By JENNIFER EPSTEIN

Sen. Scott Brown has thrown his tea party supporters “under the bus” with his recent critiques of some Republican budget cut proposals, a movement leader said Friday.

Brown, a Massachusetts Republican, on Thursday denounced GOP suggestions to cut social and cultural programs as “irresponsible,” and Judson Phillips, a leader of Tea Party Nation, is steamed.

“Brown is a politician, and that is meant in the worst sense of the word politician,” Phillips wrote on his blog. “Scott Brown used the Tea Party to get elected. Now he no longer needs this movement and we are tossed under the bus.”

In a Thursday floor speech and in a letter to Senate leaders, Brown said that while cuts “reducing and eliminating needless spending and programs are appropriate … a wholesale reduction in spending, without considering economic, cultural, and social impacts is simply irresponsible.”

Republican proposals, he said, “establish the wrong priorities that would disproportionately affect low-income families and seniors.”

Brown has downplayed his connection to the movement, saying in February that he is “a Republican, period” and that while he respects the tea party, he isn’t part of it.

There are vows from Massachusetts tea party members to launch a primary challenge against Brown next year.

Brown’s remarks came just hours after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the tea party movement in a floor speech. And they hit squarely at the movement that helped get him elected, Phillips said. “In his latest sell out of those who put him in” office, Brown has “repeat[ed] the tired old liberal line that the budget cuts the GOP is pushing, disproportionately hurt ‘low income families and seniors.’”

And Brown’s latest stance is all about winning a full six-year term in 2012, Phillips said.

“He knows self-preservation and self-promotion. He has aligned himself with the RINO crowd, which has no beliefs, other than getting reelected and appeasing whatever base he thinks will help him get reelected. From a crass point of view, that is working.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52391.html#ixzz1IOAQAGGm

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is running for president again in 2012. Getty photo

THE WASHINGTON POST

THE FIX  Political News and Analysis By Chris Cillizza

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has never really stopped running for president since that February day in 2008 when he ended his challenge to Sen. John McCain  (Ariz.).

While Romney took an extended hiatus to write his book — “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness” — he never really left the political game, staying in close touch with a small group of political advisers who have kept the presidential flame lit over the past two plus years.

That loyal group has helped Romney emerge as the frontrunner in the Invisible Primary — the behind-the-scenes battle before the battle for the nomination, a contest defined by fundraising, endorsements and general political sway. (The Romney team’s performance was near perfect until a background quote disparaging former Alaska Sen. Sarah Palin  caused a bit of stir nationally.)

What better way to kick off our 2012 inner circle lists — the men and women closest to the various Republicans (and Democrat) running for president — than with Romney. Look for future inner circles for Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and, yes, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in this space in the coming weeks.

The Romney Inner Circle

*Matt Rhoades: Rhoades served as communications director for Romney’s 2008 bid and earned a reputation as a savvy strategist in and out of the press world. Rhoades was named director of Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC earlier this year — a move that won the governor praise among insiders — and is widely expected to be the campaign manager for the 2012 race.

* Beth Myers: Myers served as chief of staff during Romney’s time as governor and managed the 2008 race. Myers is regarded as the staffer with the closest personal relationship with Romney — a not-insignificant thing in a presidential campaign where scads of advisers seek to win the candidate’s ear.

* Eric Fehrnstrom: While Fehnstrom has dabbled in outside consulting — he helped guide Sen. Scott Brown (R) to victory in Massachusetts earlier this year — he is still focused heavily on forwarding Romney’s political interests. Fehnrstrom’s relationship with Romney cemented during the ’08 campaign when he served as traveling press secretary but the two also have history; Fehnstrom served as Romney’s deputy campaign manager in the 2002 governor’s race.

* Stuart Stevens/Russ Schriefer: Romney had many — too many, according to some — media consultants on board during the 2008 presidential campaign. (Check out our 2008 Romney inner circle post for a look at all of them.). Stevens and Schriefer, whose firm helped elect Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.) in 2009, are the only image men left standing and are a near-lock to produce Romney’s ads in the race to come.

* Spencer Zwick: Commonly referred to as the sixth Romney son (Romney has five boys), Zwick is tasked with raising the money for the PAC — and, by any measure, has done a bang-up job. Romney has collected nearly $6 million for Free and Strong America since the start of 2009 and had doled out hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates across the country as well. In both money raised and donations made, Romney stands alone among 2012 candidates — thanks to Zwick.

* Peter Flaherty: Flaherty is Romney’s go-to guy in outreach to conservatives, the same critical role he played for the governor in the 2008 presidential race. Flaherty, like Myers and Fehnrstrom, goes way back with Romney; he served as Romney’s deputy chief of staff in the governor’s office.

* Bob White: White is a longtime Romney confidante – they worked together at Bain Capital — and remains a trusted voice for the governor.

Kevin Madden, Spokesman for Mitt Romney's 2008 Primary Campaign

* Kevin Madden: Madden, the telegenic spokesman for Romney in 2008, has moved on to the world of political consulting — he is partners with former Republican National Committee strategist Jim Dyke — but keeps a hand in Romney world. Madden is also a regular presence on cable television, a role he’s likely to reprise if/when he signs up for a second bid.

* Ben Ginsberg: Ginsberg (and his law firm Patton Boggs) remains on Romney’s PAC payroll — a sign that the governor values the advice of one of the top election lawyers in Washington (or anywhere.)

* Ron Kaufman: Kaufman, a principal at the Dutko Group, is the insider’s insider and serves as a behind-the-scenes advocate for Romney within the professional political class in Washington.

Jim Talent, former Missouri Congressman and Senator

* Jim Talent/Mike Leavitt: Talent, the former Missouri Senator, and Leavitt, the former Utah governor, know the life of an elected official and can relate to Romney in a way that few others in the inner circle can as a result.

Read more at the washingtonpost.com….

The 2,315 page Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill that President Obama will sign today should not be called “financial reform.” Instead the bill, which passed the Senate 60-39 last week when Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown joined Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to grant cloture, should be called what for what it is: pages and pages of massively costly, counterproductive and possibly unconstitutional mandates on nearly every type of business except for those government-sponsored enterprises at the root of the crisis. And while the bill claims to crack down on excesses on Wall Street, its harshest impact will likely be on Main Street businesses that had nothing to do with the meltdown.

A front-page Wall Street Journal article this week noted that “far from Wall Street, President Barack Obama’s financial regulatory overhaul… will leave tracks across the wide-open landscape of American industry.” The Journal notes that “the bill will touch storefront check cashiers, city governments, [and] small manufacturers.”

But one thing it will leave totally untouched is the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which new research by Congress’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and other bodies shows was even more of a prime factor in the subprime boom than originally assumed. The Federal Housing Finance Agency now reports that Fannie and Freddie purchased 40 percent of all private-label subprime securities in 2003 and 2004. Indeed, according to Edward Pinto, housing scholar and Fannie’s former chief credit officer, millions of mortgages to borrowers with credit scores of less than 660, considered by prominent researchers to be the dividing line for subprime loans, had been labeled by Fannie and Freddie as prime going back as early as 1993.

Rather than wait for Congress’s own Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to issue its report in December to examine the role of the GSEs and other causes, Congress passed a bill that will not prevent future bubbles and imposes untold costs that will put the country in danger of slipping back into a recession.

New collateral requirements on derivatives could cost U.S. companies as much as $1 trillion in lost capital and liquidity, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association. And as the WSJ piece notes, these costs would hit not just big banks, but farmers who use derivatives to hedge the price of their crops and fuel for their tractor. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could also hit retailers that issue credit tangentially related to their business, such as small stores that offer layaway plans.

On the other side of the retail ledger, some of the biggest retailers also got an unjustified mandated benefit with the Durbin amendment that puts price controls on the interchange fees they pay to process credit cards. This corporate welfare for fat cat merchants will mean higher costs to consumers, community banks, and credit unions.

In addition, the bill contains provisions that will empower special interests at the expense of ordinary shareholders and that may exceed the limits of the U.S. Constitution. The bill’s “orderly liquidation” authority will allow the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department not only to bail out firms whose failure is deemed to be a threat to “financial stability,” but to actually seize firms that are not even asking for a bailout.

Read more @ The American Spectator…….

Most popular official in survey; For incumbents, message is mixed

US Senator Scott Brown, who only months ago was a little-known figure even within the tiny band of Republicans in the state Senate, not only catapulted to national stature with his upset US Senate victory, but is today the most popular officeholder in Massachusetts, according to a Boston Globe poll.

After less than five months in Washington, Brown outpolls such Democratic stalwarts as President Obama and US Senator John F. Kerry in popularity, the poll indicates. He gets high marks not only from Republicans, but even a plurality of Democrats views him favorably.

The support for Brown, whose victory became a symbol of voter anger, is consistent with widespread sentiment that incumbents in Massachusetts and Washington “need to be replaced with a new crop of leaders.’’ That statement was supported by 50 percent of those polled, while 28 percent said they trust the incumbents.

Yet there’s one surprising consolation for Bay State Democrats who hope to defuse the voter backlash. When asked whether they will vote for a Democrat or Republican in their own congressional district in November, 42 percent of likely voters say they will vote for the Democrat and 27 percent will vote Republican.

While those polled tend to favor the nine Democratic incumbents running to keep their US House seats in November, Republicans can take hope in the state’s only contest for an open seat, being vacated by Democrat William Delahunt. Voters in the Southeastern and Cape and Islands communities that make up the district are evenly divided on whether they will vote for a Republican or Democrat.

The survey of 558 adults in Massachusetts, including 497 likely voters, was taken June 17-23 by the University of New Hampshire’s Survey Center.

Brown’s backers can be heartened by the depth of his support.

Asked their opinion of Brown, 55 percent of those polled said they view him favorably, only 18 percent unfavorably. His rating among Republicans is 79 percent favorable, 3 percent unfavorable. And 55 percent of independents — the majority of the state’s voters — say they like him, while only 11 percent have an unfavorable opinion. The poll has a margin of error of 4.2 percent.

Despite the fact that his election in January was a crushing blow to both the state and national Democratic party, 41 percent of Democrats say they view Brown favorably, and 32 percent, unfavorably.

In contrast, Kerry was viewed favorably by 52 percent of those polled and unfavorably by 37 percent of the respondents. And in a sign that Obama is a polarizing figure even in Massachusetts, 54 percent of the respondents view him favorably and 41 percent unfavorably, according to the polling data.

Read more at boston.com……

By:  Cheri Jacobus

The best strategy for Republicans running for office this November? Get President Obama to campaign for your Democratic opponent. It’s a plan that appears to be working rather splendidly for the GOP so far. In fact, it’s so successful, there should be little doubt that Republicans would be willing to open their wallets and fund Obama’s campaign travel through Nov. 2.

Obama campaigned for Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who lost his primary to Rep. Joe Sestak 46 percent to 54. Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley 52 percent to 47 in January’s special election, despite Obama’s support for Coakley.

Republican Chris Christie trounced New Jersey’s Democratic incumbent governor, Jon Corzine, even after Obama did his best to pull Corzine to victory last fall. The story repeats itself in Virginia, where Obama didn’t have the clout with voters to help Democrat Creigh Deeds defeat Bob McDonnell for Virginia governor. Numbers don’t lie.

The White House may try to argue that Obama was not on the ballot Tuesday in Pennsylvania, nor in New Jersey and Virginia last year or Massachusetts earlier this year, where, despite the president’s efforts on behalf of the Democrats in each and every one of those races, his candidate lost. And while there is, indeed, a whiff of anti-incumbency in the air, Corzine was the only incumbent on that list where that point can even be debated. (House incumbent Sestak beat Senate incumbent Specter.) Obama himself may be the most vulnerable incumbent, and his “help” could be the kiss of death.

Searching desperately for something resembling a shred of good news from Tuesday’s results, Democrats are celebrating their ability to hold on to a House congressional seat (until November, at least) in Pennsylvania held for 36 years by the late Rep. John Murtha (D) in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin. But Democrats opining that holding Murtha’s seat is an omen for their party’s fortunes come November are more foolish than prescient.

Democrat operatives are loath to admit the hotly contested Pennsylvania primary between Specter and Sestak spurred more Democrats to get out and vote, thus putting Democrat Mark Critz over the finish line in Murtha’s congressional district. Simple turnout levels between Republicans and the more passionate Democratic voters interested in the Senate primary are what most likely kept the seat in the “D” column.

Pennsylvania Democrats came out to vote so they could vote against Obama’s pick for the Senate. Obama had nothing to do with Critz’s win. Putting the full weight of his presidency behind Specter failed, just as it failed in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

With Obama’s approval rating below 50 percent (according to the most recent Real Clear Politics poll average) and his approval and disapproval numbers just about even, his astonishingly high self-esteem isn’t likely to save him or his party. Prior to Brown’s stunning win over Coakley, the Democrats’ supposed heir apparent to the late Ted Kennedy’s throne, Obama was queried about Democrats’ trepidation about November. Obama unflinchingly stated, “The difference between here [2010] and ’94 is, now you have me.” Yes. We do. Along with government takeover of our health, banking and auto industries and the saddling of our nation with debt burdens for generations to come.

Read more @ THEHILL.COM……