Scott Brown Photo Gallery: What's Wrong with This Picture?

A recent Scott Brown rally in the North End revealed how easily we forget the past when distracted by hope for the future. People are getting excited about Scott Brown, but is this candidate really who Team Tea Party thinks he is?

Scott Brown's voting record finds him in the minority on almost every single issue, often disagreeing with his own party. His ideology is also inconsistent: he has stated he will vote against a national health care bill, but he voted for the similar and reasonably functional system we have in Massachusetts. Much of the media coverage of Brown is coming as the result of a national Republican campaign against Democrats. Scott Brown might represent Republican interests, but these are not necessarily the interests of Massachusetts residents.

Everyone is free to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. But the right to vote comes with the responsibility of self-educating. Don't believe everything (or anything) you might hear about a candidate, especially from the media (including, of course, this site). Go to the original sources. Learn about the issues. Learn about the candidates' voting records and stated positions (and, if it's important to you, their sources of funding), and research and reconcile contradictions as best you can. Know who you're really voting for—not just the media image of that person. We might appreciate Scott Brown primarily for his body, but we would never tell you who to vote for. Don't let anyone else try to.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@bostonist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • DCBikerJohn

    The US Constitution does not authorize the foederal government to provide health care or health insurance to citizens. The State of Massachusetts, however, is not prohibited by the same US Constitution from providing health care or health insurance to its citizens. It's completely consistent for Mr. Brown to support the effort by his State, and to oppose a similar effort by the foederal government.

    The US Constitution wisely provides a framework that discourages one-size-fits-all government. With 50 states, there surely will be one where the variations on the themes of communalism and individual liberty meet everyone's needs and desires. If you want state provided health care, move to Massachusetts or Tennessee. If you want gun rights, move to Texas. If you want no state income tax, move to New Hampshire or Florida. If you want strict automobile emission regulations, move to California. If you want gay marriage, move to wherever that's legal. Go find your own utopia among the various States, and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the mix of individual freedoms and communal benefits we have come to expect in our state.

    REPEAL THE 17th AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION.

  • suretylink

    Good call Roy. As to the Mass. Plan vote, it is similarly misleading to suggest that the state plan mirrors the federal plan. First, both pending federal bills are much different and we don't even know what the final product will be, but we know it will be bad, expensive and opposed by most Americans. Second, the state plan, unfortunately also supported by Gov. Romney, has Mass. paying a very high price for its "reasonably functional" plan. Is it really inconsistent to not force this health care fraud and folly on the entire nation and vote the preference of a plurality of the people in Mass. and a majority of Americans? I don't think so. Bring the Tea Party to the original Tea Party State on Tuesday. Vote Scott Brown for a less taxing change!

  • fleabus

    Hey, you need to stop sending conflicting message. Didn't Martha's ad say that Scott walked in "lockstep" with Republicans?

    By the way, the People of Massachusetts called. They want their Senate seat back.

  • Roy

    This is the disformation that the opposition hopes know one will look up, but take at face value..... The bill in question was not regarding denial of assitance to 911 workers but an act to allow ANY state employee to leave WITH PAY to serve on any "DISASTER". Now I know that none of our hard working and honest state employees would take advantage of this legislation but ......

  • The vote on the bill was on 10/17/2001. The bill reportedly included 9/11 relief workers.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Tips

The day's most popular stories from Bostonist every evening in your inbox from our newsletter.

About Bostonist

Bostonist is a website about Boston. More

Editor: Matthew Gannon

Publisher: Gothamist

Contribute

Latest Tip:

nice
[more]

Latest Photo:

Recent Comments

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Bostonist.

All Our RSS