BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown says he won’t be pressured by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s son to stop running a radio ad claiming the elder Kennedy’s position is similar to Brown’s in the fight over whether religious employers should provide birth control coverage.

Former Congressman Patrick Kennedy has asked the Republican senator to pull the ad claiming Sen. Kennedy also supported religious exemptions for employers and health insurers.

WBZ-TV’s Jon Keller Is At Large

Brown told reporters Monday he wouldn’t do that. He says he was “confused” by Patrick Kennedy’s letter because the Rhode Island Democrat appeared to share the same position as his father on the issue and co-sponsored a similar bill when he was in Congress.

WBZ NewsRadio 1030’s Ben Parker has reaction from Warren

Brown’s chief Democratic rival, Elizabeth Warren, called his decision to continuing running the radio ad “shameful.”

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.

Comments (49)
  1. donny says:


    Our Sen. Brown is now proudly running as the new Ted Kennedy!

    What the heck….!

  2. Tsalnew says:

    What horribly and inexcusably poor taste. He has no right to use Kennedy’s name as a political tool. He’s moved without thinking before but I thought he’d matured.

    1. gramps says:

      tsal, here’s Teddy’s quote to the Pope & letter…..

      “I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health care field and will continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone.”

      What’s the problem?


      1. Tsalnew says:

        I don’t care what teddy said. He is no longer living. And let me get this right. You’ve been crucifying joe III for running using the Kennedy name – his name – but it’s okmfor Brown to do. Good one gramps. No one uses the name of a person who is deceased for political gain. Revolting

      2. gramps says:

        You love to talk about the ‘Adams Family’….

        Last time I checked they’re pushing up dasies in Quincy!


        Unless you were referring to Gomez, Lerch & Mortisha?

      3. gramps says:

        tsal, you stated:

        “I don’t care what teddy said. He is no longer living.”

        & neither is ‘Mary Jo’….


      4. fred says:

        Well, Elizabeth Warren is in Hollywood getting donations left leaning celebrities so that the Democrats can take back “Ted Kennedy’s seat”. That was how it was put in the story that I read this weekend. I guess it’s ok for them to use his name and by the way, as Scott Brown so eloquently put it, it’s the PEOPLE’S SEAT.

  3. Tuppu says:

    Well, I suppose the Democrats should stop referring to Ronald Reagan and George Bush every time they want to make a political point. What horribly and inexcuseable poor taste they exhibit!

    1. gramps says:

      Don’t confuse tsal with facts….

      Gives her additional ‘HOT FLASHES’….


      1. Tsalnew says:

        And don’t confuse gramps with knowing what is in good taste. His comment would be a perfect example to anyone. Please do explain why Brown can’t run on his own merit.

    2. Tsalnew says:

      Tuppu do they use those names as a pitical campaign tool? I doubt it since not one would want to be associated with them. Anyone would have to be a fool to not know why brown is using Ted Kennedy’s name.

      1. Tuppu says:

        Well, I do believe Pres. Obama is in a political campaign. He used the Reagan name to garner more Conservative support and to, at least, associate himself with Reagan. You can go look it up, but (in a shortened version), he said “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it…….I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”. Does that mean that Obama is “fool” using Reagan’s name?

      2. Tsalnew says:

        Tuppa. Did you leave the part out where Obama said Reagan would support anything he proposes. Or was he simply complimenting Reagan ? If brown wants to compliment Kennedy that is one thing. Saying or implying he’d stand with brown on his view is what is inexcusable. Please tell me how Brown has the audacity to know what ted kennedy would say at this moment in time If obama said Reagan would stand with him on any view that would also be inexcusable. Didn’t I already say that. Again. Why do you think brown can’t stand on his own. What do you believe his reason was for mentioning Kennedy. What purpose does it serve

  4. Tsalnew says:

    Tuppu for what it’s worth i don’t judge a person by party. If a dem used the name of a deceased person in a state where he knew that persons name got attention during an election year I’d be equally revolted. If a family member asked that person to stop using his dads name, I’d be more than revolted. Last I checked we are talking about Brown here. I happen to like Brown but it’s my opinion this is tasteless. My opinion.

    1. Tuppu says:

      So what are you really saying, that Ted Kennedy’s support of the Catholic view (ala the Vatican) of contraception and abortion and the freedom to practice one’s religion is wrong? Brown is actually being complementary of Kennedy on that view. What do you suppose is Patrick’s real reason is for asking Brown to stop? Could it be that Brown is really what he said he would be and not a “for the party come h*llmof highwater” person? Maybe Brown will help to get us away from thet “party” mentality and actually acomplish something the people want, not just party leaders.

      1. Tuppu says:

        Thats “h*ll OR highwater”.

      2. Tsalnew says:

        Tuppu. We don’t know do we. He is not here to share his opinion and to guess whether hed support brown is in bad taste. Even worse it doesn’t matter why a family member asks to not have the name of a deceased used I try to think how I’d feel and I don’t have to think long. Again. Any reason brown feels he can’t run on his own. What’s his purpose. I’ve been listening to conservatives for a week saying Joe Kennedy III should not run on his name. Now conservatives feel its fine for Brown to use the Kennedy name. A bit of an it’s ok for me but not for them.

        One good reason Brown has to use the name od someone who isn’t here to verify what he said please. As far as a family member asking the name be withdrawn – none of our buisiness. It’s personal. I know it would bother me to have anyone use the name of any of my family no longer here. It’s just bad taste IMHO

        No reason to correct spelling. I am on my phone at night and it auto corrects so I’m used to using common sense to figure what a person means :)

      3. Tsalnew says:

        Should have added that if brown gets us away from party mentality which is why I like him then he should do it on his own merit and not bring a name into it that he believes carries weight in this state in an election year when he iknows he has to align with the dem party Just stand alone. I am still up in the air on brown and warren. He’s close to making my decision. I’m not alone.

  5. Tuppu says:

    tsal..I guess you’re right; no politician should EVER mention the name of another politician, living or deceased. After all, each person should stand on their own merit. There’s no need for anyone to mention Bill Clinton and his charisma and budget surplus. That would be analogous to living off his reputation. No one should ever mention Jimmy Carter as that may be disrespectful and detrimental to his administration. Maybe Amy should cry foul to those who do. Maybe Obama should never mention H W Bush, but then who would he blame for everything.
    Get over it tsal, you are making a mountain out of something that is done everyday in politics and elsewhere.
    BTW, I will be watching Lizze Warren as to whose names she mentions. I bet they will all be Democrats!

    1. Tuppu says:

      Sorry, I meant G W Bush, didn’t see that until I submitted.

    2. Tsalnew says:

      Tuppa. You reading what I said or interpreting what you think I said. You can mention and credit all you want. Just do not claim that a deceased person would stand in your corner unless of course you have some connection to the other world. It’s simple respect. Either way good discussion. You have an opinion as do I. Neither wrong since they are dictated by our personal code of ethics what I’m not sure you understand is I realize like the rest of us politicians make mistakes. One will not lose a vote from me. Brown has a history of not using common sense. I attribute it to growing pains as he also has done good things. I just thought he’d grown more than this. My opinion. Still not sure where my vote will go. Will watch this but other factors too.

    3. Tsalnew says:

      Tuppa I assume you also believe anyone saying joe III running is foolish is making mountain out of molehill. Ms Warren as is case with Brown will make mistakes. My concern is he hasn’t seemed to learn from his. Let’s see if Ms Warren does. That remains to be seen. Inwould react idnshe did this just the same Unlike you who for some reason feels the need to keep bringing up dem politicians to prove some kind of imagined point I watch all sides since I find it a shame to vote party. By and large majority of my votes in my multiple decades of voting have gone to someone with an R beside hisr name. At the moment I feel the party has lost its base but I also feel those like Brown can help them find it.

  6. massman says:

    Talk about desperate. He’s on the wrong side of the issue, so he tries to compare himself to Ted Kennedy for support? Mr. Brown, you and the rest of the GOP should stay out of women’s reproductive rights. Your party is clueless on that, and most social, and pretty much all economic issues. Good riddance in Nov.

    1. petem says:

      Exactly what I wanted to say massman. Irregardless of who said what about whatever, this boils down to a bunch of men trying to tell women what they can and should do with THEIR bodies. IF the R party is so sure they want to run on this issue while at the same time telling people that they are the party of liberty and personal freedom, more power too ’em…just watch out for that cliff; the first step’s a doozie!

      1. tsalnew says:

        agreed petem – no one is forcing anyone to take birth control – just asking that if they want to they will have same coverage that other insurance companies give.

      2. Pat says:

        petem; where is there a bunch of men trying to tell women what they can or can’t do with their bodies? Am I missing something?? This is an insurance issue am I correct? I don’t understand where you’re coming from, I didn’t think “they” were trying to outlaw birthcontrol, am I wrong?

      3. gramps says:

        Pat, the Church Ladies ‘Can’t understand normal thinking’…..


      4. petem says:

        Did you miss the hearing Darryl Issa had last week? Only men were invited, one woman, a student who takes the pill for non contraceptive reasons, was denied the right to speak. The men who were there represented mainly religious groups, not insurance companies.

  7. Pat says:

    Good for Scott Brown!!! Ted Kennedy was a public official and I don’t see anything offensive about Scott Brown using Ted Kennedy’s words to continue what Ted Kennedy obviously felt was best for all citizens. Don’t Democrats hate it when their words come back to bite them? Even Patrick Kennedy agreed with his father. This is just political grandstanding by the democrats and it ain’t working.
    And I also feel that this birth control issue is gettig blown way out of porportion. To listen to some, you’d think birthcontrol was on the verge of being outlawed – geez get a grip!

    1. petem says:

      Do you have something from Ted Kennedy saying that he supports any organization limiting it’s covered persons’ access to healthcare? That’s what’s at issue here. gramps even posted some text that only addresses Catholics. How can Scott Brown justify expanding that to mean anyone who feels like it?
      Does this mean that the Christian Scientists should be allowed to block their employee’s and family members from assessing ANY medical care based on their belief that prayer is all they need?

      1. Pat says:

        Pete, are we saying that people are being told that they cannot seek medical attention? How can an employer tell an employee they cannot seek out a doctor? Or, are we talking about health insurance – two different things.
        “Does this mean that the Christian Scientists should be allowed to block their employee’s and family members from assessing ANY medical care based on their belief that prayer is all they need?” – Are the Cristian Scientists going to physically stop someone from going to the doctor – how? Are they going to wait outside??? I don’t get your point. And, about Issa’s hearings; it was my understanding that this was one of many hearings to be held on the issue – the women who walked out of that meeting (I honestly forget was it Boxer??) were grandstanding……..

      2. petem says:

        Thanks Pat for clarifying. So you can have any medical procedure you want as long as you pay for it yourself because, I your employer am so wrapped up in the nonsense myth of religion, that I assume that I know best and can dictate to others what they should do.
        That is certifiable. Perhaps people would be smart enough to know that they would need to find an employer that is in sync with all their values and therefor the point becomes moot, but Why do we need to go down this road. The best answer is a national healthcare plan for everyone. Get insurance companies out of it altogether. Everyone get a good solid plan and if someone wants a premium plan they pay for it themselves. Healthcare is not something that should be subject to whims of people who have ulterior motives.

      3. Pat says:

        “wrapped up in the nonsense myth of religion” Ahh, I am thinking your problem is with religion and that’s your right, but please some of us value our “nonsense myth of religion” Tolerance of other’s beliefs are not for some but for all…..

      4. Pat says:

        “wrapped up in the nonsense myth of religion” Ahh, I am thinking your problem is with religion and that’s your right, but please some of us value our “nonsense myth of religion” Tolerance of other’s beliefs are not for some but for all…..

        Also: “I assume that I know best and can dictate to others what they should do”. Isn’t that what the left’s position is with everything??? IMHO

      5. tsalnew says:

        Pat many who work for the catholic church are not catholic. 80% of Catholics take birth control. the nonsense myth applies when a religion tries to dictate what you can do in your own home/bedroom. If health care offers birth control, it should be offered to all. No one is forcing anyone to take it and the alternative might be using abortion for birth control……’s the church feel about that? I’m still trying to figure out exactly what the church’s reason is other than it wants more bodies in church.

      6. Pat says:

        If you’re going to work in a Catholic parish/church/school – gee, one would think that maybe, just maybe, being a religious organization, one would realize that the dictates of that religion maybe found in something as simple as the employer sponsored health insurance dictating to its faith. Tsalnew, if you were going to work in a Mosque, would you not wear a head covering? If you were to work in a synagogue, would you not oblige by any beliefs they may have? And, I know what pete meant by nonsense myth, he was referring to religion in all aspects and I ask that he be a bit more tolerant.

        Let’s put it this way – as an example, my child was educated in a parochial school – got quite good grades but the state does not allow parocial school students to qualify for the Adams scholarship – why? I was told by someone from the Department of Education – separation of church and state. So, the state can say it’s OK to discriminate against parochial students, but the church has to leave its faith at the door when it comes to employee insurance coverage? Can’t have it both ways and I understood where the state was coming from and didn’t pursue it any further.

      7. tsalnew says:

        I agree that when in their house do as they do but I don’t believe that extends to the bedroom. I would not wear a head covering in my bedroom – would you? 80% of catholics use birth control.

        And again – what about medical reasons?

        BTW – and using an old saying – when do two wrongs make a right? Working on the premise that because one thing is wrong, it’s fine for others to be doesn’t make sense. I see no comparison for your son not getting a scholarship – it makes no sense to me that he didn’t either.

      8. Pat says:

        The church isn’t saying that birth control should be illegal, just that the government should’t force them to provide coverage that goes against their doctrine. If I were an employee in a parish and needed birthcontrol, I’d say well either I find a new job or pay for it myself (which I’ve always done). I’m sure it isn’t a suprise to most employees of religious organizations. I don’t really think it’s that big of a deal.
        And, in the case of my child – how can the state discriminate against a child? But, they are quick to point fingers at the church – reprehensible! But, you know what – I understand that if indeed a church member feels the government should stay out of the church, then it works both ways and we’ll live without the Adams scholarship.

      9. tsalnew says:

        Pat – I am doing some thinking on this and am somewhat on the fence. I read Pete’s link – which to me is incredibly sad – but one point was can you ask owner of an orthodox delii to serve pork – or for the matter food that is not kosher.

        But then I wondered about employees of the Christian Science Church. Do they have to offer health insurance? They do not promote the use of doctors.

        It’s a tough one that has pros and cons on all sides.

      10. Pat says:

        I agree and it does require lots of thought. To be honest I don’t know what the right answer is since it touches on such personal issues. I’ve had a good time conversing. Have a good night!

      11. Tsalnew says:

        Pat. I’ve enjoyed the conversation also. You’ve given me a totally different perspective.

  8. fred says:

    It’s all about getting someone else to pay for it. You want birth control – then you and your partner need to pay for it. I’ll leave your body alone if you’ll stay out of my wallet.

    1. Pat says:

      Thank you Fred – I agree! I paid for years out of pocket and shouldn’t the partner also chip in? On the other hand, why is Viagra covered?

    2. tsalnew says:

      so if it’s needed for medical reasons – not for birth control – it should not be covered?

      1. fred says:

        My co-pay for my blood pressure medications is about $ 600.00 per year – so I’m covered but I still pay (including 40% of the premium). As far as Viagra goes, it seems that a physically healthy person would not need it – but the list of side effects and health reasons for not being able to take it should scare most people away from it. The same with some of the women’s birth control medicine when they list the “may cause” stuff – it sounds frightening. This whole discussion is just a distraction from the real problems facing this country. I thought is was odd when George Stephanopolus asked this question during a debate prior to the New Hampshire primary when this had not even become an issue yet – it was as if he was reading ahead in the Democrat playbook and then lost his place. I remember Romney seemed perplexed by the question and saying he did not realize that any state was contemplating restricting access to contraception – even saying that contraception works fine.

      2. gramps says:

        You’re the grown up version of ‘Peppermint Patty’….


      3. tsalnew says:

        shucks, gramps – it is flattering that you follow me around the blogs with pertinent input ;)

      4. tsalnew says:

        fred – a copay would apply for birth control also and unless you are a person’s PCP or specialist I don’t think you can or should decide what that person should or should not take or what he/she can take – any more than the insurance companies should decide.

  9. fred says:

    tsal – the USA today story from early February has Sebelius clearly stating that the mandate is to allow all women access to FREE preventive care including contraceptives. Is there a co-pay for something that is free?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s