Posted on 12/26/2010 7:19:47 AM PST by tobyhill
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.
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.’’
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
SOLUTION: Starve the beast and create a third party to sabotage Brown when he attempts to entrench himself during the next election.
In the name of "honest advertising," there ought to at least be a (D) totally screwing the people.
There’s too many Conservatives ready stop the weeding out process in fear they lose the tiny crumbs the “Moderates” give them.
Well stated.
We just saw how well the treaty fillibuster worked for us. The confirmation ones have not worked so well either with the number of RINO turncoat commies serving in the Senate these days too.
We did see how it worked and it won’t change whether they have a “D” or “R” by their names.
I hope those who supported Brown by arguing he was “better than a democrat” have finally awakened to the fact that RINOs are indeed NOT better than democrats-—the are the SAME!!!!
I’m madder about Brown’s support for the START Treaty than his support for DADT,
Bingo. By putting a “R” by their name only allows them to continue to bamboozle some Conservatives.
Scott Brown has a militray background and years of service. Am I correct in thinking he has never been in a combat zone or had extensive leadership positions?
His vote on the homosexual military changes is quite liberal. What does Scott Brown plan to do when the transgendered individuals come forth? Base life will become very interesting
“I will support his primary challenger, and I will not vote in the general if Brown is the GOP nominee.”
Count me in.
Or, how’s that hopey changey thing workin out for ya.
Does this apply to Mama Grizzly too...? Did it apply to Reagan...
Senator Coakley, how are you gonna vote on the Dream Act...?
How about up or down on Kagan...
Remember, voting in our republic is becoming the opiate of the electorate, they feel good doing it and when it is over in sets the depression as nothing changes.
Join our great new group. Now that Scott Brown has won re-nomination for U.S. Senate and will face Vicky Kennedy in the final, join us as we boycott the polls. We welcome Ted Kennedy's widow...she's no Scott Brown. We know she will vote liberal every time, instead of that RINO Brown. By staying home, we know the Kennedy name (if only by marriage) will soon be back in the Senate. Join us!
People's seat? Hah! Kennedy's seat.
I fear you do not comprehend what's gone on in Massachusetts ~ the Democrats OWN the government. Doesn't matter how many say they're "Independent" either ~ that's just a way to get off the Democrat party mailing list.
Agreed. I don’t know where the people were when Scott was making talk radio appearances and saying he would vote depending on the issue, not straight party line. When the opposition rolled out ads saying he was a Republican who would vote in lockstep with the Republican party, you could smell the B.S. He’s not voting in lockstep with the Dems, either. We knew this, and we still voted him in—and I’m glad because something is better than nothing. In this state we have to take what we can get. Nominate a true conservative and lose to Vicky Kennedy 90 to 10.
Coakley was: nothing. She would vote lib consistently.
Those Democrats are hard on their candidates ~ gotta' draw blood or be ready to. Tough bunch there.
(Returning to last previous post ~ "Third Party in Massachusets" ~ Bwahahahahahaha ha ha ha ha hahahahahahhahaha hh aa aahh)
Yes. Run a Tea Party candidate against him NOT to regain an (R) or (I) in the Senate, but to sabotage Brown. Surely a (D) would run against him, right?
I fear you do not comprehend what's gone on in Massachusetts ~ the Democrats OWN the government.
I understand perfectly well; Let them drown in their own blood. a Brown Pubbie is false advertising that I'd rather not have infesting the US Senate.
Banking, DADT and START were the final nails for me; I'm done with Brownie, there's nothing he can do to repent for those hideous votes.
Coakley was the regular Democrat. She'd been in there trying to vote twice for DADT repeal.
We'd be hearing about her sessions in the sack with the Russian ambassador regarding START.
Please be realistic when you talk about Massachusetts. It is NOT a normal place.
I wouldn’t mind if they left. After all what the point if the outcome is the same might as well put out of the closet democrats in.
I would wait and see as to how destructive they are to the conservative agenda nest year. I still think thy have damage to do as long as the republican leadership is as squishy as it has been during the lame duck.
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.