Skip to main content

Republican Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown smiles after his ceremonial swearing-in at the U.S. Capitol in Washington February 4, 2010.  REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque   (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS)
Senator John Kerry (D. MA) has been named by President Obama to be his new Secretary of State to replace Hillary Clinton.  I've heard a lot of people here both praise the idea because of Kerry's experience as the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.  I for one like and trust Senator Kerry and believe him to be an excellent pick.  I liked Susan Rice a lot too and was getting sick and tired of the Republicans bullying her during the questioning.  Now I've also heard a lot of people in this community object to the idea of Kerry being Secretary of State because many people fear that it could open the door for this clown to return:

Now that everyone is buzzing about Susan Rice's decision to withdraw from consideration as secretary of State, there's a quote from Sen. Scott Brown's farewell speech that will get parsed quite a bit in coming days.
Why? Because Sen. John Kerry is emerging as a top contender for the Cabinet post and if he leaves the Senate that would give Brown, who was defeated last month, an opening to return. - USA Today, 12/13/12
Brown's farewell speech on the Senate floor highlighted his achievements in the Senate and also set the tone that we may not be seeing or hearing the last of him:

“As I’ve said many times before, victory and defeat is temporary,” he told colleagues. “Depending on what happens, and where we go, all of us, we may obviously meet again.” - Boston Globe, 12/12/12
Now here's the part of Brown's farewell speech that is going to make you laugh/vomit:
SENTINEL & ENTERPRISE / BRETT CRAWFORD.Senator Scott Brown speaks at the Wachusett Village Inn in Westminster at an event put on by the North Central Mass Chamber of Commerce, Tuesday morning.
“I have been and still am deeply concerned about the lack of bipartisan efforts to solve our country’s most pressing economic challenges,” Brown said. “Many times, political party and personal gain is put before the needs of our country.” - Boston Globe, 12/12/12
Cue Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D. NV):

"I saw during the campaign his plea for bipartisanship. That is a big joke. It's a travesty," Reid told reporters. "He was one of the most partisan people that's ever served here."

"He could have saved Citizens United," Reid said, referring to a bill that would have required corporations to disclose their independent-group spending on elections. "He could have been the 60th vote on that and many other things. So I don't need a lecture from him on bipartisanship. He should go look in the mirror." - Huffington Post, 11/14/12

I know we're all worried about Brown running again.  Despite getting his ass handed to him by incoming Senator Elizabeth Warren (D. MA), Brown still has a decent approval numbers and of course there are people in Massachusetts who are naive enough to believe that he is this bipartisan, moderate Independent voice who bucks his own party every now and then.  A lot of these claims can be easily debunked but here's an interesting fact about Scott Brown that will certainly come up if he actually runs again:

Lame duck U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) is the leading recipient of campaign donations from the gun lobby according to a review of data published by - a resource for reviewing federal campaign contributions, lobbying data and analysis.

GoLocal reviewed both the 2010 and 2012 election cycles and found that Senator Brown raised for more gun lobby-related funds than any other member of the United States Senate.

In the 2010 election cycle his $23,000 plus gun lobby donations was second only to US Senator David Vitters' $25,953. And, in 2010 election cycle, Brown lead the U.S. Senate candidates with $30,275. - Go Local Worcester, 12/15/12

Brown's long pro-gun record became a big campaign issue in the Massachusetts Senate race after the Aurora movie theater shooting happened:

While Warren has only recent­ly voiced her positions on gun rights, Brown has a 12-year record in the Massachusetts House and Senate, in addition to his 2½ years in the US Senate.
Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass. listens during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012, to discuss the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK.  (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
In the Legislature, Brown was a reliable vote for gun rights, with one major exception. He supported the state version of an assault weapons ban. But several of his votes earned top marks from gun rights groups, including an A-plus in 2008 from the Gun Owners’ Action League. Among them was a vote against a 2004 measure that sought to ban ­assault weapons manufactured prior to 1994. While serving as a state representative in 2002, he sided with a number of Democrats in allowing residents who had certain felony convictions to get gun licenses after seven years. -, 7/27/12
Now to his credit, Brown did vote against the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act:
But last year, Brown broke with The National Rifle Association, which supported him in the 2010 special election with $59,000 in contributions, to ­oppose a bill that has been the gun rights lobby’s top priority in Washington.

Known as the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, it would allow gun owners with permits from their own states to carry concealed weapons across state lines, regardless of local and state restrictions. Brown said he would vote against granting that permission. Warren, too, opposes the measure. -, 7/27/12

However, Brown was and still is against renewing  a federal ban on 19 types of military-style assault weapons that expired in 2004:

‘‘Scott Brown supports the state assault weapons ban here in Massachusetts, and believes that the states are the appropriate venue for making these types of decisions,’’ a spokeswoman for Brown said in a statement. - Boston Globe, 7/24/12
I'm going to let Boston Mayor Tom Menino (D) explain why making gun control a decision to be made by the states is a bad idea:

In the state Senate, Brown did support the Massachusetts ban on assault weapons but there's a catch:

While Brown supported the extension of the ban, he also opposed — and the state Senate ultimately rejected — an attempt to close what critics described as a ‘‘loophole’’ in the original law that allowed the sale and transfer of assault weapons owned prior to 1994. - Boston Globe, 7/24/12
For Brown, gun control, like a woman's right to choose, is an issue where he tries to have his cake and eat it.  He'll gladly take the gun lobby's money and do most of their bidding but then tries to make himself look like a common sense moderate by voting for gun control legislation with loopholes hoping no one will notice.  Well pro-gun control groups have noticed Brown's posturing on the issue, especially during the 2012 campaign:
“This is not an issue I think he necessarily has a principled stand on,” said Ladd Everitt, ­director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a group in Washington supporting gun control.
“Scott Brown is absolutely part of the problem,” Josh Rosenthal, founder of the Massachusetts-based Stop Handgun Violence said. “It’s beyond me how he could think that its OK for Al Qaeda and domestic criminals to buy assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, cash and carry, in 33 states.” -, 7/27/12
Gun control is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed, especially after the most recent tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.  President Obama recently made a terrific speech in Connecticut calling for an end to these tragedies:
“We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can't be an excuse for inaction surely we can do better than this. If there's even one step we can take to save another child or another parent or another town from the grief that's visited Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try. - President Barack Obama (D) 12/16/12
During the 2012 campaign, Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren made a strong argument for gun control:
“There is a huge difference between the guns of a sportsman or homeowner and high-powered assault weapons with 100-cartridge magazines,” she said. “I grew up around guns and gun owners, and I will work to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. But the law must reflect the reality that, in the wrong hands, guns can be used for violent crimes, disrupting communities and making families and neighborhoods less safe.” -, 7/27/12
If Brown makes a come back bid for the U.S. Senate, he needs to answer for his positions on not wanting to renew the federal ban on assault weapons.  He has to be held accountable for his votes.  This needs to be a key issue in a potential special election.  Sure, Brown will try to accuse whoever his opponent will be of politicizing a tragedy and he'll emphasize his endorsement from staunch gun control supporter, Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I. NY):

“The biggest reason the mayor is supporting Senator Brown is the senator’s help on one of our biggest gun issues: opposing concealed-carry reciprocity that would let people with gun permits from rural states like Arkansas and Kentucky carry hidden handguns in New York City,” Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser told the New York Times. - Raw Story, 7/26/12
But even Bloomberg's support of Brown couldn't his this fact:
But Capital New York notes that Brown had an ‘A’ rating from the National Rifle Association in 2010. While Brown supported a state assault weapons ban, he opposed similar legislation at the federal level. Warren, his opponent, supports a federal ban on assault weapons. - Raw Story, 7/26/12
It's understandable that there are many people here in this community are worried about Brown making a comeback.  They're worried that a repeat of the 2010 special election could happen but Aaron Blake, David Weigel and Mike Lux put some things perspective:

But it’s hard to call Brown anything close to a favorite. After all, this is Massachusetts, and the environment from his 2010 special election (held during the heat of the health care battle) will be very hard to replicate — lackluster opponent, mobilized conservatives, etc.

In fact, the environment today and the American people themselves are much more favorably disposed toward the Democratic Party and President Obama.

In addition, while Brown remains in good standing with voters even after his loss, some polls show he isn’t quite as popular as he once was. And for a Republican in Massachusetts, you need to be pretty damn popular to win. - Aaron Blake for Washington Post, 12/14/12
In June 2011, Brown led any potential Democratic opponent by nine to 25 points. He led Warren by 15 points.
We know what happened next. Brown's favorables sagged a little, but his job approval sagged more, as he struggled to remain credibly "non-partisan." The lowlight came at one debate, where he blurted out that his ideal Supreme Court justice was Antonin Scalia, then -- as a crowd booed -- started naming less-conservative justices. It was like watching a husband accidentally call his wife fat, then name a bunch of things he liked about her outfit. As much as Massachusetts tolerated Brown, its voters really didn't want a Republican taking up a Senate seat and moving Mitch McConnell closer to control. - David Weigel for Slate, 12/14/12
Who lost to Elizabeth Warren by the same margin that William Weld lost to John Kerry?
Scott Brown. Weld and Brown both lost by approximately 7.48 points, but Weld was going up against a popular two-term incumbent, whereas Brown was the incumbent facing a first-time political candidate. For all the talk about his special campaign skills and positioning, nothing in the results was very special. - Mike Lux for Huffington Post, 12/14/12
Lux also points out that Brown was the only Senate incumbent to lose this past election.  Plus Brown's momentum in the 2010 Special Election only gained steam towards the very end and Brown lost to Warren by 7.5 points whereas Tea Party extremist Richard Mourdock (R. IN) lost to newly elected-Senator Joe Donnelly (D. IN) by 5.5 points:
Time and again during the 2012 election, Brown showed that he is dangerously out of step with the people of Massachusetts and more in line with the Tea Party supporters who helped him win back in 2010. Opposing the Buffett Rule, supporting tax cuts for the wealthy, backing the Blunt Amendment to limit people's access to contraception and health care -- Scott Brown dug in on each of these positions and has shown no sign of changing during the lame duck session in Congress. - Mike Lux for Huffington Post, 12/14/12
I don't doubt that Brown will make another attempt for a higher elected office.  Whether it's for the U.S. Senate or the Massachusetts Governorship and yes, voters can have short memories.  But the beauty of living in a highly social media society where everything is recorded is you can easily remind voters of who the real Scott Brown truly is: a gun loving, Tea Party shill bought and paid for by Wall Street and the Koch Brothers.  We can certainly beat Scott Brown or even former Governor Bill Weld (R) but only if we heed David Weigel's advice:
In 2010, Martha Coakley's untested popularity was enough to scare most Democrats out of a primary. There were three members of the House delegation ambitious enough to think about the seat; only one, Rep. Mike Capuano, went for it. I see two possible screw-ups for Democrats in 2013: A dogpile that creates an expensive primary, or an appointed senator who runs and gets primaried. Brown and Warren cut a deal that prevented outside money from entering the state, and if Brown ran again without that deal, you could see listless Super PACs pouring in on his behalf. But you need an awful lot to go right for Brown in order for him to win. - David Weigel for Slate, 12/14/12
I think Massachusetts Democrats will learn from their mistakes and are prepared to face off against Brown again.  Losing that special election was a real wake up call to the Democratic Party that even on our home turf, you can't just easily win any election because you have a "D" at the end of your name.  We not only learned that from the 2010 Special Election, but also from the 2012 Connecticut Senate Race where Linda McMahon turned out to be a little more competitive this time around against newly-elected Senator Chris Murphy (D) than she was back in 2010 against current Senator Richard Blumenthal (D).  Grant it, Murphy made his mistakes along the campaign trail but he bounced back by making his case loud and clear and by exposing McMahon as the anti-woman, corporate shill that she truly is.  These two races have helped Democrats become stronger campaigners and much better and make are cases clear and concise.  

So Scott Brown, if you want to take another crack at getting elected to the U.S. Senate, go right ahead.  We have a very big and great bench with candidates ranging from Mike Capuano to Ed Markey to Joe Kennedy III, just to name a few.  Brown only helped us Democrats become more unified and a united party helps keep the bad guys like Brown out of the Senate and good guys and gals like Elizabeth Warren to victory.  I'm ready if this special election takes place and so are Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats:

"We feel very comfortable -- if, in fact, something does happen -- we feel comfortable about Massachusetts," Reid said. "I think that I've already told you how I feel about Scott Brown." - Huffington Post, 11/14/12

Originally posted to pdc on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:24 AM PST.

Also republished by Massachusetts Kosmopolitans.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    Funny Stuff at

    by poopdogcomedy on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:24:59 AM PST

  •  we will be ready (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv, bumbi, PeteZerria, dkosdan, JBraden

    ed markey will be ready

    vicki kennedy will be ready etc

  •  What will the process be? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bumbi, dkosdan

    If Kerry is appointed to SoS, can Deval Patrick appoint an interim Senator until a special election can be held (i.e., following the 2010 model)?  

    Would it be necessary for Patrick to appoint a non-candidate (as Paul Kirk was)?  

    One of the problems with 2010 was that Democrats were too complacent (nothing new), but with the Scott Brown fiasco on everyone's minds, that might be different this time around.  And especially with guns on people's minds, Brown will have another big strike against him for a large majority of voters, if only they can be convinced to care enough to vote.  

    •  IMO In addition to some Democratic voter (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eikyu Saha, dkosdan

      apathy issues in the last special election, Martha Coakley was a poor candidate.

      "I'm totally pro-choice in the matter of abortion. But of course I'm also so radically pro-life that I think every person from birth onward must have full and affordable access to healthcare." - Gail Collins

      by gritsngumbo on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:24:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's your diary, but I'm curious as to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madhaus, dkosdan

    why you found it necessary to include so many pictures of this jerk-face. We all know what he looks like, doesn't seem to add anything to the conversation.

    "I'm totally pro-choice in the matter of abortion. But of course I'm also so radically pro-life that I think every person from birth onward must have full and affordable access to healthcare." - Gail Collins

    by gritsngumbo on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:21:31 AM PST

    •  I agree, as the pictures don't support the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      message that he's a compromised candidate (too extreme, unpopular financial supporters, and that 2010 was the exception).  Most of the pix are reasonably flattering and their cumulative effect seems to be selling him as a candidate.

    •  I personally like to add visual appeal to my (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dkosdan, JBraden

      diaries plus I like to add the face to every claim and action of the politicians I write about.  Plus when people see an image of Scott Brown, I want the first thing that pops in their head to be "paid for by the NRA."

      Funny Stuff at

      by poopdogcomedy on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:42:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I also don't like losing Kerry's seniority (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fenway49, dkosdan

    There are certain advantages to having seniority in the Senate, and I think Massachusetts is going to lose that with two newer senators.  

    And am I the only who's tired of elections and special elections?  I think many of my fellow Bay Staters are.

    -7.13, -6.97 Facts matter. Vice President Joe Biden 10/11/12

    by klamothe on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:10:06 AM PST

  •  Everyone will be ready (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Won't be caught napping like when he first won. But I read Mike Lux's piece and think it's flat wrong. Brown will be a formidable challenge. Plenty of independents (not enrolled in any party) adore him and eat up the bipartisan stuff. These are generally folks who don't follow politics closely.

    In a special election, we'll be hard-pressed to match the level of turnout - especially in Democratic strongholds - we just had in 2012, with the Presidential race on the ballot. I do not think you can take 2012 as a barometer of how the special election would go.

    Some people have suggested 46% is Brown's ceiling; it may be his floor. The 2012 election was the worst combination of factors for Brown (presidential year, GOP standard bearer we know and hate in Mass., progressive rock star opponent with big funding). A 2013 special election will be the best combination for him. With Patrick out, no Dem has statewide name recognition. Unlike 2012, there's precious little time to build it, and no DNC to speak at, no Obama coattails.

    To keep this jackass out of the Senate longer than 6 months we will need a strong candidate and hard work to turn out Democratic votes.

    Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

    by fenway49 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:50:22 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site