Once again, a national disconnect over Scott Brown

True confession: I grew up in your basic liberal New York Democratic household (I can hear you going: Noooo!). So when I went down to New York for a funeral a couple weeks back, family members kept asking me, basically, what the hell happened in Massachusetts (well, to be clear, not at the funeral).

Now local Republicans are getting a taste of that: Garrett Quinn rounds up local Republican reaction to the outrage from true believers westa Wuhstuh:

... Throughout his Obama-esque campaign Brown didn't project himself as anything other than "a man of the people" and instead created a screen for people to project on. He became this blank canvas for Massachusetts voters where they could paint their frustrations with Washington and Beacon Hill. The general consensus among local GOP activists I talked with during the campaign was that if he ran as a strong conservative he would not have won. One local blogger had harsh words for those who did not understand this fact of Massachusetts politics. ...

Conor Yunits provides a taste of what some non-Mass. Republicans are saying about Brown today.

Comments

Garrett Quinn

wants Scott Brown to be re-elected in 2010, instead of a Democratic or Independent candidate.

Re-elected in 2010 for what?

Re-elected in 2010 for what? The next election for that Senate seat is in 2012.

Teabagger-in-chief

no, i meant 2012 as you surmised.

2012

Thanks for telling me who I am endorsing in 2012!

Who are the front runners at this point on the Democratic side?

He also said that he was going to vote his conscience

Rather than the straight party line.

Why is this a problem for anybody?

And not for nothing, but it's time for Harry Reid to find a nice Nevada dogtrack to spend his
days at...with his name pinned to his cardigan sweater.

Not a problem for me.

Although I was originally worried, as he was touting the party line to his base, while being quite an enigma for most of his campaign, it's nice to see he might be serious to work in a bipartisan manner, which means working with the majority to get good [or the best possible] legislation passed. Something the GOP doesn't seem to understand [or rather ignores for calculated political gain].

Anyways, the comments at RMG says it all. Amusingly telling about what the crazy GOP wants, which is for lockstep opposition until their team can take over. Governance is a big game to them, and it's showing more and more every day.

So then you'd be in favor of

So then you'd be in favor of your Democrat Congressman helping a Republican majority restrict abortion? Cut taxes on high-income workers? Cut spending on social welfare programs? Eliminate gun control laws?

Bipartisanship - it's for everyone!

No, but I'd expect them to

No, but I'd expect them to work to reduce abortion, cut taxes where it makes sense (but not blindly feed the “cut taxes and spend on what WE want to” mantra of the GOP), cut programs that have proven to be a waste of money that don't work, and get rid of stupid gun control laws that don't work while instituting checks to make sure that responsible people are practicing their second amendment rights as adults.

The GOP got much of what they wanted done 00-08 because the Dems had a sense of civic duty and worked to find compromises that they could stomach. Only a few of their priorities were not met, mostly because they were obvious cash grabs for their crownies. Imagine if SS had been privatized but the time the market collapsed into a abyss?

Currently as it stands 290 bills have been passed by the House this Congress but are stalled in the Senate due to the filibuster. That’s a gross abuse.

Bipartisanship isn’t the GOP way or the highway (increasingly it isn’t even the GOP way, because they consider that a zero sum game, Dems get something done = we lose).

They’re deeply unserious about our country and governance to the point it’s sickening. And these people have the audacity to call themselves patriots. They’re only concern is power and its becoming increasingly obvious to my generation.

And There You Go

You probably heard that the Senate just passed the jobs bill, which is big news. But the news you may not hear in the rest of the press is the vote margin and the backstory behind it. The bill passed 70 - 28. The 'vote' to allow a vote on the bill only passed on a 62 to 30 vote margin. In other words, a bunch of people who voted against allowing a vote at all then turned around and voted for the legislation. It shows you a lot of the cowardice, buck-passing and general nonsense behind the current use of the filibuster. By any logic, the numbers should go the other way: the number of people who are willing to allow a vote should if anything be greater than the number who are willing to vote for the legislation on its merits.

Meet the Hypocrite Half-Dozen

Now we've got more details. It turns out there were six Republican senators who voted against allowing a vote on the jobs bill on Monday and for the bill itself this morning. (Two others didn't vote on Monday and voted yes today -- which is pretty much the same difference.)

Red Mass Group, that's nothing!

Go over to Free Republic, they're really bringing both the crazy and the poorly spelled crazy over there!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.