Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

On the other hand, Brown voted with the Dems (sort of).

By

Just voted with Dems — not for actual legislation — only to begin debate on such legislation:

 Five Republicans joined Democrats in a key cloture vote moments ago, allowing debate on a jobs package to move forward. After overcoming this hurdle, debate on the bill can begin.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) broke with his party and voted with the Democrats. So did Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Kit Bond (R-MO) and George Voinovich (R-OH).

So … he could still filibuster the final bill. Wouldn't that be hi-larious.

Well, there's going to have to be a lot more of this kind of thing for Brown to stick around. Rather pathetic that the rest of the GOP remains the party of unemployment, financial crisis, and ostrich-headed blindness and stubbornness … that is to say, the Party Of No. 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I really thought he’d play ball with the Dems this cycle.  He retires in 2010, and he is of the more moderate ilk.  I thought he’d be voting to terminate debate, along with the two Mainers, and Gregg (NH).  Maybe adding Brown (MA) to the mix results in more GOPs willing to defect, and there’s safety in numbers.

    <

    p>It’s perverse and foolishly optimistic, but maybe Brown will help ease the log-jam by providing cover for multiple GOPers to vote to terminate debate — something that Coakley couldn’t have done.

    <

    p>We’ll see: if Brown is consistently one of 3-5 GOPers voting to terminate debate, we might reasonably conclude that Brown really is helping things move through.  I sure hope that’s the case, even if he votes against the actual bills.

    • But I don’t think it’ll last.  Maybe he’ll vote for cloture as one of a small group of Republicans a few more times, but I think party leadership will crack down on that fast.

    • Maybe adding Brown (MA) to the mix results in more GOPs willing to defect, and there’s safety in numbers.

      <

      p>This could be fun.  Confounding the conservative and progressives alike.  

      • raising the favorabilities of the Dems, the GOP, the POTUS, and Congress.  Which, of course, deflates the teabagger movement and the anti-incumbent fervor.

        <

        p>That’s an awful lot of conclusion based on a single vote on terminating debate đŸ™‚

  2. He could become a total moonbat, and you folks would oppose him just because he wasn’t from YOUR party. Niki Tsongas has been in office for three years and done nothing but follow orders. At least she’s replaced in November.  

    • Last time I checked, it was 30 Republicans who voted against even debating a jobs bill whose primary features are tax breaks for businesses and tax credits for businesses, just because it’s something the Democrats want.

  3. Was he the principled Republican who made the difference, or the cynical opportunist who cast his vote to establish some independent “cred” after the outcome was decided? Elected officials often are allowed to make symbolic votes after the outcome is decided and their vote would have no bearing on the result. Which was Brown’s?

    • I think it may well be cynical — but the Dems had 57 votes: 59 minus Nelson minus Lautenberg (out sick).  They need three and they got five, so maybe it was after the fact.

      <

      p>Or maybe the five were only willing to vote for it if some others did too, to provide cover politically in the press and from leadership.  May they be cynical over and over again for the next 10 months!

    • that his vote was principled, but since I posted yesterday, I read the article in this morning’s Globe by Susan Milligan (IIRC). In it, she states that Brown was the first vote cast. Elsewhere, I was reminded that in a roll call vote, Brown comes first, alphabetically, and that could be why. Oftentimes, Senators duck out to see which way the tally is going before committing themselves, and this could be a case of a new member not knowing tricks of the trade, yet, or he  could still be, as I said earlier, trying to earn indy cred on a vote in which the outcome was never in doubt.

  4. As of now, over 2,700 comments on his statement regarding voting for cloture.  Almost all overwhelmingly negative.  Amazing.  HT RMG, where there is also a variety of opinion about Brown’s vote.  Funniest one:

    <

    p>

    no amendments need apply (0.00 / 0)
    Reid already stated there would be no amendments and Scott voted for it anyway.
    Scott f’ing blew it.  It is over.  He might as well vote ‘present’ for the next two years.  The enthusiasm needed to put him back there in 2012 just left the building.

    The shot heard around the world lands as a $15B give-away.  WTF Scott????

    Thanks for nothing, Senator Douche Bag.

    by: Cohasset02025 @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 20:49:33 PM CST

    <

    p>LOL.  Well, you can please some of the people some of the time….

    • Did anyone also notice down the left-hand column the photos of a Rhino and a Scott picture with FRAUD written in red letters?

      <

      p>As much as these Facebook comments amuse me, it also makes me sad and scared for the political climate going forward. Anything less than Palin nuttery will not be tolerated.

  5. I thought he voted the right way. I realize that BMGers will performing rectal exams on all Brown votes, and that whether he votes yea or nay will not stop the partisan invective at “our” Senator.

    <

    p>I’m sure the next vote siding with the Republican majority will anger the lefties here and the next vote against the Republican majority will… anger the lefties here.

    <

    p>Things may be easier for him in November when we take back so many Senate seats thereby diminishing his 41st vote importance. Unless NJ ends up appointing a Republican Senator before November.

  6. The jobs bill just passed 70-28.

    <

    p>I haven’t seen the vote tally yet, so I don’t know if Brown actually voted for it or not.

    <

    p>

    <

    p>What I do find fascinating is that the “filibuster vote” was 62-30.  That means that 8 folks who didn’t want to vote on the matter voted for it when it came up.  Those people need to be blasted by their local media and their opponents this fall.  Talk about “flip flop”, “having one’s cake and eating it too”, or simply being “two faced.”

    • 8 folks who didn’t want to vote on the matter voted for it when it came up.

      Trying to prevent the bill from going to a debate and vote is trying to keep the Democrats looking like they can’t accomplish anything.  Once the bill is going up for a vote, voting against it would be voting against tax breaks for businesses.

    • TPM:

      <

      p>In the 62-30 vote initially:
      All Dems for, all GOP against, except:
      * Nelson (D-NE) against
      * Collins, Snowe (R-ME), Brown (R-MA), Voinovich (R-OH), and Bond (R-MO) voted for cloture
      * Not voting Dem: Lautenberg (D-NJ)
      * Not voting GOP: Bennett (R-UT), Brownback (R-KS), Burr (R-NC), Enzi (R-WY), Hatch (R-UT), Isakson (R-GA), Sessions (R-AL)

      <

      p>So, who changed since then:
      — from Nay to Yea —
      Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
      Thad Cochran (R-MS)
      James Inhofe (R-OK)
      George LeMieux (R-FL)
      Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
      Roger Wicker (R-MS)

      <

      p> — from absent to Yea —
      Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
      Richard Burr (R-NC)  

Archives