Brown doesn't take long to disapoint

[Brian Frazier]

A vote for more stimulus? Are you kidding? What a joke!

Sir, you will have a very short career in the Senate!

[Robert Cernuda]

Perimeters?

RMB-TX said:

While there are some folks who would like to practice the "let's wait and see" tactic, the truth is that when Brown went to DC he had politicians where he would have gotten the most out of them. He was setting precedence, he could have shown these folks that he meant business. Compromise would have come but only after he set perimeters on what he was there for and if indeed the bill was worthy. Compromising your values to show a vote of confidence that bi-partisian is well and alive is not in the best interest. DC has been passing crappy bills that only have a portion of good will in them. That's why Brown was sent to DC because he was to stop the same old way of doing business not because we want to hold hands and sing cum-ba-yah. He had set a precedence, heck the nation set precedence and it was truly a wake up call to all in DC. Now its a joke. Reid, Pelosi, even Obama, alittle smoozing and some cushioning of some addendums and we can get the votes we need - Dems must be having a warm and fuzzy feeling like - "maybe Brown's not so bad after all!"

[Robert Cernuda]

California?? Don't you have your own problems to deal with in that state? What right do you have to rebuke Sen. Brown, you're not even a constituent!

Teri K, California said:

"I was disappointed with the continuation of politics-as-usual in the drafting of this bill, as it was crafted behind closed doors, without transparency and accountability."
*****************************************************************

Excuse me, Sir, but as a Californian - who donated to your campaign, and put a Brown for Senate sticker on my car, to the risk of slashed tires or worse ...
I must ask you to seriously consider this:

What do you hold more dear? Being seen as "Bi-partisan" - OR -
Holding to your convictions of W-H-A-T I-S R-I-G-H-T ???
There can be no "bi-partisanship" w/ this radical left admin - don't you get this???

They have seen "smarming" you since you got there - I have seen it -
these "folk" do NOT think of anyone new in their ranks as anything more than a
potential "useful idiot". I know you are above this. Please prove me right.

Or, were we the "useful idiots" ?

[lindsey vonn]

Grow up!
And move to Timbuktu.

mark gibbons said:

if i were a koepechne i would'nt be getting in his truck without a life jacket. liar and a fraud. signed on to a deal done at night and behind closed doors. he told me he would'nt do these things. liar and a fraud. it is still the kennedy seat. what a waste of time working for this fraud. at the local level we need to get rid of these types of brownstains. this state is a total farce and so am i for living here.
Mark Gibbons and family

[lindsey vonn]

excuse me!
I think faster then I type. If you can't figure it out which sounds like you can't. it's "majority".

Brian Frazier said:

Lindsey,
Since your giving grammar lessons; what does "the major of the members" mean? Looks like you live in a glass house...there is a
term for that too - hypocrite. I have an idea for
you; Let others have an opinion without pretending
you know something about them or thier ideology
when its obvious that you don't.

lindsey vonn said:

Mark/Brian
Are you going to invite the major of the members to leave this site since they don't conform to your ideology?
By the way, the correct term is "disinvite" (vt)
I guess your position on S.B. has changed. Isn't there a definition - "flip-flop" ?
Brian Frazier said:

Yes. He has already shown that he is just another pure politician with no values or beliefs. First supporting the old crony John McCain and now supporting more fraudulent stimulus. Too bad because I worked real hard to get him elected and gave him more money than I could afford. I feel very bad for being fooled again. But I won't quit, and next time I'll be working just as hard to kick him out. I hope you all will join me.

[lindsey vonn]

Robert,
S.B. is U.S. Senator.
The cue - U.S.
It doesn't matter if Terri is from California or Alaska. She is entitle to an opinion.
Its call — freedom of speech. Unless you want to abolish that right.
Now, what part of the Constitution is it?

Robert Cernuda said:

California?? Don't you have your own problems to deal with in that state? What right do you have to rebuke Sen. Brown, you're not even a constituent!

Teri K, California said:

"I was disappointed with the continuation of politics-as-usual in the drafting of this bill, as it was crafted behind closed doors, without transparency and accountability."
*****************************************************************

Excuse me, Sir, but as a Californian - who donated to your campaign, and put a Brown for Senate sticker on my car, to the risk of slashed tires or worse ...
I must ask you to seriously consider this:

What do you hold more dear? Being seen as "Bi-partisan" - OR -
Holding to your convictions of W-H-A-T I-S R-I-G-H-T ???
There can be no "bi-partisanship" w/ this radical left admin - don't you get this???

They have seen "smarming" you since you got there - I have seen it -
these "folk" do NOT think of anyone new in their ranks as anything more than a
potential "useful idiot". I know you are above this. Please prove me right.

Or, were we the "useful idiots" ?

[lindsey vonn]

Brian
You're getting forgetful.
Remember what 1789 Patriot wrote.

lindsey vonn said:

excuse me!
I think faster then I type. If you can't figure it out which sounds like you can't. it's "majority". Brian Frazier said:

Lindsey,
Since your giving grammar lessons; what does "the major of the members" mean? Looks like you live in a glass house...there is a term for that too - hypocrite. I have an idea for you; Let others have an opinion without pretending
you know something about them or thier ideology
when its obvious that you don't.

lindsey vonn said:

Mark/Brian
Are you going to invite the major of the members to leave this site since they don't conform to your ideology?
By the way, the correct term is "disinvite" (vt)
I guess your position on S.B. has changed. Isn't there a definition - "flip-flop" ?
Brian Frazier said:

Yes. He has already shown that he is just another pure politician with no values or beliefs. First supporting the old crony John McCain and now supporting more fraudulent stimulus. Too bad because I worked real hard to get him elected and gave him more money than I could afford. I feel very bad for being fooled again. But I won't quit, and next time I'll be working just as hard to kick him out. I hope you all will join me.

[Robert Cernuda]

Thank you for the civics lesson, but I assure you that I am quite aware of the first amendment, although when this country was founded it probably meant as far as your voice could travel. I don't believe that the founders of this country could have envisioned the advancements in communication that have taken place since then. If they had, I'm quite sure that they would have written the amendment somewhat differently. How about this; Terry can influence out of state elections, but she can only do so by using stage coaches or pony express to do so. She can say whatever she wants without the use of any electronic aid (no internet, no email, no telephone, no telegraph), otherwise she should stick to her neck of the woods.
lindsey vonn said:

Robert,
S.B. is U.S. Senator.
The cue - U.S.
It doesn't matter if Terri is from California or Alaska. She is entitle to an opinion.
Its call — freedom of speech. Unless you want to abolish that right.
Now, what part of the Constitution is it?

Robert Cernuda said:

California?? Don't you have your own problems to deal with in that state? What right do you have to rebuke Sen. Brown, you're not even a constituent!

Teri K, California said:

"I was disappointed with the continuation of politics-as-usual in the drafting of this bill, as it was crafted behind closed doors, without transparency and accountability."
*****************************************************************

Excuse me, Sir, but as a Californian - who donated to your campaign, and put a Brown for Senate sticker on my car, to the risk of slashed tires or worse ...
I must ask you to seriously consider this:

What do you hold more dear? Being seen as "Bi-partisan" - OR -
Holding to your convictions of W-H-A-T I-S R-I-G-H-T ???
There can be no "bi-partisanship" w/ this radical left admin - don't you get this???

They have seen "smarming" you since you got there - I have seen it -
these "folk" do NOT think of anyone new in their ranks as anything more than a
potential "useful idiot". I know you are above this. Please prove me right.

Or, were we the "useful idiots" ?

[lindsey vonn]

Hey Brian
What happen to Flynn?
Are the discussions over his head?

Brian Frazier said:

Lindsey,
Since your giving grammar lessons;
what does "the major of the members" mean?
Looks like you live in a glass house...there is a
term for that too - hypocrite. I have an idea for
you; Let others have an opinion without pretending
you know something about them or thier ideology
when its obvious that you don't.

lindsey vonn said:

Mark/Brian
Are you going to invite the major of the members to leave this site since they don't conform to your ideology?
By the way, the correct term is "disinvite" (vt)
I guess your position on S.B. has changed. Isn't there a definition - "flip-flop" ?
Brian Frazier said:

Yes. He has already shown that he is just another pure politician with no values or beliefs. First supporting the old crony John McCain and now supporting more fraudulent stimulus. Too bad because I worked real hard to get him elected and gave him more money than I could afford. I feel very bad for being fooled again. But I won't quit, and next time I'll be working just as hard to kick him out. I hope you all will join me.

[Grandpa]

Scott Brown's Shrewd Vote
By Andrew Cline on 2.25.10 @ 6:09AM

On Jan. 19, Scott Brown was the great right hero. On Feb 22, he became, in some quarters at least, a dirty, liberal traitor. He voted for cloture on the Senate Democrats' jobs bill, then, on Wednesday, voted for the bill.

Granted, the $15 billion jobs bill was not good legislation. "Far from perfect" was how Brown described it. The bill suspends the employer portion of the Social Security payroll tax to encourage hiring. But a tax reduction of a few hundred dollars a month will hardly encourage firms to hire employees that cost thousands per month. It also pumps billions into more federal transportation projects, which, as last year's failed stimulus bill showed, is no way to help the economy. Still, Brown's vote for the bill was a good move for him and ultimately for conservatives.

Conservative activists are the first people to attack Democratic members of Congress for "voting in lock step with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid." It is a valid criticism, especially as applied to Democrats from more moderate states, such as Louisiana or New Hampshire. So maybe those same activists should stop and think for a moment about the political ramifications of pressuring Scott Brown to vote in lock step with Mitch McConnell.

Scott Brown does not represent the Republican National Committee in the United States Senate. He represents Massachusetts. That's by the Founders' design, and it is a good one. If Scott Brown voted as though he were from Alabama, the voters of Massachusetts would, at the first available opportunity, send him there. Where would the conservative movement be then?

Part of the problem here is the way we think about partisan politics. We say things like, "the Republicans control 41 Senate seats." No, they don't. Nor should they. There is a huge difference between Republicans having a member of their party elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, and Republicans controlling a Senate seat from Massachusetts. It would be a sad day for the republic if party bosses completely controlled the votes of their members. If that were the case, we would already be living under Obamacare and cap-and-trade. Thank goodness for moderate Democrats who represented the people back home instead of the party bosses on those votes. And thank goodness for Scott Brown, who got elected by promising to be an independent vote in Washington and, in his first month at least, is living up to that promise.

But what about the bill? It's bad legislation, so how can Brown's vote for it be good? Here is how:

Critics of Brown's vote haven't been listening to what he's been saying. During the election campaign, Brown was asked where he fit on the Republican political spectrum. He identified himself as "a Massachusetts Republican." In an interview with FrumForum, he said, "I'm the closest thing [Bay Staters] will get to a Reagan Democrat." He also said, "I've always been an independent voter, and when I have to cross party lines, I do. I don't usually care what my party says."

Brown made clear from the start that he would not vote as a movement conservative or a leadership lapdog. He'd go his own way, regardless of where the leadership or the GOP base tried to drag him. And that's a good thing. He is, after all, from Massachusetts, remember?

With the jobs bill -- his first major vote -- Brown established his Washington identity. He proclaimed himself an independent-minded Republican who will oppose party leaders and work with Democrats. In Massachusetts, that is the only way he survives politically.

He also kept two important campaign promises: 1) that he will be independent of his party, and 2) that he would vote for legislation to create jobs. Now, policy wonks know that this jobs bill is ill-suited to job creation and better alternatives exist. But listen to Brown's explanation: "I supported this measure because it does contain some tax relief that will help Massachusetts businesses put people back to work."

Brown has signaled to his constituents that he voted for tax cuts, just as he promised in the campaign. He is from Massachusetts. That's huge.

He also said that if the bill comes back from the House "full of pork, waste, fraud and abuse, I reserve the right to vote against it." That's also important. The House version of the bill is 10 times larger -- $154 billion vs. $15 billion -- than the Senate bill. With his post-vote statement, Brown positioned himself to vote against the final bill on the grounds that it is too large and wasteful. Outstanding.

With one vote, the holder of Ted Kennedy's old seat just established himself as a supporter of tax cuts and an opponent of wasteful, bloated federal spending. And he did that while opposing Republican leadership and defining himself as a political independent. That was not traitorous; that was brilliant.

Scott Brown is a Republican. From Massachusetts. If conservatives want him to be able to stay in Washington so he can vote against Obamacare and other boondoggles, then they shouldn't criticize him for voting like a Republican from Massachusetts. The movement for limited government is strengthened by Brown holding that seat. To keep it, he has to vote for some things conservatives find distasteful. As long as he's voting for small distasteful things so he can stick around to vote against the big ones, that's a win for the movement.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/25/scott-browns-shrewd-vote

[Matthew Ball]

1789 Patriot...The amount of this bill is small in relative terms? I don't think so...$13 billion for tax credits that will do nothing to create jobs. It will simply be a bonus for companies that were already going to hire a new employee.
We are broke as a nation and I don't care if this was $13 million we cannot spend money on hopes and dreams of creating jobs. Tax cuts not credits are the only way to create sustainable jobs.

[Grandpa]

http://senateconservatives.com/v1/

[Robert Cernuda]

I could not agree more with your thoughtful and eloquent posting. If conservatives want to attract more voters to their point of view they should stop expressing their views in the loud, belligerent, take no prisoner format used by some in the media, and instead do so using persuasive, courteous, and thought through arguments as you have. As an independent voter I find the former offensive and unproductive and I tend to very quickly tune it out.

Grandpa said:

Scott Brown's Shrewd Vote
By Andrew Cline on 2.25.10 @ 6:09AM

On Jan. 19, Scott Brown was the great right hero. On Feb 22, he became, in some quarters at least, a dirty, liberal traitor. He voted for cloture on the Senate Democrats' jobs bill, then, on Wednesday, voted for the bill.

Granted, the $15 billion jobs bill was not good legislation. "Far from perfect" was how Brown described it. The bill suspends the employer portion of the Social Security payroll tax to encourage hiring. But a tax reduction of a few hundred dollars a month will hardly encourage firms to hire employees that cost thousands per month. It also pumps billions into more federal transportation projects, which, as last year's failed stimulus bill showed, is no way to help the economy. Still, Brown's vote for the bill was a good move for him and ultimately for conservatives.

Conservative activists are the first people to attack Democratic members of Congress for "voting in lock step with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid." It is a valid criticism, especially as applied to Democrats from more moderate states, such as Louisiana or New Hampshire. So maybe those same activists should stop and think for a moment about the political ramifications of pressuring Scott Brown to vote in lock step with Mitch McConnell.

Scott Brown does not represent the Republican National Committee in the United States Senate. He represents Massachusetts. That's by the Founders' design, and it is a good one. If Scott Brown voted as though he were from Alabama, the voters of Massachusetts would, at the first available opportunity, send him there. Where would the conservative movement be then?

Part of the problem here is the way we think about partisan politics. We say things like, "the Republicans control 41 Senate seats." No, they don't. Nor should they. There is a huge difference between Republicans having a member of their party elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, and Republicans controlling a Senate seat from Massachusetts. It would be a sad day for the republic if party bosses completely controlled the votes of their members. If that were the case, we would already be living under Obamacare and cap-and-trade. Thank goodness for moderate Democrats who represented the people back home instead of the party bosses on those votes. And thank goodness for Scott Brown, who got elected by promising to be an independent vote in Washington and, in his first month at least, is living up to that promise.

But what about the bill? It's bad legislation, so how can Brown's vote for it be good? Here is how:

Critics of Brown's vote haven't been listening to what he's been saying. During the election campaign, Brown was asked where he fit on the Republican political spectrum. He identified himself as "a Massachusetts Republican." In an interview with FrumForum, he said, "I'm the closest thing [Bay Staters] will get to a Reagan Democrat." He also said, "I've always been an independent voter, and when I have to cross party lines, I do. I don't usually care what my party says."

Brown made clear from the start that he would not vote as a movement conservative or a leadership lapdog. He'd go his own way, regardless of where the leadership or the GOP base tried to drag him. And that's a good thing. He is, after all, from Massachusetts, remember?

With the jobs bill -- his first major vote -- Brown established his Washington identity. He proclaimed himself an independent-minded Republican who will oppose party leaders and work with Democrats. In Massachusetts, that is the only way he survives politically.

He also kept two important campaign promises: 1) that he will be independent of his party, and 2) that he would vote for legislation to create jobs. Now, policy wonks know that this jobs bill is ill-suited to job creation and better alternatives exist. But listen to Brown's explanation: "I supported this measure because it does contain some tax relief that will help Massachusetts businesses put people back to work."

Brown has signaled to his constituents that he voted for tax cuts, just as he promised in the campaign. He is from Massachusetts. That's huge.

He also said that if the bill comes back from the House "full of pork, waste, fraud and abuse, I reserve the right to vote against it." That's also important. The House version of the bill is 10 times larger -- $154 billion vs. $15 billion -- than the Senate bill. With his post-vote statement, Brown positioned himself to vote against the final bill on the grounds that it is too large and wasteful. Outstanding.

With one vote, the holder of Ted Kennedy's old seat just established himself as a supporter of tax cuts and an opponent of wasteful, bloated federal spending. And he did that while opposing Republican leadership and defining himself as a political independent. That was not traitorous; that was brilliant.

Scott Brown is a Republican. From Massachusetts. If conservatives want him to be able to stay in Washington so he can vote against Obamacare and other boondoggles, then they shouldn't criticize him for voting like a Republican from Massachusetts. The movement for limited government is strengthened by Brown holding that seat. To keep it, he has to vote for some things conservatives find distasteful. As long as he's voting for small distasteful things so he can stick around to vote against the big ones, that's a win for the movement.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/25/scott-browns-shrewd-vote