Sen. Scott Brown Continues to Pick Up Endorsements of Democrat Politicians in MA – The Real Deal – vs. – Warren as Outsider – Commentary

On the One Hand - Brown's Just so Darn Likable - image salon.com


From The Boston Globe: Elizabeth Warren, Progressive-Democrat Senate Candidate (MA), suggested that she would bring an “outsiders” view to Washington in a recent interview. The Globe also noted that Warren’s quest to unseat Republican Scott Brown is her first attempt at running for public office, and it shows. To suggest that Warren would bring an “outsider view” to Washington is somewhat a stretch, considering she worked with the Obama administration, has rallied for President Obama and is being touted by Progressives (petition and all) as the next Barack Obama – someone that can be molded into a 2016 Presidential Candidate. All the brouhaha over her false heritage claims, her house-flipping deals on foreclosed homes, her plagiarism (cookbooks of all things) pale compared to her latest claims as an “outsider”.


Massachusetts politicians appear to agree – especially those that would be considered “peers” of Warren, were she a fellow “Democrat” – conventional wisdom dictates that party members support one another – however – it appears that certain Democrat and Independent Massachusetts politicians are not enamored of Ms. Warren, and are endorsing her opposition – incumbent Senator Scott Brown.

In 2009, Brown took the “people’s seat” (previously referred to as the “Kennedy Seat”, by a margin of 5 points, which, in Massachusetts with the dead voting, that’s no mean feat. The spread between Brown and Martha Coakley was, in all probability, much higher – that aside, there were forces at play in Massachusetts that were a signal to the rest of the nation – find a Conservative Republican, who is willing to work across the aisle, and who sticks to his principles, no matter what – and you have a winner. Brown is the real deal – and attracted a myriad group of supporters in Massachusetts – Green Party, Democrats, and even some of those Republican’s that are said to reside in the “Bluest State”. Brown also was a Mass. State Senator, and had built a reputation on defending his constituents, regardless of party affiliation – the biggest attraction: Brown is just one of us – his story is the story of most regular folks – he just took a different path from most, dedicated himself to service, and it brought him to the U.S. Senate.


Brown knew how to campaign, but he was genuine in his approach – the money poured in after bloggers got busy when it was apparent Brown was able to defeat Coakley, even though the Beltway suggested the seat would go to Coakley, the polls indicated the same, but the 300 plus miles that separate Massachusetts from the Beltway – made it impossible for any real “political intelligence” to penetrate those pundits that decide a race before it even begins. They were not on the ground, did not see the volunteers filling Brown offices, did not see the guy in his pick-up truck crisscrossing the state – or feel the excitement – neighbor to neighbor – most shockingly because Brown wanted to Stop the Legislation on the Affordable Health Care Act and bring work towards a better model.


Therefore, the fact that he is picking up endorsements left, right and center, endorsements that should go to Warren, is not surprising to those of us who live here in the “Bluest State” – Warren is, regardless of friendly polls, and friendly press, and Progressive Democrats glowing - indeed an “outsider”.



In Massachusetts, party affiliation is one thing, but most of the public that votes, consider themselves “independents” – and, indeed over 50% of the State’s electorate is enrolled as “unenrolled” (no party affiliation).



In April, according to The Hill Blog (speaking of Beltway):


“Ray Flynn, who served as Boston’s mayor for almost a decade before being named an ambassador under President Clinton, will endorse Brown on Monday at South Boston’s Castle Island. A conservative Democrat, Flynn has long been allied with Brown, and endorsed his 2010 Senate bid against state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D).

Hours later, former Worcester, Mass., Mayor Konnie Lukes will announce her support for Brown in the city Lukes ran until 2009.

Both endorsements serve as reminders of Brown’s continued crossover appeal to centrist Democratic voters, despite the star power and grassroots energy behind Warren’s campaign.”

To which one might ask the Hill, what grassroots behind Warren’s Campaign? – It’s not on the ground in Massachusetts, unless one counts the fundraisers in Boston at which she has appeared or perhaps her trips across the state, surrounded by local Democrats – grassroots’ appeal is defined by Brown, when average (non-paid) individuals stand up and support a candidate.

In June Mass Live (The Springfield Republican) noted that Democrat and Independent Politicians had endorsed Brown followed by the July 3rd Masslive.com (The Springfield Republican) Scott Brown picked up the endorsement of Paul Walsh, the former Democratic District Attorney of Bristol County. Walsh joins nine other Bay State Democrats who have endorsed Brown

Therefore, Brown’s managed to cross party lines, both in the political spectrum, in the interest of his constituents, and now, in the election arena, as those public servants, from either party, or independents, see Brown as a politician who is more interested in the people he serves than in furthering a political party.

Brown has never written a cookbook, he wrote a tell-all book about the pain he suffered in his childhood that led him to rally hard for women and children’s rights both in the MA Senate and in the U.S. Senate.

Brown is Brown, Warren is – another Obama.




On the other hand - Warren - obviously partisan -image northamptonmedia.com


To wit, Barack Obama was groomed for a political background rooted in Academia. His rise through Illinois was nothing short of meteoric, a term in the State House, then right to the U.S. Senate and without finishing his first term, he ran for the Democrat Nomination – was handed that by Progressives in Congress who, though super delegates overrode the popular vote (Hillary Clinton) and appointment Obama the nominee – and the rest is history. Now, Progressives see another opportunity – to mold a newcomer, an academic, someone with little to no experience in legislation, a stint in the White House surely, but neither in crafting legislation nor responding to constituents needs – but she does answer the call of the Party.

Therein lays the difference – and why one might anticipate additional endorsements from individuals of all political affiliations to go to Brown. Warren truly is an outsider – Brown remains one of us.

Elizabeth Warren, (D) for Senate, Mass. – House Flipping History Does not Square with Stump Speeches – Hypocrite?

Elizabeth Warren, Dem for MA Senate, (Against Scott Brown), shown with house she "flipped" in OK - image Boston Herald)


Elizabeth Warren appears to have a bit more family history that might not square with her “persona” as a “champion for the middle class” – The Boston Heraldreported that Warren and her Husband made huge profits off foreclosed properties in Oklahoma, and lent money to family members at high interest rates to boot. The woman who is being groomed by the Democrats as the “Next Barack Obama” (NYTimes-Multiple source), apparently has more hypocrisy in her history besides claims to have begun the Occupy movement (Shades of Al Gore), and her fiasco of a claim that she was part Cherokee, to the extent that it appeared to have given her a job at Harvard. The list goes on and on – making her one of on the biggest shysters to come down the Massachusetts Turnpike (see Big Dig) in a long time.

The problem with Warren, is not so much her ideology , which as progressive as the President, and every college professor in Massachusetts (with few exceptions), Warren is the typical bongo drumming, down with capitalism, up with the people, taxes are great, share the wealth nonsense everyone in the Bay State is used to hearing – and for the most part ignoring. – Of course, not everyone buys into the Progressive Democrat ideology – with booksellers to bakers from the East Coast to the Western Hills, using the moniker for cities such as Amherst and the entire Bay State – as the “People’s Republic”. The difference between those die-hard, tie-died liberal progressive Democrats is that they are sincere in their belief structure, having of background of bongo drumming and the occasional protest against whatever strikes their fancy at the moment. Even criminal Speakers of the Massachusetts House are so transparent, that they are normally indicted – Massachusetts politicians maybe a lot of things, but for the most part, they are essentially honest and have a past, criminal or otherwise, to back that up.
However, the more we learn about Elizabeth Warren, the more it appears as if she’s taken advantage of the programs and the systems in a way that would make most EBT Fraudsters proud – and to top it off, has an excuse, or press release – handy whenever the next shoe bomb falls. All in all, the whole lying about being a Cherokee to get ahead, and get federal student loans, and into specific colleges, and into jobs, fairly commonplace – and not such a big deal, on the face of it – so Elizabeth Warren lack integrity. The fact that she’s flipped houses, for profit, and then goes on an “Occupy Wall Street Rant” – classic do as I say, not as I do elitist Progressive fare. However, she continues to offer these press releases stating that it’s overblown – seriously.

Warren who runs ads that do not tie her in any way to the Democrat Party, rather attempt to make her appear as independent as possible to Massachusetts voters – are so lacking in depth that no one east of the Boston Globe, the Herald and the Mass DNC knows who she is and what she is running for – a recent Democrat Convention held in Springfield, MA was underpublicized, except in a local daily, and a few blubs on local news – the bulk of all Warren stories, good or bad, are coming from out-of-state.

That strategy is not going to work for Massachusetts, assuming that one will get the vote simply because one has a “D” in front of their name, especially when the incumbent, even though a Republican, is one Scott Brown – popular. It’s rather hard to find anyone who doesn’t know who Brown is – but on the other hand, it’s difficult to find anyone who knows show Warren is – even down to the Cherokee Nation – and for Warren – she’s got too much fodder on the table now to try and play coy – she’s a carpetbagger from Oklahoma who has splaining' to do about her “dubious” past, and even that might not work. However, in order for the DNC plan of turning her into the next Barack Obama, so they can achieve another historic 1st (1st women President), they need a springboard, so they are using Massachusetts as a way to get Elizabeth some credence. They should back another horse, find another state, and go for it, leaving Warren to fare for her. It’s going to be a huge waste of money and comparable to the attempts of the SEIU and Wisconsin Democrats to topple Scott Walker in a recall.

Why? Brown broke the mold – not the mold as in now everyone who is a Republican will get elected (although there are a few house seats that are going to be extremely competitive and could give the Congress a few more Republicans), but the mold that puts people in a mindset of “vote Democrat if you’re a Democrat” - Independents, if one must be reminded are the majority “party” in MA, and they no longer care if someone is “a friend of Barack Obama’s” or “A Kennedy”. Therefore, stand up Elizabeth be proud of your hypocritical land-flipping, your claims of being on the “Trail of Tears” (sarcasm), and anything else that might come up – (the Herald is most likely saving the better skeletons for September and October) – and run for a statehouse seat. You could then get elected to the Speaker of the House (just as good a platform for a woman, historically, in Massachusetts, and just as lucrative a job opportunity!) If all else fails, after the indictments are handed down, Warren could enjoy a massive state pensions then take to the airwaves, as a talk show host – maybe grab a spot next to Carr’s on WRKO.

As a feminist, one must realize that not every woman who comes down the pike (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York just to name a few turnpikes), is worth the vote. One must be discriminatory, when looking for someone who would represent not only the people, but women in general – as a first of anything, or as a Senator or elected official. It is imperative that the credentials be almost squeaky clean – maybe a blur, but not to the point of continued “revelations” of character flaws. Why? Women have a hard time being taken seriously, still earning less on a dollar despite multiple attempts dating from JFK forward to enact “Equal Pay Laws”, maligned for everything from biological to fashionable, women themselves eat their own (See Hillary Clinton, most qualified candidate in the past decade for President, thrown under the bus, by alleged “feminists”), so why would a flawed candidate believe for one minute that they would be qualified to not only take on the Senate, but stand for all American women? The danger in electing Warren isn’t that she’s incompetent, or that she stretches the truth, or that she’s a Progressive who sits at Obama’s right hand and has become his biggest Romney attack dog – the danger is that should she be elected, she’ll be the one all women are judged against, especially in Massachusetts – making it impossible or implausible that another woman running, even a competent woman would be able to make the grade. Is it Warren’s fault? Not entirely, it’s the DNC and their failure to completely vet; their arrogance in thinking that anyone they choose to be the Next Barack will just be so elite, no one would dare question their choice. (The DNC isn’t the only major party with that problem – See Scott Brown early election with the RNC stayed out of the race until it became glaringly apparent that here was a race and he had a snowballs chance in Hades that he just might win and make history.)

To recap, Warren is a lovely woman, grandmotherly, sweet, in her ads, but a tool none-the-less of the DNC, she has made at least one glaring hypocritical error, and of course, figured out how to best the system by being “American Indian” – perhaps thinking no one would buy her being another “minority”. Due to the benign ads, no one has a clue that she’s a Democrat – which might play in her favor, except she’s unknown and Brown is known – for doing a lot and working for the state. He may have those who disagree with him, especially within his own party, but that’s a non-starter. When name recognition is a problem, something is wrong – and for Warren to get her name out there, she’ll have to bring all the baggage with her – then the PAC ads will begin – and that will be the end of it.

Although polls show this to be a close race, one must recall the Massachusetts polls of the past, specifically with Scott Brown, where he was the underdog, by upwards to 15 points, 3 days before he won by 5. In Massachusetts, when one is known to be doing their job, Democrat or Republican, people remember, and instead of voting just because someone is of a certain prominent party, or in support of ObamaCare (the TAX), or in support of “middle class families, losing their homes”, while having flipped houses, one will vote for the Devil the know – rather that the Devil that they don’t.
It’s that simple.

Massachusetts Governor’s Race 2010 Poll - Patrick: 29% Believe He Should Be Re-Elected – Mihos Beats Baker in Republican Primary (Again) – Analysis

Mihos-Patrick Matchup likely 2010 according to Recent Polls

A newly releasedpoll (marginal’s here) by Suffolk University is accompanied by the headline: “Patrick Leads Opponents Despite Negative Ratings”, however, the conclusion is a bit premature given the early nature of the race (primary is not set until Tuesday, September 14th, 2010), and the overall disapproval of the Governor’s job performance to date in that same poll.

In reviewing the marginals, the University, once again, polls 8% on campus, with the balance of the geographic areas of Massachusetts being either over represented or underrepresented (county by county census data) The sample of registered voters, once again, under represents the “unenrolled” – an ever growing portion of the electorate – currently approximately at 51% (based on Massachusetts Secretary of State Voter Registration as of 2008). Therefore, the poll, for all intents and purposes, is more entertainment at this juncture.

The Govenor, who only 29% of those polled believe should retain his seat, appears to have unusually high favorability ratings – 42% favorable/45% unfavorable and 11% undecided (1% never heard of him). Tim Cahill, Democrat turned Independent, 35% favorable, 12% unfavorable, 25% Undecided, 18% never heard of him. Republican, Charlie Baker, and fares poorly overall, 45% never heard of Baker, of those who have, 15% favorable, 11% unfavorable and 30% are undecided. The one populist candidate, running as a Republican, is Christy Mihos, 27% favorable, 23% unfavorable, 29% undecided, and 22% of those polled never heard of him.

Given this scenario and the fact that independents vote in the Massachusetts Primary (given enough interest in a given race, and one must understand that there is a great interest in the race), even among non-political junkies: Mihos would trounce Baker in the primary, leaving a three way race between Cahill, Mihos and the Incumbent, Patrick. Historically, the independent candidate does not fare well in Massachusetts, Mihos understands this quite well, running in 2006 in a three way match-up between Patrick and Kerry Healy, Mihos took 3% of the vote – Healy, weakened by the Republican brand, negative campaign ads, and lack of grassroots support, lost by over 21% To those in the state that blame Mihos for Healy’s loss, a basic math review may be in order.

Therefore, a race between Mihos and Patrick is likely – with Patrick most definitely (according to this poll) taking a loss. This is based on the pivotal question and result: Does Patrick deserve to be re-elected: a measly 29% of those polled (included 8% of university students/professors) believe that he does.

One has to understand that some polls are designed and commissioned in order to achieve results, which may be given to the press, which then broadcasts the “approved results”; never bothering to investigate the marginal’s where the real story lays. One of the most amusing aspects of this poll is a question: “Do you favor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts adding a recall vote where
citizens could remove an elected official when he or she is underperforming?” – the results: 54% yes, 38% no (the percentage of Democrats polled), with only 8% undecided on this issue. If that were, in fact, available to the state’s electorate, one would bet the house that many of those sitting on Beacon Hill would find themselves out on the street.

However, caution is in order, as again, it is still early in the season, with a primary almost a year away – but one can predict, given previous polls by Suffolk (marginals here) that the scenario of a Patrick /Mihos matchup would result.