Scott Brown doesn’t even have a business card, but people are asking him about 2012. My favorite part of the Walters interview is that Brown has “no regrets” about his nude Cosmo spread.
Brown told Barbara Walters “you have to have a sense of humor about yourself,” and links the centerfold to many of his successes that came later in life. “If I hadn’t done that… I never would have been sitting here with you. It’s all connected,” Brown told Walters.
It’s a reminder of political symbolism that now exists, where resume and policy are puny substitutes for the “it” factor, especially when it meets the perfect moment in time.
Glenn Reynolds makes the case today that Scott Brown’s win at least partially belongs to the Tea Partiers:
And, of course, Scott Brown’s come-from-behind blowout in Massachusetts occurred in no small part because of money and volunteers from the Tea Party movement around the nation.
But are Tea Partiers going to ignore that Scott Brown is pro women’s civil rights, believing in a woman’s right to privacy?
Sarah Palin another example of political star quality, though on ideology she represents the polar opposite of Brown, being a die hard culture warrior, leading the charge against women’s privacy issues. Both issues that helped her bringing in $1.4 million in the last six months, according to Chris Cillizza, with Politico’s Andy Barr having her at $2.1 million for 2009. Pawlenty raising $1.3 million in the same time.
There’s only one thing the Republicans have in common, if they stick to their party’s latest 2010 script. The target is Barack Obama, with Democratic candidates in 2010 all being tied to the President and his administration.
GOP strategists gathered here for the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting believe that now that he’s fallen below 50 percent in the venerable Gallup poll, Obama will be an asset to GOP candidates, particularly in conservative or swing states.
The challenge will be to link Democrats with the administration on such issues as spending, bailouts, healthcare and cap-and-trade while not personally attacking Obama, who remains personally well-liked even as his standing erodes. So, at least in purple states or districts, don’t expect to see an ad where the faces of Democratic candidates are morphed into that of the president—a time-honored approach from past campaigns.
As ABC News channels The Onion in “Steele Rules Out 2012 White House Run”. That is funny.
William F. Buckley once said, in an interview with Charlie Rose, that conservatism finds it’s power through what it’s against. Actually, I’d say that’s the whole purpose of conservatives and their movement. On that foundation the Republicans, but also their Tea Party cousins, feel they’ve found a plan. Betting that Obama’s likability won’t carry over to Democrats in 2010, because it’s about his policies, stupid.
You might not see the faces of Democratic candidates morph into that of the president. But, how about Pelosi and Reid?
Unless the Dems get on it and start passing some of the stuff they were voted in to pass all the repugnantklan has to do is show up.
What policies?
secularhumanizinevoluter says:
31 January 2010 at 4:35 pm
Unless the Dems get on it and start passing some of the stuff they were voted in to pass all the repugnantklan has to do is show up.
———————–
I think what is equally stunning to many people is not only the content of his policies but his inability to implement them. With major majorities in both houses of Congress, it continues to amaze me that nothing of consequence has been made law. George W. had his way with Dems in Congresss during his 8 years, but Obama seems at a loss. He thought he had a mandate when in fact, he didn’t.
The American people voted for Obama not because they really believed in his program. They were just tired of George W Bush and his BS. And Obama represented a change, though many were not sure about what kind of change he would really represent. In fact, many thought Obama would really govern from the center, despite the campaign rhetoric. But when he started to actually put forth a radical leftist programs that reeked of socialism, even Marxism, they rebelled in unlikely places like New Jersey and Massachusetts.
I know it is probably counter-intuitive to some of the folks here, but Obama and the Dems were right in pulling back and rethinking their program. Americans are not leftists by nature, they may actually a bit right of center. That is why I have said over and over that Obama needs to get Bill Clinton back to the White House, listen and start taking his advise about how to deal with the other side of the aisle. Bill Clinton suffered the defeats after which he learned to partner up with the side. He became a master at it.
A gallup poll done last year bears out what I am saying. It revealed that 40% of Americans considered themselves conservative. So if you still believe that a liberal leftist agenda can be implemented without backlash, you are sadly deluded.
http://tinyurl.com/loaftf
Gallup Poll
60% of the country is not “conservative” and 91% of the country is not “very conservative”.
Republicans, 73% call themselves conservative, 3% of Republicans identifying as liberal, 24% call themselves moderates.
Democrats are between self-defined moderates (40%) and liberals (38%). However, an additional 22% of Democrats consider themselves conservative.
Half of political independents — 45% — describe their political views as “moderate.” Among the rest, the balance of views is tilted more heavily to the right than to the left: 34% are conservative, while 20% are liberal.
I’m not worried about Dems losing seats in 2010….It happened to Bill Clinton also during the 90′s too…At this point, I think that certain Dems need to lose there seats…Let’s face some facts, many of these Blue Dogs only have a D in front their names and nothing more….So, loosing these morons wouldn’t be a great loss to Dems in the end…
The real race is 2012…Who will win the White House? ….That interest me more then the predicable 2010 midterm race…The American Voter appears to want a Republican congress and its headed that way….No doubts about it anymore for me!!!
“But are Tea Partiers going to ignore that Scott Brown is pro women’s civil rights, believing in a woman’s right to privacy?”- Taylor Marsh
Taylor, the so called Tea Partiers are really nothing more then angry ex-Republicans…You’ll find one are two ex-Dems among them…Believe me I know this because my brother in law is part of this group…Tea Partiers don’t even know truly stand for in this country…all they do know is that they are angry at the Republican elites and Obama White House…These people are running mad against Obama on what they perceived he might do…and not on what he has done….because we all know Obama has not done much of anything big policy wise…So, what you have is a bunch angry folks screaming mad at the government with no real ideology purpose… Hence, easy for them to support an ex-nude model like Scott Brown…
This all about Republicans winning they don’t care what policies are personal chart comings there candidates have…just as long as they are Republicans that claim to sympathize with the tea party…I can’t wait for the backlash against Republicans after they regain power from the Dems by middle of the road voters…People who took that Tea party movement serious will be very upset to later find out it was a farce….lol
boston globe gives tea partiers heart failure- brown is hring kennedy’s key aides for staff in dc.now that si funny. brown is aiming to be not a fluke for sure. to dothat he must be mavericky aand vote with dems on key items. will he? did he use the tea party movement to get into office and now do what he wants which is remain in office in ma? this is funny
The Tea Party Movement sprung up out of outrage over the TARP and the Bailout and the Health Care Reform costs and the deficit. I’ve seen nothing regarding civil rights at any of their sites or the sites that report on them. Wiki has nothing on it. They are, by and large, Libertarians; that means they are Constitutionalists, who would support civil rights in principle, I guess.
They aren’t just “ex Republicans” and yes, there is such a thing as Libertarian Democrats. And, this is sure to bring new recruits to the Tea Party Patriots:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60U1PZ20100131
Noogan – Thanks !!
Now I can understand that HUGE avalanche of Democrats that rushed to pay $349 just to hear Sarah Palin speak in Tennessee. It all makes sense now.
tea party is very active here in texas for rick perry. as ive noted here before- adl and southern poverty law have both doen studies showing that white supremacists are having recruit agents in these tea party events and are getting new recruits which makes sense. this is what hate grps do- harness the rage of angry folks, tap into this and give them folks to blame esp jews and blacks. very distrubing and it will get much worse.
Marie205 says:
31 January 2010 at 7:42 pm
“But are Tea Partiers ………These people are running mad against Obama on what they perceived he might do”
I know the “Tea Baggers” are very very scary but you could not be more wrong in you description. Not only does the Left use a quasi homophobic term against the Tea Party protestors, but we’ve been called racists, bigots, terrorist, ect, etc, etc.
But the truth, and what the anti-American, Prius-driving left fears is a movement of concerned citizens voicing their displeasure at a $780 billion pork bill which was never read, a president who wants to govern slightly to the Left of Karl Marx by taking over GM, health care, the banking system, home mortgages, and student loans — and a media who protects him from all criticism.
JFK, Harry Truman….they wouldn’t even recognize or approve of the party today.
Noogan says:
31 January 2010 at 7:54 pm
“The Tea Party Movement sprung up out of outrage over the TARP and the Bailout and the Health Care Reform costs and the deficit.”
Hmmm, I thought that it re-emerged from Rick Santelli’s outburst from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, when he railed at the administration’s plan to bail out mortgage owners who had taken out loans he claimed they couldn’t afford. He accused Obama of “promoting bad behavior by losers”. Was President Obama listening, he asked. If not, “we’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party”.
The name caught on, and Tea Party groups took root across the country. Then, Tea Partiers staged anti-tax protests across the country.
Noogan….That’s bull…if these so called patiots really cared about the bailouts and Tarp money…why did they wait eight years?!!!…I’m not worried I will be proven right as soon as the Tea Party (aka Republicans) candidates gain more power….Just wait and see their will be more bail outs under their watch too…First, they after to get rid of the Dems…I was right about George Bush Jr. that he was a fake Republican nobody listen to me then…So, all I can do is just sit back and watch knew suckers be taken in by this fake movement…I’m willing to wager $400 bucks that after winning elections and removal of Dems it’ll be business as usual…I need to save this page and come back to laugh at all the people who supported these fakes…Both parties Dems & Repubs are jokes
“The American people voted for Obama not because they really believed in his program.”
BullSHIT! Gee, anyone remember when President Obama still had high numbers(he STILL has pretty good numbers) but Congresses was in the toilet? It was because they had done NOTHING to pass the things promised, universal healthcare, getting us out of Iraq, closing Gitmo etc.
The Public Option on healthcare had a 70-80% approval in polls.
” In fact, many thought Obama would really govern from the center, despite the campaign rhetoric. But when he started to actually put forth a radical leftist programs that reeked of socialism, even Marxism, they rebelled in unlikely places like New Jersey and Massachusetts.”
HORSESHIT! Are you a repugnantklaner, teabagger or merely retarded?
” gallup poll done last year bears out what I am saying. It revealed that 40% of Americans considered themselves conservative. So if you still believe that a liberal leftist agenda can be implemented without backlash, you are sadly deluded.”
So because a bunch of racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, teabaggin klan wannabes will be upset we shouldn’t do what’s right and equitable for the American electorate?
And incidentally dildo, why wasn’t it “socialism” or “marxism” when the repugnatklaners proposed almost the same healthcare reform earlyer?
“So because a bunch of racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, teabaggin klan wannabes will be upset we shouldn’t do what’s right and equitable for the American electorate?”
Head implosion time. This is the mentally Obama has brought. If you disagree me, you lack all virtue and you’re racist. In your vehemence, it’s clear you know you loss the debate. A Republican is in Teddy’s seat; no fictitious poll numbers change the fact that Americans don’t want government to run healthcare.
pmichael says:
31 January 2010 at 8:16 pm
“Noogan – Thanks !!
Now I can understand that HUGE avalanche of Democrats that rushed to pay $349 just to hear Sarah Palin speak in Tennessee. It all makes sense now.”
You’re welcome to make a compelling argument any time you’re ready pmichael. In the meantime, why not try informing yourself. It’s so much more substantive than juvenile sarcasm.
http://www.terrymichael.net/home.htm
War Spending Surges in Obama’s Budget
http://antiwar.com/
Information Clearinghouse News Digest
http://tinyurl.com/ylfrsps
Marie205:
Yeah, I knew about G.W. Bush, too; that’s why I didn’t vote for him. Either time. And, I didn’t just SIT and watch as the country imploded under his disastrous administration; I marched in the streets to oppose his war crimes in Iraq.
Bush and Cheney are war criminals, who should be arrested and tried at the Hague alongside Tony Blair.
That said, you haven’t the faintest idea “who” the Tea Party Movement is comprised of; and you don’t know the first thing about “what” they are protesting.
So, I’m sorry; you won’t be proven right about them. They are a very diverse group; there is no centralized organization, and their site clearly explains their Libertarian principles. They aren’t running candidates.
Get your facts straight before you try to twist them to serve your own ends.
Ramsgate:
“I thought that it re-emerged from Rick Santelli’s outburst from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, when he railed at the administration’s plan to bail out mortgage owners who had taken out loans he claimed they couldn’t afford. He accused Obama of “promoting bad behavior by losers”. Was President Obama listening, he asked. If not, “we’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party”.
The name caught on, and Tea Party groups took root across the country. Then, Tea Partiers staged anti-tax protests across the country.”
Yes, you’re absolutely right. Thanks. I do recall Rick Santelli’s rant; it was a beautiful thing to see.
And, you’re right about the specifics of the origins of the Tea Party Protests. I stand corrected. 
“The white working class had been slow to be convinced. The technocracy and elitism of Mr. Obama’s campaign—indeed of his whole persona—troubled that big constituency, much more, I believe, than did his race and name. The promise of economic help, of an interventionist state that would salvage ailing industries and provide a safety net for the working poor, reconciled these voters to a candidate they viewed with a healthy measure of suspicion. He had been caught denigrating them as people “clinging to their guns and religion,” but they had forgiven him”
There is a class issue and elitism from the far left against the white middle and working class. They are seen as the enemy: even Obama hates them, just like secular “humanizer”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029110104772360.html
I have to say, the effort underway here to whitewash the Tea Bagger movement is really astounding. All the fevered protestations are for naught: the movement is doomed to collapse, and soon. Why? Too many internal contradictions.
Do you not consider it ironic that the Tea Bagger movement was birthed on the floor of the CME? A bunch of wealthy traders — whose real concern is the loss of their livelihoods as the country increasingly relies on electronic trading — decrying mortgage relief. Anti-libertarian, they say. And, hence, un-American. But what about the bailouts? Not a peep out Santelli and his ilk about TARP etc. How to explain the cognitive dissonance? Easy — economic elites of the Republican variety have always used the working class as human shields. The Tea Party movement is just the latest example; Dick Armey inciting the proletariat to revolt while he and his crew line their pockets. This supposed movement of the people is anything but.
Well, you might say, a movement can start out as astroturf, but overcome its beginnings to coalesce into a real grassroots phenomenon. Yes, that’s true. And there’s some evidence that that is what is happening here. Obama’s missteps have provided kindling for the Tea Party fire. But while it may be organic, it is not cohesive. It’s the Frankenstein of political movements. Two parts economic populism; one parts racism and xenophobia; one part libertarian etc. They will turn on each other (you’re already starting to see signs), because none of these organs can co-exist for a long time with the other. No matter how much anti-rejection medicine they try. A true libertarian proudly supports NAFTA and other free trade initiatives, and is a fierce proponent of liberalized immigration. The economic populists are dead-set against the first. The xenophobes, the second. As the poem Yeats poem goes: Things fall apart/the center cannot hold.
So I don’t worry about the Tea Partiers, because the countdown to their demise has already begun. This Frankenstein is like all others: it will kill itself. Right after it kills its creators.
pmichael says:
31 January 2010 at 8:16 pm
You’re going to LOVE this one.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/sarah-palin-pac-buy-book/story?id=9718024
heh-heh… Cracks me up.
ogenec says:
01 February 2010 at 11:44 am
“So I don’t worry about the Tea Partiers, because the countdown to their demise has already begun. This Frankenstein is like all others: it will kill itself. Right after it kills its creators.”
I think you are so right.