Senator Maddow?

Is Rachel Maddow gunning for Scott Brown’s Senate seat? The Massachusetts Republican thinks she is. In a fundraising e-mail sent out Tuesday afternoon, he says the state’s Democratic Party is trying to get the MSNBC host to challenge him for his newly acquired Senate seat.

“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,” Brown writes. “And you’re not going to believe who they are supposedly trying to recruit—liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow.”

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.

16 Comments

Filed under Elections

16 responses to “Senator Maddow?

  1. Brown’s email:

    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. Someone 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? I’d like to encourage ordinary American citizens concerned about the future of their country to get more involved in our government. I hope you were encouraged by my victory to become more politically active, maybe even become a candidate for office yourself. We can continue to push our movement forward by running for office, joining in rallies and petitions that challenge President Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s healthcare legislation, supporting campaigns against the tax-and-spenders or by donating time and money to office-holders and candidates who will restore the principles of our founders.

    I’m grateful you are with me. Thanks again for whatever support you can provide me, and I look forward to joining in further victories with you down the line.

    Sincerely,

    Scott Brown
    United States Senator

  2. I watched her show tonight. I hadn’t done that before but I will probably do it in the future. She’s sharp!

    Anyway, she explained that this is a money-raising gimmick Scott Brown is using. And she said she would deal with it. I think that woman can deal with exactly what she needs / wants to deal with!

    But I’m wondering, will Republicans ever get past the thinking that someone out there might get something they don’t deserve? Will they ever quit thinking that they are superior to another human? Is money what they think determines a person’s worth? Will they ever realize the ditch digger who earns a little is ever bit as worthy as the _____ (fill in the blank with some high earning profession)?

    Why would how much you earn make you more valuable or worthy?

    • tosmarttobegop

      But I’m wondering, will Republicans ever get past the thinking that someone out there might get something they don’t deserve? Will they ever quit thinking that they are superior to another human?

      Least you have forgotten you are now a Republican!

      I find it admirable that you continue to hang around with the low lives that continue to post to you here.
      (secret hand shake and wiggle now!)

    • NightHawk

      My mother used to tell me that if I didn’t study hard in school, I’d wind up digging ditches. Go check what a ditch digger makes. You’ll be surprised, they’re very well paid.
      But back to the topic. I’ve been a Maddow fan ever since she started on MSNBC. I think she’s the kind of woman who can accomplish whatever she wants to. I’d love to see her run for public office, and keep running. The lady has potential. Maddow for president someday?

      • I used to listen to Rachel on Air America radio and then I started watching her on MSNBC. She is cute, funny, smart and unflinching. She is definitely biased, and as such can not be considered a journalist, but I don’t think that she portrays herself as unbiased, so I don’t see that as a problem.

        If she were to attack the issues facing this country with the same sincerity, forthrightness, CIVILITY, and intelligence that she shows on her television show (and I think she is still doing radio, as well), then I would vote for her. Not because she is a liberal talk show host, but because we need people with courage, honesty and integrity in office more now than at any time I can think of in my lifetime.

  3. It just might be that the poor wo/man effects more good in the world than the wealthy wo/man. There are selfish people in all economic classes, and there are people who care, who are generous in all economic class. Having money isn’t what determines a person’s contribution! And often giving of one’s self is the most valuable!

    It seems Republicans don’t understand that concept. Am I looking at it all wrong?

    • indypendent

      In a word – no.

      What really irritates me is when Republicans have used the label ‘Christian’ as another means of making themselves feel superior to others.

      I am a Christian and I take great offense when the likes of Pat Robertson says something so off the wall as to pray for the death of certain Supreme Court Justices and the rest of these oh-so-saintly Christian Republicans sit back and do not denounce this old codger for what he really is.

      I don’t know what God they worship but it is not the God of love, as the Bible tells us.

      But, as we all know, these Social Conservative Christians are even on their quest to rewrite the Bible. How much arrogance can one group possess?

      • indypendent

        BTW – I believe in karma and I don’t want to be anywhere near Phyllis Schafly and her fellow revisionists when that karma comes their way for their audacity to rewrite the Bible.

        I suspect a big can of whoop ass has their name on it!

  4. tosmarttobegop

    I like Rachael a lot, she is smart insightful and witty.
    She is my second favorite on-air personality on MSNBC after Dillon Ratigen.

    Monkeyhawk needs to be drafted for Governor of Kansas. BTW reading about the latest far religious nut running against Brownback. If she got the GOP nod he would be a shoe-in as the more Conservative!
    OMG she is so out there….

  5. Zippy

    I doubt she’ll run, but ,yeah, I’ve love to see it.

    Ask Senator Franken if it’s a silly idea. 🙂

  6. indypendent

    As for Rachel Maddow, I think she is one the smartest political analysts on television. She is always well prepared and is willing to go to the mat for her beliefs.

    She is also a very nice person. She routinely has guests on her show that she knowingly disagrees with but yet she still treats them with courtesy and dignity. She is not into that brash blowhard type of denouncing the other person as an enemy that must be destroyed (like Rush, Beck and others seem to have to do).

    But for her running for Senate – I don’t know about that. I think Rachel does more good at what she is doing currently. I would like to see her get one of the Sunday political shows and show the guys how it should be done.

    I suspect this is all just a fundraising stunt on the Republicans’ part because they know their Conservative base will not stand for a smart woman to be on the ballot. These people prefer a woman who has the hotness factor, can wave, wink and do fancy pageant walking.

    • indypendent

      BTW – I think Scott Brown and other Republicans have forgotten who really got Brown elected – Independents.

      As for Brown proudly claiming to be the Independent voice in Washington – that remains to be seen. If Brown is seen as always being in lockstep with the Republican partisan obstructionists – I suspect the Massachusetts Independents might just change their mind and go with the Democrat the next time around.

      • From what I hear, at least part of what got Scott Brown elected was voter apathy. The turnout was even lower than usual, and if Mr. Brown doesn’t govern the way Mass voters think they deserve they will be sure to show up at the polls to vote him OUT.

        “According to WHDH-TV in Boston there were 4 million registered voters in Massachusetts for Tuesday’s election.

        Just over 2.2 million voted or 54%. In the 2008 election in which President Obama won, voter turnout in the Bay State was 66%. In this election 1,168,107 or 52% voted for Brown, 1,058,682 or 47% voted for Coakley and 22,237 or 1% voted for Independent candidate Joseph L. Kennedy who you know is no relation to the Kennedy’s.

        The Boston Globe put up an interesting series of graphs which show the following.

        Towns with more Republicans saw higher turnout. Towns with more Democrats saw lower turnout.

        Towns with more Independents voted for Brown while towns with less Independents voted for Coakley.

        So there are the numbers. The pundits on the Republican side claim victory by everything from folks already tired of big government and spending (guess they already forgot about Bush) to the honeymoon is over and we are taking back what was ours, to the weather, which really didn’t play a factor.

        Brown won doing what politicians should do and Coakley lost by running a textbook example of how not to run a political campaign. And the Democrats who didn’t bother to vote are also to blame.

        And there boys and girls you have The Perfect Storm. Good and bad politics and voter apathy.

        Think about that the next time you say to yourself “why should I bother to vote ?”

        http://blog.ctnews.com/evans/2010/01/21/why-martha-coakley-lost-to-scott-brown-by-the-numbers/

  7. indypendent

    Exaxtly, fnord. I think the Republicans are making a huge mistake (yippee) in their taking Massachusetts for a given come 2012 (doesn’t Brown have to run for re-election in 2012?).

    Brown had better watch his step and if he turns out to be just a rubber stamp for the GOP and they continue on their current course of destruction at all costs, then Brown’s Senate days are numbered.

    I remember what Glenn Beck was saying about Brown when he got elected. Does anyone else remember? Only time will tell. But you know what, alot of people are watching and taking notes. That may be a bad sign for Brown and his fellow GOPPERS.