"It's December 31," [Boston radio host Jim Braude] posed the scenario. "The only thing that is before you on the Bush tax cuts is an extension for people under $250,000, so you would be raising taxes [if the bill failed]."
"You'll vote no against it," Braude pressed as Brown hedged a bit before finally answering.
"Crystal clear. No," Brown said, contending that he was "not going to be the candidate that's gonna be -- the first thing is raise your taxes."
That last line is incredible. He's not going to take a vote that would end up increasing taxes, but which would end up...increasing taxes. How the fuck do you even argue for this? If he votes for the tax hike on the top brackets, taxes go up on the top bracket. If he doesn't vote for that particular targeted hike, then taxes on those same people that Brown's trying to protect, GOES UP ANYWAY. Except in the latter case, it also goes up for everyone else as well. How do you defend raising taxes on everyone when one of your standard rationales is that tax hikes on ANYONE is a bad thing?
Hopefully Elizabeth Warren uses this on every single one of her ads from now until the election.