Much will be made — appropriately — of Scott Brown’s craven attempts last night to put sunlight between himself and the Republican Party. Who can wait for the fact check on the 50/50 claim? The line of the night was probably Elizabeth Warren’s pointing out that Brown was saying one thing to Massachusetts voters — Independent! Bipartisan! — and another to out-of-state Republican donors — Republican party strength. And, eventually someone will point out — me! — that it doesn’t matter if Brown votes for McConnell for majority/minority leader. McConnell will win and Brown will caucus with him as leader.
But, I humbly contend that Warren’s tacit acceptance of the frame — You’re not so bipartisan. I’d be even more bipartisan — is a losing strategy. Against the backdrop of a presidential race explicitly and unapologetically partisan, there is no need to give Brown an opportunity to play his independence cards. Despite his comical exaggerations last night, he has skillfully demonstrated some nominal independence in his two years in office. And, part of Warren’s appeal to her supporters (your humble scribe included) is that she’s not some principle-starved centrist of the Bayh/Collins variety. She’s a real progressive.
Here’s what Warren should have repeated ad nauseum last night and should say at the final debate, “As Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney have said repeatedly, right now we are in a contest pitting competing visions for the future of our country. Notwithstanding his claims to independence and the occasional non-party-line vote, Senator Brown is a Republican. Whether he votes for Mitch McConnell or not as leader, McConnell will win and Brown will caucus with the Republicans. He’s aligned with and will vote the Republican vision. You cannot vote against Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court and credibly call yourself an independent.”
Yes, the electoral middle is supposedly sick of partisanship. And, the chattering classes confuse gridlock and partisanship. (See, for example, Glen Johnson’s report of the debate in the Globe, in which he uncritically assumes that Warren’s biggest problem was her failure to assert her bipartisan bona fides.)
But, for mostly good reasons, partisanship is increasingly the reality in DC. Rather than engage Brown in an I’ll-move-more-right-than-you’ve-gone-left battle she’ll inevitably lose (and should), she should hammer and re-hammer values. What is the right offering that she should consider? Vouchers for Medicare? Less reproductive freedom? Lunatic economic policies that have failed over and over? Global warming denial? Diminished rights for LGBT? Looser regulation on financial institutions? Inhumane immigration policies? &c. If she were in a hypothetical Senate with Scott Brown across the aisle, what great principle does he espouse that she should adopt in a bipartisan fashion? His only signature achievement is an insider-trading ban that solves a process problem that is laughingly trivial in the face of the real problems the country faces.
Warren should not trip over herself trying to be someone she’s not. She should question the bipartisanship question: what are the Republicans offering that I should embrace? Nothing.
Maybe that’s too risky. Maybe she has to mollify the low-information voters who like “nice” candidates. But, Brown’s skittishness on his party affiliation suggest that the burden is on him to show that he’s not too Republican, not that Warren has to show she’s not too Democratic.
That to me is a test of bipartisanship, or at least of aversion to gridlock. Even if he ultimately voted with his party on the merits, he would get points from me for allowing a legitimate debate and vote to occur. If he has not done this Warren should nail him for it.
He voted with the Dems for cloture on a jobs bill in February 2010, and did in again in March 2010 on a bill to extend unemployment and COBRA, which he ultimately voted against on the merits. He said he didn’t support unlimited obstruction of the people’s business. It should be noted that the vote was 66-34, so the bill was coming to the floor anyway. An easy vote to look bipartisan and anti-obstruction.
Brown voted against cloture on Dodd-Frank in May 2010, then reversed himself the next day. Obama’s OFA activists placed over 900 calls to his office between the two votes. He was the 60th vote on that one.
Largely, however, he stood with the GOP in 2010. I think I read 30 of his first 48 cloture votes, he sided with the GOP or something like that. On most of the other 18, he was not the deciding vote. They had either well over 60, or conservative Democrats were joining the filibuster.
2010 is the most relevant time frame for this question. Since the 2010 elections McConnell can filibuster without Scott’s vote. That has freed him up for entirely meaningless votes in favor of cloture to look good back home. Naturally he’s “bucked his party” on many more 2011-12 cloture votes.
As with his “50-50” claims on floor votes, the devil’s in the details.
that since the 2010 elections Brown can let things come up for a Senate vote, knowing full well there’s no way Boehner’s House will pass the same provisions the Senate’s passed. He knows these bills will fall apart entirely or get watered down in conference.
How independent can Brown be when he has signed the Grover Norquist anti-tax pledge? Has anyone else seen the direct mail anti-Warren ads from Norquist/Americans for Tax Reform? “Vote No on Elizabeth Warren”?
Scott Brown: “Independent” but pledged to Grover