Political Hay
Scott Brown’s Shrewd Vote
In fact, you might say it was politically brilliant.
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.
About the Author
Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader. His Twitter ID is @Drewhampshire.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (202) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Andrew Cline
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/25/scott-browns-shrewd-vote
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Stephanie| 2.25.10 @ 6:32AM
WOW! Somebody who votes their heart and mind and what's best for those he represents.
Amazing.
Alan Brooks| 2.25.10 @ 3:37PM
A long row to hoe.
"Dodgy" is the on-target adjective the British use.
(the British can't help being the greatest-- it's their nature; and no, I'm not British-- wish that were the case)
Alan Brooks| 2.25.10 @ 5:03PM
...a. social progress is kaput
b. this is busy-work for politicos--incl. Brown (he is a politician, which isn't particularly good, is it).
c. we'll end up with faith-based healthcare.
mike | 3.1.10 @ 5:49PM
Please take your hippy a$$ to England and take all the dems with you, please we conservatives want the fdr and wodrow wilson progresives out of are country forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom in Michigan| 2.25.10 @ 8:59PM
Hello, Alan. I believe you can emigrate to the UK and become a citizen, if you wish. Here is the website with the all information you will need:
https://www.migrationexpert.com/uk/register.asp?type=61&fid=100036&utm_id=15&utm_term=british citizen&gclid=cm_pvohsjqacfzdm5qodazqgdw
Then you can actually live in a progressive, socialist state with universal health care and all the other wonderful things we've been promised by the Obamaviks. For my part, I've visited the UK occasionally and can recommend it as quite a nice place with lovely people and, despite all the vile canards to the contrary, good food and delicious cellar-cool (not pee-warm as the uninformed would have it) beer. They also speak English (but, if you travel too far to the North you would never know it). This is actually a neat solution to those who may be disappointed if we don’t get health care, I’m sorry; “health insurance” reform here in The Colonies. You know, quite a few Tories returned to England during and after The Revolution rather than live in a representative republic; I’m sure with no regrets. Only, don't venture out in London after the pubs close on a "football" weekend looking for a hamburger. I did that once and, the only thing that saved my bacon was the fact one of my assailants was also named "Tom" and took mercy on my Yankee keister. My affront to their English sensitivities (they are ever so much more sophisticated than we Colonials are, you know) was, as an ignorant American I couldn’t name my favorite “football” team (for God’s sake; don’t say “Indianapolis Colts!”). After you’ve spent some time there, please contact us here again at the AS and, let us know your experiences, especially with the National Health whose motto is “Your health, your choices.” LOL! Did I mention George Orwell was a Brit? Cheers! Mate
flyman| 2.26.10 @ 2:12AM
He is on target, I agree.
As to your wish to be in another country than the USA I urge you to do so ASAP. This is a country for Americans in heart and soul not just name...
Carpenter| 2.26.10 @ 9:04AM
After a quarter century living in England's rural heartland 90 miles from London, I can attest to that country's intrinsic - if rather damp - beauty. Preening pseudo-intellectuals are all the rage among the chattering classes, as long as solid lock-step with the counter-intuitive received opinion du jour.
Enjoy the ride, Mr Brooks. You'll fit right in.
brutus6| 2.26.10 @ 2:28PM
Never been to England (or Spain, but I kinda like the music..), though I would like to someday follow Wordsworth's footsteps throught the lake country.
I would also like to help Brooks realise (notice the Queen's english..) his dream of immigrating to England by helping fund his one-way travel expenses so that he can never again cast his vote in the US to elect politicians like Obama who would dismantle the individual liberties established by the founders of this great nation.
So how about setting up a fund, AmSpec? Tell me where to send my contribution to get Brooks out of this country and off our voter rolls.
sara | 2.26.10 @ 12:04PM
what you people just don't "get" is that brown now represents all the people in the USA with his vote. his vote affects everyone, not just the good people of massachusetts. he has to vote for what is good for the country, not just masachusetts.
michael| 2.26.10 @ 2:54PM
Sara, if you had actually read the article you would have noted that your statement is absurd.
Congress Works For Us| 3.1.10 @ 3:48PM
sara - nonsense! This is precisely the problem with D.C. The Senate is not supposed to vote along party aka national political lines. Senators are supposed to be acting in the best interests of their STATES.
Good God, go read the Constitution for frying out loud...
Squire Ric| 2.27.10 @ 12:09PM
Any "jobs" that the government can create are "government jobs". That means more tax money! This is ridiculous!
jamesafalk| 2.27.10 @ 5:40PM
Squire Ric,
The proposal is to suspend the employer portion of the Social Security payroll tax to encourage hiring.
This is one type of government initiative that doesn't create government jobs. You are confusing ridiculous spending with targeted employer cost reductions.
Of course, nothing would create jobs like government acting in a way that generated confidence among the people who start and manage businesses - but that isn't going to come from this adminstration.
yolla| 2.27.10 @ 7:27PM
I agree 1,000% with you, granted it didnt sound like he was off on the right foot, but,,, we must give him a chance I say he will be fine and come around.New York State
John Lloyd Scharf| 2.28.10 @ 11:20AM
A tax cut is a tax CUT. If an employer cuts 10% from his labor costs, then he can employ 11 employees instead of 10. It sounds like a very Republican thinking process to me.
Jeanna Green| 3.1.10 @ 3:41PM
I to am suprised but my comment is to you and I hope you understand where I am coming from.
I am a mother of 4 and a grandmother of 3 so far and have no party line other then I am a Conservative American. My question is yes he voted his heart but doesn't this artical show the same illogical thinking that got us here. You dont vote on a bad bill just so you can say I had to keep my job. We have to stop the waistful spending even if it keeps his job because soon we wont have the money to pay for anyones job including his. The Democrats even said they can not call the Jobs bill a stimuls bill anymore. I have it on tape so I could back what I am saying. White house says the American people will not fall for another stimulus so they need to call it a Jobs Bill. ok changed name still does not create jobs if they do like they did with last stimulus money. So another words its A BAD BILL of waistful spending so he already has lied. He said he would not vote for waistful spending and then turns around a signs a bill that will do nothing again like its prior.
RON HERT| 3.1.10 @ 4:20PM
Though it all sounds so remarkable, the fact of the matter is that covering your rear, and looking so representative by participating with the Democrats, has been what the Republicans got into trouble for doing in the first place. It is better to maintain the Conservative principles than to be merely elected. First, the Democrats will never let a bill go by without four times the pork added to it. So, it is a numbers game, and with negoiation, the Democrats will get two or more of the amount that they porked onto the bill. When does Brown say no-after the Democrats have had him sign onto two or four bills-all the time getting most of what they want, and from Brown. Of course Brown is supposed to be this smart politican from Mass. This country has more than enough politicans-it needs to have Conservatives in office-who could care less about looking good and getting re-elected-but care more about stoping the (Fcaist-Liberal-Progressive-Deomcrats) from making this country into a Socialist mess. Why must we be like Europe-who used to be more Socialistic-but they have seen the light and are changing to becoming more conservative and Capitalistic. We have to realize that the (FLP)--Democrats are about tax and spend-only to stuff their pockets with our honest-hard earned money, and none of them can be trusted to be any different-not even Libermann-as it turns out.
Deborah D | 2.25.10 @ 7:08AM
You do have to dance with the party who brought you to the dance. I'll admit I was disappointed in Scott Brown's vote on what is obviously another stimulus bill, but if he holds up his end on health care (and cap and trade), then he's okay in my book.
Anthony| 2.25.10 @ 9:20AM
I agree totally with Deborah D. I sent Mr. Brown money and was over joyed over his victory. This bill is bad, but relatively banal compared to the REAL reckless legislation this 10% approval congress is doing. A sad commentary on the state of affairs in Washington, which we Americans need to address in November.
That said, Mr. Brown had to do this if he is to stand fast on the health care and cap and trade debacles.
Politics is not an exact science. We'll soon see if Mr. Brown is the real deal.
Alan Brooks| 2.25.10 @ 3:41PM
Aerosmith:
"Dream on"...
'Til your dreams come true. Eventually. Long time passing.
Alan Brooks| 2.25.10 @ 3:39PM
Aerosmith:
"Dream on"...
'Til youir dreams come true.
Insufficiently Sensitive| 2.26.10 @ 2:33AM
You do have to dance with the party who brought you to the dance
Well, that wasn't the national Republicans. They finally sneaked some aid to his campaign when they learned that he'd bootstrapped himself into contention, but they were initially as dumb as the Democrats and Ed Gergen in believing it really was "Ted Kennedy's seat" and would remain Democratic.
Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 7:29AM
Must Know Headlines 2.25.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 7:44AM
The News Factor, an informative online Conservative News Magazine » Scott Brown’s Shr links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Howard| 2.25.10 @ 7:45AM
I voted for Brown. He will be light years better than Coakley would be if she got elected.
Alan Brooks| 2.25.10 @ 4:57PM
YES, Howard.
But that is like saying Brown's punch has far less turds than Coakley's.
Alan Brooks| 2.25.10 @ 6:01PM
When CONSERVATIVES become naive, that is VERY bad.
Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 7:47AM
Scott Brown « Right Leninist links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.25.10 @ 7:49AM
The original stimulus squandered 866 billion, 75 billion more then the original stimulus projection. There are claims attached to that stimulus of 2 million imaginary jobs, costing anywhere from $267,000 to $533,000 each in some cases.
The argument that this 15 billion is not that good of a bill but should be voted for does not make much sense because it's just another 15 billion that will be more or less wasted.
Perhaps Scott Brown felt he as making a statement, if so, he should look carefully at the ramifications. Yes, there are many bills that should be voted down, but it's hard to vote them down because they "are for the people."
In fact, few are for the people. They are for the government, causing it to grow ever larger, while the people get ever smaller in the scheme of things.
Bruce | 2.25.10 @ 1:12PM
Bill - while I agree with your last paragraph - we have to look at the big picture here. Mr. Clines post is right on the money. Disputing this, and demanding that any individual toe the mark on any given vote is the kind of thinking that gave us the Pretender. I don't like McAmnesty and never did - but he would have been light years better than the schmuck presently occupying (illegally) the White House. People have to start thinking.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.26.10 @ 7:48AM
McCain lost because he ran as a Republican although he's a Democrat more or less. McCain's strategy of reaching across the aisle got it's just reward yesterday when he was slapped around by Obama. People get what they deserve for reaching across the aisle and there are no exceptions. Scott Brown can make his own decisions. However, he then gets the after effects.
K| 2.25.10 @ 8:22PM
In fact, few are for the people. They are for the government, causing it to grow ever larger, while the people get ever smaller in the scheme of things.
Bill,
You are correct. There first duty of a Congressman is to uphold the Constitution, period. They take an oath to that end. That might mean that they vote against the people, if the people are wrong-thinking. We are not meant to be a democracy. We only have a democratic process for electing representatives.
Hardcard| 2.25.10 @ 7:51AM
Ok, let's give him a chance to perform his duties.
martin j smith| 2.25.10 @ 7:58AM
Too many get bent out of shape too quickly. Overall it is the"big ticket items" such as health care cap and trade and other larger issues that are the important ones. If he helps to hold the line in the these items then he is fine for me. The crucial thing is this, would you rather have had Coakley ? And, also you did where would the health care debate be today in that event ? It is important to have sober thinking and thus be willing to be somewhat felxible. Not everyone who votes imperfectly is a RINO.
chris pedersen| 2.25.10 @ 8:20AM
Well said Mr. Cline,
Brown, dumb as a Fox!
The Back Benchers who have never been elected for anything, should allow Brown's political talent to Rein as he sees fit as the experienced and well reasoned man that he is.
Isn't that why he got all OUR support in the first Place?
We prayed that he'd win, and he did, now it's time for him to preform "The People's" work from the "People's Seat" Consevative's calm down, DON'T GIVE THE LIBS ANY AMMO TO USE AGAINST HIM.
RON HERT| 3.1.10 @ 4:59PM
Yeah, that's what we thought of McCain too. But,
as you said, Brown just had to get elected. As if the FLP-Democrats don't need another helper, who likes to step across the isle and show the American people that things are getting done in a bipartisan-can't we all get along-way. How quickly we forget why the Republicans lost most of their seats. We don't need to be like the FLP-Democrats! Conservatives need to remember that the get-alongs got their reward-out! Now, look at the State of the Union. It should be clear to those moderate-get alongs, and to the Republicans-who- had better not forget that the Conservative movement is strong and will help or walk away; depending upon just how much has to be given up just to get along. By the way-getting along-means to an FLP-Democrat that you vote on his bill to pass. No amount of moderates are going to get Republicans back into office; because they all have failed to keep their Conservative and moral standards. So go ahead and boast how smart signing on to their bill is with the FLP-Democrats, and see where this country goes from there-it can get worse. It will only get better via Reagan Conservativism, which has been tried and proven to work-no guessing needed about the matter!
Jim O'Brien| 2.25.10 @ 8:21AM
The government does not create jobs, private enterprise does. The government takes our tax money (or increases the national debt) and wastes it. The government sucks up capital, which reduces real economic growth and job creation. That's why we need huge cuts in both taxes and government spending.
Yephora| 2.25.10 @ 8:25PM
Right on the money, Jim.
LeonidasOfSparta| 2.25.10 @ 8:24AM
This man, Scott Brown, stood before the Conservative meeting at CPAC and stated that HE would NOT vote for bigger government or more spending. The next week he....voted for bigger government and more spending. Stop, please, trying to put a dress on this PIG and call it Miss America. We are not stupid. The time is now to STOP ALL THIS spending. Period. This "jobs bill" = more government offices to oversee the spending, more spending of money WE DON'T HAVE....and Scott Brown voted "expediency" ???? Stop defending his choice. It was a POOR choice. It was not in keeping with his promises. RINO Alert. Scott lied, fiscal responsibility died.
stuiec | 2.25.10 @ 7:48PM
Except that a week before, the Senate GOP leadership was HOWLING that Harry Reid undercut a bipartisan deal to pass a $85 billion jobs bill (laden with pork for both parties). In that context, calling Scott Brown a pig for voting for a $15 billion jobs bill seems a bit off target.
Pericles of Athens| 2.26.10 @ 2:40AM
It was a POOR choice. It was not in keeping with his promises.
He promised to independently represent the people of Massachusetts, and did so. Would the learned Conservatives above prefer that there should be a Senator Coakley in that seat, spewing crooked legalisms and crooked politics and a long string of Kennedy-esque socialist votes instead?
kent keller| 2.27.10 @ 12:29PM
What's the difference? A vote for the jobs bill creates more gov't and a bigger deficit wheteher it is from Brown or Coakley. We need people with the guts to stop the spending!
jcm| 2.25.10 @ 8:26AM
Nice apologia, but I'm not persuaded. He's the same kind of "maverick" as his friend and mentor John McCain - and he owes him. And Brown used words such as "spending freeze" and campaigned against "stimulus" packages because "they don't create jobs." The vote was a blunder, despite the pragmatism that Cline praises.
ray-bob| 2.25.10 @ 9:02AM
lets see if he votes against the house version; we know it will be a lard-fest ready to be rendered.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.25.10 @ 9:19AM
I commend each of you to read an article over at American Thinker today:
"Worse than Awful"
Perhaps it can round out your thinking.
Louis Jenkins| 2.25.10 @ 10:01AM
Read the article and understand its message. I would prefer a pristine Conservative but will have to make do with a sausage. Haven't seen sausage being made, but have seen livermush manufactured. Everything but the squeal so to speak. Evil and awful gets all mixed together. But it gets worrisome when Harry Reid gets happy over Brown's vote. My knee jerk reaction is when Reid is happy I get doubtful. It is juvenile to think that Brown would come into the senate and start bashing heads, but his election can serve as a barometer for the future of Conservatism and the strugle against Statism. It is best to maintain a healthy skepticism when it comes to politicians from either side of the aisle. Time will tell.
Ned| 2.25.10 @ 10:57AM
From the American Thinker
"If he votes for the actual bill, that would be more awful. Call it that. I'll join you. No, I'll beat you to it. Together we can try and purge this thing from the party and shift more influence to the Rubios and the DeMints and the Coburns and many, many other greats in the awful party."
That is the key, how he votes when it comes back from the House.
Yephora| 2.25.10 @ 8:32PM
"the awful party." Don't you mean the stupid party?
Margie| 2.25.10 @ 9:43PM
No, that would be the Democrat party.
Yephora| 2.25.10 @ 9:51PM
Nope, the Demonrats are the evil party and the Republicans are the stupid party. It's an old saying.
Having since read the article, I get the "awful" reference now.
O'Riley| 2.25.10 @ 11:37AM
Been voting the lesser of two evils for 12 years now. It's getting old...
Thomas| 2.25.10 @ 9:47AM
Scott Brown is a politician. Surprise, surprise, surprise. He is a "Massachusetts Conservative". Read that as slightly to the right of Ted Kennedy. He voted for a piece of crap legislation simply because it had the word "jobs" in it. He may be simply feathering his own political nest with the voters back home by being able to say he voted for tax cuts, just as President Obama claims he gave every taxpayer a tax cut last year. Brown is playing the same game as Nelson, Landreaux, Cao and others. And we know how highly they are regarded.
But, these things have serious ramifications for the Republican Party. Brown ran as a conservative who was going to work to stop out of control spending. The first bill that he votes on is a shining example of useless out of control spending. Sure, being a lawyer, he hedged his bets by saying that he was going to vote as he saw fit on individual pieces of legislation. But he knew what the voters expected of him, to stop unnecessary spending in Washington. What does this tell conservative voters? If a politician's lips are moving they are lying. Don't believe the promises. And what effect does that have? Conservative voters, not having any candidates that they can believe can be trusted to be truly conservative, stay home. The Republican Party simply can not win the White House without conservative voters, no matter how much they may wish to believe otherwise. Brown ran under the banner of the Republican Party, he is a Republican and every Republican action that puts lie to the claims of a candidate to represent conservative values loses more votes for future Republican candidates. If you can't trust them, don't vote.
Senator Brown may being playing the political game shrewdly, but that game has harmed the PEOPLE of this country and they are tired of it.
Francine| 2.25.10 @ 11:40AM
He did not run as a conservative. He was very upfront about the fact that he would be an independent, not beholden to either party. I live in Massachusetts, I am a conservative, and I voted for Brown because he was clear when he ran for office that he would not be a lock step vote for either party. It is time to put aside political squabbling and turn this Country back into the Shining Star on the Hill that President Regan talked about.
Margie| 2.25.10 @ 3:41PM
I heartily agree. In politics we will never have a pure candidate. Is there such a thing? No. Are any of us pure? No. Scott Brown was the best man for the job amongst candidates, wasn't he?
And if he isn't, then the people will again judge at the next election.
Thankfully we do not have Kings in this country. Yes, eevn though Obama thinks he is a King, he too is only temporary.
Bruce | 2.25.10 @ 1:17PM
QUOTE:"Scott Brown is a politician. Surprise, surprise, surprise. He is a "Massachusetts Conservative""
No - he is not, and never said he was. He has always said he is a "Massachusetts Republican."
Ask yourself this, while you lament the people of Massachusett's pick ... "Would Oakley have been a better choice, considering the many votes that will take place on other - more intrusive and expensive - bills the Donks will be pushing before the mid-terms?
Tim| 2.25.10 @ 9:57AM
Oh Joy ! We Get Olympia Snowe In Slacks !
Tim| 2.25.10 @ 10:34AM
Tim you are giving the other Tims a bad name.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.25.10 @ 12:28PM
I want the funny "Tim" to change his moniker.
Your humor is always appreciated.
moranec| 2.25.10 @ 9:58AM
Brilliant is as brillant does. Thanks for 'parsing' the political activity at fundamental levels. There are 'knee-jerkers' on both ends of the political spectrum. This article is a primer for the uninitiated who fail to appreciate the reality of the statesman's need to work effectively with home-state support and ideological principles. This is an excellent piece of writing and hopefully might contribute to some timely insight for others joining in the critical fray against the Obama, Pelosi, Reid destructive oversight of the economy.
moranec
Neo| 2.25.10 @ 10:36AM
The proper comparison is between Scott Brown and Arlen Specter.
Specter went from renegade Republican to lapdog Democrat.
The upsides I see are, first, this bill is smaller than it started out being, and secondly, it puts the kabosh on the lack of bipartisan meme in a glaring light.
Yosemeti Sam| 2.25.10 @ 10:53AM
15 Billion jobs bill legislation?
Apart from still unspent/stagnant Porkulus/Slush funds greenbacks.
Follow the money in conjunction with filings of IRS required Form W-4s.
Easy as pie statistics.
To draw factual conclusions of truths
or lies by the BHO cum Democrat party
economic rein of error.
Filling out a W-4 is one of the first
things you do when you start a new job.
IRS compliance.
Will senator Brown track the ongoing number of new jobs created via Form W-4s filed in Massachusetts on his senatorial website?
JmsA| 2.25.10 @ 11:01AM
While Senator Brown's vote for the Job's bill was dissapointing, I still much prefer him holding the seat than Kennedy-like Ms. Coakley. Remember folks, were it not for him, we'd be all much closer to having Obamacare shoved down our collective throats.
Swkobe| 2.25.10 @ 11:12AM
By voting No, Mr Cline praised Scott Brown as "independent" from GOP boss's will and we should all thank people like Scott Brown, or else, we would have CRAP and Trade, Healthcare already - had some democrats not acted like Scott Brown by defying leadership. Hmmmmm, Mr Cline, have it crossed your mind that those independent-thinking "lapdog" democrats voted that way because they are fearing for their own political career? If Scott Brown thinks this is the way to preserve his Senate seat in the future, he is as despicable as all those lapdogs and rinos! I want my money back, Scottie!
Oldefarte| 2.25.10 @ 11:14AM
In consideration of Andrew's words [".... 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...."] and the fact that Massachusetts' voters elected Brown because, like many other states' voters, they are extremely angry over the budget/debt busting policies/budgets of this [on top of previous ones] administration, then WHY is he voting for 'billions' in governmental SHOVEL READY projects that WILL NOT eliminate private unemployment and/or reverse the declining economy??????????
Siegfried X| 2.25.10 @ 11:19AM
Just another RINO. One who wants more than anything in the world to be like John McCain.
Poor Richard| 2.25.10 @ 11:42AM
New Hampshire RINO tripe... "Go along to get along." BTDT. Doesn't work.
Radioman777| 2.25.10 @ 12:25PM
A lot of commentators here should take a lesson from football, a game I doubt many of them played or understand; and that lesson is: It's better to rush 3 yards and get a first down, than try a 20 yard pass into traffic just because the end zone happens to be there. The Scott Brown vote, although I'd prefer something different, is just that situation. Ideological purity is great in theory, but doesn't really hold up in practical application. Also, don't lose sight of the ultimate objective. It really doesn't matter whether we score a TD now or not, just that we're ahead when the 4th quarter ends.
swkobe| 2.25.10 @ 12:56PM
If what you meant by TD is Healthcare, your point is moot, provided Scott Brown was being honest during his campaign promising to be the 41st vote against Obama's plan. Do you really think that just that one reason got him elected in liberal Massachusetts. Are you kidding? The seat that the Kennedys had held for over 60 years? Just imagine the political machine and infrastructure that have been developed! People are angry all over the country (including Massachusettsof course) about the out of control govt, the out of control national debt, the precariousness of the state of the country regarding terrorisom and the currency...
C'mon, cut us conservatives some slack! We are intelligent and independent thinking people! We are not looking for ideological purity, because we are not ideological, period! People in Massachusetts who voted, and people outside of Massachusetts who contributed to his campaign want to stop the insanity of Washington spending money that we do not have (incidentally, Obama care will deal yet another hefty blow to this regard), get it?
Neo-libertarian| 2.25.10 @ 1:43PM
Truly the most ignorant analogy to appear on these pages in months. The three yards and first down was made by the blue team you dunce. What part of less taxes and smaller government did you miss?
Radioman777| 2.25.10 @ 9:42PM
Good job with that namecalling; makes you look like a Democrat, which you may well be. The whole point is that some of the posters here would rather starve to death if they didn't get a filet mignon.
tatosian| 2.25.10 @ 2:08PM
Over time, ideological purity has inspired the dems/progressives to achieve victory after victory.
The proof of that is self evident.
How come that ideological purity thing works so well for the left but just "doesn't really hold up in practical application" for us?
To use your football analogy- the progressives are committed to putting points on the board each time their hooves touch the ball.
If it really doesn't matter whether we score a TD now or not, how do you figure you'll be ahead when the 4th quarter ends?
Are you staking your victory on the hopes that your opponents, who move the ball by any means necessary, will screw up and give you the game?
Not very Vince Lombardi like is it?
victor| 2.25.10 @ 4:15PM
Not knowing football, but knowing Lombardi's philosophy, Winning is the only thing!
The Republicans were the Hammers today and Obama was the nail.
Radioman777| 2.25.10 @ 9:47PM
You miss the point. Take what you can get when you get it. If it's not all of what you want, work on it, but don't let minor setbacks, real or perceived, get in the way of your ultimate goal. The Dems are in a bad position today for exactly the reasons you cite - that is, move the ball by any means necessary. What they've done play dirty ball, got the crowd against them, and are facing wholesale ejection from the game.
Radioman777| 2.25.10 @ 9:48PM
Comment meant for tatosian, not Victor.
???| 2.25.10 @ 1:59PM
Anyone else here familiar with the concept and phenomenon of DENIAL?
This essay is pure sophistry and ss a glaring example of how blind most pundits to labels, and partisanship.
??? Typo| 2.25.10 @ 2:00PM
I wrote "ss" where I meant to write "is". Sorry.
Dave LeBlanc| 2.25.10 @ 2:04PM
This is what drives me nuts about government today. The rentless drive to do something, anything and pass a bill no matter how pointless or bad it is.
My objection to this bill is that is a bad bill. It was under the seeming need to pass something, bad as that might be. Stupidity does not make for good governance and it should be rejected for its badness. Even a Massachusetts Republican should recognize that.
Will this bill encourage unemployed people to be hired? No, it will not. If this was simply a bill to extend and fund unemployment benefits, that is one thing.
Northern Rebel| 2.25.10 @ 2:11PM
Voting with your "heart", and not your brain, is what liberals do.It's the intentions that are important, not the results.
This is not a "jobs" bill, it's stimulus II. Zero jobs will be created by this bill. "President" Anti-Christ will just add it to his slush fund, and dole it out to his union thugs.
Don't be naive, Stephanie.
Frank Natoli| 2.25.10 @ 2:24PM
Try as I might, I can't find anything in Cline's article about Brown the "fiscal conservative". Of course, "fiscal conservative" is first, foremost, and as proven by Brown's first vote not conservative on fiscal issues!
Of course, everyone, left, right and hasn't a clue knows that "fiscal conservative" is simply a sneer at "social conservative".
Funny thing is, "social conservatives" actually vote as conservatives on social issues! And, in a remarkable coincidence, they also vote as conservatives on fiscal issues!
Are there exceptions? Yes, of course. But as a very reliable rule, do not trust anyone who identifies him/herself only as a "fiscal conservative".
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 2.25.10 @ 2:51PM
Very well put Frank & THE very reason I did not get suckered into the insane drive by Republicans & "fiscal conservatives" to put Mr. Brown into office. He's not Ted Kennedy, but he obviously has no problem with signing onto bad spending bills & breaking his campaign promise to help stop out of control spending.
Roy| 2.25.10 @ 3:45PM
And as such a sneer, it also screams to me in blazing bright lights, "will cave in to the media".
I don't think that's what happened here though.
darcy| 2.25.10 @ 2:32PM
Stop the spending. Period.
Tax cuts only. With Reid happy, we're screwed; I can't believe S. Brown gave him the pleasure of his vote. Makes me nauseous.
At this point in our nation's debt history, the ONLY legislation coming out of D.C. should be for Spending Cuts and Tax Cuts.
The D.C. proclivity for growing government at the expense of private enterprise is becoming seriously toxic to our fiscal health; I'm long past the opinion that it is not by design as a means to permanently subjugate us. I only wish that S. Brown understood this.
Karcarius| 2.25.10 @ 3:03PM
What I don't understand is why vote for a $15 billion jobs(stimulus)bill when there is about $500 billion left in the first bill that hasn't been spent?And why didn't Brown ask that question?Sorry,you can have your opinion,but this smells fishy.
steve| 2.25.10 @ 4:43PM
I voted for Senator Brown
He could have voted any way he wanted on this bill if he campainged for more spending. He should not have lied saying wanted to stop the spending. I may not speak for anyone else but I am sick of all the lies.
We need less politics now more then ever before it is time to man or women up. Say what you mean and live that way. In his case he said he was going to cut spending. He can spin this all he wants and not man up but there is no money left to spend. Every dollar put back in the treasury and not spend will save all of us taxes. Fifteen billion dollars still works out to $43 dollars per person.
Just because you got a credit card with a 15 billion dollar limit dosn't mean he had to spend it. It could have been saved for a rainy day.
imsteph555| 2.25.10 @ 7:36PM
It wasn't just his vote that got the bill to the next phase...were there not 70+?
And like you said-but the time Pelosi and the rest of the nutters get done with it he will be able to vote no with a clear conscience....
BRILLIANT!
Give the man a beer, slap him on the back, and put him back to work:)
PCP Smoker| 2.25.10 @ 9:39PM
The vote is nothing to get excited about, but no reason for RINO-apologists to praise it either. The next argument we'll hear from them is how the "GOP cannot grow by excluding "New England, hard-nose FISCAL CONSERVATIVES"
Brown is a like a good looking hooker; as long as he votes the right way on socialist healthcare, cap and tax and trials for terrorists, we use him, jizz all over him, and send him walking
dougiex| 2.25.10 @ 9:57PM
I am so pleased the Redstate blog types did not do to Mass. what they did to NY23. Those jugheads are clueless when it comes to nuance, strategy. and tactics.
No, I wouldn't have voted for the bill, but it's not that big of a deal. I noticed that all these people, and we know who they are, who keep trying to dictate to others how to vote, will not themselves ever run for office. Jump in the fray if you have a problem with Brown's vote.
swkobe| 2.26.10 @ 10:39AM
Not everyone is designed to run for office and not running for office does not mean that we cannot criticize a politician. I do not and probably will never run for office, but I volunteer my time and contribute to campaigns. I just hope Scott Brown will stop sending me junk mail asking for donation again (and I really want my money back!)!
ncgma| 2.26.10 @ 7:45AM
Well said, good article!
Donna Pilitz| 2.26.10 @ 9:01AM
Smart move Mr Brown~ Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. How can any republican find out what the Dems are doing if they are shut out? Play a little, gain a lot. I was stunned and angry with Mr. Brown, at first, but he played a leverage move with the jobs bill. His choice, his vote. Now, Pray he doesn't sell his soul and listens to the legal American People for what is best for America and Defends the Constitution.
scythe| 2.26.10 @ 10:17AM
Brilliant and correct! Conservatives have got to approach this fight with a THREE DIMENSIONAL strategy. The remarks about Brown following his vote from the right were so idiotic. First and foremost he stopped healthcare. He has to represent his state and he does. He is not some left wing nut case but a moderate with common sense. We should be grateful for that. For all of you who moaned about his lack of "conservatism" just think: you could be dealing with Martha Coakley right now. Feel better?
Jim Darlington| 2.26.10 @ 10:20AM
Article appreciated.
Need occasional relief from classic mad dog republican symptoms, foaming at the mouth, stomach in knots, expoding blood pressure, gurgling traitor! traitor! traitor!
Ah! That was better than TUMS! Thanks!
swkobe| 2.26.10 @ 10:43AM
Judging from comments like Jim Darlington and the like, you know we picked the wrong guy!
MattZ| 2.26.10 @ 10:56AM
While I don't know if Scott Brown and shrewd really belong together in the same sentence, at least his vote made more sense than the disgusting hypocrites which voted against cloture but went ahead and voted for the bill anyway.
Reagan Democrat? That's currently more meaningless than the term "moderate Republican."
MZ
Web Smith | 2.26.10 @ 11:26AM
Voting for a bill as a political strategy? Voting for a bill to make a point? Brilliant? Government created jobs start off as a taxpayer liability. When the federal taxpayer money runs out, they become a state taxpayer liability, not to mention the taxes that the job holders pay on the tax money. State taxpayers then get to choose whether to let the jobs vanish along with any economic benefits that the economy might realize or maintain the jobs at which point they become a state taxpayer funded entitlement program. No responsible representative would further encumber his state at this time.
The government cannot create jobs. Real jobs are created when constituents buy products and services creating demand and in turn demand for additional employees to create the products are services. Constituents have to have their money to create real jobs in the free market.
The question is not how can the government create jobs. The question is, how can the government encourage the free market to create jobs? The answer is simple; less taxes, less spending, and less regulation.
This was a bad vote. It was a stupid vote. It was a short sighted vote.
Al| 2.26.10 @ 11:40AM
I thought Scott Brown's vote might, actually, provoke discussion. Discussion is something Obama does not want. Discussion is like picking up the rocks to see what scurries out. The summit was a pre-sold Obama sales pitch that went awry. He should have stayed away. Maybe Brown would not have gotten so many Mass. votes if Obama had stayed home.
Medina, Fl.| 2.26.10 @ 11:50AM
Hello! I feel your pain too, but give Scott another chance and see if he will do better next time. May be he is reading all the post and learned from them! Have a great day, don't let this spoil it, is not worth it. God is in control, not this administration and Satan and his
emissaries have the power you give them by opening the door, so they can come in.
swkobe| 2.26.10 @ 12:01PM
Does giving him another chance mean giving him money another time? Haaaaaaa..........
Jack Kinch(1uncle)| 2.26.10 @ 2:04PM
When he was elected, I said it was not a vote for him as much as a vote against No Lie Nobama and his health care bill. He represents Mass, a left state. This lessens his chance at the presidency.
Samantha| 2.26.10 @ 2:34PM
Congratulations to you sir! Someone who finally gets it. Gotta love you and Senator Brown. Thanks for the wonderful article.
John| 2.26.10 @ 4:48PM
A bad bill, but meaningless. Don't the feds spend $15B every 20-40 hours or so? Frankly, whether this money 100% tax cuts (good) or gets wired directly into ACORN's bank account (bad), compared to the trillions already spent, we won't even notice it.
If Brown can use this vote to keep in place when, well, trillions are on the line, then do the math. This was money well spent, er, wasted.
Ben| 2.26.10 @ 6:38PM
What Einstein did is brilliant.
FanDaElis| 2.26.10 @ 9:27PM
The issue here is that the help for getting some people back to work is minimum and because those incentives are temporary, they do not guarantee anyone a permanent job. In addition to that, as little as people may think of $15B, it is adding to the deficit and Brown claimed to be a fiscal conservative.
Tenn Slim| 2.28.10 @ 9:28AM
Opine
IAW the Common Sense Rules for Re Election, this quote applies. "Thank goodness for moderate Democrats who represented the people back home instead of the party bosses on those votes. "
Key is the Mass Senator REPRESENTED THE PEOPLE BACK HOME, not the Party Bosses, either Left or Right.
bt
The 2010 November election will see a host of such as these. We Will Prevail.
Semper Fi
end
John lloyd Scharf| 2.28.10 @ 11:19AM
A tax cut is a tax CUT. If an employer cuts 10% from his labor costs, then he can employ 11 employees instead of 10. It sounds like a very Republican thinking process to me.
LS| 3.1.10 @ 2:22AM
Excellent analysis!
Pingback| 3.3.10 @ 5:14PM
Brown pushes amendment for payroll tax cuts | WPRI.com | Tax Finance Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.11.10 @ 12:08PM
Hackers Infiltrate House Web Sites With Anti-Obama Attacks | RepublicanDaily.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.13.10 @ 5:28AM
The Brown Betrayal That Wasn’t | FrumForum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fiance visa| 10.18.11 @ 11:27AM
Agreed with first commentator. I mean some places even go to the length of starting with 5 empty spaces + code just to make it understandable for anyone wanting to see how the code works. Commenting is very very appreciated.
actos lawsuit
ghdmanufactoryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 3:45AM
dsfgf
sunglass | 4.4.10 @ 3:48AM
hfghj
paulsmithoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 3:59AM
hgh
burberryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 4:01AM
ftuy
Louis Vttion handbags | 12.9.10 @ 2:17AM
OhBummer's Healthcare Hijacking is nothing more than an atrocious act of vandalism, in the wake of which he struts around like the cxck-o-the-walk, arrogantly crowing that he has gotten away with this crime. He challenges those who would repeal this mess, daring them to lose votes in that enterprise, but one must remember that those who favor the Healthcare Hijacking would have voted for OhBummer and the OhBummer Wrecking Crew in any case. Perhaps OhBummer had better find a country with which we do not have an extradition treaty and start transferring his millions of dollars there now, as insurance against justice.
yanyan | 10.11.11 @ 5:36PM
I love your site, you give so many great tips especially since I use word press and the plug-in section of your blog is great. some of the tips i get here I can’t find anywhere else. Thankszoloft lawsuits
balcuizar62| 10.13.11 @ 2:28AM
I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement the concept. Thank you for the post.
yaz class action
L Tod Schlosser | 11.5.11 @ 10:34AM
this page is walk-through for all the information...
ruth| 10.17.11 @ 11:47AM
Now I am playing with inserting Adsense in diff. positions.
You can see my blog
silver spot price
ruth| 10.17.11 @ 2:51PM
your blog is amazing and the topic is awesome and great very educational thats what i like it..can you share for more topic?thanks
mesothelioma lawsuit
fiance visa| 10.18.11 @ 3:10AM
Great post! Thanks This really is just remarkable,i appreciate your blog site and bookmarked it.
fiance visa
creamer| 10.19.11 @ 11:36PM
Vous avez très certainement fait ce blog en quelque chose d'oeil thats ouverture et important.
Actos Lawyers
abominable putridity| 11.5.11 @ 10:49AM
This was a really wonderful article. Thank you for your provided information.
i visit here and now i read the topic
L Tod Schlosser
HAPPY| 11.8.11 @ 8:12PM
. Im glad to see that people are actually writing about this issue in such a smart way, showing us all different sides to it.
filipina women
hey| 11.13.11 @ 8:33PM
Hi! These are one of the few posts that I actually care to comment on. I find this blogger an inspiration and is definitely worth following.
paxil lawsuit
bogol| 11.16.11 @ 2:22PM
This is a really good read for me. Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I have ever read. Thanks for posting this informative article
Actos Lawyers
bogol| 11.30.11 @ 2:50PM
We are a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your website offered us with valuable info to work on. You have done an impressive job and our entire community will be thankful to you
Propecia Lawyer
bogol| 12.1.11 @ 11:49AM
Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts.Any way Ill be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon..
mesothelioma attorney
inah0911| 12.5.11 @ 3:42PM
Thanks for this read mate. Well, this is my first visit to your blog! But I admire the precious time and effort you put into it, especially into interesting articles you share here!
san diego personal injury lawyer
inah0911| 12.6.11 @ 11:48AM
Greetings! Now i'm extremely happy to check this original page! Your website seemed to be exceedingly incomparable as well as a must read!
san diego bankruptcy attorney
IMYI| 12.15.11 @ 10:35PM
Thank you for some other magnificent article. Where else may anyone get that kind of info in such an ideal means of writing? I've a presentation next week, and I am at the look for such information.
Medtronic Infuse Lawsuit