Brown outpolls Kerry, Obama

Source: Boston Globe

Brown outpolls Kerry, Obama
Most popular official in survey; For incumbents, message is mixed
By Matt Viser and Frank Phillips

Globe Staff / June 28, 2010

US Senator Scott Brown, who only months ago was a little-known figure even within the tiny band of Republicans in the state Senate, not only catapulted to national stature with his upset US Senate victory, but is today the most popular officeholder in Massachusetts, according to a Boston Globe poll.

After less than five months in Washington, Brown outpolls such Democratic stalwarts as President Obama and US Senator John F. Kerry in popularity, the poll indicates. He gets high marks not only from Republicans, but even a plurality of Democrats views him favorably.

The support for Brown, whose victory became a symbol of voter anger, is consistent with widespread sentiment that incumbents in Massachusetts and Washington “need to be replaced with a new crop of leaders.’’ That statement was supported by 50 percent of those polled, while 28 percent said they trust the incumbents.

Yet there’s one surprising consolation for Bay State Democrats who hope to defuse the voter backlash. When asked whether they will vote for a Democrat or Republican in their own congressional district in November, 42 percent of likely voters say they will vote for the Democrat and 27 percent will vote Republican.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/06/28/brown_outpolls_kerry_obama/

---

At least they intend, as of now, to vote Democratic in November. But, the possibility of a Brown victory in 2012 is sickening.

On the bright side, ads against him have already been running. Here's hoping they start working.

My California upbringing is still with me. :)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

.

:rofl: at you!

He has been making it his personal goal to promote Brown by writing articles that talk about everything except substance (which given the lack of substance of Brown would be hard to do).

I am still waiting for him to report about Brown fu*ing the state by his vote against extending unemployment.

His article that should have been based on an extensive in house interview nearly ignored the entire interview which shows an incredibly immature man who knows less on political issues than the average person posting here. It was mind boggling to read that he is swearing off earmarks - but then see in the interview that he strongly agreed with that and then spoke of how if there were good MA projects he would work to get them into appropriations bills. (Kind of reminds me of an old guy who was on jury duty with me who answered the question if he was ever arrested by saying that he was charged and convicted of assault and battery 50 years before, adding it was not true he just hit the guy.

The BG has also completely glorified his national guard service - and has regularly quoted him speaking of his 30 years in the military. Now, Sestak has 30 years in the military, but Brown absolutely does not. The BG's owner, the NYT, made a huge issue of Blumenthal's Naval reserve service was not active duty. Yet the Republicans said Kerry did not spend enough time on active duty - even though he was active for about three and a half years - likely totally more days than Brown even spent on reserve duty.

on foreign policy and critical domestic matters. Viser thinks GOP will put Brown in WH and he is attaching himself to Brown in hopes of making it happen.

Disgusting behavior from someone who is supposed to be a journalist.

The margin of error for the overall poll is +/- 4.2%, which makes it a statistical draw. (Also, it suggests some wobbliness in the methodology. Usually the MOE for such polls is +/- 3%.) The fact that the column does not include a link to the raw survey data, so enquiring minds can review the cross-tabulations, is also suspect.

Not only do they love to prop up substanceless Repukes, but they totally try to whitewash the left's point of view from the mainstream.

.

What a kiss-ass that reporter is!

I though Obama's obsession with bipartisanship and he the Senate's incessant pandering to the the corporate right was great strategy?

I thought we didn't traditional Democratic values and constituencies?

The anti-Brown commercials have been airing frequently here in MA, declaring him as already becoming a "Washington insider" after only a few months in office. And he's still 2 years away from running for reelection.

Screw favorability ratings.

What it suggests is that the elections for Representatives that ARE in November look good given that result - though obviously the more detailed district results are key. (They are said to be very good.)

It is actually good that Brown is NOT up in November. He might be hard to defeat by then - but his numbers are trending down form the height of his election - and that is happening with glowing press. If he were up this November, he could well be in for another 6 years. He is still new enough that many just see the flash and haven't really looked at the record.

I would look at the trajectory of Brown's polling. In spite of honeymoon style reporting, both here and in the Herald, his numbers have decreased each time it is polled. The first poll had him above 70, a level that I think is higher than Kennedy had - at least since 2004. At this point, Brown's numbers are significantly not different than Obama's or Kerry's. Also note that this poll was taken (june 17 -23) before the last two votes against unemployment bill and his reversal on the finance reform bill. In fact, the last major thing people knew was that he stood with the Democrats on the finance bill.

Given the coverage, it is surprising that Brown is not 10 points higher than Kerry. For instance, this weekend comments on articles on Brown flip flopping on his vote for financial reform after he got a major concession that weakens the Volker rule, one comment spoke of Brown attending a MA picnic this week and questioning where Kerry was. From Israeli papers, he was in Israel doing oversight for the SFRC. Apparently the MA press thinks Brown attending a picnic is more important than the Chair of the SFRC going to Israel. It is such that if the Democrats succeed in passing a climate change bill, I would not be surprised that the Boston papers would headline it as "Brown's vote creates landmark climate bill".

In addition - the coverage of Brown reeks of pandering by the papers. I challenge anyone to watch the BG interview with Brown ( http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/05/09/transcript_from_the_interview_with_scott_brown ) and then watch the severely edited video, where flaky comments are replaced with glamour shots of Brown. Then read the article printed. ( http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/05/09/a_star_from_day_one_brown_settles_in )

The article uses very few direct quotes from the detailed interview - and in writing that he has said he will not put earmarks into bills, the reporter ignores that he then, at least twice, says he will work to get good projects into appropriations bills - apparently not aware that if they list a specific project ... they are earmarks. You might notice that the same reporter that wrote this dishonest "star is born" article also wrote today's article.

I have never seen any politician - Obama included - given the passes that Brown got on that interview and on others. Kerry's treatment has always been the opposite - he can speak brilliantly for an hour interview and the attention will be heaviest on anything that can be twisted.

At this point, where long term incumbents and the President are the focus of voter anger, Kerry's and Obama's numbers are likely at their lowest. Kerry's numbers are not all that different than they were in late 2007, yet a year later he got 66 percent of the vote. I suspect that part of the reason is that there is a tendency for people to answer what they expect the pollster to want. The Boston papers seemed to written for 25 years that "no one likes Kerry". In the past year, the papers, tv and radio have all been a Scott Brown fan club - ignoring how clueless he often is.

I hope they disappear soon. It often takes a lot for people to remove them - there's lots of inertia. I think many wait till the next election - and for MA Republicans he is the only major win in years.

It's funny that I DON'T see Christie bumper stickers - even though the right is pushing him as the best thing since sliced bread and I live in the county he is from.

Kerry has had decades of name recognition and bringing home the bacon to Massachusetts, decades of showing up at local events, funerals and floods, et. And this is supposedly the bluest state in the nation. And we are not going to be stopping media favoritism any time soon.

If Democrats don't get that this is very bad news, denial is the only explanation.

However, it is a reason to work, NOT a reason to get disciuraged or give up.

In 2006/2007, his numbers even at one point were below 50% - but in the same poll he beat every Democrat or Republican he was polled against by more than 20 points. It was very frustrating to see comments in MA papers where people claimed he never was in MA other than at election time - a reflection on the fact that he often got only very local coverage when he did so. (I often used search on DU JK to find examples of local Kerry visits to respond to those comments.)

I agree with you that this should be taken seriously. I think there is a major problem that, even in MA, talk radio is all right wing and both Boston papers have articles on Scott Brown that are as objective as a groupie written article would have been on Paul McCartney circa 1964. It is troubling that there are so many articles that lead with Brown's comments and have Kerry's far lower. There are a few instances where this is valid - where Kerry's position was very well known and held for decades and Brown was dithering back and forth.

I was only trying to put it in perspective. I also think the timing was very relevant. I think if he votes against the financial bill, after weakening it (the media has conflated his concessions affecting MA businesses and his weakening of the Volker rule), it will have a negative impact.

Although saying this will get me labeled naive, I think that the fact that his popularity is largely based on fluff means that if things shift - they will shift quickly. His "independence" will be seen as flip flopping because there is no coherence on any of his positions. (After all "jobs" has been his constant defense of votes either way - but he voted against the unemployment bill because it gave money to the states - for jobs.) Once the froth is gone, what remains?

My biggest sadness I have is the thought that if the "liberal" Boston Globe had ever treated Kerry as they did Brown, or even not constantly strained to undercut Kerry, he would have been a stronger candidate in 2004 - if only because he would have built fewer walls around himself - which the media was able to attribute to aloofness.

Maybe it's unnecessary. Maybe it's very necessary. Either way, it won't hurt.

Oh, and find a great candidate to oppose Brown--fast.

Not a one who ran in the Democratic primary for Kennedy's seat had an ounce of dynamism or charisma. Something has to energize the base. Especially the Boston vote. If Coakley had gotten even that, she would have won. But Boston Democrats did not turn out.

Idealogically, I love Mike Capuano. But he was not known outside his district and his performannce in the primary was not such as to get folks cheering. So, gender and Bubba's endorsement carried the day, IMO. (Even Coakley copped to gender.)

I don't know if Mike plans to run for the Senate again, but I don't see him doing anything to get known statewide or punch up his campaign skills. If he is planning to run, he'd best get on it. Either way, good candidates should be emerging by now. AFAIK, they aren't.

We don't need another eternal faux-moderate Republican Senator from New England.

the past year. The kind of arrogance I've encountered on my calls would drive negative polling.

Anyway, Brown should not be that high. Given his vote record these last few months, he has proven he is a reliable Republican. Hopefully, the ads will work, because I would not expect our dear media to tell us the truth about him.

we are not being served by our Senior Senator, nor our President. Dismissiveness does not a constituency build.

Because this is the shocking point of this poll.

And there is a lot of liberals in Mass, I agree, but there are also a lot of conservatives. who voted for the idiot we now have as a junior senator. Shameful, even if it does not seem to disturb you at all.

the Military and Corporate interests, his approval may fall too. People may be getting the clue that the only way to get government in their interest is to only support those who govern in their interest.

Would you be one of those who brought this idiot into office?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Well that really does push things to the left. Yes, it really helps having someone willing to vote to not extend unemployment.

Did you think for a second that doing so for those two critical years would waste our chance to pass legislation. You do realize that on EVERY bill we need to give more concessions to get that one extra vote.

By the way, as you voted for him, are you calling Brown's office and asking him to support single payer? maybe you should ask him to be the Republican sponsor of Sanders' bill. I wish you luck.

Unemployment extensions lost by more than Browns vote. Every bill only needs to be given more concessions because the Democrats in the Senate allow it to be so.

Who took single payer off the table again? You have the cause and effect backwards.

What does it really mean to be "on" or "off" the table. Would you have been happy had Senators Kennedy and Baucus in the HELP and the Finance committee have each had a day of hearings on single payer? Kennedy wrote a bill - I think in 2005, when we had NO chance to pass anything. Why do you think in 2009, when it was very likely that we could pass something that he did not include that bill in his hearing? Or would you have said it was just for show to pacify the left - when as everyone could have predicted, it went nowhere.

The reason is there were only 60 Democrats and a very few Republicans who had any likelihood of voting for any healthcare bill. Kennedy and Baucus knew all but around 10 junior Senators for a decade or more. I would bet that they could accurately define what at least 40 of the Senators would do on most big decisions. If Sanders says that less than 10 are for single payer, both Kennedy and Baucus knew that could not be changed.

Kerry did raise the issue of single payer in the Finance committee - there were no other potential supporters there that I could see. If you listened to the public option debate there, you would have seen that almost all of those in favor of the public option chose to speak of how it was NOT single payer - in a way that made it clear they were not for single payer.

And yes, I do want the best policy choice included in the debate. The first step in getting support is discussing the pros and cons, without the discussion there is zero chance to make progress. I can loose a fight, what I wont support one who wont even engage. We are further now from world-class healthcare than we were in 2007. Pharmaceutical and Healthcare costs are rising faster, and now those industries know for sure that they own Congress and we don't. Those who wanted the only reform solution were not even allowed to present their case. Our President made fun during his campaign of the solution he would now have us believe is historical reform. It isn't, and We the People have been punked.

I said that Brown's election jeopordizided healthcare reform and every other part os Obama's agenda. I see that you are defining only single payer as reform - but that is not the way most people defined things. The President did NOT run on single payer.

What I said about Brown and single payer was simply that it is pretty hypocritical to vote for someone against any progressive ideas on the grounds that you THINK he will be easier to replace with a "real" progressive. The fact is that even in 2012, the Democrat might not be to the left of Kerry.

Not running all the healthcare through the very companies who have created most of our problems would be a part of reform. Yes, when your problem boils down to the actions of Drug and Insurance companies, some diminishment of their involvement would be required to qualify as reform, to my way of thinking. Doing just the opposite, to my way of thinking, is just the opposite of reform.

And Obama ridiculed forced buying of insurance during this primary campaign. It wasn't enough to win my primary vote, but it was material in my vote in the general elections. He was correct then, he's just being cynical now.

you did not. Thanks for being one of those who screwed the state. But apparently, your wrath goes to Kerry and Obama. Talk about misplaced priorities. You're unhappy with the Democrats, and you vote for a guy that is 10 times worse. LOL.

You simply voted Republican. Own it. No reason not to. It's legal. Disgusting, but legal.

People like you are part of the explanation of these results.

Kerry is the 6th most liberal Senator from his votes. If he tried moving anything further to the left, he would be completely ineffectual. He has done an excellent job on the SFRC and has been a strong force on the President pushing him to left there - but Obama and Clinton are both significantly to his right. He is the best Senator there is on the environment and it is only his incredible persistence that has kept the possibility of a climate change bill that prices carbon from being deader than a doornail. On the Healthcare bill, Kerry was able on the Finance committee to improve the bill - lowering the age difference, winning the ability for the state exchanges to evaluate the various plans. He also is among the few (Sanders estimates no more than 10) willing to say publicly that he thinks it would be better to have single payer.

I"m one of the people who first go to the JK page when entering DU. What I have seen following closely is a very hard working man who works extremely hard for the issues he believes in, for MA, and to do a job he can be extremely proud of overseeing foreign policy on the SFRC. If he continues as he has started, he is very likely to be seen as one of the strongest SFRC Chairs in history.

It is hard to identify any Senator, who made a longer term, more intense, or more serious effort to engage the netroots - even when there was no election looming, than John Kerry. He has written Daily Kos diaries - and he does answer questions. In fact, he answered many healthcare reform questions - even on climate change diaries.

Brown's votes should have disappointed nearly everyone at one point or the other. He has deviated from the Republican/Conservative side quite often - yet he is obviously getting their approval. So, obviously Republicans are unwilling to use anything near the criteria any liberal who doesn't approve of Kerry has - maybe because they are more willing to make allowances as they are still just happy not to have a Democrat.

He wasn't willing to say he was in favor of single payer in January - I asked twice.

Your arguments don't change my very real personal experience. I have tried to get answers or callbacks with answers and have come away empty on each occasion from Kerry's office. My experience has more personal effect on my decisions, than your statistics. But that's just me.

The things I listed were not "statistics".

I am confused by your sentence on single payer - are you referring to asking his office or asking the Senator? If you asked the office, it is not clear what it would even mean. Here is someone who DID ask the Senator and he answered - http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=1281

It may be that the office will not give an opinion on something that is not an issue that is coming up for a vote. At that point, the House and Senate were attempting to find a way to pass healthcare. As Barney Sanders said at that point there were no more than 10 people in the Senate who would vote for it. At that point, Kerry, like most Democrats, was concerned with things that COULD pass.

"If he tried moving anything further to the left, he would be completely ineffectual."

It's a good thing you put this nonsense toward the beginning of your post so people didn't need to waste their time reading the rest of it.

and I doubt they are arrogant.

calls where candidate position information has been requested, his staff has never been informed or helpful. This has covered topics like HCR, Cap and Trade, and War. If you have differing experience state it, if you just want to doubt, remain in denial.

On HCR, on the various issues that came up, there were ALWAYS posts - here and on Daily Kos - of answers given by Kerry staffers - when there were questions that people were trying to list which Senators supported what. In fact, it was often MA posters giving his response that were highest in the threads or diaries - with real positions and all had received the same answer.

I have called offices of Senators from other states - when there are lists here of Senators to call. On nearly any issue - and those calls were on issues that had imminent votes - well over half of the staffers would decline to say what position their Senator held and then politely took the information on what side I was on. Oddly, I never called Kerry's office because his position was usually easy to find by looking at the Press releases on his web site.

On Cap and Trade, Kerry has been the lead on this in the Senate for years. His position is so well established and documented, I really wonder what you asked the office. He has said at last a million times that the most important thing is putting a price on carbon. What exactly was your question?

As to war, Kerry led on Kerry/Feingold on Iraq (yes I know about the IWR - but Kerry's position was very well documented in 2003 and 2004.) On Afghanistan, Kerry has written more short op-eds on his position than any other Senator and they were based on a total of 6 outstanding hearings - all available on the SFRC website - and Kerry's openning statement is posted.

Not appropriate. Do wish the senator the best though.

John Kerry
Election: MA-Sen, 2014
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/12056

John Kerry
Election: MA-Sen, 2014
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/12056

when it comes time for his re-election, we'll see.

Obviously as that was not done, I can't prove it - but it is highly likely that Kerry could win if they were pitted against each other. Kerry obviously would get few of the Republicans, but he is likely to get almost all the Democrats and more than half of the Independents.

This poll was taken soon after Brown sided with the Democrats on the financial reform bill - and before the last two procedural votes on the unemployment bill. I would bet that many of the "approve" votes are that he was allowing legislation to pass. (In addition, there seems to be a RW talking point that he, unlike Kerry, actually reads the bills and makes informed decisions. This is infuriating as it is very clear listening to each speak of details (especially in committee) that only one MA Senator really knows the details - and it is Kerry, who is by far the harder working Senator. )

to a picnic or game. Senator Kerry spent the weekend in Israel on committee business and neither paper bothered to even cover it. It is easier to write about a light and fluffy marshmallow like Brown going about town.

The problem is the media. No more, no less. When they start reporting the truth, the tide will turn. Not before.

speaking to people - not negotiating - to move things in better directions on the Middle East. On This Week, Kerry spoke to Jake Trapper about the flotilla. Trapper alluded to Kerry's role in getting pasta added to the list of what could come in - when he questioned why he saw trucks loaded with pasta stopped at the border. Kerry, shook his head in agreement, but said nothing to claim credit for this real humanitarian success - limited as it was. He spoke then of having spoken with Peres and Netanyahu - and said what they prohibited was confusing and that efforts were being made to allow more in. On a later Charlie Rose, he spoke of in more detail - as Rose's format allowed that. ( http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11046 )

Now, it was obvious to most observers that the list of what Israel was excluding was indefensible - except to Schumer. It is clear that Kerry was likely one of several people who helped Israel realize that they had to greatly change that policy. I know people here will not be impressed with Israel's change - it will be seen as too little and too late - which are both true. However, it is a real step in the right direction and it will make life a little less intolerable in Gaza. No one will ever know how much, if any, affect Senator Kerry's calls mattered, but this is good work. It is also clear that he has worked hard for decades to have Israel's trust and to be one of the few trusted Americans in the Arab world.

But, Brown is a marshmellow - and we all know how easily they can melt down into a mess. In Brown's case, when the froth subsides what real principles or even agenda will he be seen to have had. When asked about any bill, he has simply spoken of "jobs". Yet he voted against the unemployment bill which had a big jobs program for summer jobs - which Murray and Kerry supported. His comment to the Boston Herald was

"A spokeswoman for Mayor Thomas M. Menino said the consequences of not passing the spending bill could be “staggering” for both city teens and unemployed residents who need jobless benefits.

But Brown said yesterday that parents and mentors should “think outside the box” to keep teens out of trouble this summer."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20100627scott_brown_feeling_heat_on_jobs_critics_slam_gop_senator_for_filibustering_key_bill
(Thanks Mass, for link in DU JK)

How clueless can you get to think the reason these teens want jobs is to "keep out of trouble". I know why I worked summer jobs - money for college - and I was a middle class kid, who did not have to think of earning the money to help my family - as some kids who would have been helped might.

why didn't the pollster match up Brown vs. Obama? Answer: Because he knew Obama would be way ahead of Brown. but that wouldn't have fit the narrative of the story.

crush him in 2012.

And I'd love to see him crush Brown at the polls. MA voters will have had enough of Brown by the time 2012 rolls around.

if only. .

for a special election. In any other scenario, he would risk his seat. And losing in a primary to one of the worst candidates ever is not much incentive to risk your Congressional seat. See also, Reply 86.

Same with Obama.

even with the friendliest of media coverage.

Even the day after his election, flush with victory, it is very clear who is in charge here.

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2010/01/21/Brown-meets-with-Kerry-on/1264090686.html

(Humorously, this exchange ended up causing Brown's daughter to admit that she voted for Kerry in 2008 - because he was incredibly nice.)

Now, to show that it wasn't Brown - here is Brown more than holding his own with McCain.

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2010/01/21/Brown-meets-with-McCain-says/1264093247.html

In addition, goofy as he could be, Bush was sharper than Brown has been in any of the long interviews. The fact is that in 2004, without Kerry's excellence in the debates, it would have been a landslide for Bush. As it was, if there were enough voting machines in Ohio, he would have won.

In spite of 59% of the country saying the country was doing "very well" or "fairly well"

In spite of Conservative elements within the Catholic church illegally putting their thumb on the scale for Bush - because of abortion and the likelihood of 2 plus SCJ appointments (something less critical after Bush picked 2)

In spite of a media that not only didn't really cover his campaign compared to any other past or later campaign, they condoned a character assassination - that still has repercussions. The SBVT contradicted the official Navy record - rather than asking for them to provide proof, the media asked Kerry to disprove their attacks - refusing to consider the official record as proof.

He nearly won a major upset - and he did it with an incredible number of disadvantages - many of which I listed. The lack of committed support from the Clinton wing and a narcissist VP choice, who the media and the party strongly pushed on him.

The point though was that he could have easily lost by a landslide had he not been able to do the debates as well as he did. That would have put the party in a deeper hole - and would likely have made it harder to recover as strongly in 2006 and 2008.

and the Democrats don't even know exists. The Republicans have a message. They distill it until is is easy to remember, albeit misleading as hell. They do not say, let's listen to your ideas, because they might be good too. They don't let their opponents drive when they are in the majority. They clearly understand the stupid reason they are there, and act on it.

You don't know what you are getting when you vote Democrat. The Democrats first need to agree on a reason to exist. Then they need to get on with validating that existence. Defining who they are simply as not Republican, or delimiting their programs by what the Republicans will allow, only reinforce Republican as the supreme brand. Republicans have stolen the assertion that they are fighting for right - it is undeserved, but it is way more effective than anything the Democrats have.

It's time Democrats stood for something specific, and unyielding - the American People. But our party leaders never learned how to lead, only how to campaign and that only against an imploding opponent, and there's a difference.

Each year does not start with a level playing field with each party equally likely to win. There are years where almost any Democrat would have won and years where any Democrat was VERY likely to lose. What does happen is that history and the media create a narrative that tries to justify why each winner won.

The fact is that some mediocre campaigns led to wins - like Bill Clinton's in 1992 - GHWB was in the low 40s for most of 1992, falling eventually to 33%. Against that, in a race that should have been easier than Obama 2008, there were slow starts and real gaffes - many where Clinton lied, got caught and then admitted the truth. He had the media 100% on his side - if you doubt it, remember how often they spoke of GHWB's vomiting on a Japanese official. Yet, with a book and a movie, Clinton won because of his WAR ROOM and the excellence of Stephanopolis, Carville and Begala.

I will not claim Kerry's campaign was flawless - it and Kerry himself were not - but there were fewer major gaffes. The media that was ga ga over Clinton, never gave Kerry a break. How do you deal with a NYT writer describing Kerry as a "social loner" and claiming it was fair because it was her impression after speaking to 20 Kerry friends of many decades? A social loner is unlikely to have one such long time friend - much less more than 20. Over the course of the campaign, reading the Kerry blog, it seemed that Kerry had God Children in many towns he went to. Only a very close friend would be given that honor.

of that campaign, but, I stick to the facts.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Obama gets 54%/Brown-55% and somehow President Obama is less popular than Brown. It is a STATISTICAL TIE.

I HATE the so-called liberal media.

:hi:

The Globe has made it their personal mission to kiss Snotty Scotty's ass since day fucking one.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't think that even qualifies as sticking the political thermometer up the Massachusetts orifice, let alone the national one.

Don't you like measuring people's attitudes?

I think that's very important for the public to know.