Regardless of how successful he has been at pulling the wool over people’s eyes, Scott Brown appears to be a certifiable rightwing nut. In addition to supporting torture, here he is in the long-ago days of 2008 opining on whether Obama was a child born out of wedlock:


As was first reported by Blue Mass Group, a Massachusetts-based political blog, Brown did an interview in 2008, around the time of Republican National Convention, to defend Sarah Palin as a candidate for national office. The interviewer raised the issue of the Alaska governor’s family, so the conservative state senator decided to go after Barack Obama’s parents.

“Barack’s mom had him when she was, what, 18 years old?” Brown asked, drawing a parallel between Obama’s mother and Palin’s pregnant teenage daughter. When the interviewer noted that Obama’s parents were married, Brown replied, “Well, I don’t know about that.”

The context is important here — around the time of the interview, unhinged right-wing activists were pushing the line that Obama’s parents weren’t married, a claim that became central to the bizarre Birther conspiracy theory. Brown wasn’t just attacking the future president and his parents during the interview; he was also lending credence to fringe right-wing stupidity.

Nice pick there, Gherald.

  1. Gherald says:

    So to review, he's defending Palin regarding her daughter's pregnancy, draws a parallel to Obama's mother's early pregnancy, and responds he doesn't know whether she was married?

    This is beyond the pale because…some right-wingers think Obama isn't a natural-born American citizen? A claim founded in nothing but unhinged hysteria which certainly doesn't turn on whether his parents were married?

    I see the straws are being firmly grasped.
    Why not mention Brown's hatred for rape victims while you're at it?

    • Metavirus says:

      That's ok. I know that once you make a decision you're hard pressed tobe persuaded otherwise.

      • Gherald says:

        I knew his position on waterboarding before I made my decision, which is based on my thinking that this will be inconsequential with a Democrat in the White House and that he might just be saying it because it's the mainstream Republican position and this is not a time to buck his party.

        I didn't know about the above comments from the 2008 campaign and don't see why they would persuade anyone of anything.

        Just to review, your position here is that a Republican who by his voting record is more liberal than Dede Scozzafava, and more liberal than 2/3 of Massachusetts Republicans--who are already nearly the most liberal Republicans in the country--is a "certifiable rightwing nut".

        I knew you'd trended to the left, but I hadn't realize you'd gone far enough out there for Brown to seem a wingnut.

  2. chunzilla says:

    Just saw Obama's speech in Mass. supporting Martha and making the distinction between the candidates very clear. Excellent.

    • @kevinista says:

      settle this with a duel….

      but really, I dont think Brown is a wingnut. If he were to win, Im sure hed be the most liberal senate republican.
      dont get me wrong though; of course Martha Coakley is the way to go!

  3. Metavirus says:

    I doubt that very much. I suspect he is playing like a moderate to get elected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Your Vintners