30 Out Of 32

progressmass   |   Wed, Oct 10, 2012 10:36 AM EST
Brown seems to be doing well among people who actually want Congress to get something done. Supporting 30 out of 32 filibusters is the opposite of getting something done. He is a GOP obstructionist, pure and simple. - promoted by charley-on-the-mta

[Cross-posted from the ProgressMass blog.  Like ProgressMass on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.]

It has been said that the best way to predict what someone will do in the future is to look at what he has done in the past.  This maxim holds true for Republican Scott Brown.  The best way to determine how Brown would vote in 2013 and beyond if re-elected is to review how he voted when he didn’t have the political pressure of re-election bearing down on him.

Consider the period of time between February 9, 2010 (when Republican Scott Brown first began casting votes in the U.S. Senate) and August 18, 2011 (when Democratic nominee Elizabeth Warren filed papers to form her Senate campaign’s exploratory committee).

As the ProgressMass analysis of Republican Scott Brown’s voting record shows – and as Congressman Barney Frank mentioned on The Rachel Maddow Show last week – right-wing Republicans filibustered 32 times during that year-and-a-half.  And Brown supported 30 out of 32 filibusters!

Put plainly, when he was not facing political pressure to artificially moderate his voting, Republican Scott Brown supported Republican partisan obstruction 94% of the time!  That is not the record of a “moderate” or “bipartisan” voice.

There are a number of ways you can help to hold Republican Scott Brown accountable:

·    Follow ProgressMass’ Twitter feed tonight for real-time, live-tweet fact checking of Republican Scott Brown’s performance in this evening’s third debate.

·    Share ProgressMass’ analysis of Republican Scott Brown’s voting record so that more people across Massachusetts are aware of just how partisan Brown has actually been in the U.S. Senate.

·    Visit www.BothWaysBrown.com to see the many issues on which Republican Scott Brown’s misleading rhetoric differs greatly with his actual record.  Share the link, as well as the concise two-page document cataloging these differences, with your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and classmates.

Together, we can dispel Republican Scott Brown’s misleading rhetoric and hold him accountable for his actual record.

Recommended by petr.


Recommend 1

Discuss

4 Comments . Leave a comment below.

  1. It's notable that, when he was the 41st vote to block cloture
    (3+ / 0-) View voters

    Brown overwhelmingly voted with Mitch McConnell & Co. The only time he gave the Democrats the 60th vote that I can recall was on Dodd-Frank, after taking more money from Wall Street than any other member of Congress and working overtime to weaken the bill.

    Since 2010 the Republicans can filibuster without him, he is free to vote yes on cloture and look good to the public in Massachusetts. Amazing how his votes with the GOP plummeted. Do I think he changed his mind about their policy goals? Not a chance. He’s just being fake to fool voters here.

    fenway49   @   Wed 10 Oct 11:16 AM

  2. One of those filibusters...
    (1+ / 0-) View voters

    …kept hiw own jobs bill from coming up for a vote, did it not?

    johnt001   @   Wed 10 Oct 11:34 AM

  3. And even when Brown voted with Dems
    (2+ / 0-) View voters

    He usually demands a hunk of flesh (by watering down the bill) before he coughs up the vote. Case in point, the Dodd-Frank Act. Repubs could not be seen stopping a bill that rein in Wall $treet. After all, Wall St is even more unpopular than congress. So Brown made Dems drop key provisions.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/27/no-i-supported-dodd-frank-more/
    Warren accuses Brown of doing Wall Street’s bidding both before and after his vote for the bill. Brown used his political leverage during the Dodd-Frank debate to secure the removal of a $19 billion tax on banks to help pay for the bill. He also helped carve out changes in the Volcker Rule to secure an exemption for mutual funds — which have a strong presence in Washington — in Massachusetts, and successfully lobbied to allow banks to continue investing a small portion of their capital in hedge funds and private equity, despite the increased risk associated with those assets.

    “World’s Most Bipartisan Senator” hahaha. Brown, you’re killin’ me.

    whiskeyrebellion   @   Wed 10 Oct 2:07 PM

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Sun 19 May 4:58 PM