Skip to main content

View Diary: DK Elections Daily Digest: 5/3 (343 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Regarding Scott Brown (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karenc, gabjoh

    as one wag put it: "Send in the Lawyers!"

    It's getting exactly that kind of play here: "stunt", "engandering fellow real soldiers", "special treatment", etc.

    He really is an ass.

    •  So it's actually biting him? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wwmiv, gabjoh

      Political Director, Daily Kos

      by David Nir on Tue May 03, 2011 at 07:51:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think so... (0+ / 0-)

        judging from comments that were left on the Boston.com (The Globe's website).  His supporters usually rally to his defense on The Globe's site especially, and my casual observation is that they had little to say.

        In a casual conversation at my town's annual town meeting last night (my town voted for Brown),  there were a few people that tried to defend his going, but even they laughed at some of the jokes about his quest for a campaign ribbon for lawyering.

        •  Huh (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gabjoh

          Well, this heartens me. (And I like your use of the Boston.com comments section as a temperature gauge - but wow, you must have a seriously cast-iron stomach to look at all that!) I figured noble Scott Brown's noble service was too noble to ever be questioned... but it's nice to be proven wrong about something like this.

          Political Director, Daily Kos

          by David Nir on Tue May 03, 2011 at 08:30:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The comments section of my paper (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            David Nir

            makes me want to cry, laugh, and punch a wall all at once.  I'd go with cast-diamond stomach.

            And I always can't help but wonder; if they read the newspaper, why can't they respond to it intelligently?  Are they even reading it?  I mean, you need to have a whole name and password to get to comment, that should be enough of a filter for people who just check one article once a month.  It's a paradox.

            •  My (conspiracy) theory (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, lalo456987

              is that some conservative groups are targeting sites--not like this one, but more general ones like Politico--as a way to shape opinion. Having an actual human write all of those comments might be time consuming and pointless, but why can't some Koch Brother-like shadow group use a Ron Paul-like spambot program to comment every time Jon Tester or Claire McCaskill is brought up, if the technology allows this to happen? If it shapes the narrative even slightly, it'd probably be worth it, in their minds at least.

              I've told you something along these lines before, but every so often, I think it might actually be true.

      •  If people are really as cynical about all things (0+ / 0-)

        politics. Then this seems like the perfect thing to be cynical about. He's a a freaking sitting United States Senator.

        19, Chairman of the SSP Gay Caucus, male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

        by ndrwmls10 on Tue May 03, 2011 at 08:15:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think this is, yet, but (0+ / 0-)

        the LWV is running a very effective ad highlighting Brown's vote against the EPA's clean air and water standards.

        Brown's party-line support for pro-business, anti-everyone else Republican causes will hurt him a lot more than the Afghanistan posting.

    •  His timing was also unbelievably tone deaf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      4jkb4ia

      The story first came out yesterday morning when the story of the day (week ?) was Obama getting OBL.

      The first mention was a Boston Globe article, where he was so coy with the reporter that it was not clear if he had deployment orders or if it was even a mission.  They later rewrote the article when he put out his statement that he was REQUESTING to go to Afghanistan for his training.

      Here was a quote I posted elsewhere from the original article:

      Senator Scott Brown said this morning that he is being sent to Afghanistan, but the member of the Massachusetts National Guard would not say if he is being formally deployed.

      “I will put out a statement later about my involvement," Brown told The Boston Globe in a brief telephone interview. "I’m going to be going over at some point to do some missions.”

      Asked if he were being deployed, the Army lieutenant colonel said, "I didn't say that."

      Here is the link to the updated article - http://www.boston.com/...=

      My reaction as a partisan was that this was completely weird and not thought out.  In addition to the impact on the people he would join, it is not clear what he is trying to do. As a Senator, it is just as impossible for him to really experience what a member f the guard deployed there does.

      In the first place he is there for just two weeks. In the second place, he will not be treated as a regular person, he will be protected and will have access to Afghan leaders and US and NATO military people - even though he will not be there officially as a Senator.

      This kind of would make him neither fish or fowl. It would make far more sense for him to go to Afghanistan with more experienced Senators as part of a Congressional delegation for either the Armed Services Committee or the Homeland Security committee (  under which he took a one man trip to Israel.)

      I also think that if he tries to use those 2 weeks by saying he experienced combat, there will be blow back. With the Boston Globe's help, he has had HUGE coverage as a 30 plus year MA NG officer. He has often spoken of "military experience". He clearly runs the risk of having people say that he exaggerated - as  Kirk (and Blumenthal) did.  (Particularly in a state where some Republicans still claim that a highly decorated vet, who actually rarely spoke of medals - just serving has been attacked  as exaggerating. )

      I suspect this makes Brown look silly, opportunistic, and incredibly self obsessed.

      I think the timing was that he reacted to what likely was a huge increase in the likelihood that Obama will win Massachusetts in a huge landslide possibly pulling in a Democrat on his coattails.

      Oddly, this and the over the top anger that the League of Women Voters's ad on his supporting McConnell's amendment to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases might destroy the view of him as a nice, down to earth guy - because he is certainly not acting like one.

    •  I cant fault Brown for wanting to serve.... (0+ / 0-)

      after all so many don't.

      Brown was in the National Guard long before he won his senate seat so its not like he joined for the politics of it.

      IMHO he's really in a no win situation here.

      The Globe is critizing him for going to Afghanistan for political benefit, but if he asked not to go to Afghanistan because he's a senator and "could create additional risk for the troops serving with him" he would be criticized for shirking his duty and getting preferential treatment as a Senator.

      In the  end I think this line of attack against Scott Brown will meet with as much success as Coakley's criticism of him for  wasting his time standing outside Fenway Park, in the cold, shaking hands! In as strong a Blue state as MA is its better to stick to the issues when going after Brown. If 2012 becomes a personality contest again Brown will get re-elected easily.

      Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info: http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com/refer/getfreestuff

      by izengabe on Tue May 03, 2011 at 10:01:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He requested to go to Afghanistan. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jncca

        They were not going to send him there for training nor should they. Lindsey Graham did the same thing in 2008. It's not a safe situations for the troops that are around these high profile politicians.

        19, Chairman DKElections Gay Caucus, male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)

        by ndrwmls10 on Tue May 03, 2011 at 10:29:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site