Scott Brown, blessing in disguise?

christiefan915

Catalyst
Anybody (meaning conservatives) a little wary of Scott Brown yet?

When Scott Brown scored his upset victory in January's special election to fill Edward Kennedy's Senate seat, panicked Democratic Party insiders assumed the sky was falling. Brown's election as the newest senator from Massachusetts meant that the Democrats had lost their razor-thin 60-vote majority to counter GOP filibuster threats on major legislation.

What's more, the symbolism couldn't have looked worse for Democrats: Here was the seat held by the Senate's late liberal lion, in one of the bluest states on the electoral map, falling into the Republican column. Activists from the small-government Tea Party movement had flooded the state with volunteers to get out the vote and claim this critical Senate seat as a prize pick-up for the anti-Democratic, anti-Obama insurgency. Election watchers even started talking about the "Scott Brown effect," as polling started to look grim for other established liberal lawmakers from traditionally deep blue states, like California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.

But barely three months into his tenure, Brown has fallen out of favor with his onetime Tea Party backers, and is starting to looking like som
ething of a silver lining for Democrats. In a no-less symbolic moment, Brown declined an invitation to appear at a Tea Party rally in Boston this week headlined by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Brown cited pressing legislative business as the reason for his no-show--but his fledgling legislative record is precisely what has conservative activists so angry at him. On Monday, he furnished a critical swing vote to tamp down a threatened Republican filibuster on a bill to extend federal unemployment benefits. And in his first major break with conservative activists, he voted for a Democratic jobs bill in February, earning him thousands of outraged comments on his Facebook page from Tea Party backers who felt betrayed by the senator they had worked so hard to help elect. Both votes have also helped Senate Democrats make the case that they are hammering together bipartisan support on important legislation — something that's been an elusive goal in dealing with the filibuster-happy GOP Senate minority.

Even on health care reform — the issue that Brown's election was supposed to help derail — the big GOP turnaround in Massachusetts created a certain "scared straight" effect among key Democratic congressional leaders. In order to stem the rising tide of conservative discontent, Democrats simply chose to bear down and get the health care legislation passed. And the loss of the 60-vote majority also simplified the decision-making for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other top Senate Democrats going forward. Being forced to adopt the budget-driven tactic of reconciliation to win approval on a 50-plus majority was oddly liberating for Senate leaders who had sweated out no end of unsavory deals to get wavering centrist lawmakers on board for the initial Senate health care vote last December.


(Article continues)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100413/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1593
 
Going with the reconciliation sidecar strategy was the easiest strategy. But it would've looked like betrayal to many moderates. Scott Brown's victory gave us the excuse to force our hand. And he's really not any more conservative than most moderate Democrats anyway, so he didn't really change the balance of power.
 
Going with the reconciliation sidecar strategy was the easiest strategy. But it would've looked like betrayal to many moderates. Scott Brown's victory gave us the excuse to force our hand. And he's really not any more conservative than most moderate Democrats anyway, so he didn't really change the balance of power.

yes it did. with brown you couldn't make all the changes you wanted in the senate, you were forced to vote for shit because you guys care only for a victory and not for the american people

brown caused you to play a hand that showed the american people you care nothing for them, only for political victory at all costs, damn the people.
 
yes it did. with brown you couldn't make all the changes you wanted in the senate

When were we ever able to keep the Republicans from destroying America all by ourselves? We have moderate Democrats who support them in their attempt to end freedom. Many of whom are probably more anti-freedom than even Brown.
 
brown caused you to play a hand that showed the american people you care nothing for them, only for political victory at all costs, damn the people.

If we wanted only political victories we'd be doing what the Republicans are doing, blocking this bill, attempting to execute millions of Americans, all to score some political points.
 
When were we ever able to keep the Republicans from destroying America all by ourselves? We have moderate Democrats who support them in their attempt to end freedom. Many of whom are probably more anti-freedom than even Brown.

if you want be taken serious, stop the freaking extreme hyperbole all the time...i have no idea when to take you seriously, me thinks its actually an excuse, you get called on something and can conveniently fall back on hyperbole

the above is plain hyperbole and not worthy of any discussion
 
Anybody (meaning conservatives) a little wary of Scott Brown yet?

When Scott Brown scored his upset victory in January's special election to fill Edward Kennedy's Senate seat, panicked Democratic Party insiders assumed the sky was falling. Brown's election as the newest senator from Massachusetts meant that the Democrats had lost their razor-thin 60-vote majority to counter GOP filibuster threats on major legislation.

What's more, the symbolism couldn't have looked worse for Democrats: Here was the seat held by the Senate's late liberal lion, in one of the bluest states on the electoral map, falling into the Republican column. Activists from the small-government Tea Party movement had flooded the state with volunteers to get out the vote and claim this critical Senate seat as a prize pick-up for the anti-Democratic, anti-Obama insurgency. Election watchers even started talking about the "Scott Brown effect," as polling started to look grim for other established liberal lawmakers from traditionally deep blue states, like California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.

But barely three months into his tenure, Brown has fallen out of favor with his onetime Tea Party backers, and is starting to looking like som
ething of a silver lining for Democrats. In a no-less symbolic moment, Brown declined an invitation to appear at a Tea Party rally in Boston this week headlined by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Brown cited pressing legislative business as the reason for his no-show--but his fledgling legislative record is precisely what has conservative activists so angry at him. On Monday, he furnished a critical swing vote to tamp down a threatened Republican filibuster on a bill to extend federal unemployment benefits. And in his first major break with conservative activists, he voted for a Democratic jobs bill in February, earning him thousands of outraged comments on his Facebook page from Tea Party backers who felt betrayed by the senator they had worked so hard to help elect. Both votes have also helped Senate Democrats make the case that they are hammering together bipartisan support on important legislation — something that's been an elusive goal in dealing with the filibuster-happy GOP Senate minority.

Even on health care reform — the issue that Brown's election was supposed to help derail — the big GOP turnaround in Massachusetts created a certain "scared straight" effect among key Democratic congressional leaders. In order to stem the rising tide of conservative discontent, Democrats simply chose to bear down and get the health care legislation passed. And the loss of the 60-vote majority also simplified the decision-making for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other top Senate Democrats going forward. Being forced to adopt the budget-driven tactic of reconciliation to win approval on a 50-plus majority was oddly liberating for Senate leaders who had sweated out no end of unsavory deals to get wavering centrist lawmakers on board for the initial Senate health care vote last December.


(Article continues)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100413/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1593

None of this changes the fact that Mass sent an R to Congress for the first time in my memory, and they did it using a Kennedy seat! Its obviously a watershed moment in Mass history.
 
if you want be taken serious, stop the freaking extreme hyperbole all the time...i have no idea when to take you seriously, me thinks its actually an excuse, you get called on something and can conveniently fall back on hyperbole

the above is plain hyperbole and not worthy of any discussion

I talk in hyperbole because that's all the right does.

If the right gets to do it, I do to.
 
None of this changes the fact that Mass sent an R to Congress for the first time in my memory, and they did it using a Kennedy seat! Its obviously a watershed moment in Mass history.
That's a good point but you know what they call a moderate Massachussets or Ohio Republican like Brown or Voinavich in the south? A no good commie pinko liberal!
 
Scott Brown is a hairy chested gigolo.

Groan.

But he has his good points, Mr. Groan. :)

scott%20brown%20centerfold.jpg
 
That's a good point but you know what they call a moderate Massachussets or Ohio Republican like Brown or Voinavich in the south? A no good commie pinko liberal!
Having lived there for over 20 years (and moved as soon as I could) I understand that. But that simply makes a Mass Democrat even more commie, pink and liberal!

New York is the same, by the way, which is why I joined the Conservative Party when I lived there.
 
Back
Top