Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #rachelmaddow #scottbrown stories and more

12 Comments

  • Mark

    I smell a “Draft Rachel Maddow” campaign.

  • Rasa

    I just called Scott Brown’s campaign office to let him know if I don’t appreciate his tactics. It took all of 30 seconds. The woman on the other end listened and was very respectful. I said that I felt that his approach was manipulative and misleading and I don’t appreciate it — In fact, in my opinion, it reflects very poorly on his campaign.

    Here’s his website:
    http://www.brownforussenate.com/senator-brown

    Here’s the number:

    781-444-0200

  • mediabusiness

    Scott Brown didn’t “make it up” — the rumor apparently springs from Rachel’s friends (who created the Maddow for Senator Facebook page) and a tweet from MA Dem Party Chair:

    “The rumors of Maddow running are most likely the result of a 3700-plus member Facebook page called “Rachel Maddow for US Senator from Massachusetts in 2012,” as well as a mysterious March 5 tweet by Mass. Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh that read “Some are talking about you running vs Scott Brown in ’12.”

    http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/blog/2010/03/rachel_maddow_i.html

    The fundraising letter he sent out states “…the political machine in Massachusetts is looking for someone to run against me. And you’re not going to believe who they are **supposedly** [my emphasis] trying to recruit — liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow.

    Rachel lives in western Massachusetts, and recently it was reported that the chairman of the state Democratic Party had apparently tried to reach out to her in an attempt to coax her into a race against me. You can read about it here.”

    The MADPC and friends of Rachel started it — Brown ran with the rumor, which he qualified with “supposedly . . .they are trying to recruit.”

    Good publicity for both Brown and Rachel.

  • John Smith

    Massachusetts has a poor record of electing women to any important office. Just about all the possible Democratic candidates are boring, male, career politicians. None of them generates any excitement. In fact, Scott Brown is more exciting than any of them, which is why he’s the Senator.

  • Dasher

    Yes, Massachusetts voters are sexist and mysogynist all the way, and would never directly vote for a woman for high political office.

    The reason I had to use that weasel word, “directly”, is because they voted for Hillary in the Democratic Presidential Primary, instead of Barack Obama.

    But that may have been because enough of them were closet racists.

    And I happen to know Massachusetts Democrats who actually voted for Scott Brown, instead of the lackluster Democratic party hack woman who was running against him.

  • tjr101

    Let’s see just how much the gays that voted for Brown like him when he votes against a repeal of DADT.

  • Andrew

    She is an idiot.

  • Storm

    I’m looking at a copy of Senator Naked’s centerfold photo. If he really needs to raise campaign funds so badly, why doesn’t he just uncross his legs?

    No jokes about “small change,” please.

  • Joseph

    WHY would you want her to leave her current job?!?! she can do MUCH greater good as a pundit on TV. if she actually *joins* the government, she’d just be another cog in the wheel and wouldn’t be able to get as much accomplished. IMHO.

    @Andrew is an idiot. Perhaps he would like to provide some empirical evidence as to what makes Rachel an idiot?

  • Hyhybt

    @Storm: Seeing as he’s a lot older now, he probably knows it would have the opposite effect :)

  • delurker again

    The bloom if off Scott Brown. The wingnuts really thought he would be the silver bullet that killed the bill. He couldn’t do anything and needed something that would rile up his dispirited supporters: cue Rachel.

  • Anne

    @mediabusiness: There are several facebook groups that support things like ducks and ice cream with similar numbers of people. Like Rachel said on her show, that’s a ridiculous source, even for something “supposed”.

Comments are closed.