Scott Brown Already Pissing Off The Right

[Skjellyfetti]

Being independent of one's party is good. Voting for a bad bill is bad. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because it's fucking contradictory to your statement praising Brown?

this bill is a bunch of nothing really. It sounds good to have passed a "jobs bill" but at the end of the day it does next to nothing in terms of creating jobs.

As for Brown voting for it, good for him - Congress needs more independent minds like him.

Why is it so hard to understand that you sound like you are trying desperately to figure out a way to praise Brown for voting for a BAD BILL... just pointing out that it comes off as retarded. Just an fyi.

I wouldn't want the self-proclaimed ( ) "AGS Voice of Reason" and "Non-partisan hack" to come across as unreasoned or as a partisan hack.

[UNI88]

Being independent of one's party is good. Voting for a bad bill is bad. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because it's **** contradictory to your statement praising Brown?

this bill is a bunch of nothing really. It sounds good to have passed a "jobs bill" but at the end of the day it does next to nothing in terms of creating jobs.

As for Brown voting for it, good for him - Congress needs more independent minds like him.

Why is it so hard to understand that you sound like you are trying desperately to figure out a way to praise Brown for voting for a BAD BILL... just pointing out that it comes off as retarded. Just an fyi.

I wouldn't want the self-proclaimed ( ) "AGS Voice of Reason" and "Non-partisan hack" to come across as unreasoned or as a partisan hack.

I understand and agree w/ GF on this one. The isn't a good bill and I would prefer that it not pass but in the grand scheme of government spending it is relatively meaningless so Brown's vote for it doesn't do a lot of damage. Now Brown bucking the party line is a good thing for a number of reasons. It sends a message to the party leaders that he isn't going to just toe the line. Representatives should vote based on what they think is best for the country and best for their constituents not what their leaders tell them they should vote for. Hopefully it encourages other centrist Republicans and Democrats to do the same. The potential good that can come from Brown voting for a harmless bad bill greatly outweigh the damage that the bill itself will likely incur.

[Skjellyfetti]

Alright, that's fine. I can live with that. Just as long as y'all are fine with being on record as supporting a guy for voting for a bill that y'all both think is bad.

Independent thought is certainly a positive thing in politics... but, that should be true independence and come with a set of beliefs... not just "oooo, if i vote for this bill... I'll position myself as an independent centrist"... this will help my career. That's not different than how the vast majority of politicians vote... whether it's with their party or not... whatever will benefit THEM in the long run.

Gannonfan tries to paint himself as "above politics" all the time in the political forum... and supporting a blatantly political move like this by Scott as a true "independent mind" is a fucking joke.

[OL FU]

Didn't seem that tough to me. Good that the guy isn't a party hack. Bad that he voted for this meaningless piece of tripe Even worse that 61 others voted for this "look at me, I am working hard and providing jobs for you poor bums" bill Geez they really do think we are stupid.

[ASUMountaineer]

Why is it so hard to understand that you sound like you are trying desperately to figure out a way to praise Brown for voting for a BAD BILL... just pointing out that it comes off as retarded. Just an fyi.

I wouldn't want the self-proclaimed ( ) "AGS Voice of Reason" and "Non-partisan hack" to come across as unreasoned or as a partisan hack.

You've done it now...Sarah Palin hates you!

[GannonFan]

Alright, that's fine. I can live with that. Just as long as y'all are fine with being on record as supporting a guy for voting for a bill that y'all both think is bad.

Independent thought is certainly a positive thing in politics... but, that should be true independence and come with a set of beliefs... not just "oooo, if i vote for this bill... I'll position myself as an independent centrist"... this will help my career. That's not different than how the vast majority of politicians vote... whether it's with their party or not... whatever will benefit THEM in the long run.

Gannonfan tries to paint himself as "above politics" all the time in the political forum... and supporting a blatantly political move like this by Scott as a true "independent mind" is a **** joke.

Well, UNI and OL FU have probably said it better than I did. As for Brown, I'm not sure it was a political calculation to vote for this bill - heck, he may have actually liked the bill for all we know. Like I said, that's not an encouraging thing, per se, if he thought this bill was going to do anything worthwhile, but it's good to see that he's not a sheep when it comes to following whatever the party tells him to follow. I haven't seen enough of Brown yet to think as cynically as you're doing that he only made this vote because of a political calculation for the future.

[AZGrizFan]

No because he would like to be re-elected in Mass in four years

I think his sights are higher, and he has the example of the current Prez to show just how meteoric a personable fellow's rise can be. He needs to move on asap, imo, because that seat is going back to the Kennedys if they have to hock the spare tire to help pay for the campaign.
Of ccourse, it's unlikely that his next opponent will be hampered by a wife-pimping scandal like Jack Ryan was.

100% correct, dawg. On both counts.

[AZGrizFan]

So a retarded monkey flipping a coin on every bill would do a better job than any elected representative because he would be free of any bias?

Yes.

[mainejeff]

Cute pic of her and her grandson.

[houndawg]

Because it's **** contradictory to your statement praising Brown?





Why is it so hard to understand that you sound like you are trying desperately to figure out a way to praise Brown for voting for a BAD BILL... just pointing out that it comes off as retarded. Just an fyi.

I wouldn't want the self-proclaimed ( ) "AGS Voice of Reason" and "Non-partisan hack" to come across as unreasoned or as a partisan hack.

I understand and agree w/ GF on this one. The isn't a good bill and I would prefer that it not pass but in the grand scheme of government spending it is relatively meaningless so Brown's vote for it doesn't do a lot of damage. Now Brown bucking the party line is a good thing for a number of reasons. It sends a message to the party leaders that he isn't going to just toe the line. Representatives should vote based on what they think is best for the country and best for their constituents not what their leaders tell them they should vote for. Hopefully it encourages other centrist Republicans and Democrats to do the same. The potential good that can come from Brown voting for a harmless bad bill greatly outweigh the damage that the bill itself will likely incur.

You and GF are falling for the head fake.

Brown is not bucking anybody; the GOP will happily let him assume a more moderate stance than they might tolerate from other members, because of his home state. It's worth knowing that when the important votes are cast in the Senate, Massachusetts will split.

Mass. voters sent the Kennedys a message, but they aren't going to sit still for having some Mitch McConnell-like wack job as their Senator, ergo the GOP needs to make sure that the new guy at least appears to have a functioning brain stem. Brown will do as he's told on the big votes that are close.

[Baldy]

A question though. What does the other 36 conks and Ben Nelson have against job creation>?

Good question for Obama since unemployment has skyrocketed under his watch.

[ngineer]

He joined Snowe, Collins, Bond and Voinovich in joing Dems in a vote on the jobs bill.

A question though. What does the other 36 conks and Ben Nelson have against job creation>?

From what I hear, the "jobs" bill isn't really much of a jobs bill. It is more along the lines of a second stimulus, and we all saw how well the first stimulated the economy.

In regards to Brown pissing off the Right. Some on the Right need to listen. I distinctly heard Brown say he would vote with the liberals when it suited his state. Whether that applies in this situation, I don't know, but I did hear him say he wasn't going to tow the party line.

He can't afford to tow the party line. In New England, the only Republicans with a pulse are moderates. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Edward Brooke was the last Republican senator from MA, I think, and that was roughly 40 years ago. Snowe and Collins of ME are the same.

[UNI88]

I understand and agree w/ GF on this one. The isn't a good bill and I would prefer that it not pass but in the grand scheme of government spending it is relatively meaningless so Brown's vote for it doesn't do a lot of damage. Now Brown bucking the party line is a good thing for a number of reasons. It sends a message to the party leaders that he isn't going to just toe the line. Representatives should vote based on what they think is best for the country and best for their constituents not what their leaders tell them they should vote for. Hopefully it encourages other centrist Republicans and Democrats to do the same. The potential good that can come from Brown voting for a harmless bad bill greatly outweigh the damage that the bill itself will likely incur.

You and GF are falling for the head fake.

Brown is not bucking anybody; the GOP will happily let him assume a more moderate stance than they might tolerate from other members, because of his home state. It's worth knowing that when the important votes are cast in the Senate, Massachusetts will split.

Mass. voters sent the Kennedys a message, but they aren't going to sit still for having some Mitch McConnell-like wack job as their Senator, ergo the GOP needs to make sure that the new guy at least appears to have a functioning brain stem. Brown will do as he's told on the big votes that are close.

Isn't that the smart play? Why aren't Pelosi and Reid cutting the Blue Dog Dem's the same slack? I thought liberals had higher IQ's and would be able to figure something like that out. If they keep insisting on party unity on health care that majority is going to be in serious danger. The question is, do they have the smarts and vision to understand that?

[houndawg]

You and GF are falling for the head fake.

Brown is not bucking anybody; the GOP will happily let him assume a more moderate stance than they might tolerate from other members, because of his home state. It's worth knowing that when the important votes are cast in the Senate, Massachusetts will split.

Mass. voters sent the Kennedys a message, but they aren't going to sit still for having some Mitch McConnell-like wack job as their Senator, ergo the GOP needs to make sure that the new guy at least appears to have a functioning brain stem. Brown will do as he's told on the big votes that are close.

Isn't that the smart play? Why aren't Pelosi and Reid cutting the Blue Dog Dem's the same slack? I thought liberals had higher IQ's and would be able to figure something like that out. If they keep insisting on party unity on health care that majority is going to be in serious danger. The question is, do they have the smarts and vision to understand that?

I don't know. I guess things are different for the Ds.

If the Ds had a lick of sense in the first place they would have taken a page from the Rs and rammed through what they want and let the Rs filibuster. The last time they tried the stop-the-government bit it backfired on them badly and pretty much finished the Newtster's political career.

[native]

If unemployment rises or stays the same... Republicans win elections. If unemployment declines... Republicans lose. And they can rationalize their vote because of their newfound "fiscal conservatism."

You are partially correct, skelly, but for the donks to win over the next couple of cycles, unemployment will have to do more than just stabilize. The tipping point is probably 8%, not 10%.

Republicans will win as long as unemplyment remains at 8% or worse, as it will continue to do as long as the donks remain donkish in their policy positions.

The extreme irony is that if Obama adopted conk policy positions, the resulting economic growth would cause unemployment would drop, and the donks would win.

[houndawg]

If unemployment rises or stays the same... Republicans win elections. If unemployment declines... Republicans lose. And they can rationalize their vote because of their newfound "fiscal conservatism."

You are partially correct, skelly, but for the donks to win over the next couple of cycles, unemployment will have to do more than just stabilize. The tipping point is probably 8%, not 10%.

Republicans will win as long as unemplyment remains at 8% or worse, as it will continue to do as long as the donks remain donkish in their policy positions.

The extreme irony is that if Obama adopted conk policy positions, the resulting economic growth would cause unemployment would drop, and the donks would win.

Yeah. Conk policy worked so well in getting us to where we are now.

[native]

You are partially correct, skelly, but for the donks to win over the next couple of cycles, unemployment will have to do more than just stabilize. The tipping point is probably 8%, not 10%.

Republicans will win as long as unemplyment remains at 8% or worse, as it will continue to do as long as the donks remain donkish in their policy positions.

The extreme irony is that if Obama adopted conk policy positions, the resulting economic growth would cause unemployment would drop, and the donks would win.

Yeah. Conk policy worked so well in getting us to where we are now.

At least two of the policies which got us into the current economic mess originated with donks:

1. Aggressive interventionist, nation-building foreign policy originated with the Progressives and has been perpetuated through a succession of Democrat presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. George Bush's neocon intervention in Iraq, approved by Congressional Democrats, was consistent with a century of Democrat foreign policy and represented a significant departure from mainstream Republican and conservative policy.

2. Massive unearned entitlement programs originated with the Progressives and have been enlarged under successive Democratic Presidents. George Bush's prescription entitlement, approved by Congressional Democrats, was consistent with decades of Democrat redistributionist policy and represented a significant departure from mainstream Republican and conservative policy.

Bill Clinton's support for welfare reform and balanced budgets occurred ONLY after the 1994 elections, and were forced upon him by a Republican-controlled Congress.

[houndawg]

Yeah. Conk policy worked so well in getting us to where we are now.

At least two of the policies which got us into the current economic mess originated with donks:

1. Aggressive interventionist, nation-building foreign policy originated with the Progressives and has been perpetuated through a succession of Democrat presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. George Bush's neocon intervention in Iraq, approved by Congressional Democrats, was consistent with a century of Democrat foreign policy and represented a significant departure from mainstream Republican and conservative policy.

2. Massive unearned entitlement programs originated with the Progressives and have been enlarged under successive Democratic Presidents. George Bush's prescription entitlement, approved by Congressional Democrats, was consistent with decades of Democrat redistributionist policy and represented a significant departure from mainstream Republican and conservative policy.

Bill Clinton's support for welfare reform and balanced budgets occurred ONLY after the 1994 elections, and were forced upon him by a Republican-controlled Congress.

That's it! The Bushs were just following years of Progressive policy. If that's all they were gonna do why did they want the job to begin with?
And you say I'm howling at the moon.

Nice rotor head in your avatar though; OH58?

[native]

At least two of the policies which got us into the current economic mess originated with donks:

1. Aggressive interventionist, nation-building foreign policy originated with the Progressives and has been perpetuated through a succession of Democrat presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. George Bush's neocon intervention in Iraq, approved by Congressional Democrats, was consistent with a century of Democrat foreign policy and represented a significant departure from mainstream Republican and conservative policy.

2. Massive unearned entitlement programs originated with the Progressives and have been enlarged under successive Democratic Presidents. George Bush's prescription entitlement, approved by Congressional Democrats, was consistent with decades of Democrat redistributionist policy and represented a significant departure from mainstream Republican and conservative policy.

Bill Clinton's support for welfare reform and balanced budgets occurred ONLY after the 1994 elections, and were forced upon him by a Republican-controlled Congress.

That's it! The Bushs were just following years of Progressive policy. If that's all they were gonna do why did they want the job to begin with?
And you say I'm howling at the moon.

Nice rotor head in your avatar though; OH58?

1. DAMMM good question about both Bushes! Can't deny the substance of my post, though.

2. Yup. I believe so.