Response to Mr. Ruplenas’ “My View” (The difference between Ted and Scott) of October 29, 2012

Mr. Ruplenas’ commentary on my “My View” piece is a vituperative ad hominum rant that dredges up the absolute hate that some still harbor about the Kennedy family. I am not an apologist for the Kennedys, but growing up in a three decker around Boston in the forties and fifties, like Scott Brown, with no father at home or child support, we always heard of the Kennedy boys, their successes and their fortunes, from the nuns, the Jesuits, the pulpits and from the neighbors. I admit I may be biased. However, my original point stands. Scott Brown is no Ted Kennedy and the Massachusetts voters know it. The difference is one of social conscience in his voting record of 36 years and Brown’s lock step voting on major Republican efforts to thwart any progress that can be attributed to President Obama.

Some reflections and corrections to Mr. Ruplenas’ alleged facts:

1.       Ted Kennedy did not have to take money from lobbyists like Brown does, to get elected. Therefore he was a man of the people in his voting. Brown favors financial institutions and votes to support their interests. He’s not an “independent” as he suggests in his ads.

2.       Senator Brown took the “Norquist” Republican oath not to raise taxes. This while setting himself up for four fully taxpayer supported pensions and free medical care for life for him and his wife when he retires. Can anyone explain to me how a person can run for office citing no more taxes while positioning himself for four tax supported pensions and no cost medical care for life with a straight face? Mr. Ruplenas should reflect on this reality that a newly elected Senator Brown might give up some of his taxpayer supported pensions to avoid a national bankruptcy.

3.       Colonel Brown is not and will not be a veteran until, as a National Guardsman he serves 180 consecutive days on “active Duty”- not “Active Duty for training” his status in Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and Paraguay. These are short term two week assignments as part of his annual commitment. Those National Guardsmen and Women in uniform who staff those sites on “Active Duty” and who face combat over two, three or four long term tours of duty endure a heavy sacrifice for their service to their country. For Colonel Brown, it’s more of a lark. For the others it’s a heavy burden on them, on their families, and on their finances. For Colonel Brown it’s just a change of scenery. If he plans on volunteering for a combat assignment in Afghanistan to get “veteran” status, the voters should know that.  He’d been gone for half a year from the senate to complete that requirement and might face injury or death in a combat zone on “Active Duty”. That’s a sacrifice. Spending two weeks as National Guard Colonel visiting a unit in a combat zone does not rise to the level of sacrifice borne by those on permanent party in the same combat zone. Ask anyone who has been there. He is not a veteran until he meets the 180 day requirement!

4.       In an AP story earlier this year, Senator Brown’s bio indicated he received both the “Meritorious Service Medal” and the “Army Commendation Medal’, but you cite only one in your piece. Is his official bio in error or is your information error? It would be important to know because the Senator is heading a “Faux Military Award” effort in the Senate. If his record were faulty it would not look good for him to be boasting in his official bio about military awards he never received. If he only was awarded the Army Commendation Medal and not the Meritorious Medal, than the official Bio sent to the AP from his headquarters overstates his awards and has never been retracted by the Senator.

5.       My interest in Colonel Brown’s National Guard record arises out of my own long national guard/USAR experience in three states and the Pentagon for a third of my life. He treats his service like a hobby. The guys I served with treated it more like a calling. There are thousands of current and ex-guardsmen in the state who will draw their own conclusions on voting day about Brown’s  self promoted “soldiering” as a National Guard Lawyer as an occasional short term visitor in combat zones. His integrity is at risk because of his continual efforts at self promotion, which parallel many of his other questionable comments about his role as a senator.

Thanks for the opportunity to write a response to Mr. Ruplenas’ “My View”.

Thomas P. Johnson

Harwich Port, MA