Scott Brown's Shrewd Vote

American Spectator ^ | 2/25/10 | Andrew Cline

[rhema]

. . . 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. . . .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.

[rjsimmon]

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."

At that point, would he then be able to say "I voted for it, before I voted against it."?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Good article and what I’ve been trying to say for a while. Theres a big difference between Scott Brown and Dede Scozzafava.

[101voodoo]

At that point, would he then be able to say "I voted for it, before I voted against it."?

But he hasn't voted "for it" as much as he voted to allow a vote ON it.

[laconic]

I didn’t like Brown’s vote on the jobs bill; nonetheless, I am glad to have a Mass. senator who will vote WITH us 80 percent of the time rather than Ted Kennedy’s or Martha Coakley’s votes AGAINST us 100 percent of the time.

[Repeal The 17th]

Good article,thanks.

[Fresh Wind]

But he hasn't voted "for it" as much as he voted to allow a vote ON it.

He also voted for passage of the bill.

[reaganator]

This is a $15 billion jobs bill?

This year the largest spending bill in the history of mankind was passed allegedly to stimulate the economy. The last estimate cost of this bill, $867 billion. Since almost half of this borrowed money has not been spent, how do they justify needing an additional $15 billion jobs bill?

[101voodoo]

Sure but that isn’t the vote which brought the heat on him. In the end 77 Senators incl 13 Rep voted for the bill. Scott Brown voted as he campaigned and any way you slice it he is light years better then any MA Democrat that may have been elected. If anyone here expects a Reagan type Conservative has a chance to be elected in MA at this time, then I have some great ocean front property in Nebraska I can sell them, cheap.

[CASchack]

We should all know that Scott Brown is no Reagan. I’ll still take him in that seat over Teddy or Martha Coakley.

[reaganator]

Define Reagan Conservative:

A believer of the founding American principles, free market Capitalism, a limited role of government and lower taxes?

Yeah, why would we expect the people of Massachusetts to want a Senator like that even though they are one of the United States of America!

Enough RINOS, no matter where they are from.

[cvq3842]

Where are all the Democrats who pledge to be “independent” of THEIR party? Or to “reach across the aisle?”

Actually, we’ll have to hope there are a number of “independent” Dems in the House, who stand firm against the health monstrosity.

Time will tell.

[Obadiah]

Yep, congratulations. Same point I publicly made as well. It was a shrewd vote, very smart. Scott Brown is a lot better than fat-Teddy. The fact that many here refuse to see this quantum-leap change is disappointing. I do not want Scott Brown to make it easy for Democrats to paint him as Newt Gingrich's evil spawn in the next election. And if you don't think Democrats will go after Brown with a vengeance, you are too naive to post here.

[Fresh Wind]

any way you slice it he is light years better then any MA Democrat that may have been elected

I couldn't agree more. But I need to see him keep his promise to vote against the mini-Porkulus that the house is pushing.

[P-Marlowe]

I didn’t like Brown’s vote on the jobs bill; nonetheless, I am glad to have a Mass. senator who will vote WITH us 80 percent of the time rather than Ted Kennedy’s or Martha Coakley’s votes AGAINST us 100 percent of the time.

80%?

Maybe more like 8%.

Maybe that was a typo on your part.

[101voodoo]

Perhaps you are missing my point. Currently in MA there is a ZERO chance of electing anyone remotely like a Reagan Conservative. Accepting that, we have the choice of having a Kennedy liberal type or a Scott Brown conservative light who will at least show some sense of fiscal responsibility as he has done with the health care promise (assuming he keeps it). So far he has not violated any of his campaign promises.

I don’t know about you but the choice is quite clear to me.

[bray]

Nobody expected him to be a true Conservative, they expect him to stop DeathCare and Cap & Tax. He is a major improvement over Drunk Uncle Ted and if we can take over the Sinate can move more our way. Its Taxachusettes after all.

Pray for America’s Freedom

[joe fonebone]

I agree with you........but we must be very careful this coming year....the agents are everywhere Mr. Anderson...

[Blueflag]

Also the ‘Pubbies can now point out that a prominent Senator (and four other ‘Pubbies as well) WAS willing to cross the aisle in a bi-partisan effort.

Makes ‘em able to deflect a LOT of democrap attacks.

[TShaunK]

“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. . . .That was not traitorous; that was brilliant. “

Thats my boy,Scott Brown.Playing chess while the purist whinos are playing checkers.
Scott Brown been playing this game for 16 years as a republican legistlature in a state where 85% opposition is the game and every newspaper is a minny NY Times.He’s never lost an elecetion and been reelected by higher pct. everytime.This man skills are well honed,he knows how to handle national media without looking like an amateur.And knows how to leverage his opponents weight against them.He’ll end up looking smarter and stronger when this plays out.He won’t look like a rubber stamp, which will play very well nationaly and with independents much to the Whinos dismay.