It begins. Warren has agreed to a third TV debate with a media consortium that includes Globe, NECN, WCVB-TV, WGBH-TV, WHDH-TV, WBUR, and WGBH radio. We’re waiting on Brown to agree; I have to imagine it’ll be worked out. And if we’re lucky, we’ll get some radio debates as well. Brown’s camp has suggested one moderated by Dan Rea; I haven’t heard Rea’s show recently, and he’s fairly conservative, but at first blush I don’t hate the idea.
What I’m really hoping for is a chance for true voter education — to really get into policy differences, and the consequences of votes that Brown has taken and where Warren would vote differently.
And as Scot Lehigh explored yesterday, Senate process itself is a big issue. How does Scott Brown feel about the filibuster, which thwarts majority rule?
Brown did not consent to an interview. By e-mail, spokeswoman Marcie Kinzel said that “Senator Brown respects the rules of the Senate but he also believes there is too much gridlock in Congress, and that is why he is proud to have the second-most bipartisan voting record in the Senate.” Brown, she added, “has a proven record of crossing party lines to end filibusters and move the process along.”
This, folks, is a steaming pile of crap. High-density BS. True, Sen. Brown did vote to confirm Richard Cordray, Warren’s fill-in at CFPB, on which he was given a freebie by Mitch McConnell since he knew Cordray didn’t have the votes to break the filibuster. And even on Dodd-Frank, where he was the 60th vote to end filibuster, how did he use his leverage? To weaken the law, add loopholes, protect banks ability to take risks, at the expense of the stability of the banking system as a whole.
He’s used the filibuster on a jobs bill he co-sponsored; on preventing the doubling of the student loan interest rate; indeed, he ran on filibustering the health care law — gotta love that 41-59 majority! For all his claims of bipartisanship, he sure does love to stop the elected majority from passing important legislation. According to the Kill the Filibuster website, Brown has voted 43.8% of the time in favor of filibusters, just under Mitch McConnell’s 43.9%.
He simply cannot claim that it’s always how the Senate has been run: That claim is thoroughly debunked here by non-moonbat scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein (of the American Enterprise Institute!).
“Most bipartisan” among this group of Republicans is an honor that amounts to a bucket of warm spit. And because Brown is in a position of such high leverage, more of the blame falls upon him for the Senate’s current dysfunction.
Let the filibustering begin — on the airwaves.
Discuss
5 Comments . Leave a comment below.How many times can Scott Brown say, “There is no war on women, just a war on people of indian descent”? There is nothing he could say at this point, that would make me vote for this idiot. Nothing!!!
Well said: being “most bipartisan” is a little like saying your not as infectious as Typhoid Mary over there…
Attended a fundraising dinner in early May, held to mark the 25th anniversary of Dick Wylie’s presidency at Endicott College in Beverly, MA. Dan Rea was the master of ceremonies because he and Dick became friends years ago on the charitable events circuit. In his opening remarks at this TOTALLY nonpolitical event, Rea managed to get in not one, but TWO Indian jokes about Elizabeth Warren. They were no more offensive than the remarks that other comics were making at the time, but why on earth would he think they were relevant? And why would he risk annoying half the audience, who’d paid big bucks to honor his friend?
Certainly Elizabeth Warren can stand up to him, by why waste her time gracing the show of such a cluless jerk?
The filibuster has been in the senate rules for — what? — 100 years? It persists because both parties want it. It’s a check against the tyranny of the majority.
I cannot recall any attempt by Harry Reid, when the Dems had full control of the US Senate, to alter the filibuster rules. Everyone claims to hate it, but nobody dares change it.
So stop your whining about the filibuster and Scott Brown’s use of it. When Dems do it it’s saving the Republic. When Repubs do it, it’s dirty obstructionism.
First I for one want the filibuster at least to require actual debate regardless of partisan composition of the Senate.
Second, the GOP has grossly abused the practice since Obama has become President. I’ve seen several charts indicating that the proportion of votes filibustered has been higher in recent years than any time in history. Don’t try to find equivalence where non exists!
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Tue 21 May 1:02 AM