Tweet
The new centerfold Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, is trying to raise money off of an imaginary run for his seat by Rachel Maddow. Brown and his team of fantasists based a fundraising appeal on the most tenuous of threads of “evidence.”
His evidence appears to rest on a message sent out by Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh on Twitter the same day a Facebook page supporting a Maddow bid went live. “Some are talking about you running vs. Scott Brown in ’12,” Walsh tweeted, and the Boston blog Universal Hub suggested the message could have been meant for Maddow. In three weeks, more than 3,000 people have joined the Facebook page dedicated to getting Maddow to run.
So out went the fundraising appeal for Cosmo:
Friends,It’s only been a couple of months since I’ve been in office, and before I’ve even settled into my new job, the political machine in Massachusetts is looking for someone to run against me. And you’re not going to believe who they are supposedly 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 political season never ends, which is why I need your continued support. While my opponents strategize on how to defeat me in 2012, I’m going to continue to speak out against higher taxes, more spending and greater government control in our lives.
I relish being an independent voice in Washington, one that doesn’t march in lockstep with the rest of the Washington crowd. The Democratic Party bosses in Massachusetts disagree. They want a rubberstamp who will vote for their plans to expand government, increase debt and raise taxes. Some like Rachel Maddow. I’m sure she’s a nice person-I just don’t think America can afford her liberal politics.
Rachel Maddow has a nightly platform to push her far-left agenda. What about you? …
Blah, blah, blah…who writes this pablum for you, Scott? It’s complete form-letter gimme-gimme 101. I’ll give a few cookies for at least calling Rachel a nice person, instead of including a reference to the anti-Christ, or putting her head on Scooby-Doo.
Rachel of course, was amused, particularly because:
1) The Brown campaign never called to ask whether the rumor-laden Tweet, that never even mentioned her name, was actually true. Oh wait, that would be asking too much.
2) The Massachusetts Dem Machine must have telepathic powers of political persuasion that are broken; its communication to Rachel was lost. “If they are doing so, it is a silent invisible machine that hasn’t yet contact me through any means.”
3) She has common sense: “I have the best job in the world. I’m not running for office. I never said I would run for office. Nobody’s asked me to run for office.”
Watch:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
7 Comments
Rachel in ’12?Naw, she would be crazy to give up her show to bury herself in the Senate.
Rachel is doing what she does best right now.
If I were Scott Brown, I’d be afraid of Rachel too.Too bad she’s not really running.
Only Boys from Boston electable in MassI’m afraid Rachel would be unelectable in Mass. She lacks two vital requirements for a candidate for statewide office: 1) a penis and 2)a greater Boston address.
Sad but true.
Oh, come on if the below can happen, MA can send a female too!
Barbara Mikulski (D) – Maryland – 1987
Dianne Feinstein (D) – California – 1992
Barbara Boxer (D) – California – 1993
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) – Texas – 1993
Patty Murray (D) – Washington – 1993
Olympia Snowe (R) – Maine – 1995
Mary Landrieu (D) – Louisiana – 1997
Susan Collins (R) – Maine – 1997
Blanche Lincoln (D) – Arkansas – 1999
Debbie Stabenow (D) – Michigan – 2001
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) – New York – 2001
Maria Cantwell (D) – Washington – 2001
Lisa Murkowski (R) – Alaska – 2002
Elizabeth Dole (R) – North Carolina – 2003
Amy Klobuchar (D) – Minnesota – 2007
Claire McCaskill (D) – Missouri – 2007
Yes, but…I’ll see your 16 examples and raise you a Scott Brown. I heard the same thing last fall when I expressed my fears that we could lose the Senate seat to a Republican when we nominated Coakley. (Actually I heard a lot of less polite things mostly insulting me as “insane.”) I voted my dreams and supported her in both the primary and general election. For the result, I got my fears.
Of course she ran a bad campaign, but that’s the excuse I keep hearing–every woman candidate in Mass runs a bad campaign. On the other hand, men who run bad campaigns don’t seem to have the same problems. Coakley was defeated by a brain dead male pinup with political values absolutely opposite to the electorate because she took a weeks vacation for Christmas? Yeah right.
Jane Swift, Shannon O’Brien, Evelyn Murphy — my state is littered with women who were defeated, often by candidates who were either very weak or completely out of touch with the politics of the state. It’s a disgrace, but I can’t deny it’s there. It’s one of the quirks of a working class democratic voting block.
And that’s just the woman side. Our geography may be small in square miles, but it’s huge in political sway. There’s no way we’re sending someone to the Senate who’s registered to vote west of the Quabbin. Even Ted Kennedy kept pretending he lived in Boston rather than on Cape. And Cape is a lot more acceptable than Northampton.
I’d love nothing more than to see Maddow in the Senate, but it’s the ticket to Brown’s reelection. I want to see Brown out on his butt, so for our candidate, I want to see an Irish or Italian male from a Boston suburb inside of 128 with a strong preference for a Kennedy.
if ms. maddow runs a political campaign with the same level of concern she expresses for the truth on her show, brown should have no worries.
kind of sad really. ms. maddow has a great podium for the progressive cause, and she’s just woefully unprepared. how on earth did she ever become a rhodes scholar?
Really?Typical right wing nonsense. Would love for you to back your smears with some actual facts, meaning tell us what Ms Maddow has said that is not truthful. Maybe you all are unable to discern the truth. Or, perhaps, “You can’t handle the truth!”