Scott Brown and Mass Resistance

Pam's House Blend has an interesting story about Scott Brown, who angered some Tea Baggers and other conservatives by joining the Democrats in voting for a jobs bill.  But before anyone starts to think that Senator Brown has tempered his political views, consider this:

Senator Scott Brown (?-MA) has successfully snookered Brian Camenker (left)  of MassResistance.  Southern Poverty Law Center categorizes MassResistance as an active hate group.  MassResistance is so fringe that the "mainstream" anti-gay organization Massachusetts Family Institute cut ties with them during the marriage debates in that state.

According to a MassResistance e-mail that Camenker sent out today, Brown showed up to a Feb. 20th breakfast with tea baggers and MassResistance, told the group all the stuff they wanted to hear, then on Feb. 22nd went and voted with the Democrats on the job stimulus bill.

 Scott Brown has only been senator for less than a month, but sooner or later he's going to decide he wants to continue to align himself with a hate group or whether he wants to represent the people of Massachusetts.

The Night After in Massachusetts

For those of us who are proud progressives, the last few days have been hard.  Very hard.  There is no silver lining.  (I joked to a friend that there is only a Brown lining.)  But we also shouldn't wildly project into the future a disaster for progressives that isn't based in reality.  A few things:

1. Nothing is permanent in politics.  After the last presidential election, I remember listening to pundit after pundit talking about the demise of the Republican party.  One of my favorite progressives, Rachel Maddow, had a recurring piece on her show called "Republicans in Exile."  I didn't buy it.  A month is a lifetime in politics.  The Massachusetts race went from sure thing to upset in a matter of two weeks.  It is just as silly to predict that the Obama presidency and the Democratic rule in Congress is over.  The one thing we can bank on in politics is change.

2. The Democrats ran a lousy campaign in Massachusetts. We took voters for granted.  We assumed that the Democratic nominee was the de facto winner of the election.  The media did as well, and not just liberal sources.  Lesson here: never, ever do that again.  Voters want to be courted. They want to be asked for their vote.  And they want to know why they should vote for you. Quite simply, we did none of the above.

3. Scott Brown's victory is not at odds with Massachusetts history.  Every once in a while -- about once a decade -- a conservative candidate taps into voter anger.  Ed King, a conservative Democrat, defeated Michael Dukakis in his bid for reelection for governor in the primary in the late 1970's, then won the election. The state went for Reagan in the 1980's, in part because of anger.  In the 1990's, John Silber -- certainly one of the angriest candidates I've ever seen -- beat the popular Democratic Atty General, Frank Belotti, for the nomination for Governor.  What do these conservatives who tapped into voter anger have in common?  Their victories were short-lived. Dukakis came back and beat King four years later.  After Reagan, Massachusetts never voted for a  Republican president again.  The races weren't even close. John Silber lost the election for governor to an arguably more liberal Bill Weld, the Republican.

4. Independent voters won the election for Brown.  These are the same voters who not long ago supported Obama and Deval Patrick, two very fine campaigners, like Scott Brown, although these two campaigners have next to nothing in common with Brown.  The lesson?  Many independents are swayed by the personal narrative and the clarity of message of the candidate.  Scott Brown, like President Obama and Governor Patrick, provided both superbly.  Massachusetts independents have always been open to a progressive message.  We just have to provide one that is clear.

5. On the same day Scott Brown was celebrating his victory, Cindy McCain, John McCain's wife, announced her support of same-sex marriage.  Scott Brown may be anti-marriage equality (and anti- gay pretty much everything else) but the strident anti-gay voices in the Republican party are becoming fewer, or, at the very least, they are being balanced by important folks in the party. Rudy Giuliani recently told The New York Times that as far as same-sex marriage goes, it did not make much sense "to be harping on the issue if the party had any serious interest in returning to power."  Even Dick Cheney has recently come out in support of states that allow same-sex marriage.  The momentum is in our direction.


6. Scott Brown still represents a progressive state.  If Texas elected one progressive senator in a special election with an angry electorate, would we actually believe the state had permanently become left-wing?  One special election does not change the psyche of a state.  If Scott Brown wants to be reelected, he can only tow the conservative line so far.  I simply refuse to believe that voters will reelect a senator who significantly restricts a woman's right to choose, treats LGBT people as second-class citizens, and does nothing about health care but maintain the status quo.

7. The Democrats are neglecting their base.  I listened to interview after interview of reluctant progressives coming out to vote for Martha Coakley.  Who knows how many stayed home?  The Obama administration will have to do something to shore us up before the midterms if it wants to avoid disaster.

All for now. I know there are more issues than same-sex marriage, but this is the focus of this blog.  I'll get to those soon. Sure, I've been extremely blue about the red state behavior of Massachusetts.  But I'm coming out of my funk.  And it's not silver lining thinking.  There's some reality here to keep us on a steady course.

One final (I promise) post until the polls close

I've been reading a few blogs and opinion pages that seem to take offense if one considers Scott Brown anti-gay. Just a few questions, all starting with "What else would you call a politician who...

• Does not support repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
• Is supported by an anti-gay hate group (as determined by the Southern Poverty Law Center)?
• Has not renounced the support of this group?
• Does not support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, thus keeping same sex couples at a financial and legal risk?
• Has voted against domestic partnerships?
• Has voted at least six times against same-sex marriage?
• Has called a family with two mothers "not normal" and a "supposed" family?

I know. I know. Democrats have all done the above, even enacted the above. But most of those folks (including Clinton) now support repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as well as the Defense of Marriage Act. This is 2010.

If this doesn't define anti-gay, I'm not sure what does.

How would you answer these two questions?

Tomorrow we drive ten hours in a snowstorm to get back in time to vote in Tuesday's election.  I've never missed an election, even at the local level.  I consider it a great privilege and responsibility to vote.  When I taught history, I spent endless classes on the American system of government.  I hoped that all my students -- liberal, conservative, and in between -- would get the message: VOTE.  I think they did; I've heard from a number of them -- including many who don't share my political views -- that they remain interested in politics.

The purpose of this post isn't to change hearts and minds before Tuesday's election.  It's probably too late for that.  What I'd like to do is to explain why this election -- more than others -- feels big to me.  The best way to do this is to ask two questions:

      Would you vote for a candidate who called your family "not normal" and a "supposed" family?

Because that's what I've been asked to do by those folks supporting Scott Brown.

Let me add another question:


       Would you vote for a candidate who did everything he could to stop you and your spouse from marrying?

I think I can imagine the response.  I'm not asking you to think about whether you believe in same-sex marriage.  I'm just asking you to answer those two questions.  Because those are the questions that face me and my family as we approach election day.  If you answer them honestly, I hope you can understand why our family couldn't possibly support Scott Brown.

National Organization for Marriage Robocalls in Massachusetts

Although Scott Brown has kept the same-sex marriage issue on the back burner in this campaign, the National Organization for Marriage has been working behind the scenes for him.   According to MetroWeekly in Washington:

The National Organization for Marriage appears to be making automated telephone calls today in support of U.S. Senate candidate and Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown (R) and attacking his opponent, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), for her strong pro-marriage equality position. Coakley is running an unexpectedly close race for the seat held by the late Senator Edward Kennedy (D), the election for which will be held Tuesday.
Longtime LGBT activist Mary Breslauer, a volunteer member of Coakley for Senate cabinet, this afternoon relayed a report received by the campaign

"Our household just got an automated call from the 'National Organization for Marriage,' with a 202 area code. The auto call features a male voice, which is clearly a recording, asking if you support marriage as being only between a man and a woman. If you say 'yes,' then the voice urges you to vote for Scott Brown as the only candidate with a proven record of supporting marriage as between a man and a woman. The call says that his opponent is a 'radical' supporter of same-sex marriage who has opposed letting the people decide and has used taxpayer dollars to support the agenda of same-sex marriage. The call ends by asking if 'we can count on you to vote for Scott Brown.' The quality of the recording is mediocre at best."

Although a call seeking comment from NOM this afternoon was not returned, NOM referenced the race in the group's most recent marriage news update, which focused mainly on the Proposition 8 trial. As to the Massachusetts race, NOM's executive director, Brian Brown, wrote on Friday that he was "excited by the Senate race in Massachusetts."
In the letter, he wrote that Scott Brown "was one of the stalwart legislators who resisted efforts to bribe and intimidate them, and supported the people's right to vote for marriage in Massachusetts." He went on to note that Coakley, as Attorney General, "spearheaded a lawsuit that is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act" and urged NOM supporters to "be sure to get out and vote.

The Company He Keeps

Marriage has not been a major issue in the Massachusetts senate campaign.  Republican Scott Brown, who was one of the most outspoken opponents of marriage equality when the battle was alive at the Massachusetts State House, has tried to sidestep the issue, saying the matter is "settled" in our state.

Other groups who support Brown, disagree.

1. Perhaps the most disturbing group is Mass Resistance,  a group that the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a "hate group" for its anti-gay activism.  An anti-gay hate group, according to the Law Center, is an organization that goes "beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to personal vilification."

Here's something from their website.  Frankly, I wouldn't put 95% of their stuff on my blog, even as a news item.  That's how hateful it is.  So let me just stick with the facts about their support for Brown, whom they call a "very appealing candidate."  This is just the intro of a post.  Each headline leads to a full story.

Massachusetts US Senate race in dead heat as Brown's support surges!

See articles below:

1. Scott Brown in dead heat with Martha Coakley for US Senate seat. Incredible statewide grassroots effort! Bipartisan (and independent!) support fueled by outrage at status quo.

2. Martha Coakley's predictable reaction: (1) Get help from the media. (2) Sleazy attack ads. (3) Raise big money quickly from lobbyists.

3. How bad is she?  Read Martha Coakley's speech at 2007 homosexual bar association fundraiser.

2. The second group supporting Brown is the National Organization for Marriage, a group that has worked tirelessly to deny same-sex marriage rights to gay couples.  Here's something from a recent email:

H/T: Good AsYou

They are already rewriting history....

This has been a mixed year for same-sex marriage supporters. We've had losses in New York, Maine and New Jersey but victories in other parts of the country, such as DC,Vermont and Iowa. What's interesting is that despite this mixed year, politicians are already rewriting history because either (1) they are realizing they were on the wrong side or (2) they are realizing their constituents don't agree with them. Here are two examples. One is a Republican running for Senator of Massachusetts and the other is a Democrat who might run as a senate candidate in New York.

Scott Brown was one of the most vociferous opponents of same-sex marriage in the Massachusetts legislature when the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state had to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  He referred to a family led by two women as "not normal." Now as a senate candidate in a state that has had five years of same-sex marriage, he says he doesn't want to change the law and calls himself "pro civil-union." He has barely mentioned same-sex marriage in his campaign.  He wants us to forget about his anti-gay past without ever acknowledging he might have been on the wrong side of history.

Harold Ford is a former senator from Tennessee who is now considering a run for Senator of New York.  Ford has recently come out in support of same-sex marriage (which reflects the polls taken of New Yorkers), yet while he was in the senate not too long ago, he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage federally.  This amendment might very well have also banned civil unions.  Today Ford says he was always was in favor of fairness, but that he doesn't regret his vote in the senate.  And the icing on the cake?  Ann Coulter called him her "favorite Democrat."

I'm all for people evolving.  But at least have the decency to acknowledge your mistakes.  And don't expect me to choose you over someone who was there for me when the going was tough.  We'll see more and more politicians conveniently forgetting history.  We can't let them.