The Boston Globe strikes again...

[Mass]

Note to moron reporter Glen Johnson: This first part of your article is useless for your larger point, though he has to begrudgingly admit that Kerry is an important and knowledgeable person in the Senate (as much as Johnson loathes to admit him)

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/05/13/kerry-praises-standard-brown-lives/MZK7TFy64IXplnXSHHTG7I/story.html

John F. Kerry, overshadowed for much of his career in the US Senate by his late colleague Edward M. Kennedy, has nonetheless steadily accumulated tenure and stature during his five terms in the upper chamber of Congress.

Without much notice, he has become the tenth-most senior member of what has been billed as the world’s greatest deliberative body. With much notice, he has also become chairman of the prestigious Senate Foreign Relations Committee and gained a familiarity with domestic and foreign affairs (My comment:Who would have known, reading reporting of Mr Johnson) that propelled him to his party’s 2004 presidential nomination.

That long record of service has also left him forlorn, as he has seen the Senate in particular, and Congress as a whole, riven by partisanship.
...

which happens to be false, as Brown has voted with the GOP for nearly every important and disputed issue, without ever casting the deciding vote and misses the point that Brown often voted on laws on which the Democrats in the Senate had already largely compromise to accommodate our junior senator.

Kerry’s strong defense of both Republicans belied a simple fact: By one common index, both have been more partisan than Senator Scott Brown, the Massachusetts Republican Kerry hopes to see replaced in the Senate by Democrat Elizabeth Warren. Snowe and Lugar have also been more bipartisan than Kerry.

BTW, if Mr Johnson thinks Brown is bipartisan, think again. This vote http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002676376 a few years ago in the MA Senate makes him the lone Republican to vote in favor of Romney's veto in a bill that should never have been vetoed in the first place (who opposes to fighting bullying???)

[Inuca]

1. Matbe Kerry appreciates that

both Snowe and Lugar have rather well functioning brains and are not afraid of using them? His junior colleague.... not so much. Vites are mportant, obviously, but do not tell the whole story.

[Mass]

2. You may be on something, but this something is too complex for the bright minds at Boston Globe.

I am not exactly sure what happened to the Globe, but in addition of this story, they have a couple stories about Obama and gay marriage by a new (for me at least) reporter that pretty much blames Obama for being a flip-flopper on the issue and claims that it will cost him votes (without any proof of that). A perfect example of the false equivalency.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/05/13/governor-patrick-praises-president-obama-endorsement-gay-marriage-about-convictions-not-about-politics/cFRCzm7rs3Lsmf9CuYPnyM/story.html

[Inuca]

5. YOu actualy

understood what I wrote above, in spite of the typos! I re-read it now, and started laughingin embarassment .

[beachmom]

3. I mean, I guess they have to write about something.

Brown is a Republican in a deep blue state. He HAS to at least appear bipartisan or he'll lose re-election. It would be the same if a Democrat is a Senator of a red state. Sen. Kerry, on the other hand, has views more in line with his state. Because of these underlying political dynamics, each Senator is doing what he needs to do. Why does Brown get praise for doing something he HAS to do for survival reasons?

Frankly, reporters' ideas of what amounts to political courage are almost always off. It is not courageous or praiseworthy to do what Brown has been doing. I think Kerry showed more courage going against his party over the years (just not maybe in a Right wing way) than Brown has.

Bottom line is this -- Brown is just not that impressive a figure. Apart from bipartisanship or partisanship (which like someone said upthread, is not always about votes but can be more subtle than that) he hasn't done anything remarkable in the Senate. His opponent, Elizabeth Warren, is far more compelling a figure IMHO. I hope Mass. makes the right choice in November.

Edit: Also, Lugar served a state far more right leaning than Mass. Snowe's Maine is also not as deep blue as Mass. Maybe the numbers just reflect the political realities of these elected officials' states? Maybe? Possibly?

I'm not a fan of political reporting like this. It seems like the reporter is revealing some great truth by citing voting statistics, but he doesn't talk about the politics about each state and there is also no distinction between big important votes and little votes, not to mention VITAL amendment votes which are oftentimes so much more important than final votes. So seemingly objective information is actually subjective or at the least incomplete information. I'm sure that Corker has a super conservative vote but he is far different from, say, Rubio, a truth I doubt voting records would reveal. (And that's another missing piece of information -- committee votes!)

[karynnj]

4. What a clueless article

Last edited Tue May 15, 2012, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

First, of course, Kerry would support the Democrat. Even if he shared Glenn Johnson's high opinion of the empty suit, he would support the Democrat. The majority might be at stake. (In 2006, Kerry and other Democrats did not stop from supporting Whitehouse - even though Chaffee was far better than Brown.)

The metric of comparing percent of vote ignores that some votes are more important than others and it ignores that the party out of power generally has higher percents as most bills are written by the party in power in such a way that almost all of their people vote for it.

It ignores that Kerry and Snowe were the D and R heads of the Small Business Committtee and have written a lot of legislation together' (They are both on Commerce and Finance too). Likewise, Kerry has been on the SFRC with Lugar for over 25 years - and the friendship and respect seems very real - both ways. (I remember the kind words that Lugar spoke starting the first SFRC after the 2004 election - at what had to be a very bitter time for Kerry.)

Both Snowe and Lugar have a stature and seriousness that Brown will likely never have. (Speaking of Brown, Warren is making as much as she can of the Chase trouble - very rightfully. I hope that seeing she is looked on as the credible person top speak on this helps in Massachusetts.)