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 ...
TV ads featuring his centerfold photo?
;)
Brown is a lawyer, I didn’t trust him from the start. Most were expecting a wonder boy, it isn’t him. Lawyers tend to be more interested in their own pockets than yours. Brown will fall in with the elite DC crowd, you can almost bet on it. Come on MA, give us someone with name recognition and true conservative principles.
Thanks neverdem. He’s as conservative a candidate as Mass could elect.
I'm not in or from Maine, but I've heard/read it described as low hanging fruit, i.e. so conservative that it's ripe for the taking like West Virginia. A primary fight over Collins or Snowe is worth the risk in the general election, IMHO.
Now I would like to see the Tea Party Movement and social conservatives fight on the same side in primary elections, with the exception of the war on some drugs crowd who can't fathom how that feeds the war on guns.
I'd like to see the Tea Party Movement stay focused on fiscal issues, limited gov't and the Constitution for general elections. If I had to add anything for general elections, it would be rat voter fraud and national security incompetence. Socially conservative nominees must be able to defend their positions with logic, clarity and no hesitation.
I’m with you guys. He’s as conservative as we’ll ever get out of that state. I’m with those who say we have bigger fish to fry, i.e. Lugar, etc. Indiana is a normally red state and we should get a genuine conservative from there.
SB has been enough of a RINO/centrist for MA that he just might be able to keep the seat away from some far left kook.
Tea Party Express should re-think this one, considering we couldn’t even get the skunk Barney Frank out of office in Massachusetts. :(
>>SB has been enough of a RINO/centrist for MA that he just might be able to keep the seat away from some far left kook.
Tea Party Express should re-think this one, considering we couldn’t even get the skunk Barney Frank out of office in Massachusetts
Exactly, I’d prefer him to a far left kook. I don’t know how many people were paying attention to Brown as he campaigned. He said “sometimes I’d vote with Republicans, sometimes with Democrats”. He declared himself “independent” and said whatever was best, etc. He also did a bit of a term limits pledge and I don’t think he’d do a Marty Meehan on us.
In the homestretch, the Dems ran an ad saying “Who is Scott Brown, really? A Republican. Who will vote in lockstep with the Republican party”. That wasn’t true of course. Now, he hasn’t voted in lockstep with the Democrats either. As I’ve mentioned there are several votes (Dream Act, Kagan, etc.)
where he was with us. Coakley would not have been.
Someone more conservative than Brown? There may be.
Someone more conservative than Brown who can _win_ in MA?
Doubtful. Whether we nominate someone in Brown’s place or go third party, the seat will be lost to the Dems either
way. Who knows, he may even lose if he is the nominee.
If you sit at home and don’t vote for him, or blank the ballot, that could well happen.
Be aware in MA there are many who are fiscal conservatives but social moderates. The DADT vote appeals to them. The biggest “party” in MA? The unenrolled! Despite the election results last month—yes Barney and Deval and Tierney all
got back in—Brown with his wide appeal across the board
(exc. maybe not with conservatives anymore?) and his
money war chest could probably win.
If not:
Senator Mike Capuano
Senator Vicky Kennedy
Senator Deval Patrick (if he chose to)
etc.
Or else the following would not have won:
Governor William Weld
Governor Paul Celluci
Governon Mitt Romney
Senator Ed Brooke
I really thought last month we could have had Perry, Bielat, or possibly Hudak in the Congress, and the likes of Polito,
Connaughton, etc. Apparently—and this may be a backlash to Brown’s election—the Dems got the vote out (unions etc.)
I hate to say it but had it not been for that “roll back taxes” question, many of them may have not bothered to show up. If you’re a teacher or state-affiliated worker, don’t
you want to protect your job? Hence the usual scare tactics of the world ending if taxes got rolled back.
one of the comments in the Globe reads:
>>Senator Scott Brown was elected by the majority of “Un-Enrolled” voters. Some media refer to this group as the “Independent” voters. I was a D for over 38 years. I became “un-enrolled” a year ago. The final straw was when the mASSachusetts legislature went along with Ted K’s dying wish. I am not a Republican nor a Democrat. My views interlace a bit with the views of each party. I supported Scott Brown and I intend to support him in 2012. The reason for my support is that Scott Brown has not wavered from his campaign pledge to review policy and vote according to what is best for mASSachusetts. Some posters just don’t get that Republicans as well as Democrats and the Un-Enrolled have as members people from every race, creed and age group. Trying to pigeon hole people according to “popular” beliefs about each political party will continue to divide and lessen the possibility of ever finding common ground.
The following names that you mentioned are ALL RINOS, and this is an ongoing problem with the GOP in most of the blue states: Republicans who are not conservative enough on a majority of the issues.
By winning, Brown became a scum politician - more interested in holding power than using his position to advance conservative principles. He has likely been co-opted by the RNC and advised to expand his base while turning his back on the people and principles that got him elected. The Tea Party needs to support individuals with character, who don’t care if they make it back in the next election cycle - like Christie, who’s ‘don’t care’ attitude will probably sweep him back into office!
How did Reagan win the state in 1980 and 1984? Find the answer and a “conservative” can win Massachusetts.
Scott Brown voted against the Dream Act and so stopped the Dream act Amnesty for illegals that would have destroyed the U.S..
Here is Scott Brown on the Dream act and Amnesty:
Senator Scott Brown said yesterday that he will not support the Dream Act, and called the bill, which is aimed at helping illegal immigrants of college age, “back-door amnesty.’’
“I’m not supportive of it,’’ he said. “I think it’s a back-door amnesty and I’m not in favor of it.’’
Brown also voted against Obamacare.
That is 2 huge ways that Brown is better than any democrat as practically all democrats voted for the Dream act and for Obamacare (socialist government healthcare).
I should have marked the thread that I saw recently. According to it, 59 % of registered voters in NY are rats. NY was at the top of the list, more than CA. See comment# 25. The majority of voters in MA are independents.
In NY, Rats had about a 5 million to 3 million advantage over the GOP in registered voters in 2000. It could be worse now.
Oh you prefer democrats to Scott Brown.
Scott Brown voted against the Dream Act and so stopped the Dream act Amnesty for illegals that would have destroyed the U.S..
Here is Scott Brown on the Dream act and Amnesty:
Senator Scott Brown said yesterday that he will not support the Dream Act, and called the bill, which is aimed at helping illegal immigrants of college age, “back-door amnesty.’’
“I’m not supportive of it,’’ he said. “I think it’s a back-door amnesty and I’m not in favor of it.’’
Brown also voted against Obamacare.
That is 2 huge ways that Brown is better than any democrat as practically all democrats voted for the Dream act and for Obamacare (socialist government healthcare).
Amazing that many here prefer democrats over Brown.
Some of those that many on here support for President haven’t even come out as strongly against Amnesty as Brown has .And Huckabee is more for illegal immigrants invading the country by the billions than ANYONE and Huckabee is leading in the polls.
If illegals are not stopped soon then there will never be another remotely conservative elected anywhere in the U.S.: who can disagree with this?
Are we trying to throw this seat to the Democrats? Massachusetts is not Texas or Utah. While I would not want Romney or Brown to be in any type of national leadership, they are the best for now we will be able to do in Massachusetts. We may not like to hear that, but it’s time the self-appointed tea party heads start to understand local election dynamics and where they should pick fights and where they should back off.
My biggest fear is that strategic miscalculations on behalf of the tea party organizations will cost us the Presidency and the Senate majority.
There are states and districts where "making an example" of a given Republican can do some good.
Massachusetts? Statewide?
Not a chance. Brown is miles better than "Marsha" Coakley, and he'll be miles better than his RAT opponent in 2012, whoever that may be.
Doing Castle made great sense, even if COD lost.
But Brown is as good as it gets in MA, by a mile.
Here is Scott Brown on the Dream act and Amnesty:
Senator Scott Brown said yesterday that he will not support the Dream Act, and called the bill, which is aimed at helping illegal immigrants of college age, “back-door amnesty.’’
“I’m not supportive of it,’’ he said. “I think it’s a back-door amnesty and I’m not in favor of it.’’
Brown also voted against Obamacare.
That is 2 huge ways that Brown is better than any democrat as practically all democrats voted for the Dream act and for Obamacare (socialist government healthcare).
He’ll morph into a kennedy by 2012 and run as a demon then.
We must do the best we can in the soviet socialist republic of Massachusetts....but fakes like Brown must go at any cost. We have to always look ahead. Brown remains unchallenged and what will happen? There won't be a true Republican/conservative senator there for decades.
Punishment in a primary is the only effective avenue for posturers like Brown.
Do we want 6 more years of always sweating and wondering which way he'll bounce, like we do with the Maine Floradora Sisters?
Leni
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.