Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Scott Brown (R-MA) Attacked over Irish Visa Bill – Elizabeth Warren (D), 2012 MA Senate Candidate on the Supreme Court
Brown (the Independent Republican) vs. Warren (In Obama's Pocket Democrat)- the MA Senate Race 2012 - image talkingpointsmemo
It’s an election year in Massachusetts, and the key Republican in the Commonwealth, one Scott Brown, is being attacked for being – Scott Brown. Brown an independent voice, more than a partisan voice, has gone to Washington and, unlike some of his longer-tenured peers in the Senate, has actually written bills and pushed through legislation – he did so by reaching across the aisle - this from an interview conducted by CNN’s Pierce Morgan. Brown by the polls, has been up and down, depending on the college that is polling – however, one can look towards the independents, who make up over half of the state’s electorate to find the key to Brown’s continued success in the Bay State – simply put – out of 14 polls taken since Warren announced her candidacy – the average continues to show Brown with a lead, while Warren has bested Brown in four of the polls taken. The most reasonably close to the actual electorate poll, was thus far, by Suffolk University which gives Brown a 9 point advantage – the majority of the support coming from the 52% of the Independents polled.
Brown bested Democrat Martha Coakley in a special 2009 election, where the dead voted, by 5 points. One has to ask, with Martha having had more experience than Warren; will the vote fall along partisan lines as usual? If that is the case, one can anticipate Warren receiving the 35%of Democrat Votes, while Brown will take the Republican vote (11 to 12%) and the Independent Vote should break 50/40 for Brown given the same manner in which it broke in 2009.
Is Warren different than Coakley? Surely more organized and better funded – Warren recently reported she had out-raised Scott Brown in fundraising, but will money, in Massachusetts, buy her the race? Perhaps within her own academic circle – however, the general populace has yet to hear of Elizabeth Warren, and when they do find that she lays claim to starting the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and most recently, came out against the Supreme Court, siding with the Obama administration, that news might sway Massachusetts voters - Warren , of course, sides with the Obama Administration over the potential for the Supreme Court to overturn his Health Care Mandate – as those rascally Supreme’s, just might be legislating from the bench. Over in Massachusetts, legislating from the bench and special interest groups connected to the Democrat Party have, at times, given the voting public heartburn. It sets up a situation where Warren wants the Courts to rule in favor of Progressive Ideals rather than by the Constitution (either State or Federal). This one might be fodder for Brown’s campaign to run negative advertising, but that has not been his style. The camping may point out where they differ from Ms. Warren, and one can bet the house, she will go negative. (See Martha Coakley).
What else can one do to defeat a popular incumbent?
Get the press involved.
Brown has most recently been criticized by special interest immigration groups for sponsoring legislation that would allow 10,000 plus Irish Immigrants work visas. The unmitigated gall of the man for wanting to bring in a specific group who would actually work! The Enterprise, reporting on the criticized Senator Brown, suggest that his detractors are concerned that he did not support the dream act, or support other groups for work visas. Further, his detractors have criticized Brown for pandering to the electorate of Massachusetts, which, as everyone knows, Irish. That may be news to the rest of the Residents, who are from all ethnic backgrounds, but the Irish, especially in Massachusetts, and in New York or any original point of call, were historically – persecuted.
One might watch the “Gangs of New York” for a refresher, or just talk to someone over the age of 50 to get an idea of what life was like for the Irish who had emigrated from the 1800’s forward – not exactly rosy. Again, the emphasis is on work visas, not a free ride.
Similar legislation was also, according to the article, proposed by Chuck Schumer of NY, who has not been criticized roundly in the press for leaving out Asians and others, as well as Schumer pandering to a huge Irish electorate in New York – of course Schumer is a Democrat, therefore, in his case it may be herald as a fabulous bill, while his Republican Counterpart in Massachusetts is given the short shrift by the press.
Scott Brown is an equal opportunity aggravator. He aggravates the left, he aggravates the right, he really tees off the Tea Party, and other groups who took credit for his election, and he does so by virtue of the bills he sponsors, by the votes he casts – all with an eye towards what’s best for the State. In other words, he’s doing his job. One might want to find another Congressional representative that, in the partisan world of Washington, is doing the same. Good Luck.
All Massachusetts voters need to know, outside of the R or D next to the name, is this: Brown will vote for what he feels is in the best interest of the people, either with the Republican’s or the Democrats, as long as it works for Massachusetts – and he’ll take the flack – on the other hand, Warren will be a rubber stamp for the Obama Administration (should the Obama Administration be given a second shot at the nation). Do we really need more partisanship in Government, no matter how endearingly loopy the woman is?
Occasionally, and very occasionally, Massachusetts gets it right, in the case of Scott Brown that was one of those times.
Note: The author of this blog supported and actively campaigned for Brown’s election in 2009, and since that time, some of the Senator’s actions have made this blogger somewhat agitated, however, as an Independent, it is precisely this type of politician one rarely finds, so once again, Senator Scott Brown will had my support. For the record, I’m not of Irish decent. Also, as a feminist, it is not that all women who run for office deserve a vote by virtue of their gender, but by virtue of their experience and the actions taken or not taken that might make the difference and improve the lives of the citizens of that State or Country. One woman overall, (who was, in this opinion robbed) and who fits that bill is one Hillary Clinton. Support was not based on gender, although that would have been a bonus, but on her record in the Senate.