As for the Dem saying he votes 90 per cent with the Republicans:
a) true or false?
b) if true: is this a good or bad thing, depending on how the GOP votes in general?
c) I'm sure Martha Coakley wouldn't have voted 90 per cent in line with Dems. 100, maybe.
that 90% is meaningless. I bet even Obama voted with republicans 40% of the time, since most of the votes are procedural types of votes.
There should be some way to judge how many controversial issues he votes with republicans.
The 90% may be true, but these statistics are deceptive.
The overWHELMing percentage of votes are on procedural matters. Often a failure to object to a "without objection" request (to such things as a 30-second speech honoring new Eagle Scouts, etc.), will be counted as "voting with" everyone ELSE who didn't object. Only about 1/4 of the NUMBER of votes are really contentious. The real measure, albeit more subjective of course, is a WEIGHTED grade based on the importance of the underlying issues, e.g., declaring war, confirming a SCOTUS nominee, voting to stab Paul Ryan in the back, etc. On those things, my guess is that Brown is very pleasing to most Democrats, like Olympia Snowe up north. (Just not AS pleasing as Ted Kennedy.)
Whatever he does, he can do it without my money.
On the important votes, he votes R about 0 percent of the time.
We’re still far better off with Brown than whoever may replace him. Go, Brown!!
Now that Whitey’s been captured, and since no Dem can gain any traction against Brown, maybe they’ll pull Billy out of retirement and ask him to run for the Senate..
Part of his 10% put sodomites in the services.
I’m all in favor of the RATS spending billions of dollars to defeat a RINO who votes with them on the 10% of the things that really matter. Every dollar they spend to defeat Brown is one buck less to spend against real conservative candidates.
Scott Brown remains a big government Republican. He still supports Romneycare, considers RoevWade settled law, adamantly favors abortion on demand, anthropogenic global warming, gays in the military and state sponsored gay marriage rights. Brown also favors strict gun control measures that require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns and background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows. Along with strict licensing for any gun possession.
Voting 90% with the GOP doesn’t make Brown a conservative. I still say he’s better suited for the Dem Party than the GOP.
Brown earned a 74 from the American Conservative Union during his first year in office. They faulted him for voting against an audit of the Federal Reserve; against greater oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; to increase regulations in the name of food safety; to repeal ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell;’ and to ratify the new START treaty.
An 80 or above names a Senator an “ACU Conservative.”
Some comparable Senators from that year (2010) were Alexander (80), Johanns (80), Gregg (73), Murkowski (73), Lugar (71), Snowe (64), Collins (64), and Voinovich (63).
I think the highest ranked Democrat is Ben Nelson (48). Scott Brown’s hypothetical replacement would not vote like Ben Nelson.
I’m not giving him any more money but I still think he’s better than anything else conservatives could get out of Massachusetts. The choice is Brown or a Ted Kennedy / John Kerry type liberal. And Brown doesn’t vote zero percent with the GOP on what is “important” unless you count everything he voted against as the only things that are “important.” He voted against Obamacare. Is that not important? Anyone who thinks Massachusetts will elect a Jim DeMint is crazy. I’m disappointed with Brown. I won’t give him more money but this is one time where conservatives are making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Brown is currently the most popular pol in the state with a huge war chest. Those who feel he’s not conservative enough are welcome to take him on. Hey, run Jack E. Robinson again...he did well last time, winning 1 town vs. 350 for Brown. But maybe we should let Brown lose. We deserve to have another moonbat in what is really The Kennedy Seat (/sarcasm)
For those calling Brown an “backstabber” and claiming he votes “zero” percent with the GOP on the issues that “really matter,” explain the 2010 elections. There were some pretty conservative candidates running for Congress and other state offices. The GOP got creamed in MA in a year that was a GOP landslide pretty much everywhere else in the country. How do you explain that?
The answer, of course, is that Massachusetts just isn’t ready to elect anything close to what FR posters would consider a “true conservative.” We can hold our breath and throw tantrums and call Scott Brown names but it doesn’t change that reality. He is the best national conservatives are going to get out of MA.
About 6 months ago, on the coffee table in his office in the Russell Building he had two books. One was Teddy Kennedy’s and one was Harry Reid’s. That, in and of itself, should help with your questions.
He’ll need money from the Rinos and their friends across the aisle in his State. He’s not getting any help from the ones who helped him win Kennedy’s seat.
Most votes are just mundane run of the mill operations. The Senate Republicans are majority Rinos and he rarely is out of lock step with them; nor are the Senate Rinos usually out of lock step with the Dems. As long as he stays amoral and does not try to reform any of the “progress” the Kennedy’s have made, he’s safe.