Home ›

Scott Brown

Printer-friendly version Send to friend

Tea Party Leaders Preparing for Primary Fights to Bolster GOP's Ideological Purity

Submitted by Brian Tashman on December 27, 2010 - 3:35pm

Back in January the Christian Science Monitor declared “Scott Brown: the tea party’s first electoral victory,” following his surprise win in the special election to fill the Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy. But now the Boston Globe reports that conservatives and Tea Party activists are mulling over a primary challenge to the Massachusetts Republican. According to the Globe, Brown’s votes in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, ratifying the START Treaty, and reforming Wall Street (but only after it was watered down to win his support) made him toxic to many Tea Party members and other movement conservatives. The Family Research Council has pledged to back a primary challenger to any Senator who voted to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and the National Republican Trust PAC promised to do the same to any Republican who supported START.

More surprisingly, movement conservatives in Virginia are hoping to block George Allen from running again for the seat he lost to Jim Webb in 2006. Allen, a former Senator and Governor best known for using a racial slur against his opponent’s campaign worker, is already finding himself in trouble with Tea Party groups even though he hasn’t even announced his candidacy yet. The Washington Post reports that Allen’s voting record in the Senate may sink his chances among Virginia Tea Partiers:

For months, it appeared that former U.S. senator George Allen would have a clear path to the Republican nomination if he chose to try to reclaim his old job.

But in the summer, grumbling about his past began, culminating in a Web site outlining the reasons some fellow Republicans oppose him: He's too moderate. He's part of the establishment. He's partly to blame for the record spending and ballooning deficit in Washington.

By this month, no fewer than four Republicans billing themselves as more conservative than Allen were considering challenging him for the right to run against Sen. James Webb, if the Virginia Democrat seeks reelection.

"There are some concerns based on his record and his rhetoric," said Mark Kevin Lloyd, chairman of the Lynchburg Tea Party and vice chairman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation, a statewide umbrella group. "People are looking at things in a new light," he said.

Allen, who received a 92.3% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, was hardly considered a moderate in the Senate. But apparently 92% isn’t enough:

But during his one term in the U.S. Senate, some Republicans complain, he backed President George W. Bush's proposals to increase spending; supported No Child Left Behind, a costly program to create a national education report card; favored a federal program to subsidize the costs of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries; and voted to expand the Hate Crimes Prevention Act to include crimes based on sexual orientation.

Jamie Ratdke, who recently stepped down as chairwoman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation in order to explore a Senate bid, said she began to consider a run for the Senate after attending a Tea Party convention that featured Rick Santorum, Lou Dobbs, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli as speakers:

Radtke said that she had considered running for the state Senate next year but that she began thinking about the U.S. Senate instead after Virginia's first tea party convention, which drew an estimated 2,800 people to Richmond in October.

Radtke, who worked for Allen for a year when he was governor and she was right out of college, said it's time for a new candidate. She said that Allen was part of "George Bush's expansion of government" when he was senator and that she was concerned about some of his stances on abortion.

Allen has said that abortions should be legal in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is endangered, and he owned stock in the manufacturer of the morning-after pill.

If George Allen is deemed not conservative enough for the Republican Party, then expect many more extremist candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell to win contested GOP primaries. Allen hurt his chances by supporting healthcare and education initiatives that were backed by President Bush and the Republican leadership, and is also deemed too moderate because he voted to include sexual orientation under hate crimes protections and believes in exceptions under a ban on abortion.

While running for reelection in 2006, Allen received wide praise at FRC’s Values Voter Summit for his staunch conservative beliefs, but now he is under attack from the Right for being “too moderate” even though he hasn’t served in public office since he lost the 2006 race. As Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William County board of supervisors and a likely primary opponent, says, Allen’s “base has moved on.”

PFAW
Filed under:

Sen. Scott Brown Dines With MassResistance

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on February 24, 2010 - 4:53pm

MassResistance, which has the distinction of being one of the few organizations classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, just sent out an email bragging that the organization was invited to attend a breakfast meeting with Sen. Scott Brown earlier this week which included this photo of Brown with MassResistance head Brian Camenker :

US Senator Scott Brown held an impromptu breakfast Feb. 20 in South Boston to connect with representatives of his grassroots activist supporters. It included key Republican activists, Tea Party activists, and others (even some Democrats). South Boston activists invited MassResistance to join the event as the major pro-family action group.

The Brown people seem well aware who his base is, and he genuinely wants to stay connected with them ... The meeting was at the Playwright Restaurant and Bar on West Broadway. Brown strolled in a few minutes early with just an aide.

Sen. Brown mingled and spoke individually with people for quite a while. He talked about a range of topics. And he wanted us to feel comfortable contacting his office if we needed to, and said that he would represent the average person's interests. Then everyone sat down and had breakfast. Later, he gave a short speech and left for his next appointment.

...

A meeting like this in Massachusetts is really quite astonishing. Although the liberals get this kind of meeting all the time (e.g., the current governor regularly meeting with MassEquality), the idea of a U.S. Senator (or any major politician) sitting down with real conservative activists is simply unheard of. Certainly no recent Republican governor - Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift, or Mitt Romney - would have ever done this. They often met with liberal activists, but they were uncomfortable around conservatives and kept them at a distance.

But Brown's message was that he's willing to listen to us and take us seriously. And despite years of politics and sudden national fame, he hasn't become elitist or condescending -- which also makes him an oddity among politicians here.

PFAW
Filed under:

Scott Brown Makes Surprise CPAC Appearance

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on February 18, 2010 - 2:03pm

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice was scheduled to introduce Mitt Romney at CPAC, but ended up turning that task over to a surprise guest: Sen. Scott Brown, who was greeted like a rock start by the audience (and yes, Brown assured them, he arrived in his pick-up truck):

PFAW
Filed under:

"Scott Brown May Be Another Arlene [sic] Specter"

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on February 2, 2010 - 3:30pm

As I have noted before, the post-election elation regarding Scott Brown's victory is quickly wearing off for the Religious Right and I am committed to tracking just how long it takes before the Right turns on him and posting on it ... especially things like this press release from the Government Is Not God PAC [GING -PAC] that compares him to "Arlene Specter": 

There has been a lot of enthusiasm for Scott Brown from conservatives and some pro-life leaders have stated that his election saved the nation from the pro-abortion "health care reform" plans of President Barack Obama. Social conservatives should not be celebrating because Senator-elect Scott Brown by his own admission is "pro-choice," not "pro-life."

During his campaign Brown avoided the questionnaires of social conservative and pro-life groups. His campaign did not respond to calls from GING-PAC and Brown did not reply to the GING-PAC questionnaire which asks many sharp questions on pro-family issues such as abortion.

GING-PAC is the nation's oldest social conservative political action committee and does not support any candidate who believes Roe v. Wade should be the law of the land.

While conservatives were still shouting for joy after his election to the Senate, Scott Brown flew to Washington, DC where he told Republican leaders that the party could not count on his vote in several areas including on the abortion issue.

Scott Brown's victory came during a special election and he has only two years remaining in the Senate seat that was vacated by the death of Senator Joe Kennedy. That means he literally must start running for reelection now and he will probably move to the left on social issues despite the fact that he ran as a "conservative." Scott Brown may be another Arlene [sic] Specter who will vote with the party most of the time, but neither the Republican Party nor conservatives will be able to count on him as a full time participant in the conservative movement.

PFAW
Filed under:

The Looming RINO-ization of Scott Brown

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on February 1, 2010 - 10:44am

Last week I wrote a post noting that while Religious Right leaders were elated that a Republican had won the Massachusetts Senate seat in the recent special election, they were not necessarily enamoured with Scott Brown.

And now they have even less reason to be so, thanks to his assertion that he hasn't taken a postiion on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and his opposition to several of their primary goals: 

The man nicknamed "41" after he won a special election Jan. 19 that deprived Senate Democrats of their 60-vote supermajority said he opposes partial-birth abortion and federal funding for abortions, but does not support the repeal of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision.

"Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but I think we need to do more to reduce the amount of abortions," he said on ABC's "This Week."

"I feel this issue is best handled between a woman and her doctor and her family."

He also appeared to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, saying, "I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states' rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis."

Once the election euphoria wears off, it will only be a matter of time before the Right starts attacking Brown as a RINO.

PFAW
Filed under:

Don't Get Too Comfortable, Scott Brown

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on January 22, 2010 - 12:48pm

It seems that while the pundits and prognosticators are mulling over just what Scott Brown's victory means for President Obama, the Democratic agenda in Congress, and the future of the Republican Party, a theme is starting to emerge among the Religious Right that as exciting as Brown's win may have been, he's really just another RINO.

Randall Terry was first out of the box, saying that Brown's win was better than a Coakley win, but "we must not deceive ourselves or our supporters about Scott Brown, and his true position on child killing. We need to replace Scott Brown as soon as we can with a true defender of babies' lives, not a phony who supports their murder." 

Alan Keyes has made a similar point:

Conservatives working to restore constitution freedom can cheer for Obama's defeat, but take no cheer from Brown's victory because he is a typical RINO (Republican-in-name-only) who:

* has no differences in principle with the socialist-minded Democrats;

* embraces the substance of Obama's socialist agenda, but "opposes" Obama by criticizing his implementation of socialism, especially when it comes to fiscal matters;

* agrees in principle with the Democrats on the fundamental issues of justice and morality but employs the deceptive rhetoric of personal opinion to evade the questions of public law and policy they involve. Such issues include child-murder and other abrogations of the unalienable right to life, as well as the rejection of the God-endowed rights of the natural family.

Matt Barber is likewise of the view that Brown is little more than a "tourniquet": 

Many social conservatives (of which I’m one) have complained that the senator-elect is woefully flawed on social issues – particularly abortion. This is true.

Still, to my pro-life, pro-family compatriots, I offer this: While bleeding to death, one may be left no choice but to apply a tourniquet. A tourniquet is less than ideal. It may even cost a limb; however, it’s also likely to save one’s life. Obama has sliced open America’s wrists with his cutting political agenda. Time is of the essence. By providing Senate Republicans the crucial 41st vote needed to filibuster, Scott Brown supplies the tourniquet.

...

Of course, none of this justifies Brown’s indefensible position on abortion, “civil unions” and other social issues. I and others will not rest until he, and all who have been so deceived by the euphemistic language of “choice” and “reproductive freedom,” likewise recognize that all persons – whether born or pre-born – share an “inalienable right to life” that in every instance trumps another’s phantom “right to choose” premeditated murder.

Most importantly, even the Family Research Council admits that they are not happy with many of Brown's views but withheld criticism in pursuit of short term goals: 

Social conservatives held back criticism of Brown's social views--and, in some cases, openly supported him--because they believe a Brown win fulfills a short term goal of blocking President Obama's abominable health bill. Of course, the Republican Establishment would like us to believe that Scott Brown's moderate platform on life and marriage is a recipe for conservative success in 2010.

So it remains to be seen just how long the current infatuation with Brown lasts and if, when he comes up for re-election down the road, right-wing groups who are happy with his election now will be change their tune and end up backing a "true conservative" primary challenger later.

Obviously, that is a long way away ... but given that the Right doesn't really support Brown now, it is entirely possible that he might eventually find himself the next Dede Scozzafava or Charlie Crist.

PFAW
Filed under:
Syndicate content