It wasn’t close, so Brown’s vote wasn’t the deciding one. Nonetheless, on his first somewhat controversial vote in the Senate, Scott Brown voted just the way Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican leadership told him to. The Senate today failed to end debate on the nomination of union lawyer Craig Becker to serve on the National Labor Relations Board. A union lawyer, so, I mean, he’s obviously unqualified to sit on the NLRB. Disgracefully, two “Democrats” (Nelson of NE and Lincoln of AR) voted against cloture, along with Brown and the rest of the GOoPers.
A disappointing, but unsurprising, first move from Brown. In other Senate news, Sen. Richard Shelby lifted the insane blanket hold that he had placed on all pending nominations; apparently Shelby could no longer stomach the nationwide derision to which he was being subjected. But more to come in that department, no doubt — Shelby is still holding some nominations at the Pentagon, since obviously bringing pork to Alabama is more important than having a fully functional national security apparatus in place.
And, relatedly, President Obama said today that he might make recess appointments if he can’t get his appointees through the Senate. Now, the interesting thing about that is that many folks (including me, FWIW) think that the recess appointment power as it’s ordinarily used these days is not consistent with the Constitution; it’s at any rate a close case. However, no one has ever had the gumption to take the President to Court over it. I wonder if that will change if Obama goes the recess appointment route.
should be thrown out of the caucus, stripped of any leadership positions or prestigious committees and barred from DNC or DSCC money or institutional support for this traitorous vote (and HCR).
So you want him to join the Dem Caucus?
Maybe Becker aint so great>? Why not someone a bit more impartial?
So Ryan, you want all Dems to be in lockstep?
<
p>celebrate diversity!
Don’t ask me how my brain’s connection to my hand came up with “brown,” because I was thinking Ben. Sigh.
Had Lincoln voted for it she’d have been thrown out of the caucus (vis a vis getting thrown out of the Senate) ditto Nelson in two years. Tell me what other Democrats could be more progressive and get elected in those states?
<
p>The party with the bigger tent wins elections, so far that has been the Democratic party.
No way in hell Lincoln survives the election no matter what. The dems best hope is a primary challenge, as the lead potential candidate is the only one who’s actually popular and polls ahead or in range of the GOP in the state.
I ask that legitimately I don’t mean that pejoratively. I agree that in some cases a primary challenge is the best hope we have of retaining a seat. I think Blumenthal edging Dodd out, Cuomo edging Patterson out, Goodman edging Reid out, and whoever could edge Lincoln out deserves our support and the support of the President. Unfortunately as a MA voter I could not edge Giannoulious out in IL but you get the picture. Hopefully Ross’ run can save the Democrats in MA.
While most like not going to enter the race, he’s polling statistically even with Rep. Boozman, and is ahead of State Sen. Gilbert Baker by 8%.
Sometimes the progressive ideal isn’t what the VOTERS in a state want – they want someone who represents them and their ideas instead of a philosophy.
they’ve quickly discovered that he does neither. His favorables are through the floorboards, and he’ll get creamed in any chance of re-election.
and he WON the Democratic primary. I suspect that he would have won a two-way race against the GOP candidate as well.
I know you love Lieberman, PP, and think it was the height of folly to run a primary challenge against Lieberman.
<
p>Only it wasn’t.
<
p>Lamont’s defeat of Lieberman made the Democratic message much clearer:
So maybe the result in Connecticut wasn’t what we wanted, but nationally it had an immensely positive effect.
<
p>Are you attempting to moonlight as a Democratic consultant?
Just like Scott Brown! Because the message was – when the Democrats move too far left, they win the primary battle but they lose the war.
The Democrats and left-leaning indies are apathetic because they don’t believe the Congress has been liberal enough!
than recent history… and getting smaller by the day!
<
p>
DateDEMREP
7-Feb-201036%44%
31-Jan-201038%45%
24-Jan-201037%46%
17-Jan-201037%45%
10-Jan-201036%45%
3-Jan-201035%44%
27-Dec-200938%43%
20-Dec-200936%44%
13-Dec-200937%44%
6-Dec-200939%43%
29-Nov-200937%44%
22-Nov-200937%44%
15-Nov-200938%44%
8-Nov-200937%43%
1-Nov-200938%42%
25-Oct-200938%42%
18-Oct-200937%42%
11-Oct-200939%41%
4-Oct-200939%43%
27-Sep-200940%42%
20-Sep-200938%42%
13-Sep-200940%41%
6-Sep-200937%44%
30-Aug-200936%43%
23-Aug-200938%43%
16-Aug-200938%43%
9-Aug-200938%42%
2-Aug-200938%43%
26-Jul-200939%42%
19-Jul-200938%42%
12-Jul-200937%40%
5-Jul-200938%41%
28-Jun-200939%41%
21-Jun-200941%39%
14-Jun-200939%39%
7-Jun-200940%40%
31-May-200938%37%
24-May-200941%38%
17-May-200940%39%
10-May-200939%40%
3-May-200939%40%
26-Apr-200938%41%
19-Apr-200939%39%
12-Apr-200938%38%
5-Apr-200940%39%
29-Mar-200942%38%
22-Mar-200941%38%
15-Mar-200939%41%
8-Mar-200942%38%
1-Mar-200941%39%
22-Feb-200941%37%
15-Feb-200941%39%
8-Feb-200940%39%
1-Feb-200942%38%
25-Jan-200942%35%
18-Jan-200942%35%
11-Jan-200942%36%
Here.
At least use a poll aggregator if you’re going to make that claim.
<
p>Pollster has a more realistic number of GOP 44%, Dem 41%.
which does not demonstrate that “that group” has become smaller.
<
p>The group is a characteristic. The table you show is a future action. There is certainly positive correlation, but it ain’t 1.000.
for you to follow conversations rather than spamming your points here there and everywhere? If stomv is asserting something, it does not advance the conversation to answer with statistics that do not respond to his point.
because you are not a Democratic consultant and would like Democrats to become lite Republicans.
<
p>The problem with the Democrats is not that they are too far to the left (whatever that means to the average voter).
<
p>The problem is that they consistently lack a clear message. Lieberman’s defeat clarified the message. Democrats are losing on healthcare because, just like the Dukakis and Kerry campaigns, it’s all issues and abstractions and wonkery. None of it is message or narrative or values.
I don’t want to primary Lincoln just because she’s bad on the issues; another big reason to primary her is because she’s toxic to the voters of her state. She’s going to lose, may as well put someone in there who could just win (and, thankfully, would be better on the issues).
<
p>Halter’s already proven he can win state wide. Ned Lamont was a complete political newcomer beyond the county level.
<
p>Lamont ran a lackluster campaign after he won the primary, and didn’t get anywhere near the institutional support one would expect a primary winner to get in a competitive election for a US Senate seat. No DSCC or DNC ads, few prominent democrats willing to stand up for him and stump for him, etc.
<
p>Connecticut, unlike many states, allowed losers (of primaries) to run as independents. Personally, I’m not a fan of sore-loser policies… and I’d think any party activist (of any party) would agree with me.
she might win.
<
p>There’s a certain segment of Arkansas voters with a professional rasslin’ sensibility, and if they don’t see the face pick up a chair and smack the heel right back, they’ll lose respect for the face.
<
p>Sen. Dale Bumpers was very liberal and he was the most successful Arkansas politician (in terms of winning percentages of statewide votes) in recent years.
The point is that Lincoln is not Senator Bumpers and will never be. Once you’ve been painted as an out of touch, opportunist politician, it is terribly hard to climb out of that when you’re up for reelection. If she was a Class II Senator, this would be a completely different story.
<
p>She needs to retire, however, she won’t. So, you can stick Arkansas right next to North Dakota in the “no chance in hell” pile.
“if pigs could fly?” The point is, she won’t. She’s still one of those types who think the way to beat Republicans is to become like them. That’s not what people want, which is in great part why she’s so toxic to the voters of her state.
Well, Cosmo Boy showed his private parts and his short-comings today in his first vote in the US Senate.
He is clearly a circumcised Republican voting the party line against the President’s LRB appointment.
<
p>And you are surprised?
<
p>Remember, Cosmo Boy has only a TWO year term.
<
p>The countdown is on to sent Cosmo Boy back to Wrentham – pick-up truck and all.
“Cosmo Boy” thing is very helpful. It certainly didn’t work the first time around…
are constitutional, also consider whether the 60 vote filibuster rule passes constitutional muster.
“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
<
p>On the other hand no mention whatsover of needing supermajorities. I know if I were President I would respect the Senate’s decision if they actually voted down one of my nominees, but any nominee not acted upon by Senate recess would get such an appointment. I’d be interested in why David think’s it’s inconsistent.
There are two textual issues. First, the clause is limited to vacancies “that may happen during the Recess.” The natural reading of that, IMHO, is limited vacancies that come into existence during the recess, not vacancies that are already present when the Senate goes into recess.
<
p>The second is the meaning of “the Recess of the Senate.” Again, I think it’s an abuse of the clause to interpret that as meaning pretty much any intrasession recess, such as Christmas vacation, yet that’s how it’s been used. (Importantly, the clause refers to “the” recess, not “a” recess, of the Senate.) There’s some interesting historical information on both issues at this link (PDF).
<
p>As for the filibuster, that’s an internal Senate rule which the Senate can change if it wants. I don’t see any significant constitutional issue there; if the Senate wants to operate that way, the courts aren’t going to interfere.
In other words a vacancy occurs every day the post is vacant. If the Senate doesn’t like it they are always free to act upon the nomination BEFORE they go in to recess. Recess is whenever a body declares a recess in general parliamentary practice, and yes, that especially includes the recess between the two annual sessions of the same Congress (ie Christmas). It sounds like your refering to the more specific terms of adjournment sine die or prorogation of the Senate, the latter term I’m not even sure we use, but not of course recessing for the evening or for lunch. Of course there’s always the keep the Senate in session trick, whereby a Senator from MD or VA is called to gavel the Senate into session each day to prevent an actual recess.
I don’t find that reading of “happen” to be convincing. A vacancy “exists” every day the post is vacant, but it doesn’t “happen.” “Happen,” to me, implies that something has, well, happened. Very odd choice of words if that’s what they meant.
<
p>Also, as I’m sure you know, recesses used to be much longer than they generally are know, especially intersession recesses. The point of the clause, it seems to me, is to allow the president to get someone into important jobs should they become vacant while the Senate isn’t around to confirm them and delay would be bad for the country. I think it very unlikely that the framers decided to write in an easy end-run around Senate confirmation, though unfortunately that’s how it’s been used recently.
…about how the framers envisioned its use, but I think the current idea is also at least a reasonable interpretation.
If the Democrats wanted to do away with the current filibuster rules, they could. Thus, reliance on recess appointments to get around the filibuster’s chokehold is sort of disingenuous.
If the vote was 52-33, then that is 61% in favor of cloture. Why do they still need 60, when 15 Senators weren’t even present?
The Dems changed it in the ’70’s.
I didn’t realize that.
change the rule to require 40% of the senators “duly chosen and sworn” to oppose the vote, in person. You want to filibuster? Show up and do it in person. Can’t make it to the Senate floor? Tough noogies.
Independent thinker “Scott Brown Republican” said this about Obama nominations last year:
<
p>
<
p>Well, that lasted one day on the job.
that Scott Brown ran as a “REPUBLICAN” (as Coakley put it in her repeated ads – how’d that work out for her). You’re seriously going to bash on Brown for voting Republican? I think that was why he got elected.
…on a less than logical voter temper tantrum. As I recall the last two GOP members of our House delegation were first elected in 1994, and I thought then that had Newt Gingrich been on the ballot himself MA voters would not have elected them. Not surprisingly, they did not last very long.
Remember Rep. Jim McGovern’s “You wouldn’t vote for Newt; why would you ever vote for Blute?” campaign in 1996? It worked wonders in a Presidential year following an excellent Republican off-year election.
<
p>Brown’s well-primed to suffer the same fate in 2012, particularly if he fails to differentiate himself from the remainder of the Washington Republicans.
…but that’s exactly what I was getting at.
he said he was a “Scott Brown Republican” and he will not vote lockstep with Republican leaders. But on the first day on the job he decided to obstruct.
He ran as an “independent voice.” There was no mention of his party affiliation in his ads or on his site. It’s why Coakley ran ads pointing it out.
<
p> Polls show that people want Brown to work with the Dems:
<
p>
<
p>Also, the Republican policies aren’t exactly popular:
<
p>
Scott Brown’s governing BASE is big business interests. Keeping a labor lawyer like Craig Becker off the NLRB, and maybe getting a big business type instead, will make it harder to fight for decent wages and will make it easier for big business to “beat the peasants” and pay the m low wages. THIS is the economic reality behind the election of people like Scott “Mr. Sweet Sunshine” Brown, based on vague sentiments rather that political positions and alliances.
Voting for Craig Becker was the right thing to do as Becker clearly is unfit to serve on the NLRB. It’s the NRLB’s responsibility to resolve labor disputes, according to law and regulations, in a manner impartial and fair to both parties.
<
p>Ya think Andy Stern’s handpicked rump swab meets that standard? Is an SEIU attorney capable of anything except carrying labor’s water? There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. Becker’s impartiality couldn’t be trusted.
<
p>On top of that, the actual vote was 52-33, with 7 Dems bailing, so why accuse Brown of voting in “lockstep”?
<
p>Fine, let Obama seat him in a recess appointment. We’ll see if Becker then lives up to his confirmation testimony.
Is Becker the Messiah who is infallible? Certainly not. But, at this time, business interests are CREAMING labor in terms of “ruling the roost” in this country.
<
p>The thinking behind rejecting Becker is almost exactly the same as the thinking behind the right wing rejecting liberal judges.
<
p>This tactic is called “gaming the refs”.
<
p>The right wing makes a great noise about how liberal the judges are, how they will let criminals walk and they will take “IN GOD WE TRUST” off of money, and a bunch of other unpopular potential rulings.
<
p>They have been doing this about appointing, confirming, or electing judges for DECADES. And it works like a charm. Year after year, decade after decade, the judges get more and more conservative. While each case is different, of course, the overall trend has been judges that give fewer rights to individuals and also side with big business more often in cases.
<
p>It is time for the left to start “gaming the refs”, and fight for good liberal judges coast to coast, border to border. And of course, get Becker onto the NLRB.
the only Dems who “bailed” were Nelson and Lincoln. The rest were absent because of snow.
<
p>Becker is no doubt left of center and a pro-labor person. What’s your position — that only pro-management people are qualified to sit on the NLRB? That, with all due respect, is a stupid position. Becker should have been confirmed. He’ll be installed via a recess appointment, and he’ll be a fine, relatively non-controversial commissioner.
…someone with a management background would be just hunky-dory? I for one favor a labor bias if I had to choose.
What about the corporate lawyers and management bias appointees in the past? Are they also incapable of anything but carrying the “water” of the organizations they served?
and you can write “Andy Stern’s handpicked rump swab”?
is what earned a ‘0’ from me.
We’ve had enough of these Czars and appointees get in and cause havoc. Unions suck and have been killing jobs and undermining our economy for years. GM is a great example of union destruction. Schwarzenegger was saying a few weeks ago that they have to put $3 Billion a year in the budget due to excessive union pensions for state workers and that it will jump to $7 Billion a year very soon. Union labor is stealing jobs from available workers due to prevailing wages as well.
Quick quiz for johnD — what Western economy has twice the unionization rate of the US of A, and has weathered the Great Recession better than any other?
With so many variables between countries, it is difficult to makes corollaries… but go ahead. Let’s implement Finland’s healthcare and wherever’s whatever program.. blah blah blah…
Corollaries are easy. Causation is hard. Like the causation you link from Unions to unemployment. Blah blah blah.
JohnD doesn’t like false causality unless it works the way he wants.
<
p>He is also clearly ignorant of the global context of this downturn. Tough to blame Democrats for what happens in other countries.
Blaming others for the world’s problems is easy. JohnD does it all the time.
<
p>
So Brown is Senator Lockstep for voting against but all the Dems who did what they were told and voted for are not except any Dem that failed to vote in lockstep should be basished?
…because he voted to sustain a filibuster. I wouldn’t complain quite so loudly myself if he voted against the nominee on final passage, though I would still disagree with the vote.
Telegram Murder and Sexual Assault Daily is reporting that Brown is planning to write the story of his life.
<
p>The Palinification of America and American politics continues apace.
<
p>My recommended title: Going Comrogue.
I can still dare to dream, can’t I?
Blingee? Imagine the book cover we could design…..
<
p>Let’s see…..snow day, all my work is done….heh.
it used to be that after someone won a victory, they immediately announced they were heading to DisneyWorld to celebrate…not politicians, though…NECN is reporting that Scott Brown today announced he will write a book on his life. Remember the good ol’ days when people waited until after accomplishing great things to start writing a book and pitching for a big hit book contract?
<
p>Strike while the entrepreneurial iron is hot…it may never be again.
<
p>To the union rank-and-filers who stood near me at the polls with their Scott Brown signs…Brown used first vote to stop the confirmation of an appointee with a workers’ point of view to the NLRB (after the Bush Adm. had cut workers out of that powerful body for over a decade)…Your Scott Brown, the guy who swore to NECN reporters that he felt “a President should get to appoint whom he wants…”…his second vote will probably be used to kill the jobs bill…we will have to wait and see what Mitch McConnell tells him to do…but one thing is for sure, the union rank-and-file who helped elect him bought a pig in a poke.
Had he voted for the pro-union guy, should we label him a traitor to the Republican party? What if the vote was on Immigration reform… would a vote against legalizing illegals be another indicator of him being in Mitch’s back pocket?
<
p>Call me when there is a clear record of Scott Brown voting party line and never voting across the aisle. Until then, improve your sampling!
Scoot Brown voted Republican party line 96% of the time while he was a state senator.
<
p>Were you sleeping during the election?
Just willfully ignorant, par for the course for JohnD:(
Absolutely! – but you seem to forget this is a Democratic blog so many of us would see that as a good thing.
Why can’t these guys vote for themselves. You are all joking about Brown being a rubber stamp (as I did about Coakley). Why can’t they vote for a bill the way they want to without being called traitors? Look at how you are all attacking and insulting Ben Nelson because he is NOT voting by party lines. You are all part of the problem!
he’s obstructing the vote. Big difference.
This blog definitely has an underlining philosophy/ideology. We’ll call out people who don’t vote as we like and praise people who do. It’s pretty simple really.