Tag Archives: Scott Brown

November 5, 2010 · 6:04 pm

Clyde Draws Support in Newburyport

Clyde may challenge Scott Brown in 2012

Why would Clyde the Horse (mentioned in the Newburyport Current – “Not just horsin’ around”) want to exit from the Newburyport waterfront and get out of town? Maybe the news of the rally uptown did it.

Seriously, a rally that draws hundreds(?) to restore sanity in Newburyport has to be a good idea. Apparently from the makeup of the area crowd (Lefties) there was a definite need for a heavy dose of sanity restoration.

Of course a rally that starts in DC with MSNBC’s ranter Ed Schultz and ends with a comedian, wasn’t overloaded with reasonableness. Don’t you wonder how many people came to hear the music and could care less for the chatter?

I think that the rally here and in DC were attempts to blunt the incoming fire just before the election. Two years of partisan Obama politics had a majority of the voters ready to toss all the Democrats out. These rallies preached the need to avoid a heated rush into disaster and surely saved some Democrat seats.

The election results have helped Massachusetts reacquire its laughing-stock image nationally. How could we retain all ten Congressmen who were part of getting us into the economic ditch during the past two years? What does the rest of the country, other than California, know that the voters here don’t know? However, any group that would even consider raising $11,400 to keep Clyde around hasn’t felt the economic effects of this administration yet.

Twenty-one Democrat US Senators are up for reelection in 2012. Could they be now lacing up their sneakers to see how far away from President Obama and Harry Reid they can get before the voting takes place?

Meanwhile, back here in Massachusetts it’s 2012 and US Senator Scott Brown is fighting for his elected life. After careful examination of qualifications, Clyde the Horse has swept the Democrat primary and has Scott on the ropes statewide even though Senator Brown accuses Clyde of being a “neigh sayer.”

Clyde’s supporters in Newburyport laud him for his “stability,” and “always being around when we need him.” When President Obama stops here on a one-day, $1 million campaign swing, he praises Clyde and compares him to himself, “Neither of us will change our stances no matter how strong the winds of adversity are.”

(This is a lighthearted letter-to-the-editor for the Newburyport Current.)

Lemming Left Still Follows Obama

Ideologue-In-Chief drives away support

How optimistic of Michael Cook to write the column entitled, “Obama not lame duck…not yet,” in the Newburyport Current after Ted Kennedy’s seat moved across the aisle.

Relax Michael, Newburyport did not vote for Scott Brown. In fact, Mike Capuano was the preference of the area Dem leadership not Martha Coakley and their support for her was very mellow.

Actually, Martha should have won statewide. Forget her underwhelming approach to campaigning; this is, after all, Massachusetts. She lost because the formerly magic letter beside her name on the ballot was a “D.”

And that “D” joined her at the hip with the current administration. Martha didn’t have the willingness or sense to run away from the current administration and the voters made her pay for that foolishness.

How can you describe Scott Brown’s campaign as “a tad disingenuous,” without any explanation?

You mentioned chuckling over writers referring to Obama’s dreadful poll numbers. Thanks for giving me a chuckle by stating that, “President Obama remains the most respected politician in America today.” Since you cite no polls for such an unlikely statement, I’ll assume that you made it up.

You said that Obama “receives high marks from most Americans on national security issues.” Again, no source cited, so again dubious conclusions pass as fact. Those high marks could have been for his having an opinion on issues. I’m not so sure that folks familiar with Fort Hood or the attempted airline bombing are giving him high marks for national security results.

Michael, how can you blame health care reform opponents for stopping it. Your Democrat friends have the numbers in Congress without including anyone else. So why can’t they get it done? Simple. Their indescribable attempt at health care reform cannot even get full Democrat support. Weren’t those bribes to Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson a sure sign of the bill’s impossible-to-sell provisions?

Next time there’s a tea party in Massachusetts you ought to show up to get a clearer view of what they’re up to. I went to one on the Boston Common and noted two themes – (1) government spending is out of control and, (2) Barney Frank had a major part in the collapse of the housing market. What is your problem with either?

Of course, there are extremists in any movement. Denouncing tea partiers, because of the work of a few of them, is like suggesting that the Democrat Party is evil because bomber Bill Ayers is on board.

Thank you for conceding that, “the Dems will still likely lose some seats in November.” Under the best of situations that usually happens. Brace yourself, Michael, because things will be much worse seat-wise if Obama lets his ideologue nature get the best of him. The voters in three states have tried to get his attention.

Let me make a prediction: If Obama does not change his approach shortly, he will lose the support of every moderate Democrat in Congress. And those Democrats will have to start taking action against Obama very soon or they will be hung with their support for him in November and risk suffering Martha Coakley’s fate.

I wonder what could happen to Congressman John Tierney if an opponent could chain him to supporting President Obama’s agenda. Is there another Scott Brown in the Sixth District?

( This letter-to-the-editor appeared in the Newburyport Current in the February 5th edition. )

Scott Brown for US Senate

US Senate candidate Scott Brown is making a strong run against Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts

Now that we have had a year to see what “hope and change,” is all about, the time has come to “hope for some change.”

That is why I am voting for Scott Brown in his US Senate race here in Massachusetts against state attorney general Martha Coakley on January 19th.

On stage with Barack Obama today (Sunday) at Northeastern, Martha said that people, “deserve someone who’s going to handle the tough problems and get us back on track.” She hit the target but not the way she expected. In my opinion, a vote for Scott Brown, not Martha Coakley, sends a clear message that the current administration is trying to take this country in directions we do not care to go.

Scott has promised to be the 41st vote against the health care reform bill. It interests me that already strategies are in circulation detailing what the Democrats will do statewide and nationally to thwart the impact of an elected Scott Brown.

Someday there will be a book written about Martha Coakley’s race for the US Senate. The title? “How Not to Conduct a Political Campaign.” The writer will detail Martha’s head-scratching decisions to try to avoid debating Scott Brown as well as avoiding the voting public.

I think that probably the toughest thing for Martha has been to try to speak positively of Obama’s administration. He is strongly approved by a miniscule 27% according to a January 17th Rasmussen poll. Presenting oneself as less of a lock-step partisan for an unpopular national government has been an untried strategy for Martha.

Another big surprise has been the usually predictable Boston Globe running articles critical of Martha’s campaign. What are they trying to do, increase circulation??

Another positive for Scott’s electability is “Mad Money’s” Jim Cramer saying that a Brown election would cause a huge stock rally because it would be considered pro-business. Who wouldn’t want that??

The Far Left has not done Martha any favors. An example is MSNBC’s Ed Schultz saying on his Friday radio show that he would try to vote ten times if he lived in Massachusetts to keep Scott Brown from winning. In a bygone era, someone could get away with these types of remarks because they would not be distributed very far or very fast. Not anymore and Ed has unwittingly stirred up folks to vote against Martha.

Anyhow, I am voting for Scott again – I did in the primary as well.

The optimist in me has the race close but the difference being the votes that Independent Joe Kennedy gets. I can imagine some confused Democrat voters, who would have chosen Martha otherwise, mistakenly selecting the Kennedy name.

It is safe to say that a Scott Brown win will have me recalling the Winter Olympics at Lake Placid, when in the final seconds of the upset of the Russian hockey team the announcer said, “Do you believe in miracles?” A Martha Coakley loss would certainly fall into that category.