Left In Lowell

Good On Sen. Brown

14 Responses to “Good On Sen. Brown”

1. Jack Mitchell Says:
   July 14th, 2010 at 4:09 pm

   I appreciate him helping those of us who actually drive pickups. But let’s not forget, Scott Brown is the 41st vote against the Employee Free Choice Act.

2. Michael Luciano Says:
   July 14th, 2010 at 4:42 pm

   Yeah but not before he was able to stick us with the $19 billion implementation fee. It could’ve been paid for by a tax on banks with assets totaling over $50 billion, but Brown said it COULD be passed on to the consumer, so it’s out. Now it will CERTAINLY be passed on to the taxpayers.

3. joe from Lowell Says:
   July 14th, 2010 at 6:13 pm

   Scott Brown is cutting deals for his big Massachusetts donors and supporters, like State Street Bank.

   He traded his vote in support of the bill, and he got a good deal out of Harry Reid - a good deal for the business interests who are his constituents.

   While the Republicans are still pushing their Party of No/Waterloo Strategy, he’s off making a separate peace, for his own interests. He realizes that he owes the national Republicans absolutely nothing. He climbed out of a 60-point hole by himself, and they swooped in at the last minute to ride on his parade float. They owe him. They have nothing on him, that they can’t threaten him with anything, and that they can’t really help him in any way, so he has absolutely no interest in being one of Mitch McConnell’s foot soldiers.

4. Lynne Says:
   July 14th, 2010 at 10:28 pm

   Well, like I said (and those things you all mention are in the BMG post), I certainly 100% want him replaced. But he’s a Republican, so obviously he’s going to use his leverage to water down legislation. But largely, this legislation is going through rather intact for the situation, so I commend him for playing ball, instead of taking it and going home. Ya know?

5. nextyearishere Says:
   July 15th, 2010 at 3:56 pm

   Well, financial reform passed the Senate 60-39.

   And, BP announced oil spill has been fully capped.

6. Ken Pittman Says:
   July 16th, 2010 at 12:35 am

   So in other words, even if he is doing the right things and bettering the nation, you will vote for your ideology first. Interesting.

7. Mr. Lynne Says:
   July 16th, 2010 at 6:47 am

   Ken, what makes you think he’s “doing the right things“? He’s not exactly batting a thousand toward a progressive agenda,… and why should anyone expect him to. Just because he almost did 80% of a right thing here (he shouldn’t have held the bill hostage) doesn’t mean his record overall is good enough for my vote. It’s about policy and for a progressive wonk, policy is ideology.

8. Lynne Says:
   July 16th, 2010 at 10:40 am

   Um…one vote doesn’t mean he’s good for anything long term. He’s a Republican. His sort of policies GOT us in this mess. So, sorry, no.

   And yes, even on this vote that I give him props for, he still managed to mess it up a bit.

   I give the opposition some kudos, I’m an asshole. I don’t give the opposition the kudos, I’m an asshole. You know what? I don’t care what you think either way.

9. JC Says:
   July 16th, 2010 at 8:48 pm

   Brown cannot posture himself as a conservative republican and expect to keep this seat when his remaining term expires - not in this state. He must run in the middle. He can’t be too progressive, nor can he be too conservative. He has disappointed many in both those camps. His problem is gathering loyalty from independents and non-ideological D’s and R’s. What is interesting is how he has managed so far to keep his vote on the cutting edge of importance. He has been the 60th vote and he has been the 41st vote. I find it fascinating to watch him walk the tightrope. How long can he keep his equilibrium?

   He does not like Kathy Griffin! Jeez, perhaps he has good judgment after all.

   Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/scott-brown-kathy-griffin_n_648903.html

10. Lynne Says:
    July 19th, 2010 at 10:18 am

    But the thing is, there aren’t that many non-ideological indy’s. Studies show they lean one way or the other.

    And if Scott Brown wants to keep his daughters off the radar, maybe he shouldn’t have been pimping them election night? Just sayin’. He opened himself up to it, in a pretty remarkable way.

    Also, she’s an effing comedienne. Get over it. Griffin is funny, and she goes out of her way to be controversial. All he’s doing is getting her more publicity with his protest.

11. JC Says:
    July 20th, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Yes, Lynne, Griffin certainly is what she is, does what she does…and Brown is a father who reacted to her high comedic reference (that his daughters are prostitutes) just the way any father would and should react.

    “Pimp” and “pimping” are really highly charged words when used in connection with a father and his daughter, even if that father is a U.S. Senator. I’m surprised you feel no qualms about stating: “maybe he shouldn’t have been pimping them election night”. Pimping them? Really? Now I know you are a rational person and can’t mean that statement literally. Still, what makes the reference acceptable in your eyes? Because Brown is a senator? Because Brown is a Republican? Because he kidded about a daughter being “available” on election night?

    Or, are you just kidding too; just like Brown, just like Kathy Griffin?

12. Lynne Says:
    July 20th, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    He tried to get her a date, in a highly embarrassing (for her, and for him really) VERY public speech, ergo ‘pimping,’ yes. Used in the context everyone uses it for when not talking about prostitutes - it’s a word used ALL THE TIME. But the speech was widely mocked at the time, and those very terms were quite used at the time. Thanks very much but I don’t take credit for its use in this context.

    He has only himself to blame really.

    It’s called humor. Mocking, exaggeration, and using the candidate’s own embarrassing victory speech against him are all fair game.

13. Lynne Says:
    July 20th, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    (In other words, Scott Brown, get yourself a waaaaaahmbulance.)

    Also, I wonder where all these conservative defenders of the Brown daughters’ virtue were when still-a-child, **12** year old Chelsea Clinton was being mocked, called ugly, and various other things? Brown’s daughters are adults. They can damn well take care of themselves without daddy’s outrage to protect them from the big, bad world.

14. JC Says:
    July 20th, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    Do you really see EVERYTHING through partisan eyes, Lynne? Are there no moral absolutes? No bright line?

    Is there a conditional morality test that gets applied - all depending on who we are talking about? You know - OK to cause pain to a family if the dad doesn’t agree with your political belief system but otherwise - absolutely reprehensible?

    The Chelsea Clinton remarks were wrong then, wrong now, wrong forever. You don’t have to be conservative, liberal, or otherwise to come to that conclusion, just moral; ditto with the Brown daughters; ditto with the King George Bush II daughters; ditto with all our daughters.

    Some things are wrong, always will be, and can not be made right through self-deceptive tricks like rationalization or political expediency.

Leave a Reply