[OldDeckHand]

"By the way prior to the election Brown said that he would vote with GOP sometimes, Dems sometimes; depended on what he thought was best for state, and he said he was that way in the state Senate too."

No one is pimping Brown for the RNC presidential nominee, ever. But, if people think that we are going to find someone more conservative than Brown who can win in MA, they need to put down the crack pipe.

And, if they would rather then have a Dem instead of Brown, I hope they're willing to cut that nose off their spiteful faces.

[campaignPete R-CT]

Deck, you are wasting your breath here. Yes, certain types are more offended by the Scott Browns than the Schumers, Leahy’s and Blumenthals.

I know people in CT who spent the autumn complaining about Linda McMahon and they never said a negative word about Blumie. I think it some kind of control-freak complex thing that shrinks cannot treat.

[nbenyo]

Agreed. We will get MUCH more of what we want from Scott Brown than from Martha Coakley or any other Democrat. And there is not a more conservative Republican who can carry the state.

In some cases, he is better than some so-called conservative Republicans. For instance Sen. Brownback has NOT stated his position on the Dream Act, while Scott Brown is firmly against any amnesty.

[MSF BU]

There is NO reason Brown had to vote either for homosexualizing the military or to weaken our military through the START Treaty. It would have made no difference to anybody in the commonwealth who are homosexual activists; they won’t vote for him anyway. This hurts him among folks who’re concerned about military readiness and at this point the only reason I see to retain him is that he may be ‘the’ vote to put a conservative on the USSC.