This past Wednesday nite, fellow Grokster Mike and his lovely bride Mar-Mar opened up their home and brought in their friends and family to meet Scott Brown (if you haven’t heard, he may or may not run for US Senator from NH but at least is in the exploratory phase – much to the relief of NH GOP Chair Jennifer Horn and all of the NH GOP Committees to which he’s been sending money). Now I was rather surprised when Mike said he had done so but his stated goal was to hear all of the candidates (or possible ones) and to give his friends and neighbors an opportunity to hear what they had to say. By the time Scott had arrived, well, it was clear that there was a mix of folks at Mike’s; certainly there were those I see all the time but there was also more than a few folks I had never met ending up with a full house.
It was clear that even though we had never met, he knew who I was and his demeanor changed – I guess that Andy Leach (former Sununu aide-de-camp, former NH GOP Exec. Dir (who remembers that I did not take “no” for an answer and finally got him in a ‘Grok micro-interview), Kelly Ayotte aide-de-camp, and now working for Scott Brown). I am imagining that he “advised” Scott as he immediately wagged his finger in my face and made it clear that there was to be NO video recording. Sure, I did make the anti-argument, that I do this kind of activity so that those that cannot be there in person would be able to hear his message: unadulterated, unedited (except for time – attention spans and all) and that if ANYTHING got abstracted out, the ENTIRE video gets posted (I was doing that before Project Veritas was doing that) so that the complete context would be seen and heard.
No dice. It was clear that he is not happy with bloggers – even as Mike and Mar-Mar were standing there with their GraniteGrok shirts on. Sure, the smile for which he is famous for was present, but the stance belied it. Be it what it is – I wear Big Boy pants and if I “give” at times, I’ll “take” it as well. But it was clear that during his time at Mike’s giving his spiel and answering questions, I was the one that got his stare and the bony finger (literally) as he put down bloggers and those that disagreed with him on pretty much anything. Don’t have to ask me – there were a number of folks that got tired of watching that finger point over and over; they got up and left. Me? I just kept writing down notes – if he wanted to show how thin his skin is, well, that’s his gig, not mine. But he made sure that was his gig.
So, some raw notes / later observations from his talk:
- How does he make his votes? He said that he is a good listener and a good learner when it comes to issues; get the facts and then vote. He will measure that against the national debt and then make a decision on that vote. You know, I’ve been listening to politicians make stump speeches for a while now as an Conservative activist and what they DON’T say is generally more important than what they DO say. In this case, that which is very important to those of us of the TEA Party / 9/12ers / Constitutionalist bent was never mentional. He did not talk about:
- What are his foundational Principles when coming to terms to a vote
- Did not mention any specific Republican Principles, nor either of the Constitutions
- He talked a lot about his personal history and that GREATLY influences his votes – his Mom was in a pattern of multiple marriages – he intimated that for her, that was her way that she created a safety net for her children. He also talked about his troubled childhood actions (drinking, stealing, et al) and their results and the turn around. This was a constant theme during the stump speech. Sure, I came from a broken home, too, of the lower economic class with a single Mom for quite some time, but I don’t dwell on it either. I’ll also say it this way – it was clear that it was partially presented in a way to elicit sympathy, and I have to admit that early on, the crowd responded to it. He brought up, to try to connect his voting record, that because of that background, if people were not able to heat their homes, he’d vote for an increase in LIHEAP (as long as there was a way to pay for it). Which also told me that trying to solve this problem in the private sector took a back seat to solving it with taxpayer monies by using his power in the public sector.
- He reiterated that he was a fiscal conservative but a social libertarian. I would deem that as a Moderate Republican stance but I will say, as one that believes that ALL social issues have fiscal consequences, I’ve never been of the mind that the two mesh at all with each other with any coherence (there is always a blowout somewhere, one way or another, where one takes out the other).
- And then he took his second shot at me. Again, I guess he decided to use me as his speechifying to capitalize on the history and ‘roid more sympathy (e.g. evil bloggers never get it right.
- The issue of him being a NH carpetbagger is a non-starter for me
- He said he never voted for a tax increase during his legislative history
- He also mentioned his military service (and I did thank him for his service afterwards). Said he would match his national security credentials and his fiscal conservative credentials against anyone in the country.
- And then the bony finger at me again (“We may not agree on everything, SIR“) as he got a bit heated talking about what people were talking about to him: debt, foreign policy, Obamacare, jobs. And then used the “anti-Shaheen” argument – you may not agree with me on everything, but I’m better than Jeanne Shaheen.
Sidenote: Who knew that an ordinary schlub blogger had such power that it seemed I was the source of his bad ju-ju. Go figure.
In other words “I am the lesser of two evils”. You may not like me on everything, but she is far worse on all of the issues than I am. Er, any of the Republicans running are, sir. And we know she is with Obama 99% – we’ve already said that on a number of occasions.
Note to Scott Brown: EVERY Republican is “the anti-Shaheen“. Yes, every candidate for US Senate this cycle is saying “I am the opposite of Shaheen”. Keep telling us that over and over will just lose its efficacy – and gets to be boring and eye-rolling. And again, it wasn’t just me that noticed (and this advice is worth every penny you paid). Stop being Captain Obvious over and over – it will help the stump speech.
- He said he is a strong believer in the Second Amendmentbrought up his gun control stance (which have riled a LOT of New Hampshire based Second Amendment defenders and a boatload of hunters with his vote to ban assault weapons while a politician in Massachusetts). He said that he was a 2nd Amendment guy that did have an NRA A- rating at one point (and contrasted that with Shaheen). He said he was asked about concealed carry “pass through” and said he was not in favor of it – BUT NEVER VOTED ON IT. He then said that he was asked about an assault weapon ban and said his spoken answer is that perhaps that was something that should be looked at – using what I believe a deflection of “Well, that was right after the Sandy Hook tragedy” as his justification BUT NEVER VOTED ON IT then. Said each State should make its own determination (yeah but the rumors for national office were still swirling, and people listen hard, sir, and that’s how most of us have taken it – for a future time for a decision). He said his ranking after the concealed carry comment (also, he said that when guns were voted on in MA, gee, almost everyone else voted for it too!) was dropped to a B, and then to a C on the assault weapon ban comment. A bit sulky about it – he certainly broadcasted the message “Not my fault – didn’t vote for it”. And his answer of “When we take over the Senate, it will never come up” is a deflection, not an answer. After those few minutes, I STILL don’t know where he stands – he never enumerated his specific stance on gun control.
Yes, to many people, it WAS his fault. See the first bullet item, lack of Principles enumerated. Same thing here. Either you believe what the Founders gave us, or one has to say”moral relativism” or “situational ethics” vs an absolute rock floor to stand on. What he told me (and a number of others in the room) was “I don’t do absolutes.” Again, the absence of what was NOT said – the Second protects against a Tyrannical Government and thus should not be infringed. By just stating what he said and the circumstances, and not saying what principle drove those utterances, he put a lot of doubt into the folks that he would stand up for them and their Rights. In fact, the opposite was given (as I talked to several people afterwards about it) – Government gives you Rights and can infringe on those Rights. And in a State where a lot of the Right is becoming re-acquainted again with plain language of both the Second Amendment and Article 2-a, that’s not a great place to be. I also started to hear another theme that came up over and over and over and over again to the point of “Oh please, NOT ahGAIN!”
- And then went into anti-Shaheen mode again and asked folks if Shaheen EVER called them back. Again, he singled me out – and I said she had (and she did).
- And closed his talk with an anecdote of Tip O’Niel and Reagan after Ronaldus Maximus was shot. he then brought up Reagan, would he be a RINO today? The 80/20 rule and talked about talk of RINOs. He talked about gridlock and “petty partisanship” that are blocking the stuff that is good for America as a whole. It is time to fix things – and then the anti-Shaheen deal again (broken promises) – and pointed to me again.
Sidenote: And that is EXACTLY why we have gridlock, because there are two absolutely diametrically opposite philosophies as to where this country has been going:
- either follow the path laid out for us by the Founders that elevated Individual and Civil Society about a very limited government, or
- European Social Democracy – Socialism.
and the two are utterly incompatible with each other. That is the dynamic that is at play and to say that we only need more bipartisan is a refusal to see that the New Left has taken over the Dems and are pushing are hard and as fast as possible to put us into a post-Constitutional epoch. You said you’d be willing to sit and talk at any time about issues, well, this IS the primary issue above all else because it is the underlying driver, the primary driver, of your secondary issues of debt, deficit, and the like. It IS about “What is the Proper Role of Government“, and never the twain shall meet. Scott, this is NOT just Republican vs Democrat, because I could care less about political affiliation. What I do care is which party wants to go back down to our roots and re-establish the proper balance between Individuals, the idea of a large and vibrant Civil Society (where most inter-Individual interactions were to occur) and what is now an over-reaching, over-bearing Government.
At that point, he said he was done (about 20 minutes) and that he start questions were answered. Well, he did answer a number of questions, but lots of people still had a lot more questions but he brought it to an end. I’ll post up the questions in another post. I will say that I did get a question in.
Note: in 20 minutes, he brought up a lot of problems and issues, and said that they had to get fixed. Again, I listen hard and I try to listen well – what I didn’t hear was one single policy solution to ANY of the issues he brought up or how he would specifically legislate different
Last note: if I got anything wrong, well, that’s why I video – so that you don’t have to read between my lines, not get what I didn’t write, and put up with my biases (and yes, I am biased – but you readers already know that and how that slants). So, too bad about not being able to “go to the tape” and review.
Let me also point this out – when you insulted me for being a GraniteGrok blogger, you also insulted Mike and Mar-Mar as well as both are part of the Grokster family and he DOES write here as well and shares our values (sometimes even a bit more militantly than I, because his country is already down the path that we have been tiptoeing on these last few decades). I would ask that you apologize to them, your hosts for the evening, for when you singled me out, you singled out GraniteGrok and them. For me, no apology is needed as for me, it is just part of the blogging environment. But to insult your hosts who proudly wore their ‘Grok shirts at this event? As the Brits would say:
Bad form, sir, bad form
