GET FREE E-MAIL UPDATES: SEND US YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS WITH SUBSCRIBE IN THE SUBJECT LINE
or subscribe to our
Twitter service

UNDERNEWS

Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, who covered Washington during all or part of ten of America's presidencies and who has edited alternative journals since 1964. The Review, which has been on the web since 1995, is now published from Freeport, Maine. We get over 5 million article visits a year. See prorev.com for full contents of our site

January 18, 2010

SCOTT BROWN'S PRIORITIES

Think Progress - State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate special election, voted on October 17, 2001 to deny financial aid to Red Cross rescue workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts. As a state representative at the time, Brown was one out of only three legislators who had opposed the overwhelmingly bipartisan measure.

At a campaign rally today in Hyannis, Think Progress caught up with Brown for comment on why he voted against the measure:

TP: In 2001, you voted against 9/11 recovery workers, giving them aid, do you have any comment on this story?

BROWN: Yes, it was a time when our budget was down. We had a lot of cuts unfortunately, and we had to take care of our own priorities first.

During the same month Brown was voting down efforts to support 9/11 rescue workers, he was pushing a bill to appropriate a tax-subsidized bond to build a golf course in Norfolk, a city in his district. "Priorities," indeed.

Also during the same period, he was busy fighting for tax subsidies for corporate interests. According to a 2002 article in the Lowell Sun, Brown scored a perfect pro-corporate tax subsidy rating in the months following his anti-9/11 rescue workers vote:


4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pretty tacky, Sam. If this is the worst you can come up with on a Massachusetts politician, he must be pretty clean.
Massachusetts voters get to decide, and there's a chance they may decide for Mr. Brown. Remarkable, isn't it?
How about some analysis of the reasons the the McGovern state may go for a (hated?) Republican? That would be journalism, and not just a hissy fit. --wam

January 19, 2010 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is the guy's voting record off limits? Is it okay to say anything about republicans in context?

January 19, 2010 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well he ought to fit right in with the Obama Administration's agenda then.
What would be so different about Coakley? Nothing.
The Democrats need the wake-up call.
America doesn't need the travesty that is the health care give away to pharma and the insurers

January 19, 2010 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course voting records of all politicians are relevant to campaigns in which they participate. But to get an overall sense of the man, you have to look at his overall record.
Using a microscope to pick out only the one tiny (?) specific thing for which he can be criticized (by the author--you may remember the financial shenanigans of the Red Cross post 9-11?), given his time in Massachusetts politics, isn't reporting, it's campaign literature. Sam, to his credit and almost uniquely, is usually above that sort of journalistic corruption.
Anyway, the voters have spoken, and now there is some slight shred of hope that the health care abomination can be sidetracked, or even stopped. So I pray. -wam

January 20, 2010 7:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home