Now, we don’t want you to get the idea that we’re obsessed with Scott Brown just because this is the fourth post we’ve written about him today. It’s just that, so far, he’s been an excellent source of material.
See, for several days now, Scott has been saying that he “expects” to be sworn in on February 11 – a week from today. But yesterday, all of a sudden, he discovered a sudden urgency that required his being sworn in immediately. Governor Patrick and other state officials have agreed to go along.
Michael Whitney at FDL has a theory as to why.
It’s clear that Scott Brown is demanding to be sworn in for one reason only: the pending nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.
Seriously? A nominee to the NLRB? Can it possibly be that controversial?
Well, yes, I guess so. See, Becker is a lawyer for a union. And, therefore, the GOP (John McCain in particular) has been blocking his nomination for months — since last July, to be precise. But his nomination is expected to be finally discharged from committee today (Thursday), which means a floor vote on his nomination could come as soon as tomorrow, or early next week, which would be prior to Brown’s previously-set swearing-in date of February 11. And, if the vote happens before Brown is in, the Dems have the 60 votes they need to break a filibuster and confirm the nomination so that this guy can finally do the job the president has nominated him to do.
So here’s an unnamed GOP staffer on that prospect:
If they try to push this guy through before Scott Brown is seated it would seriously jeopardize Senate relations and destroy Democrats’ last shred of credibility” … “The place would melt down. A shady move like that would spark an all-out war,” the aide said.
Oh please. Like a freaking NLRB nomination is going to melt down the Senate. Half the Senate probably doesn’t know what NLRB stands for.
Anyway, so Scottie’s got his sassy knickers all in a twist about getting right down to DC because “there are a number of votes scheduled” before his original swearing-in date of Feb. 11.
Now, before JohnD gets all worked up, nobody is questioning whether Brown’s request is legitimate. It is — he won, and he’s entitled to be sworn in as soon as the paperwork can be put in place. The thing that’s funny about this, though, is that up until today, Brown himself was good with a Feb. 11 swearing-in. Now, though, apparently because there’s a nomination that the GOP wants to block, Brown wanted to speed things up.
Brown, in other words, seems to have moved up his swearing-in in order to be able to use procedural tactics to stall a presidential nomination. He’s doing exactly what Mitch McConnell and the rest of GOP leadership want him to do — clog up the works, slow things down, and be the party of “no.” Lockstep, baby.
Nice start, Scott.
Discuss
33 Comments . Leave a comment below.As opposed to the bipartisan, collaborative love-in that we have now, I suppose. All this GOP furor and bombast kind of makes you want to actually engage in some of the "shady moves" they're suddenly so opposed to. I always have to wonder what it would be like if the shoe was on the other foot. If the seating of a senator is legally subject to somebody's discretion (which perhaps it shouldn't be) then why not postpone it a little if it will assist your agenda? Can Democrats expect the same noble and sportsmanlike treatment from the GOP if a similar situation arises in the future? If you ask me, the filibuster itself, especially in its low-maintenance modern form, qualifies as a "shady move".
The filibuster is an inherently undemocratic maneuver, in an institution where even without it the 500,000 people in Wyoming get as much power as the 30,000,000 in California.
As long as he is trying to filibuster NLRB nominees or anything else, stalling his seating protects the wishes of the majority of the voters in the United States as expressed in the voting booth, and the right thing to do is stall, stall, stall.
Get the vote done pronto. Like they did today by Approving Smith 60-37.
Let him start speaking so that those who thought they knew him can get a better look. Please.
This is really sad that bmg fell for this too.
COME ON
Sen-elect Brown comes up with an artificial date to be sworn in. Then he can "move up" the day he is sworn in so he is even more of a hero. (Growing the legend of Sen Scott Brown)
This is all a PR plan, set forth weeks ago.
It saddens me that this website is so lost from reality that you don't see this.
(Cue the uber-liberals that will dispute my theory and the trolls to say Scott Brown is going above and beyond what is expected of a mortal to stop Deval Patrick's plan to screw over the will of the people )
The press dubbed that past few weeks as Scott Brown's victory tour. Brown himself said that he was happy with the February 11th date as the health care bill wouldn't not be voted on. Reid said that the date was Brown's idea in the first place. No one in Brown's staff has denied this, show me a link if you have one. This was in fact a three week Scott Brown vacation.
The question is if Brown is a "Scott Brown Republican" or a "Mitch McConnell Republican". It's not a good beginning when McConnell tells the Brown camp to get his behind to DC and cut short his scheduled vacation, ehem, I mean change his planning date of February 11th to continue to the Republican obstruction.
Serious questions are starting to be raised about the validity of the election. Coakley won in towns that hand-count their ballots by 3.3%. That's right. Coakley won! In towns that use computers to count their ballots, Brown won. All of the electronic counting machines are maintained by a single small company in New Hampshire, which has access to the machines on election day.
Perhaps, there is a reason that Brown is suddenly in a panic to be certified.
Got a credible source? Didn't think so.
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-b...
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/...
I also disagree with the analysis here but the numbers seem to have been established accurately.
I would bet large sums of money that widespread voter fraud did not occur and that the vote count machines are not rigged. Indeed, in my view, the demographic fact that there are no "hand-counts" in Suffolk County goes a long way towards explaining the difference.
But it doesn't seem right that you would simply label this post "questionable" and suggest he has no "credible source" when the source of his information is seemingly so readily available.
Certainly, would have been much more interesting if you took the time to diespute analysis rather than simply question credibility.
And by credible I don't mean a claim from bbvforums.
Who is raising these questions? Anyone with credibility?
Got a credible source about a single small NH company with access to all electronic voting machines? On election day?
Starting a post with Serious questions are starting to be raised sounds like it'd be straight out of our very own BMG conspiracy theorist.
Is there any city/town inside 128 that hand counts ballots? Coakley won nearly all of them.
I'm election inspector and, trust me, there was no one tampering with the machines claiming to be maintenance. (We wouldn't have let them near them anyway. Generally anyone claiming to be repairman coming to fix a machine that was never broken in the first place is up to no good. It's what hackers call "social engineering")
that every warden in the sate keeps a record of election where they are supposed to record anything unusual. Unsolicited visits by "repairmen" would definitely count as unusual. So yes, please point to any shred of evidence you have to support your absurd claims. The 8 point difference in results can be explained that it's typically the small rural towns that hand count their ballots and Coakley did well in Western Mass.
Ummm, with all due respect, I don't trust that the election was done farily. There is no way to tell if the electronic vote counting was rigged. Besides, methinks you protest too much!
Shouldn't everybody be concerned that there is no way to tell if there was tampering with the electron vote counting?
Perhaps Scott Brown's urgency to get sworn in is related to his fear of additional questions being asked once the actual vote totals were posted.
Hand count the ballots and see if they match the machine count. Doing this in a couple random precincts should be enough to satisfy you. If you seriously suspect that there was tampering, I suggest that you do this. By the way, the Kucinich campaign paid for a partial recount of New Hampshire when similar concerns were raised and found nothing out of the ordinary.
I think it's a great idea to hand-count the ballots. There should be an audit in which the ballots in a handfull of towns are handcounted to check on the accuracy of the machine counts. Here's the problem. The Secretary of State refuses to consider this idea, even though audits are performed in many other states.
Why can't we have an audit to check the accuracy of the machine counts in a handful of towns?
Why?
If this is true, I don't see how the symbolism of this helps Scott Brown back at home.
Herald
That's the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with!
Scott Brown AAF theme song, AC/DC - Have a Drink Me
Labor households voted for Brown 49-46%. Big news. A stellar feat, politically.
First thing he's going to do is put the kibosh on a labor-friendly appointee?
Drip, drip, drip. Only three more years of this, folks.
unions could have done something about that, if we'd put up a serious Coakley effort. But our leaders missed the boat along with everyone else.
The union folks voted for a rat.
On whether you mean rank-and-file union members, or those paid by the democrats to make phone calls. The rank-and-file members were Massachusetts voters, the phone bankers were from New York. You do realize that Governor Patrick is personally dismantling the SEIU.
Because the union guys I was phonebanking with were all from the Boston area, and places as far away as Pittsfield. Last time I checked, Pittsfield was still in Mass.
Identified herself as an SEIU union member from Albany. At the time the phone number checked out. She told me her union was paying her $50 to phone bank for Coakley. I explained to her the intimate relationship between Governor Patrick and the SEIU leaders, which I have described here more than once. Last I looked, Florida was in MA, but Albany was still in NY.
But he won't succeed!
And just for the record since I am being charterized as a "whiner"...
Boston Globe - October 17, 2007
Boston Globe - October 18, 2007
Go ahead... splain this one away. Do you smell something FOUL??? Come up with some BS reasons why "it's different". So Mr Galvin, why did you treat these three scenarios so differently? Now if you guys cannot see the inconsistency and partisanship of Brown's election/seating vs. Tsongas and Lynch, then you are blind and discussions regarding it are futile!
He is seated and I'm satisfied. You can waste your time decided on why he "rushed" the event at the last minute but I would point this out to BMGers and I am hoping the media makes sure they say just how MA Democrats operate. People were pissed about the whole Governor seats a Senator's replacement... unless the Gov is a Republican... blah blah blah...
Pathetic hypocrites!
Here's Brown's lawyer on the subject:
No "wasting time" involved. We have an official statement from Brown's spokesperson.
As has been pointed out to you multiple times, Tsongas and Lynch won local elections. Please explain why vote counting and certification wouldn't take longer for a state wide election.
Unless your goal is to whine, invent conspiracies, and call people names, this seems like a complete non-issue.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sat 25 May 11:50 PM