Breaking with your party is one way to do it. Another is to look at how they are rated by partisan groups. Most of the time Brown falls in the 40-60 range of left and right groups, that means he is a middle of the road moderate. The Republicans who have done it the most all come from New England. Brown has voted with his party like 73% of the time while John Kerry, the other Mass senator, has voted with his party like 97% of the time. In age when people blabber about civility and bipartisanship like it's greatest thing ever this, you would think, should count for something. When people call him an extremist or a right-winger it's really hard to take them seriously. Brown could vote with Dems 100% of the time but liberal activists would still cry about him being out of touch simply because he has an R next to his name.
People who blabber about bipartisanship are either naive, paying lip service to low involvement voters or stupid. We should ignore them whey they blabber so. The thing is, when the Republicans have embraced extremism (or at least, extreme not-do-anything-ism), you're basically grading every Republican on a curve. What's considered "moderate" in 2012 is probably still to the far by, say, 1982 standards. These grades are helpful if you assume that the two parties hold congruent positions on either side of the political spectrum, but that would be a pretty silly assumption.
Yes, we Democrats are evil and stupid. I say with 100% confidence that if Brown voted with the Dems 100% of the time, it would be CONSERVATIVE activists who would be losing their shit, and they'd have every right to do so.
You understand that the demographics of the Northeast explain why Brown only voted party line 73% and Kerry 97%, right? I should hope so, you frickin live here. Of course Brown is a pretty standard moderate New England Republican. Do you think MA would elect a far right religious nut? Brown's problem, electorally, is that he is one of the biggest water carriers in the Senate for Wall Street, which is why the populist, consumer advocate candidate Warren sets up such a tough fight for him.
Which is why I can't muster much vitriol for him. Sure Warren would be better, and sure Brown has no choice but to be reasonable in that he's in Massachusetts ... but still, he's reasonable.
Except in his refusal to consider any regulations on an industry that nearly brought the country to its knees, then when they got bailed out, fought any regulation to prevent them from doing it all over again. But then again, that's kinda become a moderate position in politics these days.
Sounds mainstream to me; that Elizabeth Warren isn't owned by the banks makes her the outlier, and well as the objective of contempt from Tea Partiers who profess to despise Wall Street.
One of our local judge candidates is trying that too, but this being Chicago, we are deeply skeptical.
So the unions aren't donating to her campaign? She's running a "money-free" campaign? I'm voting for Brown. I'd even volunteer, but I have a little problem. A lot of my time is spent working.
If only these two had... you know... a record. Something by which we could objectively compare them with regards to who's best interests they generally support. Hmm... BTW, I'm voting for Warren. I'd even volunteer, but I have a little problem. A lot of my time is spent working. And raising a 2 month old. And buying a house.
I'm wondering if Romney's campaign infrastructure in MA is going to be able to pull Brown and Brown's voters with him. Part of me says "why whould Romney even bother to try and win MA" but I'm sure he'll want to make Obama play a LITTLE defense here.
I haven't followed his voting record exhaustively, but my recollection is he voted against his party only when it wasn't critical to the outcome and Mitch McConnell let him off the leash to do so. Otherwise he toed the line like all the rest of them. Moderate my ass.
I don't see Scott Brown as being all that conservative. But then again, when you wear the Republican mantle, you get dragged into voting as Republicans do. A number of Republicans run as alleged moderate/freethinkers -- including the guy in my Congressional district -- but push come to shove, they mostly vote the party line.
Yep - Scott Brown's personal positions are pretty much irrelevant when Mitch McConnell can count on his vote whenever it's close. Pretty sad that this guy is occupying Ted Kennedy's seat. Isn't Romney going to pretty much get crushed in Massachusetts though? Are people in Mass really likely to vote for Obama and Brown?
Brown probably only needs 10% or so above Romney. So assuming he gets all the Romney voters (pretty safe bet), he'll need to steal about 20% of Obama voters. It should be pretty close.
That's my question...how well can Romney do in MA and will it help Brown. I say it helps him a bit. This race will come down to a few thousand votes.
The last Rasmussen poll had Obama 51 % and Romney 40 % (Again it is Rasmussen). Obama beat Mc Cain 62 to 36 in 2008 in MA. We should expect perhaps a 58 to 40 for POTUS in November. That will be a major hurdle for Brown there. he will need at least 20 % of cross voting to have a chance.
Facebook update from Elizabeth Warren: Tough to argue with that. The Buffet Rule was wildly popular, but Scott Brown toed the GOP line.
With Obama looking more and more likely to go the economic populist route this election, I think Brown is in serious, serious trouble. Warren by herself was formidible, but the entire ticket running on her bread and butter issue...?
Push come to shove, defending millionaires is the most important task for a Republican lawmaker. Moderate, mainstream, conservative, Tea Party, radical ... they all come together for that item. It's the single #1 mission.
I don't understand why McConnell didn't let Brown vote for this though. Looks like they had enough votes for the fillibuster, so why not let Brown vote for it? Or did he choose to vote against it himself? Not that he isn't against the Buffet rule in the first place. Just that the vote doesn't really make sense considering whom he is facing.