Scott Brown was the key to Republican Obstruction Strategy to make Obama a one-term President


On September 7, Republican Scott Brown commented on the new jobs report and claimed he "will be a fighter for jobs." But his record as US Senator says otherwise, which makes me wonder, how does Scott Brown fit into the Republican strategy of obstruction and will the press hold him accountable?

As point of context, we know Republican strategy since January 2010 is to use obstruction to cause President Obama to fail, even if that failure comes at a great cost to the American people. Scott's election in January 2010 made him the 41st Republican in the US Senate, the precise number of votes Republicans needed to block "Up-or-Down votes" as known as "filibuster" legislation. At the time, Republican Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell dubbed Scott Brown "41". Clearly he saw the political significance of Scott's triumph as he proudly announced that his and Republicans' #1 goal is to make President Obama a one term president. Scott's election enabled this partisan obstruction, as long as Scott brown played along.

To recap, obstruction was the centerpiece of Republican strategy since the day Scott Brown was elected, and it would work so long as Republican Scott Brown played along. Republicans #1 goal was to make Obama a one-term president, not economic recovery.

When Scott Brown joined Republicans to filibuster legislation for partisan obstruction purposes, he clearly was not acting as a moderate independent Republican, which is how he is representing himself on the campaign trail.

I hope the press conducts a thorough analysis of Scott Brown's voting record to consider votes on which he acted in unison with the Republican party to filibuster, for the purpose of harming political opponents, at the expense of creating jobs that help in economic recovery.

Note also that the financial crisis which caused the great recession was avoidable, and that it was caused by Wall Street and not the 8.5 million Americans who lost their jobs, including many who live right here in Massachusetts.

On June 15, Mathew Helman, a native of Framingham and communications director of ProgressMass wrote about Scott Brown's record in the US Senate on jobs in an article called "Scott Brown is No Job Crusader", which was published on GoLocalWorcester. Here are some of the relevant excerpts:

...Brown's record includes votes against the American Jobs Act of 2011 (S. 1660, Senate Vote #160, 10/11/11), the Rebuild America Jobs Act (S. 1769, Senate Vote 195, 11/3/11), and the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011 (S.1723, Senate Vote 177, 10/20/11). These three bills amounted to an estimated 33,000 jobs at stake for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Brown voted against them all.

It’s further expected from Brown given his partisan voting record in the U.S. Senate, putting obstruction and gridlock ahead of problem-solving and getting things done. A study of Brown’s actual votes in key situations shows that, over 75% of the time, Brown sides with his right-wing Republican colleagues instead of working toward bipartisan compromise.

We saw this play out in the recent debate over the student loan interest rate. The interest rate is set to double in July from 3.4% to 6.8%, making a college education more expensive for students and families. The U.S. Senate voted on a bill to keep the rate at 3.4%, and the bill had majority support. Unfortunately, right-wing Republicans filibustered the bill, forcing the bill to require 60 votes, rather than 50 votes, for passage. The bill fell short of the 60-vote threshold, with Brown siding with his right-wing colleagues and effectively voting to double the student loan interest rate.

Republican Scott Brown’s real record in the U.S. Senate includes slashing summer jobs for teens, voting against over 33,000 jobs for Massachusetts, and voting to double the student loan interest rate. His real record also includes prioritizing partisan gridlock over bipartisan problem-solving. No election-year gimmicks can Etch-A-Sketch that record away.

If Brown ever holds a public town hall forum, voters might have the chance to ask him about these important issues. Unfortunately, since his election to the U.S. Senate, Brown has refused to hold public town hall forums, perhaps to avoid criticism of his partisan record. The “People’s Senator” shamefully refuses to meet with “We the People.”

Mathew Helman currently serves as Communications Director of ProgressMass. Mathew, a proud product of the Framingham public schools, has spent the last ten years working in Massachusetts government and politics.




Free tagging: 


Republican Scott Brown put party ahead of economic recovery

By on

If Republican Scott Brown put partisan goals ahead of the best interest of Massachusetts citizens, during the biggest recession since the great depression, he should NEVER be re-elected. We should shun him and his beloved truck back to Wrentham.

I never trusted the guy

By on

I never trusted the guy and you're right the press has given him a pass.

It's surprising that even as the Republican strategy of obstruction was reported as a result of excellent investigative journalism, the Boston press fails to put 1 + 1 together:

Scott is the 41st vote, the key to the Republican stratify of obstruction!

If Scott Brown is the key to Republican obstruction -- the purpose of which is to cause Obama to fail -- then Scott Brown's opposition to bills that help economic recovery are suspect as compliant with Republican strategy. Not for nothing, but his votes are also in opposition to the best interest of the people of Massachusetts.

Here Wall Street causes devastating economic hardship, an avoidable calamity, while Scott Brown waters down regulations put in place to diminish the potential of future meltdowns, and he also votes against jobs bills to help the innocent people who were harmed by Wall Street's malfeasance.


By on

you forgot to sign in when replying to yourself!

While I agree with his sentiments

By on

But this sort of trolling and sockpuppeting is not only annoying, but shouldn't be tolerated in our community here. Plus it just hurts your argument, as it becomes a distraction. Have some integrity, right?

You want attention, start your own blog, or link back to this piece elsewhere trying to get ppl to come here and join up and talk.

Internet carpetbagging is poor form.

Menino seen as leaning Warren's way

By on


Menino pointed to Brown not voting to extend unemployment benefits. “I mean, let’s get real about this, guys. You know, he’s a nice guy, but I mean, you’ve got to be with people, the working people of Massachusetts. That’s what I think about all the time. The people I represent, what do they need? When they’re unemployed, they need unemployment benefits. They need health care. All those issues. I mean, he’s a nice guy but I need a consistency,” the mayor said.

Voters will punish Scott Brown for obstructionist filibusters

By on

Scott Brown's participation in Republican obstruction was essential to the Republican strategy to make Obama a one term president, which we know is their #1 goal. Scott Brown is the 41st Republican in the US Senate, which is how many votes this strategy requires.

If voters learn about Scott Brown's participation in partisan politics to make Obama a one-term president, instead of pursuing economic recovery for Massachusetts, he will lose.

Here's a headline from the Washington Post: Independents and moderates agree: GOP deliberately sabotaging Obama’s jobs policies. Go read it.

Brown will not be punished

By on

I'm an hard-core Democrat that thinks Brown has been an obstructionist that should not be re-elected by the Mass electorate.

However, I don't think most "independent" voters (read:people who are uninformed about politics) can see past the "I drive a truck and wear barn coats - I'm just like you!" Scott Brown.

Brown has the perception of being "bi-partisan". Even though the facts demonstrate this to be false, it doesn't matter. It only matters that people perceive him to be moderate and bi-partisan.

The race is tight and if Warren wins, it will be by a razor-thin margin.

I don't see

By on

Where SB gets the 650,000 more votes than in 2010, that Kerry received in 2008. The fundamentals just don't work IMO. Especially with increasing Dem excitement for Nov.

As much as I didn't like her, are we really arguing Coakley would have lost in an election with Obama's coattails like 2008? How does SB convince 650K voters to stay home, or switch sides?

I mean... Kerry voters! How?

Unless Warren makes some major gaffes in the debates, Scotts still in a uphill climb here. I really think the campaign polling is both politically misleading, and the local polling is being done to show a horse race, as it's better for ratings.

Brown up 6 points

By on

Why is Brown up 6 points in two recent polls?

I would like to believe what you say is true, but just as it is dangerous for Obama supporters to think that he has the presidency in the bag, it is very dangerous for Warren supporters to think she is going to cruise to victory.


By on

PPP poll recently showed 6, but I'm a bit weary as it was the first time they polled the race. Their methodology or LV count must be seriously off.

Again, I have a hard time finding 650K voters staying home, or voting for both Kerry AND Brown. The numbers with past elections just don't add up.

For example, "He's for us."

By on

Most people can't understand this because they won't spend the time. Give them a three or five word slogan that fits on a bumper sticker and Oh Yeah, they'll go for that. For example, "He's for us."

Brown up 1

New poll puts Brown up 1 in a poll he was leading by 6 in June.

Not that impressive

Scotto tried to move the Red Sox to Foxborough. What a HUGE mistake that would have been.

On Fox25 and in all sincerity, Scott said he saw photos of a dead Bin Laden, as if he were a big shot, when in fact he was punked by a fraud photo circulating on the Internet. God, I hope he's not on the Intelligence Committee.

He often claimed he meets with Kings and Queens, as if he was more important than he is ... which is already pretty important (so why does he do it?) and then dropped that from his repertoire when he was called on it.

He voted for cutting taxes for the wealthiest 1 percent after expressing great concern about the national debt. It just doesn't make sense.

He refused to extend unemployment benefits for out of work Americans during the biggest recession since the Great Depression. 8.5 million Americans lost their jobs through no fault of their own. There was 1 job opening for every 6 people who were unemployed. Again, Scott Brown's vote doesn't make sense. Unemployment benefits are earned by premiums paid by employers.

Scott voted to double student loan interest rates.

Scott failed to support equal pay for equal work. Women earn about $.72 on the $1 dollar. It adds up over a lifetime.

Scott Brown is out of step with the working people of Massachusetts.

if Scott Brown hadn't thrown in with Republican obstruction

By on

I never realized that one Senator's vote could change the course of legislation in a senate divided 59-41, with Scott Brown being the 41.

Think of all those economic recovery bills that would have passed if Scott Brown hadn't thrown in with Republican obstruction.