Posted on 12/24/2010 6:12:18 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON — Senator Scott Brown’s decision to buck his party leadership in recent days on the “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ military policy and on a nuclear arms treaty has set off a new wave of anger among some of the activists who helped elect him — and renewed talk among conservatives that he might face a primary challenge.
Tweet 1diggdiggYahoo! Buzz ShareThis Some Tea Party movement leaders who dislike Brown’s votes acknowledge that the Massachusetts Republican has demonstrated his independent and pragmatic streak, and by doing so may strengthen his chances at reelection in 2012. No primary challenger has emerged, and it is unclear whether a newcomer could wage a serious fight against Brown and his $6.8 million war chest.
But the threat of a primary challenge from conservatives — as well as the potential that national Tea Party groups will withhold financial support — appears to have grown, according to the movement’s activists. Brown’s votes in the past week follow his crucial support for the overhaul of financial regulations, which remains a particular sore point with conservatives.
“I think that there will be a primary challenge,’’ said Christen Varley, president of the Greater Boston Tea Party. “There’s enough of an underground movement in the Tea Party movement as seeing him as not being conservative enough. There probably will be multiple people who attempt to run against him.’’
Varley said it is too early to name a possible opponent, and she acknowledged that Brown’s campaign war chest and statewide organization would probably be enough to fend off an opponent. But if Brown has to devote energy and resources to a primary campaign, it could put him at a greater disadvantage in a general election in which...
--snip--
"Would I do it again for Scott Brown?" she said. "Probably not."...
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
For the rest of us it was more important that Martha Coakley be crushed into the dirt.
For Shur, if you'd run anyone else ~ even a mind-numbed, knee-jerk, robot-like Leftwingtard against her, she'd won. The Democrats were prepared to cheat as usual to get her in ~ except against Brown.
They thought he was a doufous candidate without funds to campaign AND they were right, so they didn't bother campaigning.
If you want to waste your money on Massachusetts go ahead, but this was the very place Barry Goldwater said we ought to saw off and push out to sea.
It ain't changed!
Not true. I was one of the first Freepers to come out and support Scott Brown after close friend (and freeper) had direct contact with him and assurances were made.
He lied. PERIOD.
No he must be made to pay and taken out of office.
Did Brown himself make assurances to you personally, or did you just accept it on the word of your friends?
Give me a break...your trying to cherry pick a discussion to make a point?
Scott Brown is not who he represented himself to be and I am not going to waste my time finding the election time threads that showed his positions from his website here on FR...if you really want to prove Scott Brown is who he said he was...go for it.
He campaigned as a conservative and stated he wouldn’t let conservatives down, etc... he isn’t a conservation in any fashion.
Anyone who supports the START treaty like he did has no concept of why America is important...
As far as I am concerned Brown is not only a traitor to conservatives but to this country as well.
I asked a very specific question regarding a very specific claim you made that suggested you'd had a PERSONAL ENCOUNTER WITH BROWN.
Look, this is the "naked guy" ~ what ever made you think he was the same as you?
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.