Blog: The Best Reason for Voting Against Scott Brown

Posted on September 26, 2012 at 5:00 am

There is a very strong reason to vote against Senator Scott Brown: If we wins it increases the likelihood that Republicans will take over the Senate. As majority party they would then appoint the powerful committee chairs. Here's what that would mean. Orrin Hatch (Utah), an opponent of all of Obama's programs and uncompromising opponent of choice for women, would take over Finance. Pat Roberts (Kansas), if anything to the right of Hatch, and with a record of ZERO on environmental affairs, would take over Agriculture. Richard Shelby (Alabama), an avid fan of tax cuts for millionaires and fierce opponent of gay marriage, would again try to repeal the Dodd Frank Financial Protection bill as chair of Banking. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), another right-winger who also scores poorly on veterans' affairs and conservation issues, would chair Judiciary. Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma), an anti-science religious zealot who thinks climate change is a "hoax", and who likens the EPA to the Gestapo, would chair Environment and Public Works. Jeff Sessions (Alabama), who would take over the Budget Committee, says Food Stamps are immoral. Would you like these people as committee chairs?

While Brown is not the worst of the increasingly right-wing Republicans, he sides with them more often than not. His election would strengthen a party that disdains science, conservation, neutrality on religion, women's rights and corporate regulation. This can't be good for Newton, Massachusetts or the USA.

(See my political blog: ThatMansScope.blogspot.com)

Upload Photos and Videos

David Brubeck

6:03 pm on Wednesday, September 26, 2012

I guess the best reason to vote for Brown is because of the train-wreck running against him. Let me see, republicans want dirty water, the gestapo, veterans in the gutter. But with Warren they can have a affirmative action cheat, who supports industry over the workers, and who illegally practices law in this state. Who rails for the middle class, yet like Kerry is one of the one percent, making half a million a year from Harvard, and yet decries the fact students can't afford the tuition. God bless!

Maxine-and-Mark Bridger

6:36 pm on Wednesday, September 26, 2012

It's not that the Republicans want dirty water, but the people they really work for don't want regulations about water quality or clean-up costs for their dumping to eat into their profits.

The Republican scuttled the Veterans Employment bill not because they hate vets but because (1) they are making a big deal about government spending in order to shrink government and (2) they don't want Obama to get credit for any good programs.

No one said the Republicans favor the "gestapo"? It was James Inhofe, R. Okla who likened the EPA to the gestapo. You should read more carefully.

Your comments about Warren are completely wrong as several articles in The Globe have recently clarified.

I would say that her salary, like many salaries for star professors at Harvard, is too much. But that is Harvard's problem, and in no way affects her qualifications to be Senator or her sympathies for the non-rich. Harvard students have no problem with tuition: the admissions policy is need-blind, and they can afford to (and do) give everyone who gets in adequate aid to attend. Finally, if making money disqualifies one from having worthwhile motives, actions and opinions, you might want to check out Scott Brown's lucrative book contract.

You might want to be a little more careful in what you say and how you say it.