Yesterday when this $15B jobs bill came up for a vote that 'RINO' Senator from Oklahoma Jim Inhofe voted for the bill. It should go without saying that Inhofe is anything but a RINO but yesterday I saw him called 'RINO' just like some did to Dr. Coburn (R-OK) who voted for something some conservatives didn't like.
It shows that there are some very politically naive people posting or writing for some sites as this vote yesterday was the perfect way for Scott Brown to show he was the independent vote from Massachusetts he touted during the campaign. An added benefit of the vote to invoke cloture by the three New England Senators along with the votes yesterday by even more Republicans for this bill puts a crimp in the 'Party of NO' label that the media has been gleefully touting on behalf of the Democrats. If the tax breaks in this $15B start helping business' hire, then it was worth it to vote for the bill. We honestly don't believe this version will pass the House as the House bill is filled with pork and is three times as expensive.
Brown said he reserves the right to vote 'NO' if this bill comes back laden with pork from the House. He is a fiscal conservative who doesn't believe in pork and earmarks. Would say coming out of Blue State Massachusetts, he is a gem for Republicans.
Scott Brown is what every Senator should strive to be -- the voice of the people of their state not someone to march in lockstep with Leadership. Time some conservatives woke up to the fact that one shoe doesn't fit all as the Republican Party needs people like Scott Brown representing Republicans.
Brown is a breath of fresh air on the national stage who is staying true to his word he gave when he ran for Senate. That in itself is amazing especially when you compare that to the current occupant of the White House whose speeches on the campaign trail were all rhetoric as he has done a 180 on almost everything he said.
Scott Brown's Shrewd Vote
By Andrew Cline on 2.25.10 @ 6:09AM
On Jan. 19, Scott Brown was the great right hero. On Feb 22, he became, in some quarters at least, a dirty, liberal traitor. He voted for cloture on the Senate Democrats' jobs bill, then, on Wednesday, voted for the bill.
Granted, the $15 billion jobs bill was not good legislation. "Far from perfect" was how Brown described it. The bill suspends the employer portion of the Social Security payroll tax to encourage hiring. But a tax reduction of a few hundred dollars a month will hardly encourage firms to hire employees that cost thousands per month. It also pumps billions into more federal transportation projects, which, as last year's failed stimulus bill showed, is no way to help the economy. Still, Brown's vote for the bill was a good move for him and ultimately for conservatives.
Conservative activists are the first people to attack Democratic members of Congress for "voting in lock step with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid." It is a valid criticism, especially as applied to Democrats from more moderate states, such as Louisiana or New Hampshire. So maybe those same activists should stop and think for a moment about the political ramifications of pressuring Scott Brown to vote in lock step with Mitch McConnell.
Scott Brown does not represent the Republican National Committee in the United States Senate. He represents Massachusetts. That's by the Founders' design, and it is a good one. If Scott Brown voted as though he were from Alabama, the voters of Massachusetts would, at the first available opportunity, send him there. Where would the conservative movement be then?
Part of the problem here is the way we think about partisan politics. We say things like, "the Republicans control 41 Senate seats." No, they don't. Nor should they. There is a huge difference between Republicans having a member of their party elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, and Republicans controlling a Senate seat from Massachusetts. It would be a sad day for the republic if party bosses completely controlled the votes of their members. If that were the case, we would already be living under Obamacare and cap-and-trade. Thank goodness for moderate Democrats who represented the people back home instead of the party bosses on those votes. And thank goodness for Scott Brown, who got elected by promising to be an independent vote in Washington and, in his first month at least, is living up to that promise.
But what about the bill? It's bad legislation, so how can Brown's vote for it be good? Here is how:
Critics of Brown's vote haven't been listening to what he's been saying. During the election campaign, Brown was asked where he fit on the Republican political spectrum. He identified himself as "a Massachusetts Republican." In an interview with FrumForum, he said, "I'm the closest thing [Bay Staters] will get to a Reagan Democrat." He also said, "I've always been an independent voter, and when I have to cross party lines, I do. I don't usually care what my party says."
Brown made clear from the start that he would not vote as a movement conservative or a leadership lapdog. He'd go his own way, regardless of where the leadership or the GOP base tried to drag him. And that's a good thing. He is, after all, from Massachusetts, remember?
With the jobs bill -- his first major vote -- Brown established his Washington identity. He proclaimed himself an independent-minded Republican who will oppose party leaders and work with Democrats. In Massachusetts, that is the only way he survives politically.
He also kept two important campaign promises: 1) that he will be independent of his party, and 2) that he would vote for legislation to create jobs. Now, policy wonks know that this jobs bill is ill-suited to job creation and better alternatives exist. But listen to Brown's explanation: "I supported this measure because it does contain some tax relief that will help Massachusetts businesses put people back to work."
Brown has signaled to his constituents that he voted for tax cuts, just as he promised in the campaign. He is from Massachusetts. That's huge.
Excerpt: Read More at American Spectator
No comments:
Post a Comment