I appreciate what you are saying. That voting record, by itself, would appeal to conservatives. But I don't know how much of that is window dressing -- if those initiatives never had a shot at passing, voting for them cost him nothing but bolstered his image as a "conservative." (I also would avoid equating "leaning right" with being conservative).
I am not saying the man does not mean well -- I have no idea. I'm only saying that he's no conservative -- for what appears to be conservative in Massachusetts qualifies as straight-up socialist in the real world. How much more so when contrasted with the Obama administration.
I am also saying that universal health care by any other name is still straight-out socialism, and socialism ought not be said to be a conservative principle. Neither the legalization of abortion.
"Compromise" has its limits. The seemingly popular validation of Scott Brown has, imho, decisively moved the nation much further to the left than it was in Nov, 2008.
Did the media ever really clearly convey Mr. Brown's positions on healthcare and abortion during his campaign? I only saw smattering of it here. Now that he's in, the Wall Street Journal comes clean. That's bogus.
And when the media starts telling us that Obamacare is "dead," my gut is that it can only mean that some other trojan horse is being set to march in.
Enter Scott Brown, and the catalyst for the Great Moral Compromise of 2010.
Then we just repeat to the Democrats, only much louder : "#%&! yourself and the NEXT Trojan Horse you rode in on."
Cheers!