As I see it, the video is being used as a political tool against Brown.

While none of them had any obligation to make the video, it is being presented as though this was their duty and Brown’s failure to participate indicates his views.

This suggests to me that less than entirely honorable motives are (and were) at play. And when someone with less than entirely honorable motives seeks your downfall, one should be careful not to let them control your public image.

He had other choices (do his own video, get his office closely involved, demand approval privilege), but I just don’t see this as greater than it is.

THe GOP spokeshole, on the other hand…

The ad was great. Truly. And the GOP response was vile and truly shameful.

But I very much doubt that Scott Brown reviewed the script and opted not to participate based on it. As much as some are wanting to imply it, I don’t think that there is anything in the video that Brown disagrees with.

And a number of Massachusetts representatives are honorable and would never deliberately sandbag Brown. I don’t think that was ever their intent and I doubt that they are part of the “see he didn’t join us” campaign.

However… there is at least one of them – one who likely had a great deal of input and control – who has in the past demonstrated partisanship that, frankly, disgusted me. So I don’t fault Brown for being leery about how his participation could be crafted, presented, controlled, and reported.

Of course, he could have opted to participate with a sign-off agreement. He could have become much more involved rather than walk away.

But I think that what he does now is what he should be judged on. If he says nothing at all or makes no measure of support (video or otherwise) then criticism is justified.

But I do not see this video as some litmus test.

I’ve been looking for the source I *swear* I read that said the video was posted and the conference call was held later that afternoon. I cited the Politico article, and it doesn’t say this anywhere, and I have searched and turned up nothing, so I think it’s clear that I saw something that wasn’t there. You’re right about the time lapse of six days. I apologize for that.

I stand by my other comments, but I do want to apologize for getting that wrong. It wasn’t the same day, it was six days later.

He wasn’t punished for his DADT support, he just wasn’t rewarded for it. He was punished for his other anti-gay votes.

Of course it was a Democratic Party conference call. Don’t be naive. The “Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth” is quite happy to serve as a defacto limb of the Massachusetts Dems. Same with the Family Equality Council. Next you’ll be telling me that the HRC is a strictly nonpartisan group that never carries water for Democrats.

I wish you could see the great opportunity he passed up for teens in the state he represents.

When I raise money for the AIDS walks and bike rides I participate in, I ask people for anything they might be able to spare — a quarter, whatever. Some people don’t give anything — some people with lots of money. No doubt they are “passing up” a chance to make a difference in someone’s life. But I don’t issue a press release pointing a finger, shaking my head, and suggesting that the person’s inaction suggests he or she is comfortable with people suffering and dying due to a lack of afforable medications. Decent people do not pull these kinds of moves. I realize that we are talking about politicians here, and that politicians are trying to score points against other politicians, and it was ever thus. But you don’t have to carry water for them! You are free to not print political party press releases on your website.

Go look again. The facts aren’t on your side. The video was posted last Friday on the 22nd. The “press conference” (actually a conference call with reporters) was almost a week later on July 28. And it was a call with LGBT leaders which included two Democratic state lawmakers. It is, in fact, almost very much like they posted a video and other folks thought, hey, where’s Scott Brown. Not quite, of course, but almost.

In fact, this is all about dropping the everything’s-about-scoring-political-points-moves and coming together to prevent teen suicides. This was a perfect invitation for a bipartisan video, but it was Brown’s decision to decline. I wish you could see the great opportunity he passed up for teens in the state he represents. But hey, you, too, are free to be a Republican party hack.

I read your post — the headline and what’s beneath it. But I also read descriptions of the incident from other sources. For instance, Politico (Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0711/A_gay_rights_wedge_against_Brown_in_Mass.html)
which noted that the Dems got together to do a press conference about the fact that Scott Brown didn’t participate the same day they released the video. It’s not like they posted the video, and other, nonpartisan folks thought, hey, where’s Scott Brown. The Dems held a press conference to point this out and score political points. A cynical move, but par for the course in politics. However, you are not a politician — you are free to not be a Democratic party hack! You are free to see these everything’s-about-scoring-political-points-moves as despicable, especially when the subject is ostensibly teen suicides. I wish you would.