Scott Brown was in and out of the Senate chamber and had voted against his party before most of his colleagues had even arrived.
“It’s a small step, but it’s still a step,” Brown told reporters after casting a procedural vote in favor of the Democratic jobs bill, bucking his party leaders and the strategy of opposition they have carried out since President Obama took office.
Unlike Republicans I never had high hopes for Scott Brown – I never chanted #41! I am however enjoying this… immensely.
Teabaggers everywhere are crying, because they are against jobs.
There were polls right after Brown won in MA that were overwhelmingly clear that MA voters wanted him to help get stuff done, not just vote his party line. Gotta say tho that if I had to bet on what Brown would do, I would have bet that he was going to just vote with his party straight down the line — ensuring that he wouldn’t hold that seat for long.
But I’ll be delighted to be wrong about the guy if he turns out to be there to do the business the people of MA sent him to do.
Also thanks to Voinovich, Bond, Snowe and Collins for voting for this.
they are all traitors to their country.
We live in a weird time when we’re thankful a few Republican senators decided to let a bill come to a vote.
Mike Castle notes that he would not have voted as Brown did.
http://www.castle.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=17230
The link is already not working for Jason’s link above; looks like they pulled it down. You didn’t happen to grab a copy of that did you? Anybody still have it open in their browser?
I think the link was always a fake. It is a stylistic thing.
HAH HAH HAH HAH! Brown’s gotta face those MA liberal voters again in a couple of years. The Maine contingent in the Senate just got a new member.
Brown has to face the voters of MA again in 2012, so he can’t really afford to play any games. I just wonder if he thinks this one vote will give him bipartisan cred.
This dkos diary rounds up some of the reaction from the right to Brown’s vote.
My opinion is that the two party system works best,and is best for the country, when there is a stalemate,and nothing gets passed.
It adds stability to the marketplace,and gets rid of uncertainty when congress is unable to screw it up.(look how well the market performed during the Clinton days when nothing got done,with Monica Lewinski being the exception.)
FBH,
You could certainly make an argument for your viewpoint. Except, after 30 years of nothing being done to rein in the bad guys, we’re looking at becoming a third-world nation. The Republican Banana Republic, with an assist from the DLC.
My opinion is that the two party system works best,and is best for the country, when there is a stalemate,and nothing gets passed.
It adds stability to the marketplace,and gets rid of uncertainty when congress is unable to screw it up.
Agreed. Except that the divison should be Dems in the WH and Senate, and Repubs in Congress. That way Repubs can serve as the fiscal conscience, but none of their other crap.
That way we get decent nominees, and vetos of any wacky social legislation or irresponsible tax cuts. And the House won’t originate any tax increases, which is good as long as taxes aren’t too low (like they are now).
The split worked well during the 1990s because Clinton got the tax increases in before 1994.
Typical New England republican,nothing new here.
what does that even mean, FBH? really dawg, you and romeo….. it’s like you arent even trying to make sense. you’re just saying crap and hoping it passes as valid discussion.
a.price , it means we don’t need useless redundant legislation.
Makes sense to me. Sorry if it doesn’t for you.