Can Mr. Brown go to Washington?
Check this out, from tonight’s debate in the Massachusetts Senatorial race:
In case you missed the money quote, Scott Brown said:
With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.
So please, people of Massachusetts, send Brown to Washington to fill your seat.
[UPDATE: Here’s WHDH’s pundit Andy Hiller on tonight’s debate:
Republican Scott Brown went for it all tonight, and I think he got a good part of it.
Martha Coakley was Martha Coakley — a lawyer who looked and sounded like a teacher. As always she was calm, measured and unemotional, but unlike always, she sometimes seemed tentative, even taken aback.
It was Scott Brown who made her that way. Brown knew what he wanted to say and said it. He was confident and personable. He was aggressive, but not so aggressive that he crossed any gender line…
Frankly, I was surprised by tonight’s debate. Brown was stronger and Coakley weaker than I anticipated.]
[ADDENDUM: And I love this comment at Ann Althouse’s:
Gergan [sic], who could hardly conceal his bias, called it “Teddy Kennedy’s seat.”
Brown to Gergan [sic]: Thanks for the opening I could drive my truck through, you Kennedy School of Government at Harvard meathead.
Although actually, some of best friends went to a certain Ivy League school that shall remain nameless…]
This really could be a Jimmy Stewart moment, couldn’t it?
David Gergen – corrupted.
I was stunned that he asked that question in the way he did. He actually referred to the seat in the Senate as Ted Kennedy’s, as if it belonged to him, and therefore was like his property to be bequeated to his spiritual heirs or something!
I remember when Gergen was not corrupted. I remember when he was decent. I remember when he was an American.
We have to fight every one of these bastards, in every venue possible. Why was he even moderating that debate? We need revolution at every level.
Brown gave a brilliant answer. That should be a rallying cry heard all over America, and repeated all over America. These are the people’s seats! They are OUR seats! Let us claim them back.
Pingback:Instapundit » Blog Archive » SCOTT BROWN: It’s not the Kennedy seat, it’s the people’s seat. …
That response aabout “the people’s seat” also shows that Mr. Brown is rather fast on his feet. In that minute at least, he comes across as a very good extemporaneous speaker. We don’t need no stinkin’ Teleprompter!
Gergen only SEEMED decent way back then. We thought the NYT was the same. Most of us just didn’t know. The media told us Gergen was decent, after all. Point is these creatures have always been corrupt and corrupting. Gergen’s question would have received applause just a few years ago. Gives me hope: Those wretched people in MA re-electing these worms all these years, and maybe, just maybe….
It was a great, great line, but don’t think for a mnute that wasn’t scripted. I’m sure they came up with that one – and rehearsed it – for just such a softball.
Pingback:American Glob » Blog Archive » Scott Brown: “It’s The People’s Seat.”
Brown could have had a still more crushing rejoinder (although it may be impolitic in Massachusetts): “with all due respect, Mr. Gergen, considering a Congressional seat to belong to an individual is profoundly undemocratic, and precisely the problem that confronting us today.”
Sorry, partial recast of sentence without re-reading. Make that “that confronts us today.”
Beauty.
Pingback:GayPatriot » We need this guy in Washington
Brown lost the election tonight:
“He said he supported the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.”
http://www.telegram.com/article/20100111/NEWS/100119957/1116
Steve J.: lost the election? Not in Massachusetts, he didn’t. For anyone to win in Massachusetts he/she has got to be somewhat liberal. Right now Scott Brown is not running as a conservative—nor is he one. He is running as a relative fiscal conservative, as a “no” vote on Reidcare, and as a reasonably non-corrupt voice for the US Senate. That’s it.
I’m pretty sure the “people’s seat” line is a semi-canned response. He’s used it before. That being said, it’s a line that’s worth repeating.
I would guess it’s a prepared response; after all, it’s not as though Brown’s never heard the phrase “Kennedy seat” or “Kennedy’s seat” before. But it’s still brilliant, and brilliantly delivered. Forceful, but not too hammy. Just right.
GC:
Point taken.
An honest question. What has changed in MA.? A state that has re elected the coward of Chappaquiddick time and time again, perhaps the least honorable man to ever serve in the senate, is considering his antithesis. Is the Democrat brand actually that discounted?
“Gergen only SEEMED decent way back then.”
Just like we thought of Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw, and all of the other Leftist media goons.
Amused Observer: Well, the election hasn’t happened yet; Coakley definitely could win. That said, Brown is obviously doing much better than any Republican would have during the “Kennedy seat” years (with the sole exception of Edward Brooke, Republican Senator from Massachusetts, 1967-1979).
One thing that’s happened to Massachusetts recently (besides Ted Kennedy’s death) is Deval Patrick, a very unpopular Democratic governor and Obama-clone. Another thing is that Massachusetts already has universal health care. It’s caused some fiscal problems there, and many voters don’t want to pay even more money to subsidize it for other states. Another thing is Scott Brown’s personal attractiveness, and Coakley’s lack of popularity (she’s been a DA, and a controversial one, and Massachusetts Attorney General, but has never held office otherwise).
What has changed in MA.?
Just a guess, but the seat is now open, so Brown is not facing an incumbent. The Federal offices are rigged so that it’s very, very difficult to defeat an incumbent at any level.
Remember the Alamo!
This line is a natural for the Tea Party persons to pick up on. A rallying cry.
Who cares if it was discussed in debate prep!? Are you kidding me? Our POTUS can’t urinate w/o teleprompting.
Right now Scott Brown is not running as a conservative–nor is he one.
Brown told Sean Hannity he was a straight conservative.
He is running as a relative fiscal conservative
Then why did he vote against reducing the state income tax?
Steve J: In Massachusetts, a conservative is anyone to the right of Martha Coakley and Ted Kennedy. He is a fiscal conservative compared to his opponent, and he is a fiscal conservative (relatively speaking, remember) on health care reform. I am not familiar with every stand he is taking on every issue, but on a couple of big ones he is head and shoulders above the opposition.
Gergen set up a premise that was unsustainable: If Brown stops the bill, there’ll not be another health reform try for 15 years.
Who proclaimed Gergen a prophet?
And, even if it were true – there’s no reason to sign a deeply flawed bill because of fears that some sort of health reform bill won’t get done for another 15 years.
Wow, what a line.
Steve J: In Massachusetts, a conservative is anyone to the right of Martha Coakley and Ted Kennedy.
Ok, I get that but on radio shows, Brown has been selling himself as a straight conservative.
Pingback:Scott Brown and Martha Coakley Clash in Heated Debate « Nice Deb
Rigidity of the type expressed by Steve J greatly hinders his own prospects of success at achieving his political goals.
Pingback:U.S. Senate debate video: It’s the People’s Seat | PowerTowneDistro.com
Well of course it was a prepared line. Brown would be utterly incompetent if he didn’t know he would need a quick retort to the ‘Kennedy’s seat’ complaint. He mastered the line, understands the ideal, and was quick and easygoing about using it. He didn’t leap to it, and he didn’t show anger. He was passionate yet mild and respectful.
that’s the silver tongue. Politician’s gift. but of course this was Gergen being a fool (what kind of idiot would display such brazen bias?) and Brown being ready for it.
Really, had the democrats picked someone with a shred of political skill, they would have a much better chance.
I agree with Steve J on the ideal of opposing abortion.
It’s really hard to set that one aside. But we really have to do it. It’s a lousy reality, but it’s reality. We can’t bother with Mass unless we support socially liberal republicans sometimes.
I think Steve’s dead wrong on the expediency equation. It would probably end Brown’s chances to say the right thing in this case.
GCA, SteveJ is a member if that loathesome internet species Concernus Trollus I suspect that a little perusal of his donation history would show lots of (D), no (R).
GCA is right. Steve J. is the blog equivalent of a talk show seminar caller. He’s not concerned with Brown’s conservative credentials. He’s just trying to sow some discord among Conservatives on this blog.
Agreed SDN, SteveJ:Textbook concern troll. Look how he plays the concerned, anxious naysayer.
I missed the debate lastnight because it was the twins’ bath time. But I’m watching it now on C-span and I have to say Gergen p***es me off.
But also, Kennedy is expressing why I can’t make the leap to the Libertarian Party ( I know he’s running as an Independant, but he’s puppeting their line). Why is it that Libertarians can have their head screwed on straight about so many things, IMO, but not understand that we can’t just stop fighting a war? Or just refuse to fight it to begin with? When one side wants to fight but the other doesn’t, annhilation is inevitable.
Infuriating.
Nice tune, easy to dance to, I give it about a 95.
As to Brown’s comment on Roe v. Wade, I seem to remember that John Roberts espoused a similar position in his confirmation hearings; they are simply taking note of the plain fact that the decision is settled law regardless of their personal feelings on the subject. Just another of the tragic ramifications of Roe that permiates our political debate that one has to submit to the litmus test on abortion.
Brown’s zinger “the people’s seat” has been used by him numerous times as it has become cliche that the class 1 seat from Massachusetts is the private property of the Kennedy clan. Since that family has had control of the seat since 1953 when JFK was elected to the Senate, it is hard to argue against the point. There are few of us in Massachusetts alive that can remember a time when a Kennedy was not a Senator (save the coatholders like Benjamin Smith).
Brown has said that Roe v Wade is settled law.He is for parental notification,against partial-birth abortion and federal funding of abortion.This is, to me, a moderate pro-life position and is also the view of most Americans.
Check out the piece in the Hearld today. That’s sweet!
Pingback:Quote of the day – Scott Brown edition « Sister Toldjah
Pingback:Jules Crittenden » Martha Vs. The Ladies Gardening Club
Pingback:The Strata-Sphere » Throw The Political Industrial Class Out Of Power In 2010!
American Power tracked-back with, ‘Final Brown/Coakley Debate in Massachusetts’.
The abortion thing is a red herring. Is there any candidate running in this race who’s MORE opposed to abortion than Brown? Martha? Nope. Joe “not really a” Kennedy? God, nope. So if abortion is your single issue, Brown’s STILL the best candidate to vote for — plus you can stop federally-funded abortion on demand by putting a spoke in the wheels of health care nationalization.
Go home, troll.
Scott Brown is the most qualified to become the next US Senator form Massachusetts and furthermore to be the 41st US Senator … Scott has the momentum, on his way to the finish line to VICTORY next Tuesday. A true Massachusetts miracle. http://www.RedInvadesBlue.com
I am sure someone had thought he should try to work in that line somewhere, but…
you know its one thing to want to do something. its another to be handed a golden opportunity like that.
Go Brown Go! Even if the dems refuse to let you take your seat, just winning should send a wonderful message.
“Just like we thought of Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw, and all of the other Leftist media goons.”
That’s a bit extreme. If Cronkite and Brokaw are leftist goons, then what is Olbermann? And if Olbermann is that thing, then what was Hitler? Let’s not lump everyone we disagree with into the exact same category.
The fact is, guys like Brokaw and Gergen are far from the kind of people who would take to the street agitating for violent overthrow of their capitalist oppressors. These are civil, well-meaning, but misguided people who think the way they do mainly because they have spent their lives cocooned within an elitist, quasi-intellectual subculture that believes that the world can only be perfected through the auspices of an all-encompassing government populated by enlightened elites like themselves. It’s obviously a daffy and dangerous philosophy, but it’s neither accurate nor helpful to portray the fools who buy into it as the equivalent of common street thugs.
Pingback:REPUBLICAN REDEFINED
Disregarding for the moment whether or not Brown is a conservative of any stripe (and I’m sure I’d find a lot to disagree with him on regarding any number of issues), I’m wondering about a different ramification of this election.
What kind of reaction would the typical MA voter have were Brown to win the election in a convincing manner only to have the democrats running the state hold up his being seated in order to ram this health care bill through?
In other words, would the state democrat party shoot itself in the foot and further alienate their base IF their base voted convincingly for Brown only to have the state democrat leadership so overtly defy the will of the people?
Would the typical MA voter be pi$$ed off enough to take it out on other democrat politicians during the regular general election later this year?
Would the state democrat party win a tactical victory now in getting this health care bill passed, only to lose strategically for so willfully defying the choice of the typical MA voter?
Personally, I think I’m overestimating the typical MA voter – but there is always hope….
Scottie: I think so. I think the Dems have vastly underestimated how much public opinion has shifted against them. If they try some kind of illegal procedural move like that, it wouldn’t just be shooting a foot, it would blow a leg off at the hip.
Pingback:Cold Fury » “‘The people’s seat’? What kind of crazy talk is that?”
Although actually, some of best friends went to a certain Ivy League school that shall remain nameless…
Reminds me of a joke:
You can tell a Harvard man. You just can’t tell him much.
Dingbat Coakley Can’t Spell Her Own State’s Name
Paid for by the Massachusettes Democratic Party
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/01/doh-coakley-ad-attacking-brown.html
and
“I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.” MC
Time for the Dems to gin up a scandal. Brown better be prepared.
Ya’ll must remember a different David “Rodham” Gergen than I do. He was always a lefty crapweasel. He was never not a lefty crapweasel….
Don’t know if anyone else made this point but the Dems are sending in their union operatives. Which means lots of ballots cast from deceased or Disney characters for Coakeley.
Zombie voters! I tell you they are zombie voters!
(minimal if any brain function, mindlessly pursuing a single goal in spite of the fact it will do them no good, generally deceased….yep, that’s about the size of it…..)
The cars with trunks full of *lost* ballots are lining up even as we speak!
If Brown wins in spite of it all, I’ll start looking for flying pigs.
by the way, as we watch this dog and pony show, we are not paying attention to the other things i have brought up before in anticipation (rather than reaction) to things.
1. interpol has juristiction and immunity – ie, if they murder someone, its ok… if they search your house, thats ok too.
EO gave them immunity.
Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order “Amending Executive Order 12425.” It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.
By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates — now operates — on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. …
Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)
and this would put a big seal on not just interpol
but might block the reporting of the CPUSA files, as well as a cap on mitrokhen, and other archives!!!!
that is, obama is closing the doors to the sources of very inconvenient information. from using records in other states (like kenya), to using records of past crimes against the country and peoples, etc
as hotair puts it
Interpol officers would have diplomatic immunity for any lawbreaking conducted in the US at a time when Interpol nations (like Italy) have attempted to try American intelligence agents for their work in the war on terror, a rather interesting double standard.
Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.
Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court – which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes – i.e., for actions taken in America’s defense).
Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
andy mccarthy…
however, it goes BACK AGAIN TO HISTORY
(you know the contents of archives)
the famed Dr Wiesenthal, who told them of Interpol’s Nazi history and the way “current practices” (up to 1977) were still Nazi-orientated. It seems Interpol, through the German federal police, initiated a smear campaign against one investigator who examined its roots in fascism. Is this why they didn’t go after Nazi war criminals? And why should we assume Interpol has changed from its Nazi outlook over the past three decades?
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18874
the summary goes on in length. the facts as far as i know match what i already knew before the article…
the US is no longer sovereign over its own, and we are arguing whether the new guy is going to be different than the old guy. who cares? i doubt he is that different or else he would never be near an office. he is different enough for THEM to be concerned as to the EASE of things, but not different enough to be your knight in shining armor that will kick start a reversal of 40+ years of this stuff!!!!!!!!!! stop reacting, start anticipating…
how about a war in south america
(now that chavez is amassing troops AND modern soviet tanks against a coutry that has no tanks!). when the magicians are waving around their left hands and pointing and so forth…stop being so gullible and get sucked into paying attention to it.
want to know how they have gotten so much through over the years? everyone thinks that their process that isnt working is the only working process… and so they keep chasing will o wisps to their demise rather than jump ahead and meet the next thing on THEIR terms not their opponents terms.
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
This struck me: “He was aggressive, but not so aggressive that he crossed any gender line.”
Here’s the lie of feminism. Women are men’s equals except when they are weaker and men have to treat them gently or be considered a bully.
Pingback:Highlights from the Coakley/Brown Debate: : NO QUARTER
re Gergen
I agree with Gray: Gergen has always been a weasel. He’s always been way on the left, and he’s always been in disguise. Weasel.
Attorney General Martha Coakley’s crackdown on Bay State gardening clubs for failing to file financial disclosure forms has left some green thumbs fearing arrest – and many sore at the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate.
Linda Jean Smith, president of the Garden Club Federation of Massachusetts, has been besieged with calls from frightened, angry members after a prickly Jan. 4 letter from Coakley’s office declared many of them were breaking the law for failing to file their financial records for the past four years.
“One club president asked me if she was going to be led away in handcuffs,” said Smith, adding that many members are in nursing homes or in Florida. “These ladies are confused.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1224976
Artfldgr: I guess Coakley’s lost the Greens.
she lost more than that since most people didnt know her or have a mental image of her before this moment… now their mental image of her will be whats fixing in their minds now as this moves forward.
i really didnt know either of them at all (and believe i still dont).
David Gergen’s statement showed his real support for the Obama administration, not the unbiased CNN contributor that he is presented as.
“Brown has been selling himself as a straight conservative on radio shows”
You mean a politician is representing himself as something he might not be? Does that really happen in politics?
Pingback:Webloggin » Watcher’s Council Nominations..Light Skinned, And Without Any Dialect Unless We Wanna
Pingback:Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations..Light Skinned, And Without Any Dialect Unless We Wanna
Yes, Mr. Brown can go to Washington. With his reasoning and confidence, it is unlikely that he will win the elections to fill in the people’s seat and not Kennedy’s or the Democrat’s seat. People in Massachusets should be able to see who is “gold” between Brown and Coakley.
This surge by the Republicans will not last.
President Obama has been in office for one year.
The economy has been in a mess since 2007 with signs of the trouble long before that.
This mess all started with greed and the Republican way of self interest.
We are in such a hole that it may take years to get to full recovery.
It will not happen in one or two years.
Stop blaming the Dems for the economic mess.
Yes, things are bad.
Yes, people are still losing their homes and jobs.
Yes, there is fear.
What people need to do is to stop voting out of fear.
Vote with your heads.
Remember what political party put us in this mess.
It was the Republican Party.
Scott Brown will not change things.
He may help to get in the way of Health Care Reform and a few other things because the Democrats now have less than 60 seats in the Senate.
Health Care Reform is a great thing as it would give the people the power of choice.
If there is no Health Care Reform, then health care continues to be the crime it has been for years.
With Republicans, it will be the same old greed you saw before Obama.
This will take time.
Hang in there.
Remember what this country was like after George Bush, Sr. left office.
Reminds me of now.
It took a Democrat to fix it all and it took time.
Under Bill Clinton, we had economic BOOM.
It will happen again.
Don’t let the Republican Party get in the way.
George Vreeland Hill