Scott Brown won’t be retracting his campaign fundraising letter insisting donors give up their cash because scary Rachel Maddow is planning a run against him. Which she isn’t. All of which sort of makes us think: Maybe she should.
Don't forget to share:
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
@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”.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
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”.