The smell from his record, 12 years ago, still wafts into today. I didn’t forget, and neither did GraniteGrok. We all took potshots at this anti-Second Amendment dude – WHY vote for someone who was antithetical to our beliefs even though he had an R next to his name?
Ayup, he really didn’t like that a dogged Conservatarian blogger (which was still kind of a new thing back then) kept going after his ACTIONS instead of his flowery stump speech WORDS. Silly boy, that’s what engineers do – watch for results instead of speechified intents. And if you read this post, you’ll see that he had a prickly skin that was rather easy to get under, and the “bony finger” he wagged at the wrong person.
Remember, he extolled his own virtue by claiming:
“I was the most bipartisan senator in the United States Senate.” (Scott Brown on Tuesday, March 18th, 2014 in a meeting with Republicans in Portsmouth, N.H.).
Remember these numbers: 22%, 46%, 62%.
Never wanted bipartisanship – I wanted a FIGHTER for what I stood for. And he made my case for me from my post from back then (Speaking of Republicans voting the majority of times w/Democrats….):
… that Scott Brown, rather than supporting more Conservative issues supported more Progressive ones:
sided with a Democratic majority on 22 percent of votes in his first year, ranking him seventh among all senators. The next year, he voted with Democrats 46 percent of the time, trailing only Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. In 2012, he rose to the top of the list, siding with a Democratic majority close to 62 percent of the time
That’s a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing type of admission. And Rush Limbaugh made it clear that a tiger doesn’t change its spots. I’ve heard no epiphany from Brown that would change my mind about how his mind ticks. While I’ve been actively out of politics for a while doing Foster Care, one thing still holds: spots are still spots.
Let me finish with the admonition I presented from back then:
Elections should be about stark differences – and it is clear that Scott Brown’s strategy is to simply put a stick in the mud, swirl it around, and hope that no one can see through it to see the non-differences. Instead of being “Shaheen-lite“, I believe that Conservatives should be making campaigning points on what should be stark differences between governance models (the Dem model of “all your cheezburger are belong to us” and the Republican one: “Your way baby – we’re staying out of the way“).
While the opponent tomorrow isn’t Shaheen in the Republican Primary (a tepid choice, IMHO), it won’t be Brown for me.
Fer sure.
A couple other quotes from our archives:
- Remember, Scott Brown is asking the NH Republican Party to send him down as a Republican and as a Republican vote. Consistency, if you have been reading the ‘Grok lately, means that I should have a very good idea of how you are going to vote BEFORE you vote. Voting from Principle means that I can. Voting “to be bipartisan” means I can’t. Consistency breeds Trust; a big part of Trust is Loyalty – Loyalty down means Loyal up. If our Loyalty going up is not returned, there is no Trust. WHY would I send someone to DC that I cannot Trust simply because you have an R next to your name?
- Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve started to see a new meme on the Right of Center blogosphere, Jeremy, that might well apply here. I know you’re a bit young, but do you know what a Reagan Democrat was, back in the day? Seems like there’s a new term being bandied about: Obama Republican (Republicans that disdain Reagan’s stance for limited government and, instead, embrace Big Government). Is that where you stand, sir? Or is your infatuation with Brown because he is of that mind set? After all, Scott has said nothing as to how he would start to cut the size and reach of the Federal Government?
- Which should give rise to the question: if I am voting for a Republican, am I getting a Republican? If someone has an “R” after their name, are they a “good” Republican
- 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 mentioned. 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
Oh, and this last bit – someone ELSE believes what I believe is going to happen tomorrow:
He’s not beating Sununu. He’s probably gonna get crushed.
Ayup. As Trump would say, “By a LOT!”
Reminder: Content by candidates or about candidates is the opinion of the author, and not necessarily those of GraniteGrok.com’s sponsors, readers, other authors, or advertisers.
