As Rachel explained last night, "Something weird is going on with Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts." As we discussed yesterday, Brown and his campaign team have been highly reluctant to debate Democrat Elizabeth Warren, and announced this week that the senator would only participate in a Kennedy Institute event if Brown's demands were met.
And what were the demands? There were two: (1) MSNBC could not air the debate and (2) Vicki Kennedy, the late senator's widow, had to agree not to endorse Warren, even after the debate.
The first condition was easy to meet -- MSNBC had not even been approached about airing the event -- but Vicki Kennedy didn't see the need to be muzzled by the Republican lawmaker. It led Brown to reject the debate yesterday.
Senator Scott Brown [Tuesday] rejected a debate proposed by Victoria Reggie Kennedy, after the widow of Senator Edward M. Kennedy refused his precondition that she not endorse a candidate in his reelection campaign against Democrat Elizabeth Warren. [...]
In a letter today to Brown and Warren, Lisa McBirney, chief operating officer of the Kennedy Institute, and Christopher Hogan, chief of staff in the chancellor's office at UMass Boston, the other debate co-sponsor, made clear that Vicki Kennedy would not relinquish her right to endorse in the race.
"Given the goodwill and understanding of the nonpartisan mission of the institute that Senator Brown has thus far shown, it seems inconsistent that he would now attempt to restrict the activities of Mrs. Kennedy as a condition of accepting a debate that is co-sponsored by an organization with which she is affiliated," McBirney and Hogan wrote.
Remember, the Kennedy Institute also co-sponsored a debate in the 2010 Senate race, which Brown won, and which Brown participated in without trying to silence the late senator's widow. What's more, Vicki Kennedy wouldn't be a part of the debate itself, which would have been moderated by Tom Brokaw.
Indeed, the larger point is that this sitting senator, in the middle of an election year, thought it'd be a good idea to try to muzzle the late senator's widow, and then refused to attend a debate after she reserved the right to speak. As Rachel asked last night, "What is going on with Scott Brown? What is wrong with Scott Brown?"
Those need not be rhetorical questions.
Certainly, it's deeply strange that Brown is afraid of televised debates that he wants to silence Vicki Kennedy. But let's not forget that the senator's recent troubles go much further. Rachel noted in last night's segment, for example, that he falsely accused her of launching a campaign against him. For proof, the Republican pointed to ... nothing at all.
But we can go further. During a debate on Wall Street safeguards, Brown opposed the legislation, but couldn't say why. When he was asked what kind of changes he'd like to see to the bill, Brown asked a reporter, "Well, what areas do you think should be fixed?"
Around that time, a deranged man crashed a small plane into an office building in Austin, Texas. Brown said the incident reminded him of his own campaign.
Last year, he also looked deeply foolish falling for an Internet hoax on a photo of Osama bin Laden. A writer for the conservative Boston Herald went so far as to call Brown "Dan Quayle in a barncoat" after he decided to engage in a pointless feud with the non-partisan League of Women Voters.
And now Scott Brown wants to muzzle Ted Kennedy's widow. What strategic genius at Brown Campaign HQ thought this was a good idea?
Leave a Comment:
To prove that he is the real man in the race, Brown will take off his pants.
What tremendously odd requests by the Brown campaign.
Clearly, the Right fears actual discussion with the Left and puts ideology before democracy.
Clearly Scott Brown is afraid of Elizabeth Warren. Terrified I'd say.
Scott Brown is one of the two Senators for Massachusetts.
As such he represents all of the citizens of his state, including Vicki Kennedy.
Right?
He appears to be treating her as a political enemy.
This provides a clue about what he thinks of other citizens of his state that did not vote for him or are not likely to support him.
GOP senators and representatives only represent their Republican constituents. It's party before the people.
.
maphi ... Your comment reflects exactly what Scott Brown has to offer the people of Massachusetts: nothing.
Scott Brown = coward. Guess he needs a "Dorothy" to find him courage. Might not hurt to have her find him a brain and heart, while she's at it.
He is using the same philosophy that Romney is using - the less you hear about me or know about me and the fewer policy positions or ideas I come up with, the better my chances for re-election (in Romney's case it is about being visible, but not saying anything of substance). He sees the momentum building for Warren (possibly voters remorse from 2010), and is doing everything he can to not let himself get steamrolled. This stance will allow him to go on Fox News and claim that he is fighting the "liberal media" who are just trying to tar and feather him.
Another day, another episode of Republican head-scratching stupidity and obnoxiousness that simply could not be predicted. Seriously, who comes up with this stuff? What will it be tomorrow?
And at least 50% of your fellow citizens will go into the booth in November and choose the elephants. I still simply don't believe the devolution of this country.
I am so loving you right now.. :>)
The people of Massachusetts are usually a few steps ahead of the rest of the country in terms of political awareness and savvy. Let's hope they are once again this year.
Voters are not going to buy the kind of bizarre and sleazy attacks made on Elizabeth Warren by Scott Brown and Karl rove. The Tea Party scored a shocker in Massachusetts last time, but Brown and his right-wing crew don't understand that state at all, embracing ultra-conservative positions that are deeply unpopular. Their slim chances to beat Warren are evident in the desperate attempts to smear her in such an outlandish fashion. Brown can't run on the issues, so he condescendingly questions all aspects of her personal life. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Brown and Warren are tied in the polls. It's time to face up to the reality of this country and its citizens. At least 50% of voters are buying the toxic content Republicans are selling.
It's actually the Democrats that are being the dumbest. As a result of assuming people aren't going to be taken in by the transparent lies and propaganda, they are sitting on their hands while the Republicans set up their coup. People certainly will go for the Republican nonsense, the Republicans know it, and they will use it. And those who think it wouldn't happen will watch with mouths agape as the Republicans, in broad daylight and brazen audacity, deconstruct and demolish SS, Medicare, etc., and the entire 20th century.
Then get out there and make your voice heard, Disgusted. Write letters to papers. Contact your Reps. Make phone calls. Talk to Relatives. Start an organization. Boycott ALEC companies. Get on board with a "we the people" constitutional amendment (e.g., an amendment to overturn Citizens United).
I do.
Activist: can I have some of whatever it is that you're smoking that gives you grounds for optimism in the fact of the truth that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public," as H.L. Mencken so accurately put it 88 years ago? I mean, that must be some strooonnnnnnggggg stuff. Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!
"..., Brown and his campaign team have been highly reluctant to debate Democrat Elizabeth Warren,..."
No mystery, it would be hard for Ms. Warren to debate an empty suit! Just like the rest of the GOP, Sen. Brown will not be able to answer questions not just about his voting record which serviced Wall St. quite well, but on where he stands on the issues of concern to Massachusetts voters. Brown is like Romney he wants the job because of the power and control, but he can't quite say that publicly because he might not get voted back into office!
Go Elizabeth Warren 2012!! She is the best hope not just for Massachusetts, but for a broken Senate, she's got a voice and she knows how to call the crooks and liars out!
Let's face it. Scott Brown is not the brightest light bulb in the chandalier. He isn't dull, he isn't uneducated and he has a fair grasp of basic governance requirements. But compared to Elizabeth Warren he looks dull, he sounds uneducated and he seems to not know anything. Hell, compared to EW that applies to nearly everyone.
I understand the MSNBC thing, I suspect EW wouldn't want Fox to be the moderator, I can understand the venue thing (there are plenty of actually neutral appropriate sites -- UMass Worcester anyone???) but the Vickie Kennedy thing? Scott Brown or his aides realize that being seen in close proximity with EW will not turn out well for the man.
He just doesn't want the debates. Period.
Even if she did agree to be silent, does Brown think voters would then turn around and believe, "Oh, Vicki Kennedy must not actually be supporting Elizabeth Warren!" Seriously?
He's not only a coward, he just ain't too bright.
Rachel can host the debate anyway. Just leave an empty baby chair for Brown pants.
In Today's Republicanland, anything that pisses off Democrats - even if it pisses of just a few Democrats in strategic positions - is by default a Good Thing To Do. Brown accuses Maddow of preparing to launch a Senate campaign, Maddow responds by saying Brown is making crap up out of nothing, Republicans take these facts and distort them to "Scott Brown got Rachel Maddow so mad she's not even going to admit that she was running for Senate. GOOD FOR HIM!" Likewise, the Vicki Kennedy thing. Brown tries to silence a private citizen (albeit a high-profile one). Now Kennedy and people with the Institute have to make statements that Vicki will not be silenced. The Republican takeaway? "Well, now we all know how biased the Kennedy Institute will be this election cycle, thanks to the stand Brown will take. GOOD FOR HIM."
The media will likely excoriate Brown for his cowardice. The takeaway? "Brown must be doing something right; look at how the lamestream media is attacking him. GOOD FOR HIM."
And through it all, Brown will carry himself as if the idea of doing a debate with Warren is beneath him, and the base will eat it up.
Which is not to say that Brown SHOULDN'T be attacked for his cowardice. There are still a shocking amount of undecideds in Mass., and they need to know Brown can't face the heat from a real (and really good) candidate). I'd go a step further and suggest Warren agree to meet him "anywhere, anytime" on any platform including Fox News, making it clear that she is completely unafraid to meet him head-on.
It may go to Brown's paranoia that 'women' might gang up on him. 'Fraidy cat, I guess.
Elizabeth Warren should should just have the debate anyway. They can set it up with an open-ended invitation to Brown. If he doesn't show up, she can answer the moderator's questions herself as well as take questions from the viewers. She would really be able to get her policy points across and let people know where she stands on issues. I think it would go over incredibly well for her.
Put an empty chair on the other side of the stage with Scott Brown's name on it. Put his cowardice on display for everybody to see.
Ouch. Even the conservative Boston Herald is after Brown, "Stop being a wimp." http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1061140090&format=text
Where are all the real men, are these men still sipping their martinis from their hot tub discussing ways in which to restrain the vagina. What a bunch of whimps. Stand up take that woman by the hair and drag her down the hill. They could try this but, it won't be that easy this time. We have real men standing beside us.
Here's what I suspect: Scott Brown is floating the strategy of not debating and using the demands that are the rationale for not debating as a way of enlivening the Republican base--doesn't matter if the demands are based on misrepresentations, outright lies, and just totally absurd suggestions. If it works for him, other Republican candidates will no doubt adopt the same strategy. And one of those candidates will no doubt be Mitt Romney. I suspect that the Romney folks are searching, searching, searching for any way they can find to not debate President Obama. One demand that Romney might use is to demand that Fox sponsor all the debates or that only certain "news reporters" be able to ask questions. I'm sure we can all think of others. What a crock of . . . .
Bye George(literally what a pun ), I think you're right.
Would YOU want to voluntarily step into a pit from which you knew you were going to emerge (assuming you weren't carried out under a plastic drop cloth) with major parts of your anatomy missing after they were ripped off in public?
Always nice to be reminded that one of the major descriptive words to use along with "Republican" is "coward."
Cowardly lions they are, how truly afraid they must be. I wonder what they will do when they are face to face with their maker.
Something is seriously amiss with Scott Brown. He's afraid to defend his ideas in a public debate. He's afraid to present himself to the voters. What is he afraid of? What's he hiding?
Scott Brown: ‘Oil Companies Don’t Get Subsidies’
With comments like this and other empty prattle is there any wonder he does not want to debate Professor Warren? Remember that he said on at least Five occassions, he has been constantly busy talking to Queen's and Kings? He also said many leader constantly call him, as an example one of those he named was Secretary of State Clinton. Of course this was just another example of him having to retroactivally, change his story.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/11/514825/scott-brown-oil-companies-dont-get-subsidies/
Walking in an Independence Day parade in Plymouth, MA
Scott Brown: ‘Oil Companies Don’t Get Subsidies’
BROWN said: Oil companies don’t get subsidies. . . . I’m positive. They’re able to take deduction like every other business. If we’re going to reform the tax code, we should do that.