Donnell (considering her ethical flaws) they were ruthlessly attacked as traitors.
IOW: Why is it OK to vote third party against Scott Brown, but not against Christine O’Donnell? Is there a double standard? Third party votes are OK and not a wasted vote when against Scott Brown, but horrible and a wasted vote when against Christine O’Donnell?
Explain that to me?
Well then I hope you’re happy with the guys who won, because you really didn’t do anything to defeat them.
Massachusetts does not have ONE Republican at the nation level besides Scott Brown. Barney Frank just got easily re-elected for crying out loud. Brown quite frankly got extremely lucky earlier this year, and he’s going to have to walk a fine line to get re-elected.
But, if you want to tar and feather him, and then complain about the Dem who gets elected in 2012 because he doesn’t pass your purity test, then thats your prerogative.
Just think, right after he was elected some idiots here on FR were touting him for President.
I’m fine with Scott Brown in MA.
I’d much rather flank a few RINOs in red states in the 2012 Primaries. Brown will be with us 60-70% of the time, and that’s still better than the 0% we’d get from another Kennedy type who’d serve forever in that seat.
I don’t care what anyone says, I’m fine with Scott Brown being a Senator in MA. Now the Presidential talk was crazy from the get-go...........
Would we have rather had a bigger liberal elite in the Senate with Martha Coakley?
Scott Brown’s job is to represent the people of Massachusetts. His job is not to represent the Tea Party movement.
Take a look at election night. Even in a Republican year, Massachusetts is solid blue. That state is a liberal stronghold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.