Now why would Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) accept a $45,000 donation from the National Right to Life Committee? Actually, strike that. Why would the National Right to Life Committee spend $45,000 on mailers for an ostensibly pro-choice senator? After all, Sen. Brown’s constituents in Massachusetts support women’s reproductive choice and will not be impressed to learn that the National Right to Life Committee supports his candidacy. But it’s not the case that this anti-choice group is trying to harm Brown’s candidacy. They know that Scott Brown will vote for whomever Mitt Romney nominates to the Supreme Court and they suspect that Elizabeth Warren will not.
And there is a good basis for their point of view. Sen. Scott Brown co-sponsored the Blunt Amendment which would allow employers to deny women health care plans that cover contraception or abortion if they have some religious objection. He also says that he is a big admirer of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who is an ardent opponent of Roe v. Wade.
There was a time when I thought Scott Brown had a good idea how to win reelection. Those days are over. For some reason he thought that the strongest attack he could launch against his opponent is that she doesn’t look nearly as Native American as she claims to be. He even had his staffers out filming themselves making Indian war whoops and tomahawk chops in mockery of not only Elizabeth Warren but the very idea of civility and tolerance.
Then he suggested that a bunch of people who were supporting Elizabeth Warren in commercials were really paid actors when they were in fact people who had lost a family member to cancer caused by asbestos.
Then he started paying homeless black men to wear “Obama supporters for Brown” t-shirts. Then it turned out that one of the people who Brown used as a character witness had the following to say about about his college experience:
“I attended Brandeis,” he says underneath one photo. “Jew U. Great school. the people, not so much. One thing I learned is that Jews have a persecution complex and they hate themselves. That is why I believe they vote for liberals.”
He also called Elizabeth Warren a “douchebag” and the president “a Muslim.”
The truth is that Scott Brown had a chance to win reelection but he decided to act like a Rush Limbaugh wannabe instead of a moderate statesman. I have no idea why.
But it kind of reminds me of some of things I’ve seen elsewhere. For example, there’s Josh Mandel who is running to unseat Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). How can he think it is a good idea to embrace Richard Mourdock after he said that rape babies exist because God wants them to exist?
Or why does Wisconsin senate candidate Tommy Thompson think it is a good idea to brag about how well-qualified he is to destroy Medicare and Medicaid?
Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, and Sherrod Brown are probably going to be about the most progressive voices in the next Congress. And they have really stupid opponents to thank for that.
That is quite a mystery. But, at this stage in the game, it’s a welcome one. Maybe we’ll learn something later that will help explain matters.
Here’s another mystery: what the hell is going on in Michigan? Every poll I see there lately is neck-and-neck, with a fair amount of undecideds (like 5+%). I thought they hated Romney there.
It won’t be neck and neck. MI and PA are states constantly brought out by the concern trolls about how close the states are and how they’re in-play. And the trolls are always proven wrong.
Ugh, John Sunnunu at it again, someone needs to wrap this sumabitch around Romney’s freakin’ neck!
Romney Campaign Chair: Colin Powell Endorsed Obama Because He Is Black http://thkpr.gs/R43OJq via @thinkprogress
It may not be true and do a grave disservice to Colin Powell, but it makes sense from a Republican point of view given that they all support Romney because he is white…
Great post. All three of these races are just amazing to watch. It’s becoming epidemic among the R candidates. They and their advisers consume so much of their own bullshit propaganda (Fox, Rush, etc) that they think it’s representative of the views of the majority. Let’s hope this trend continues.
Been thinking the same thing. There has to be downside to living entirely within a wingnut virtual reality, and we may be finally seeing it.
I’ve been following NE, getting very interesting. Kerrey’s opponent teabagger Deb Fischer, sued some neighbors, an elderly couple who let her graze her cattle there for free, to get the elderly couple’s land. Cost the elderly couple $40,000 in legal fees to hold onto their land.
http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/ne-senator-12
here’s the first Kerrey ad,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it_Bfj0oKtQ&feature=related
there’s a second campaign ad, but also a lots of citizen statements about Fischer’s land grab on youtube because Fischer is running on her claim to have Nebraska values
Just seems impossible to me that Kerrey can pull it out, but who knows. He’d be worse than Ben Nelson but still better than anyone the GOP is offering.
Who knows how possible. He’s had strong debates and Deb Fischer is a) running on nothing b) in a box re: solving anything because of her tea party adherence. On what issues do you think Bob Kerrey be worse than Ben Nelson?
Well, it’s partly that Kerrey is the conservadem’s conservadem. He’d be the living version of the Bowles-Simpson plan… like the actual plan itself. Voted for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (although very bravely against DOMA on an 81-14 vote). Bad on the environment. Oddly respected on foreign policy even though he was basically just a clueless hawk. He abandoned his party and the state if Nebraska when he quit the Senate in 2001 and moved to New York, but there weren’t a lot of people sad to see him go, either. He got the job of President of the New School in New York, but they eventually rung him out on a rail too. He’s only moved back to Nebraska (and probably registered as a Democrat) now to run in this race. It’s sleazy.
But the main thing is that he’s also someone whom the MSM would absolutely cream themselves over. And he is really just a huge dick. He’d be the New Lieberman, especially because the old one is going kaput (can you believe that’s finally happening?). I’m just sick of these Blue Dog types tearing at the party from within. It damages the progressive agenda and turns off moderate voters who might otherwise lean Democratic.
But that’s the price of a big tent. And anyway, what am I saying? Kerrey would be annoying as hell, but he’d still be a reliable vote on judicial appointments. He also has some idiosyncratic Senatorial ticks of the old school, voting against DOMA as noted above, fought the flag-burning amendment (and he’s from Nebraska, remember). He’d help the party’s geographic profile. Of course I hope he wins. Don’t mean to be a downer on anything you may be contributing to the race – maybe he’ll get lucky.
Well, you shouldn’t believe all the bad press about him. He’s not “really just a huge dick”.
Maybe just a little dick then. A really little dick.
/snark
Some of us don’t need to read “bad press” to have formed an opinion of Bob Kerrey. We watched him at work when he held the seat before. Personally I’m indifferent on that race. It would be better to have his vote when it’s really needed than the vote of a real Republican, so maybe it would be good if he wins. But that’s about it.
That’s just silly and unworthy of you.
His previous terms was 20-12 years ago, pre Bush and many other things. ppl judge Bob Kerrey, that whatever he did in 1969, or in this instance, before 2000, is the last word on him – that he is unaffected by how his actions affected him, what has occurred subsequently and what he’s done subsequently is not considered pertinent. That’s a facile judgment, not really pertinent to what kind of senator he’d make in 2013
Errol, you’re probably right. If you like the guy, I should give him the benefit of the doubt. My memories of him are from long ago so who knows?
Bob might have his faults but Fischer is nuts.
Agree, but what in particular are you thinking of? I’ll say she probably couldn’t have done anything more contrary to Nebraska values than try to steal the land of an elderly couple who kindly let her graze her cattle for free on it.
from my reading (and I’m not well versed in this), her advantage was she was an unknown. He has strong positives and stong negatives. His recent ads are cutting into her positives.
Here is the other Ad
http://youtu.be/rTKFlcubJCo
The Senate has really been a consistent bright spot for Dems over past few months of electoral rollercoastering. Still hard to believe, but it’s true. And yes, we have plenty of GOP stupidity to thank for it.
At this point, of the contended Senate races I believe we will win OH, PA, CT, MA, MO(!!!), and WI.
I would’ve written off IN until Rapeygate Part II hit this week. Now, waiting for more polling, but I know a couple very sharp folks who’ve worked for Donnelly, and I think they will squeeze every ounce of advantage out of this.
The VA race is effectively tied but my gut tells me Kaine will beat Allen. They’re actually both pretty strong candidates, but it seems like a decent number of progressives have some kind of beef with Kaine that I don’t understand, and have underrated his candidate abilities as a result. No, George Allen will have his heart broken again and it will be a thing of beauty.
AZ, MT, NV, and ND are mysteries to me. Are Latino voters truly being undercounted in AZ and NV, and will their margins be enough to push Carmona and Berkeley over the top? I suspect Berkeley has a better chance, because I think we are going to whomp in NV (see today’s NYTimes article on the “Reid Machine” for further confirmation of this).
No idea with Tester and Heitkamp. But obviously I’d love to see them both win.
How many more post-2012 Senate seats would the GOP have were it not for the Tea Party? 6, 7, 8? What fools.
I had pretty much given up hope that Berkley could win until hearing about the very real possibility that Latinos are being under-represented in polling. Now I really think she has a chance. Same thing in AZ. There was a poll recently, that even got some discussion here, out of AZ where Carmona had a decent lead. When I read that poll’s full report, I noticed that they had done the polling in both English and Spanish.
That could be the difference and polling firms may learn alot from this. It baffles me that they would have ever polled any of the western states only in English, but it appears that may actually be the norm. While many Latino US citizens speak English well enough, it is likely that some wouldn’t want to do a multiple question, several-minute-long telephone poll in English.
Interesting, thanks. Always good to get your reports from Nevada. What do you think of Sandoval these days?
Sandoval is a very handsome and likeable guy. He doesn’t seem like a sleazy crooked politician and I haven’t noticed any indications that he is personally. Also, after ridding ourselves of that embarrassing fool Jim Gibbons as Governor, everyone is relieved.
Problem is, he’s a Republican and will, for the most part, follow the Republican agenda when the party expects him to do so. He’s doing himself no favors by so publicly endorsing Romney right now. He’ll be forgiven though.
If the Republicans are smart, they will scrub themselves clean of the Tea Party stench and highlight people like Sandoval as the future of their party. But I doubt they’ll be able to do it.
Sandoval is pretty quiet though. Sometimes I wonder if there’s a whole lot going on inside his head. But he must be reasonably bright, right? Not necessarily. I wonder if he could handle the national stage.
Three things.
You guys seem to believe that these TeaPublicans are actually politicians. Forget it. Among the other terrible things these guys have done is to promote the meme that politicians are all terrible, nogoodnicks who deserve to be sent to a lower hell than used car salesmen. Politics is what happens when more than 4 people try to live together. Politicians are the ones who do it without killing the other 3. TeaPublicans do not understand people. Most of them appear to score quite high on the sociopath scale of not having any empathy for others. They don’t understand that politics is not a zerosum game. They have no control over their mouth.
DADT. WAS. A. STEP. FORWARD. AT. THE. TIME. It has now become a bashing point because the reichwing has embraced it. When it was passed, it was the best that could be done. No one liked it, but it was better than what we had. And without it, WE WOULD NOT HAVE OPEN GAY SERVICE. These things take time. Civil rights for black people didn’t happen overnight in 1966. Without 1956 (Brown v. Board) the Civil Rights Act wouldn’t have happened.
John Kerry. At this point in time ANY Democrat is better than Any Republican. Except for Lieberman. ‘Cause he was always a Republican anyway.
Elected Tea Partiers might actually make people appreciate politicians.
That’s really an interesting post…… Eagerly waiting to find out the final results
http://www.samrx.com/