an incredibly boneheaded pick . . .
The Scott Brown Vision for the GOP. Note what’s leading the way.
The headliner for the Scott County Republican Reagan Dinner (SCRCC) will be none other than former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, someone who very recently mused on national television that he was “not sure” about the answer to “Would President Reagan be called a ‘RINO” — a ‘Republican in Name Only’?” Great line to endear the conservative base.
In the same editorial commenting as guest host on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor on August 23rd, Brown said that the GOP needs to be a “bigger tent party.” He wailed against what he termed the politics that puts “personal interests ahead of the country” without distinction as to perpetrator — clearly implying conservatives who want to stop the growth of government are just as guilty as Democrats for the state of the country.
So according to Brown, as subtly as his teleprompter would allow, cue the angst, voting conservative, is putting personal interests ahead of the country, but so called moderates are by definition the epitome of reasonableness, selflessness and good intentions? His condescension out of the box is at least as thick as the frequently off putting O’Reilly.
In truth big government has gotten so out of hand that as Republicans, you either believe in limited government, in returning to our constitutional roots, . . . or bastardized policy that is usually about protecting one’s sinecures and that of special interests. Compromising with Democrats when you do not have to, being “more than willing to do so” when they are damaging the economy and the culture, often means you are advocating boarding a boat to oblivion and helping with the rowing. Sorry Scottie, your way is no paragon of political virtue.
The time is critical for serious change to avert us from the precipice, and articulate spokesman and leaders to bring that about. You do not get that with the likes of Scott Brown essentially preaching for accommodation as the premier political virtue. It is an incredibly boneheaded pick by the leadership of Scott County as far as an effort to encourage the base to trust them on matters of principle.
What is needed is a return to serious Reaganism, not Brown’s superficial characterization of Reagan’s political approach, in a self-serving effort to don a cloak of alleged Reaganism. Brown, with his political demeanor, wouldn’t hold the coat for the true conservative fighters like Reagan. Jeffrey Lord writing at the American Spectator has a devastating rebuttal to Brown’s “Talking Points” memo. By the way, it is by someone who actually knew Reagan, serving as Reagan’s White House Political Director.
About Scott Brown:
According to Boris Shor, PhD, a University of Chicago political science professor, analyzing Brown’s voting record in the Massachusetts legislature with a sophisticated scoring methodology, had this to report:
Brown’s score puts him at the 34th percentile of his party in Massachusetts over the 1995-2006 time period. In other words, two thirds of other Massachusetts Republican state legislators were more conservative than he was. This is evidence for my claim that he’s a liberal even in his own party. What’s remarkable about this is the fact that Massachusetts Republicans are the most, or nearly the most, liberal Republicans in the entire country!
Regarding Brown’s record in the U.S. Senate — (upchuck alert) — he was a sandwich for the Maine twins.
Michael Levenson reporting in the Boston Globe:
Senator Scott Brown has a new piece of evidence to bolster his argument that he is more than willing to cross party lines in the Senate.
Brown, a Republican who is locked in a tough reelection battle with Democrat Elizabeth Warren, is pointing to an analysis that found that, when the parties have split in the Senate, he has voted with Democrats 53 percent of the time since January 2011.*
The analysis, based on data from Bloomberg Government, is just one of several surveys that have attempted to quantify how frequently Brown and others cross the aisle.
The review compared every vote in the 112th Congress when a majority of one party voted one way and a majority of the other party voted the other way. Bloomberg calls these “party unity votes” and they include parliamentary motions and legislative proposals where a majority of each parties’ members disagree. Votes that a member missed were not included in the calculation.
The analysis found that Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, crossed party lines most frequently and voted with Democrats 55 percent of the time. Brown, who voted with Democrats 53 percent of the time, was second on the list, followed by Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, who sided with Democrats 47 percent of the time . . .
Scott Brown could not even hold Romney’s coat in a bid to appeal nationally to conservatives. From the AP via Huffington Post: Mitt Romney, Scott Brown Differ On Key Issues
Among the differences: Abortion (Brown is pro-choice); Gay Marriage (Brown opposes a Constitutional Amendment protecting traditional marriage and evaded a position on DOMA); Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, (Brown supported repeal of what was the last vestige of tradition); Nuclear Arms treaty (Brown voted with the Democrats); Financial Overhaul (Brown voted with the Democrats, irritating John McCain of all people).
And Brown’s approach to bipartisanship includes undercutting Republican hold cards, literally. As the ABC news blog site reported: Scott Brown Votes With Democrats Again On Cloture.
How Do These Speaker Choices Come About?
Where is the open book as to the selection process? We know that Brian Kennedy is Finance Chair of SCRCC, and chairs the Lincoln Club, a fund raising adjunct to the SCRCC, which lends its name to the event. Kennedy is a political consultant and lobbyist. Perhaps ’nuff said.
Nevertheless we would love to see posted timely minutes and all communication relating to the selection, the discussion, the invites, the turn downs Heck we would like to see timely posting of Executive Committee minutes, not to mention quarterly CC minutes. None of which are usefully or conveniently made available to CC members. Certainly not on a timely basis. More on that later.
We are wondering if the “process” would include inquiries to how many of the following well known conservative Republican speakers, among others:
Allan West (Isn’t SCRCC engaged in an outreach to Americans of color and ethnicity?)
Ted Cruz (ditto)
Tom Cotton
Just about any representative from Heritage Action
Louie Gohmert
Mike Lee
Jason Chaffetz
Rand Paul
Ben Carson
Gary Bauer
Just a very few off the top of our head. All of the above have extensive on-camera communication experience. They are “go to” people for defense of conservative principles. Scott Brown . . . not so much.
We could go on and on listing politicians and leaders of political and policy organizations of national scope and influence that would likely love to address a SCRCC convocation. Individuals who could encourage with authenticity grass roots support from the conservative base in order to help elect Republicans. R Mall
* Words in bold are the author’s, bold emphasis is ours.
He brings literally nothing to this event at all. The only speaker that could have been a bigger insult is Jon Huntsman.
Brown is not coming primarily to raise money for SCRCC. He is coming primarily to further his own political ID. OK nothing new there from any perspevtive. However he was picked not for availability or name ID as much as his message. As superficial a message as the thinking of the people that authorized him. There is just no question that conservative high-profile political personages would be available with little or no accommodation. Rather than convince people that the country needs a new way, the SCRCC leadership are offering up a personification of more of the same.
You cannot be a fiscal conservative and social liberal (the former never really are anyway). The fiscal conservatives have to tax to pay for their social liberalism. Social issues drive fiscal issues. The welfare state, state control of medicine, are creatures of social breakdown and really bad economic understanding.
People keep asking
Why Scott Brown as the Keynote speaker?
Simple, no money for security
Excellent analysis, Roger. The selection of Scott Brown would seem to be very much in keeping with the “mission” of the SCRCC, whatever it is. As a casual observer of that organization, I am curious as to what public stands (you know…something you might see in the paper?) it has taken on the critical issues…or has it taken any stands…or, if it has, how effectively have they been communicated? Spoken out on Syria? on Obamacare? on the Senate’s immigration/amnesty bill? on upcoming debt ceiling debate? on Obama’s ongoing government-by-executive-order and selective enforcement of laws? Benghazi/ IRS “phony scandal”/ Eric Holder’s war on red states? What exactly is the message that the various “outreach” committees are delivering? Maybe Scott Brown will deliver the Central Committee’s message…ya think?
Incidentally, I would add Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann to the list of conservatives that the SCRCC could have invited (don’t mean to upset some of Veritaspac’s anti- Bachmann commenters.)