Scott Brown is, well, not our favorite Senator. But we are a reality-based operation here, and we give credit where credit is due. And today, credit is due to Senator Brown, who voted with most (though not all) Democrats and the two Maine Republicans to end the filibuster of the Wall Street reform bill.
The Senate voted on Thursday afternoon to close debate on a far-reaching financial regulatory bill, putting Congress on a glide path to approving a broad expansion of government oversight of the increasingly complex financial markets that is intended to prevent a repeat of the 2008 economic crisis. The vote was 60 to 40, with three Republicans joining the Democratic majority in favor of ending the debate. Two Democrats voted with 38 Republicans in opposition to finalizing the bill….In an interesting twist, the decisive vote was supplied by Senator Scott Brown, the Republican freshman of Massachusetts, whose victory in a special election in January made him a hero of the right. Now, Mr. Brown could find himself struggling to explain his support of a bill that was opposed vehemently by the Senate Republican leadership.
The roll call is here, and some details of the deal he worked out (which involved John Kerry and Barney Frank) are here. The two Democrats who voted “no” were Cantwell of Washington and Feingold of Wisconsin — both on the ground that the bill does not go far enough in regulating derivatives. They are probably right on the merits, though there is still hope that those problems can be fixed — but I think they were wrong to oppose cloture. Better to do something (and this bill does quite a lot) rather than nothing.
And so, like my favorite metaphor the stopped clock, which is right twice a day, today Scott Brown got it right. Good for him — thanks Senator. I wonder how our friends across the aisle will react.
By the way, as is my wont, I cannot resist observing that this is exactly the advice I gave Senator Brown months ago. How sensible of him to have taken it. ;-)
Discuss
20 Comments . Leave a comment below.will make you barf.
lol
well, if that's possible... his address. His freaking street address is in there. That's just a little too, how you say, easy.
those poor, poor tea-partiers.
So apparently he wants to win in 2012. I'm sure that Jim McGovern (or perhaps Tim Murray?) was hoping that he'd pander a bit more to the right. He'll still be vulnerable in two years time, in any case.
Of course, the way the Republicans are going now, they'll probably dump Brown and nominate someone like Barbara Anderson or Carla Howell...
Really? Saints preserve us...
Do you know what would be fun? Tom Menino for Senate. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it would be fun.
If there is a strong case to be made against Brown, I want to be able to understand the words of the guy making it!
I'd say it's more than an if...and Barney Frank is proof that a speech impediment doesn't disqualify you from running for office.
...ape $%^&.
FB:
If he keeps going like this, Senator Brown will be harder to beat in the next election.
Interestingly, the NYT says the Volker Rule was eliminated or severely watered down:
Senator Kerry says in his statement that it is in there:
It will be interesting to see what if any part of that rule -- one of the key elements of any reform -- makes it through the conference process.
I am at least enjoying having a reason to call my Senator, for a change.
I'm very curious to see how Brown will vote on S.J.Res.26, Murkowski's "Dirty Air Act"
And I like to tell his office how I feel- they are nice enough:
1 202 224 4543 1 617 565 3170
I've been trying a fascinating experiment over the past few months: Learn what Scott Brown's reasons are for voting the way he does on various votes that interest me. He came in as a cipher, IMO, due to his unusual double-messaged campaign (one message for the tea party crowd, another for the mainstream voters), and among other things, that left me curious not only how he'd handle this from a political strategy point of view, but also wondering what philosophy he'd develop on actual public policy.
So far, the experiment has been quite a dud: He seems to have political strategy only, and no opinion whatsoever on public policy. I've attempted to get sensible explanations for several important votes from his office (not reasons I agree with - I expect ones I disagree with more often than not - but just reasons), and so far I've struck out. I have yet to get a single sensible explanation on public policy grounds, for any of his votes that I've asked about.
But I'm gonna keep calling.
I'm gonna ask about this vote too, even though it's the rare one that I do agree with. I still want to know what Scott Brown thinks his reason for voting yes was.
"He seems to have political strategy only, and no opinion whatsoever on public policy."
This is a standard GOP platform point. All other platform points are largely in service to this one.
The way to get to him and win him over is to entice him with invitations to just the right parties that not every Senator can get into and any means to further his daughter's career/fame. He'd vote to sell California back to Mexico if he was promised with something big for his daughter. Could the 2-on-2 basketball game between the Brown's and Obama be around the corner?
He doesn't win in 2012 because too many on the right who were super energized for his victory will (or already have) felt as though they were tricked.
They must really be exciting events, in that every Republican who ever deviates in the slightest from batshit, fantasyland, crazy and stupid has been tempted by their siren song into rank betrayal of everything good and decent.
Maybe Souter and Specter can tell him who makes the best martinis: Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, or Patrick Kennedy.
I gave this a 6 for general comedic awesomeness.
TedF
You've learned that there is more to legislating than just being really really ridiculously good looking.
As time passed, the bill was getting BETTER rather than worse.
The really good amendments were being regarded as 'not-germane.' Basically cloture is doing the opposite of what it did for health care, and stopping the bill from getting better.
A lot of what I've read has said that the GOP wanted the bill to get wrapped up quickly because it was only getting "worse" aka better.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://blogs.forbes.com/street...
I understand that this bill has good things. But unlike health care, it only got better as time went by. Dems were going to get the bill, opposing Wall St Reform is poison at this point.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 22 May 7:18 AM