Scott Brown bags the Tea Party

[DiveCon]

The full statement is here:

WALTERS: The Tea Party movement was important to your victory. How influential do you think the Tea Party movement is going to be?

BROWN: Well, you're making an assumption that the Tea Party movement was influential, and I have to respectfully disagree. It was everybody. I had a plurality...

WALTERS: But it was part of it.

BROWN: Of course, it was.

Of course it was (influential). That is throwing the Tea Party under the bus?

I'll wait to see how he votes. In the meantime, he stopped the worst piece of legislation in the history of the republic. For that I am grateful.....

for those that missed what carby left out

 

[Claudette]

he's right.

keep telling yourself otherwise, though.

So right. I'm sure a lot of Tea Partiers supported Brown but so did the Indi's, Reps and some Dems. As he said. Everybody was instrumental in getting him elected.

Don't think anyone was thrown under the bus this time round. Quite a few sitting in the bus though.

 

[Dr.House]

LOL! NYC doesn't understand understatements.

I understand that when someone says someone wasn't influential, they mean they weren't influential.

It is clear that he is, as I said multiple times before, keeping the Tea Party loons at arm's length.

well, you're just a regular james carville, bud.

keep up the good work and someday you'll be fetching bill clinton's coffee.

He's auditioning for the part of Monica Lewinski in the Off-Broadway musical "The Bill Clinton Story"...

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL! NYC doesn't understand understatements.

I understand that when someone says someone wasn't influential, they mean they weren't influential.

It is clear that he is, as I said multiple times before, keeping the Tea Party loons at arm's length.

well, you're just a regular james carville, bud.

keep up the good work and someday you'll be fetching bill clinton's coffee.

Well then why don't you explain to us why Scott Brown would make a POINT of declaring that the Tea Party was not influential in his campaign? He certainly didn't have to make that point. He certainly didn't have to take issue with Walters' characterization of them as influential.

Tell us why you think he did that.

 

[del]

I understand that when someone says someone wasn't influential, they mean they weren't influential.

It is clear that he is, as I said multiple times before, keeping the Tea Party loons at arm's length.

well, you're just a regular james carville, bud.

keep up the good work and someday you'll be fetching bill clinton's coffee.

Well then why don't you explain to us why Scott Brown would make a POINT of declaring that the Tea Party was not influential in his campaign? He certainly didn't have to make that point. He certainly didn't have to take issue with Walters' characterization of them as influential.

Tell us why you think he did that.

she framed the question with the premise being that the tea partiers were a big influence on his election.

he quite correctly rejected her premise and answered her question-the tea partiers were not that influential in this election,unless you think roughly 7000 tea party voters out of over 2.2 million votes cast is influential.

i also suspect the majority of tea party voters went for kennedy as he is more in line with their views.

i'll type this slowly so you have a chance at possibly understanding it- the independents elected scott brown, not the republicans, not the tea partiers, not the neo-nazis, not the whigs, not the mugwumps, not the know nothings and not the democrats.

the independents.

get it or shall i draw you a map?

 

[DiveCon]

well, you're just a regular james carville, bud.

keep up the good work and someday you'll be fetching bill clinton's coffee.

Well then why don't you explain to us why Scott Brown would make a POINT of declaring that the Tea Party was not influential in his campaign? He certainly didn't have to make that point. He certainly didn't have to take issue with Walters' characterization of them as influential.

Tell us why you think he did that.

she framed the question with the premise being that the tea partiers were a big influence on his election.

he quite correctly rejected her premise and answered her question-the tea partiers were not that influential in this election,unless you think roughly 7000 tea party voters out of over 2.2 million votes cast is influential.

i also suspect the majority of tea party voters went for kennedy as he is more in line with their views.

i'll type this slowly so you have a chance at possibly understanding it- the independents elected scott brown, not the republicans, not the tea partiers, not the neo-nazis, not the whigs, not the mugwumps, not the know nothings and not the democrats.

the independents.

get it or shall i draw you a map?

you could give him a laptop with street atlas 2010 and a gps and he still couldnt find it

 

[NYcarbineer]

well, you're just a regular james carville, bud.

keep up the good work and someday you'll be fetching bill clinton's coffee.

Well then why don't you explain to us why Scott Brown would make a POINT of declaring that the Tea Party was not influential in his campaign? He certainly didn't have to make that point. He certainly didn't have to take issue with Walters' characterization of them as influential.

Tell us why you think he did that.

she framed the question with the premise being that the tea partiers were a big influence on his election.

he quite correctly rejected her premise and answered her question-the tea partiers were not that influential in this election,unless you think roughly 7000 tea party voters out of over 2.2 million votes cast is influential.

i also suspect the majority of tea party voters went for kennedy as he is more in line with their views.

i'll type this slowly so you have a chance at possibly understanding it- the independents elected scott brown, not the republicans, not the tea partiers, not the neo-nazis, not the whigs, not the mugwumps, not the know nothings and not the democrats.

the independents.

get it or shall i draw you a map?

You're acknowledging that the tea partiers were not influential. That was the point of the thread, that has been my point for a month, that was Scott Brown's point. So who are you disagreeing with, other than some rightwing tea party fans HERE?

 

[del]

No. What it says is that Brown disagrees with the assumption that the Tea Party movement was influnential.

he won by about 150,000 votes if memory serves ( imay be off, but it was at least 100k).

there are about 7000 tea party members in mass.

there are 6,628 green/rainbow party members in mass.

there are 2,141,878 unenrolled voters in mass.

there are 1,559,464 democratic voters in mass.

there are 490,259 republican voters in mass.

do the math.


http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/st_county_town_enroll_breakdown_08.pdf

So.....if my math is correct, the Tea Partiers didn't stand a chance of influencing anything in MA, as their numbers are simply too insignificant?

that would be correct, imo.

but i've only been politically active here since 1970, so don't take my word for it.

 

[del]

Well then why don't you explain to us why Scott Brown would make a POINT of declaring that the Tea Party was not influential in his campaign? He certainly didn't have to make that point. He certainly didn't have to take issue with Walters' characterization of them as influential.

Tell us why you think he did that.

she framed the question with the premise being that the tea partiers were a big influence on his election.

he quite correctly rejected her premise and answered her question-the tea partiers were not that influential in this election,unless you think roughly 7000 tea party voters out of over 2.2 million votes cast is influential.

i also suspect the majority of tea party voters went for kennedy as he is more in line with their views.

i'll type this slowly so you have a chance at possibly understanding it- the independents elected scott brown, not the republicans, not the tea partiers, not the neo-nazis, not the whigs, not the mugwumps, not the know nothings and not the democrats.

the independents.

get it or shall i draw you a map?

You're acknowledging that the tea partiers were not influential. That was the point of the thread, that has been my point for a month, that was Scott Brown's point. So who are you disagreeing with, other than some rightwing tea party fans HERE?

no, the point you were trying to make was that he threw them under the busbecause it was politically expedient to do so. he did no such thing. maybe this kind of sophistry plays at the eagles lodge in herkimer, but you're not in sticks any more, spanky.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

she framed the question with the premise being that the tea partiers were a big influence on his election.

he quite correctly rejected her premise and answered her question-the tea partiers were not that influential in this election,unless you think roughly 7000 tea party voters out of over 2.2 million votes cast is influential.

i also suspect the majority of tea party voters went for kennedy as he is more in line with their views.

i'll type this slowly so you have a chance at possibly understanding it- the independents elected scott brown, not the republicans, not the tea partiers, not the neo-nazis, not the whigs, not the mugwumps, not the know nothings and not the democrats.

the independents.

get it or shall i draw you a map?

You're acknowledging that the tea partiers were not influential. That was the point of the thread, that has been my point for a month, that was Scott Brown's point. So who are you disagreeing with, other than some rightwing tea party fans HERE?

no, the point you were trying to make was that he threw them under the busbecause it was politically expedient to do so. he did no such thing. maybe this kind of sophistry plays at the eagles lodge in herkimer, but you're not in sticks any more, spanky.

And that was blatantly obvious to anyone reading the thread NYcarbineer. Why try to be shady about it? Just come right out and say what you want since you seem confident about your opinions in this area.

Speak without fear.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm just wondering how the radical right spins DEFEATING a moderate Republican in NY as a "victory" and electing one in Mass. a "victory" as well??????

 

[blu]

I'm just wondering how the radical right spins DEFEATING a moderate Republican in NY as a "victory" and electing one in Mass. a "victory" as well??????

would you expect a ron paul conservative to win in Massachusetts ? brown is quite conservative for MA

 

[Dr.House]

You're acknowledging that the tea partiers were not influential. That was the point of the thread, that has been my point for a month, that was Scott Brown's point. So who are you disagreeing with, other than some rightwing tea party fans HERE?

no, the point you were trying to make was that he threw them under the busbecause it was politically expedient to do so. he did no such thing. maybe this kind of sophistry plays at the eagles lodge in herkimer, but you're not in sticks any more, spanky.

And that was blatantly obvious to anyone reading the thread NYcarbineer. Why try to be shady about it? Just come right out and say what you want since you seem confident about your opinions in this area.

Speak without fear.

Some of us know him from elsewhere...

He's all about playing word games, making shit up, and deflecting...

Intellectually Dishonest Monthly has done as many cover stories on him as Time has for Barry 0bama...

 

[NYcarbineer]

she framed the question with the premise being that the tea partiers were a big influence on his election.

he quite correctly rejected her premise and answered her question-the tea partiers were not that influential in this election,unless you think roughly 7000 tea party voters out of over 2.2 million votes cast is influential.

i also suspect the majority of tea party voters went for kennedy as he is more in line with their views.

i'll type this slowly so you have a chance at possibly understanding it- the independents elected scott brown, not the republicans, not the tea partiers, not the neo-nazis, not the whigs, not the mugwumps, not the know nothings and not the democrats.

the independents.

get it or shall i draw you a map?

You're acknowledging that the tea partiers were not influential. That was the point of the thread, that has been my point for a month, that was Scott Brown's point. So who are you disagreeing with, other than some rightwing tea party fans HERE?

no, the point you were trying to make was that he threw them under the busbecause it was politically expedient to do so. he did no such thing. maybe this kind of sophistry plays at the eagles lodge in herkimer, but you're not in sticks any more, spanky.

You remind me of what someone said about the OJ jury...

...if they'd shown them a picture of OJ standing over the bodies with the bloody knife in his hand, they'd still have acquitted him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're acknowledging that the tea partiers were not influential. That was the point of the thread, that has been my point for a month, that was Scott Brown's point. So who are you disagreeing with, other than some rightwing tea party fans HERE?

no, the point you were trying to make was that he threw them under the busbecause it was politically expedient to do so. he did no such thing. maybe this kind of sophistry plays at the eagles lodge in herkimer, but you're not in sticks any more, spanky.

And that was blatantly obvious to anyone reading the thread NYcarbineer. Why try to be shady about it? Just come right out and say what you want since you seem confident about your opinions in this area.

Speak without fear.

I've been telling everyone since before this election that Scott Brown is a pro-choice John McCain and he's just what the far right and the teabaggers were yelling good riddance at for the last 2 years plus. Now the far right is so desperate for some sort of win they have to pretend that Brown is one of their own.

Scott Brown is northeastern Republican. I'm from NY, I ought to know what northeast Republicans look like.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

no, the point you were trying to make was that he threw them under the busbecause it was politically expedient to do so. he did no such thing. maybe this kind of sophistry plays at the eagles lodge in herkimer, but you're not in sticks any more, spanky.

And that was blatantly obvious to anyone reading the thread NYcarbineer. Why try to be shady about it? Just come right out and say what you want since you seem confident about your opinions in this area.

Speak without fear.

I've been telling everyone since before this election that Scott Brown is a pro-choice John McCain and he's just what the far right and the teabaggers were yelling good riddance at for the last 2 years plus. Now the far right is so desperate for some sort of win they have to pretend that Brown is one of their own.

Scott Brown is northeastern Republican. I'm from NY, I ought to know what northeast Republicans look like.

But he isn't a progressive republican like john mccain is. Thats the difference. Its not about republican/democrat conservative/liberal. Its about classical american values as set forth in our founding documents vs progressive governmental views as put forth by progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow wilson and continued by the likes of George Bush and Barack Obama.

 

[del]

You're acknowledging that the tea partiers were not influential. That was the point of the thread, that has been my point for a month, that was Scott Brown's point. So who are you disagreeing with, other than some rightwing tea party fans HERE?

no, the point you were trying to make was that he threw them under the busbecause it was politically expedient to do so. he did no such thing. maybe this kind of sophistry plays at the eagles lodge in herkimer, but you're not in sticks any more, spanky.

You remind me of what someone said about the OJ jury...

...if they'd shown them a picture of OJ standing over the bodies with the bloody knife in his hand, they'd still have acquitted him.

you remind me of something george v. higgins wrote:

"This life's hard, man, but it's harder if you're stupid"

 

[SFC Ollie]

no, the point you were trying to make was that he threw them under the busbecause it was politically expedient to do so. he did no such thing. maybe this kind of sophistry plays at the eagles lodge in herkimer, but you're not in sticks any more, spanky.

And that was blatantly obvious to anyone reading the thread NYcarbineer. Why try to be shady about it? Just come right out and say what you want since you seem confident about your opinions in this area.

Speak without fear.

I've been telling everyone since before this election that Scott Brown is a pro-choice John McCain and he's just what the far right and the teabaggers were yelling good riddance at for the last 2 years plus. Now the far right is so desperate for some sort of win they have to pretend that Brown is one of their own.

Scott Brown is northeastern Republican. I'm from NY, I ought to know what northeast Republicans look like.

Which is still better than a bleeding heart Kennedy Liberal. Senator Brown has effectively stopped Obamacare. And that's all I care about him doing. (for now)

 

[NYcarbineer]

And that was blatantly obvious to anyone reading the thread NYcarbineer. Why try to be shady about it? Just come right out and say what you want since you seem confident about your opinions in this area.

Speak without fear.

I've been telling everyone since before this election that Scott Brown is a pro-choice John McCain and he's just what the far right and the teabaggers were yelling good riddance at for the last 2 years plus. Now the far right is so desperate for some sort of win they have to pretend that Brown is one of their own.

Scott Brown is northeastern Republican. I'm from NY, I ought to know what northeast Republicans look like.

Which is still better than a bleeding heart Kennedy Liberal. Senator Brown has effectively stopped Obamacare. And that's all I care about him doing. (for now)

Yeah, you got VHA and Medicare, no need to care about anyone else.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I've been telling everyone since before this election that Scott Brown is a pro-choice John McCain and he's just what the far right and the teabaggers were yelling good riddance at for the last 2 years plus. Now the far right is so desperate for some sort of win they have to pretend that Brown is one of their own.

Scott Brown is northeastern Republican. I'm from NY, I ought to know what northeast Republicans look like.

Which is still better than a bleeding heart Kennedy Liberal. Senator Brown has effectively stopped Obamacare. And that's all I care about him doing. (for now)

Yeah, you got VHA and Medicare, no need to care about anyone else.

Actually I do not use the VA. I do use what congress has consented to give us which is not what we were promised. I am on medicare because I had to apply for Disability which was approved, so I am getting back some of the money I payed into that system, sort of. Before i had Medicare with Tricare for life as a secondary, I was on Tricare prime. Which is what Congress gave us after lying to us about free health care after serving 20 or more years. I now spend over twice as much each month on health care than I did before Medicare. Figure that out.

And trust me you do not want medicare if you don't have to take it.