Infuriating Glenn Johnson article on Kerry and Brown's interactions

[karynnj]

He does make an interesting point that Kerry will likely be someone in the 2012 campaign who can speak of Brown's votes. (Johnson speaks of the cloakroom chatter as well - I seriously doubt Kerry will try to make a case based on gossip, when the votes and actions are there. ) He does contrast Kerry's stature with Brown's, ignoring that Kerry's ability at hearings was completely evident by the first or second year in the Senate - as it was his questioning that got to the heart of the Contra drug running - and various Bush people were indicted for lying to him. It is true that he now has more stature, but the demeanor was the same.

Kerry, at 67, displays the bearing of a senior lawmaker, commanding answers from the witnesses while also supporting them when his Democratic colleagues sought information beyond their knowledge or control.

Brown, 52, has the eagerness and energy of a political upstart, carrying charts to make his case and displaying his legal background as he pushed for data from resistent panelists.

What is infuriating is this:

It also doesn’t hurt that surveys have shown him to be the most popular politician in the state - a state that includes Kerry.

This was not true the last time the BG trumpeted it - using something other than who has the highest approval numbers, but since the PPP and the more recent poll, you can't even argue that he has the highest net. He is negative on the PPP one. (The BH one has lower unfavorables - but the average of the two puts his negatives above Kerry's.)

He also repeats "the personal warmth and blue collar" nonsense. I seriously doubt that Brown and Huff have lived a blue collar lifestyle - at least since they were in their 20s. As to personal warmth, in Brown's case, it seems surface and put on for the cameras. He also contrasts Brown's bipartisan appeals (that come down to let's work together, but all spending cuts, no taxes cuts) and the fact that Kerry wants to elect a Democrat to Brown's seat - ignoring that Brown, of course, campaigned for Republicans against many Democratic Congressmen.

But it is more balanced than Johnson was in 2010.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/john-kerry-scott-brown-work-together-despite-different-goals/8BRQLfNzrWXolAkNUhS9pO/index.html

[karynnj]

1. Here is the Gloucester Times article on the hearing

Somehow Johnson missed that "Mr. bipartisan" was the one who was 100% partisan and Kerry was the one trying to find a real solution. Slamming NOAA likely won points with the audience - something Frank did as well, but it seems that Kerry's efforts might be the ones that get any change.
Kerry outlined three steps that could be done quickly:

More frequent stock assessments, with the goal of conducting them yearly for the key stocks, rather than the current two- and three-year cycles or more;

Liberalizing the 10 percent limit on rolling over uncaught allocations into the next fishing year; and,

Getting an emergency declaration from NOAA that could open the door to increased allocations.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x1953751795/NOAA-chief-A-light-in-the-tunnel

Brown:
"The only thing coming at the end of the tunnel is a train," Brown said. "The relationship is beyond repair."

[Mass]

2. You know what I think of Glenn Johnson, but this is by far the most positive

article he wrote about Kerry in a long time.

Yes, Johnson has a crush on Brown. We have to get used to it. He falls for phony populism all the time.

This said, I am getting totally disillusioned by papers (print or net), whether I agree with what they say or not, and frankly, the latest Daily Beast (I could not reread my colleague's notes and therefore I made up a quote by Pelosi (reminiscent of Maureen Dowd making up a quote by Kerry and every newspapers reporting on it as if it was truth). I have reached a point where I mistrust reporters, friends and foes, because they need controversy to sell, and therefore focus on perfectly trivial things. So it becomes difficult to find information.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/watertown/features/x981219386/Scott-Brown-lauds-small-Watertown-businesses#ixzz1ZjLr0cM1

For example, most newspapers ignore this. Brown was being asked to explain why he filibustered tax credits and loans for small business, one of which he cosponsored, our so bright senator could not answer. Kudos to our local paper to report that, but Mr Johnson could not be bothered.

How do you compete on a global basis when other country’s (corporate tax rates) are dramatically lower?” Brown asked the crowd.
When one small business owner asked the senator why he voted three times to filibuster tax credits and loans for small businesses, he couldn’t provide a definitive answer, noting he would have to pull those specific votes in order to address her question at a later date.

I thought he studied carefully all his votes. This is at least the reason he gives when he does not want to answer a question.

[karynnj]

3. That should have gotten more coverage - and some follow up

The only other place I saw that was on Blue Mass today - where they made the additional point that he actually had been a sponsor of that bill and it had been designed to make the Republicans happy because the Democrats wanted it to pass.

Here is Blue Mass Group's link - http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/10/scott-brown-fumbles-when-asked-about-small-business-filibusters/

It is hardly surprising that our poser, or pretend Senator, a man so incompetent he filibustered his own bill, (“The Creating Jobs Through Small Business Innovation Act of 2011”) had to dodge this question. As to his claim, the reality is that US corporate taxes are some of the lowest on earth: 1.8 percent of GDP, compared to 3.4 percent of GDP for Canada, with whom we are running a trade deficit, according to the CBO and Census Department, respectively. (US corporate taxes, for reference, are about one-third of what they were in the 1950s). - promoted by Bob_Neer

BMG impressed me in 2008, but they have been great working against Brown. They were the people who called the Brown campaign on both the fake twitter account and then the registering of the attack web site, after Brown said no dirty campaigning (which in his eyes I think means never saying anything negative about SB.)