You have got to be kidding me

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2011/01/02/the_life_of_the_party_scott_brown/">Globe Names Scott Brown Bostonian of the Year

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

But c'mon, we do have to caption that picture!!!

Even worse than the "award" was the article itself. . they dare compare that Zero to the fledgling Teddy, and suggest that The Lesser One might also grow as Teddy did? WHAT? Outrageous. Even as a baby politician, Teddy had more substance to him than the Lesser One (I have a cousin who met him during the 1960 campaign, and told me that Teddy had real skills even then)

I hope the Globe gets flamed for this.
Oh, and also, they give Scott Brown too much credit for his role in winning the election. If only the Dems had had an opponent who had actually, like, campaigned..

A travesty.

...for president. Another American Idol candidate. It seems we...the country...never learn.

In 2005, they predicted Kerry would be in trouble in his reelection campaign (really?). Same thing in 2007. He was reelected triumphally in 2008.

Between 2009 and January 2010, they were predicting doom for Deval Patrick and were enamored with Charles Baker. All the way to election day, they were showing and predicting a very close race. Patrick won by 7, and Baker turned out to be a lousy candidate.

And of course, they predicted again and again that Kerry would lose the presidential primary to Dean, that Coakley would win, ... It seems that their predictions dont have a great track record.

Even more interesting is that this award is in the "Lifestyle" section. Really? This is the guy that is supposed to replace Ted Kennedy (because, of course, Kerry cant, according to the good people of the Globe). And he gets an award from the lifestyle section. Apart from the fact I would have given this award to Kerry or Patrick, I find the placement very telling of our type of society, where fluff is more important than substance.

I also think he may do like Romney and Palin, and quit without running for another term. Who knows? We may be lucky.

I feel much more cheerful now that you've reminded me of the Globe's dismal predictive record :7

Typical Globe. Ah, Scotty is from Wrentham, where the outlet malls are.

How the bostonian of the Year can not be from Boston is a Globe mystery.

every poor student should be identified as potentially an Einstein. Now that is true, but realistically few of the them will come close - and, when they are still "poor students", no one writes home that there is a reasonable chance that they will be Einstrins.

Another error is that no Senator will ever be exactly Ted Kennedy - and Kennedy himself had bad as well as good elements. The comment should be being an exceptional Senator. That is something any Senator should try for - but Brown has certainly no achieved. As to both having unimpressive records when elected - did they miss Kennedy was just 30 and Brown was 50. There is a huge difference in not having a compelling record at 30 versus 50.

More to the point, even at 30, Kennedy did stand for certain things - that he continued to stand for for his entire career. Would Ted Kennedy ever have held unemployment insurance hostage to get tax cuts for the wealthy? Would Ted Kennedy ever have weakened regulation of the banking industry and gotten a sweet heart deal for big banks before giving his vote? That was not the Ted Kennedy I watched trying (unsuccessfully) to make the bankruptcy bill better. The positions Kennedy fought for over his entire career were those that benefited those who had less and needed more.

The ONLY area where Brown could have attempted to be Kennedy-like was in constituent services. Here, he has not met that mark - and it may be too high for any Senator to meet. I have read articles found by google on both Kerry and Brown - and there are often MORE complaints on Brown on this than on Kerry (and this is definitely not Kerry's strongest point.)

I did not read the entire article because my reaction was like Fedups. Here, even some examples of him being better than a normal incoming Senator are flawed - he had Kennedy's office for the same reason Franken still had Coleman's - because no wanted the chaos of shifting offices mid term. He also was one of a small number of Republicans who were possibilities when we needed 60 votes. The problem for him, is that every vote given that made news was a vote against his party. Unlike Kennedy (and Kerry) who could lead their party because they were - at some point - where their party was and they were/are leaders, Brown is far from the mainstream in his party. He is not their "lion" of the Senate, the conservative lion is more like Jim DeMint. He is their Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson.

I wonder though if the article is a double edged sword. The fact is that Brown does not live up to Kennedy - not even close. The question is whether this is raising the bar for Brown. That bar has been set incredibly low. It would be interesting if he - like Kerry - were forced to compete with a romanticized version of the perfect Senator. It is a contest that can't be won - even when (with Kerry) there are exceptional accomplishments - like getting far closer to the Presidency and impressing even sharp opponents in his leadership on tow important issues (New Start and climate change, even though it has yet to win.) Brown can not win that comparison just by being the Republican won over to vote on Democratic bills - that is not leadership. Brown has no area where he is close to being a credible leader on. In fairness, few Senators at one year in do.

in the Globe magazine. As you said: :puke:
But do look at the last 2-3 paragraphs, which are more in touch with reality than the rest of the piece.

Fedup, your subject title would make a great headline for an LTE (not just a blog comment) to the Globe. Just sayin'. . ;) :D

I had noticed that on nearly every issue, the Globe and Herald had comments directly from JK, but from Brown's camp, the norm has been a noncommittal statement by Gail Gitcho or someone else that he was "reading the bill" and had not yet made a decision. It seemed that late last year, this was already getting old. Avoiding people is a strange tactic for a person who main asset is supposedly his "likability".

http://www.bostonherald.com/galleries/index.php?gallery_id=9

I dont have the courage to read, but clearly, the Herald has been more vritical towards Brown than the Globe, probably because of heads exploding. The Globe loves the impression that there are moderate Republicans and never loses a moment kissing their a**es, whether it is Brown, Romney, or Baker.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20110103could_martha_coakley_curse_befall_scott_brown/srvc=home&position=0

I think the article boils down to not taking the election for granted - that even though the Democrat will not be as high profile or have as much money, he/she can build a strong organization - this after he speaks of the great job Walsh did in 2010 doing that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It will be interesting to see how Brown handles his "mini book tour". All book tours I ever saw involve answering questions - something Brown last did in much depth public in his ONE Sunday talk show. Though Shaeffer loved him, it was pretty clear that on many things he had no idea what he was talking about. It is true that the book tour will be on the topic he is most interested in and most expert on - Scott Brown.

What it may to is telegraph the theme that he will run on in 2012.

(though it becomes more and more difficult to differentiate opinion papers and news articles in the Herald. Rubin led Patrick's campaign, so he knows what is possible in MA.

What surprised me more was that this was the frontpage. Of course, this is the tabloid style the Herald loves, but compared to the idiotic articles swooning at the idea of moderate Republicans the Globe loves, it is refreshing. Why is this article not in the Globe.

Was the Boston Globe supportive of Romney when he ran or in early days in office? It sounded liked they really liked Weld - were they as much in love with him as with Brown?

Scott Brown Bostonian of the year??? puh-leez. Was there a mass exodus of the entire population of the city? Surely there was a deserving meter maid somewhere. She would definitely be smarter and more hard working than Massachusetts' Senator-fold.

And all the M$M media outlets wonder why people are turning away from their newspapers and their newscasts.

Progressive talk radio host Stephanie Miller calls him that. The comedy names somehow help me laugh when the news is bad. The new Speaker of the House is now called our "orange overlord." Truthfully, I can't take these fools seriously, especially when they themselves don't take governing our nation seriously.

Today, they have a column attacking Patrick because he announced he would travel more to find jobs for the state.

Here is the original article, reasonably written.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/05/patrick_plans_to_expand_travels_during_second_term/

And here is the column, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/05/the_taxis_waitin/

Strangely, I dont remember these people complaining when our junior senator announced a book tour after less than one year in office. Nor do I remember them complaining when he was campaigning out of state for Republicans.

I dont even hear them complain when our senior senator is out of state (NTW, can we get him back? We need him here). I guess in this case it would mean covering our senior senator. I dont even remember them complaining when Romney was travelling out of state before 2006. But, somehow, Patrick cannot announce he will travel out of state for his second term?

He went to a party for a TV movie based on the Craig's list killing. His reaction - sympathy for the guy's fiancee! (who IMO was very lucky he was caught before he either turned on her or married her. Her golden future was a mirage - and she has the ability to put it behind her and build a real future possibly with a non-killer as her spouse.) What about the family of the murdered girl? (But, I guess Brown was with all his Boston Herald friends.)

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12003183306765/viewing-party-held-for-movie-based-on-markoff/

(Meanwhile, MA LT Governor rescued 2 kids from a burning car - do all MA Democratic - he works in Boston - can't he be the Bostonian of the year next year? http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12003189542875/lt-gov-tim-murray-saves-2-kids-from-burning-car/ )

Meanwhile, the real Bostonian in the Senate is trying to prevent violence in Sudan.

I dont get it. Of course, this is not a great movie and Brown's comments are not that smart, but nobody will blame him for that. Just a regular guy.

In the meantime, our senior senator has been remarkably out of state these last days, to the point you would be hard pressed to find a statement about a few important events happening in MA since the holiday break. He may be out of state for Obama, but this is not why he was elected by the people of MA and it hurts him. (Where is the statement concerning McGuire's death or concerning the flooding in Scituate, for example, if he was busy somewhere else and could not attend the funeral or visit Scituate like Brown did).

I think people out of state may be missing the importance of our public figures being present. It may be the trauma of so many Republican governors being in a hurry to leave the state for DC, but it matters, and Brown's presence is bringing a lot of positive press, whether he is a good senator or not. The first quality of a good elected official is to listen to his/her constituents (not that Brown listens, but he at least goes through the motions).

As to Kerry, it seems his office should have put out statements. However, Kerry was elected to be a US Senator and he is chair of the SFRC. His office should have worked on getting MA federal funds, but I think it is the governor that is required to request them. As to the cop's death, there have been soldiers' funerals which Kerry and not Brown have attended.

It doesn't seem wrong for Kerry to have taken a week and a half at most - as vacation somewhere - after the incredibly hard two weeks on the START treaty and before this week's trip to Sudan. If none of that is valued, then perhaps Kerry should take Secretary of state, if it is offered after HRC leaves without caring what that does to MA's representation.

I do see that his Senate website does not have statements on either the policeman or the flooding - and they should. I did see that there were some statements - including that a Kerry bill was passed that helps servicemen stay in their homes - http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=ffabe77c-f1f8-4e06-b94d-1fff078ac22f

I have NO IDEA what Issakson and Chambliss are up to from week to week, and frankly, I don't care. If there was some kind of crisis in Georgia, then I suppose I would ask where my Senators are, but on a day to day basis, I am only interested in their votes and what causes/bills they are pushing. They can go to a movie or go work for peace in Sudan. In neither case would I say they weren't focussed enough on Georgia. As to Chambliss, I am pretty much figuring that he is working overtime for Georgia corporations and nobody else. It's THAT FACT, not what he did last night that matters.