Scott Brown plans to support the Wall Street Reform Bill

[Sarah G]

Scott Brown is exactly the kind of Republican Massachusettans elect when they elect Republicans, you know,

the kind real conservatives despise.

They voted against Coakley really which she deserved. Scott is turning out to be more independent than I thought he'd be though.

 

[Sinatra]

The teabaggers STILL trying to pretend Scott Brown didn't sucker them.

Too funny.

And they mocked ME when I called him another John McCain last January. Ok, you got me, he's WAAAAAY to the left of John McCain.

Scott Brown is "way left" of John McCain?

Please clarify your statement.

Thank you!

John McCain has voted against everything Scott Brown has voted with the Democrats on, if I'm not mistaken.

Please clarify.

Thank you.

 

[Zoom-boing]

To be fair - Scott Brown repeatedly stated he is and will remain a "Scott Brown Republican".

So far he has proven to follow up with that description.

Scott Brown is a moderate - as a Repubilcan in Mass. he has to be. It is still a remarkable and transformative moment to have a Republican senator replace Ted Kennedy.

Keep the faith - November is coming soon, and while the outcome will not be "perfect", it will prove itself of great benefit to those wanting a return to some semblance of political balance in DC and throughout state governments.

The Obama agenda will be greatly diminished following November, and that is a good thing for America...

Well, if a 'Scott Brown Republican' means voting no then cutting backroom deals then switching your vote to yes, I say **** 'em. Corruption is corruption no matter what letter is next to their name. I don't care if he's a moderate but I do care that he's a hypocrite. He bellyached against the Cornhusker Kickback in running for election then turns around and does the same when he's up to bat?? Give me a break.

Oh I've no doubt that November is going to be a bloodbath . . . or close to it. Even Gibby thinks so. Problem is, will it really make any difference? Time will tell.

That is not what Scott did - but also know that he understands some who support him will be upset at his decision to now vote for Finreg after the changes he requested be made. He is attempting to protect business in his own state - I don't fault him that - it is not very similar to the Cornhusker example.

Sometimes he will vote with Republicans and fewer times he will not. Sounds like a more principled issue-by-issue politician than the simple "party line" that caused diminished effective government during the Bush years, and even more so now under Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

As for a Democrat bloodbath - yes indeed. Gibbs is now in full on damage control mode - the White House will repeat that midterm losses are "normal" and that in no way does the election reflect America's views on Obama's agenda. Of course, the degree of these losses will be so significant as to be a direct reflection of Obama's agenda...

Brown made a deal for special treatment (exemptions) for his state in the bill, yes?

Nelson cut a deal for special treatment ($100m in medicaid funds) for his state, yes?

If Brown was just "attempting to protect business in his own state", wasn't Nelson just doing the same?

Brown was against the bill, Brown gets special treatment, Brown is now likely to vote yes for the bill. Sounds just as slimy as the HC deals that were made. I know, I know . . . business as usual in D.C.

 

[Modbert]

Brown made a deal for special treatment (exemptions) for his state in the bill, yes?

Nelson cut a deal for special treatment ($100m in medicaid funds) for his state, yes?

If Brown was just "attempting to protect business in his own state", wasn't Nelson just doing the same?

Brown was against the bill, Brown gets special treatment, Brown is now likely to vote yes for the bill. Sounds just as slimy as the HC deals that were made. I know, I know . . . business as usual in D.C.

But you "don't get it" Zoom. It's okay when Brown does it because he's a Republican. Nelson doing it is typical partisan politics. Brown is obviously a Washington outsider who doesn't conduct backroom deals.

 

[Sinatra]

Well, if a 'Scott Brown Republican' means voting no then cutting backroom deals then switching your vote to yes, I say **** 'em. Corruption is corruption no matter what letter is next to their name. I don't care if he's a moderate but I do care that he's a hypocrite. He bellyached against the Cornhusker Kickback in running for election then turns around and does the same when he's up to bat?? Give me a break.

Oh I've no doubt that November is going to be a bloodbath . . . or close to it. Even Gibby thinks so. Problem is, will it really make any difference? Time will tell.

That is not what Scott did - but also know that he understands some who support him will be upset at his decision to now vote for Finreg after the changes he requested be made. He is attempting to protect business in his own state - I don't fault him that - it is not very similar to the Cornhusker example.

Sometimes he will vote with Republicans and fewer times he will not. Sounds like a more principled issue-by-issue politician than the simple "party line" that caused diminished effective government during the Bush years, and even more so now under Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

As for a Democrat bloodbath - yes indeed. Gibbs is now in full on damage control mode - the White House will repeat that midterm losses are "normal" and that in no way does the election reflect America's views on Obama's agenda. Of course, the degree of these losses will be so significant as to be a direct reflection of Obama's agenda...

Brown made a deal for special treatment (exemptions) for his state in the bill, yes?

Nelson cut a deal for special treatment ($100m in medicaid funds) for his state, yes?

If Brown was just "attempting to protect business in his own state", wasn't Nelson just doing the same?

Brown was against the bill, Brown gets special treatment, Brown is now likely to vote yes for the bill. Sounds just as slimy as the HC deals that were made. I know, I know . . . business as usual in D.C.

You would do well to educate yourself on the actual bill and the Brown points of contention - not saying you are not justified in being upset as I too think it is a bad bill, but Scott Brown does not appear to have done anything to dispute his claims of being an independent member of the Senate...

 

[Sinatra]

As for Scott Brown being way left of John McCain, the actual voting record does not reflect such a silly statement, but then again, silly statements are legion in places such as this...

 

[Article 15]

Scott Brown was never the "Tea Party Candidate" - he enjoyed support from those affiliated with the Tea Party - but he also enjoyed support from voters who were longtime Democrats as well.

By that measure, you could call Scott Brown a Reagan-Democrat candidate, which is what his leanings tend to indicate.

Scott Brown signaled the beginning of the end of the Democrat-Progressives, and ending that will play out very well for the Republican Party in November 2010.

And so the disfranchisement begins. You are a ******* hack of epic proportions.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/102149-scott-brown-is-the-tea-partys-first-victory.html

Tonight, yet another HUGE victory for the American Tea Party movement..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-brown-is-the-tea-partys-first-victory-2.html

You are right - 2006 was the first anti-Big Government vote of the modern era. It lacked a cohesive movement at that time, but was rooted in the same principles as today's "Tea Party" - a loose organization of small government fiscal conservatism that shares values across partisan lines among conservative Republicans, Independents, Democrats, and Libertarians.

Scott Brown's own wide ranging appeals shows his own victory to mirror the appeal of the grassroots Tea Party movement as well.

What's wrong Sinatra? Your bosses don't usually plan for this huh? You're nothing but a paid shill.

Owned.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Scott Brown was never the "Tea Party Candidate" - he enjoyed support from those affiliated with the Tea Party - but he also enjoyed support from voters who were longtime Democrats as well.

By that measure, you could call Scott Brown a Reagan-Democrat candidate, which is what his leanings tend to indicate.

Scott Brown signaled the beginning of the end of the Democrat-Progressives, and ending that will play out very well for the Republican Party in November 2010.

Right.

So I guess when YOU called him

The very essence of the tea party revolt...

You were what? full of shit then or full of shit now? I mean above and beyond your normal capacity for full of shititude?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1892505-post66.html

 

[Zoom-boing]

That is not what Scott did - but also know that he understands some who support him will be upset at his decision to now vote for Finreg after the changes he requested be made. He is attempting to protect business in his own state - I don't fault him that - it is not very similar to the Cornhusker example.

Sometimes he will vote with Republicans and fewer times he will not. Sounds like a more principled issue-by-issue politician than the simple "party line" that caused diminished effective government during the Bush years, and even more so now under Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

As for a Democrat bloodbath - yes indeed. Gibbs is now in full on damage control mode - the White House will repeat that midterm losses are "normal" and that in no way does the election reflect America's views on Obama's agenda. Of course, the degree of these losses will be so significant as to be a direct reflection of Obama's agenda...

Brown made a deal for special treatment (exemptions) for his state in the bill, yes?

Nelson cut a deal for special treatment ($100m in medicaid funds) for his state, yes?

If Brown was just "attempting to protect business in his own state", wasn't Nelson just doing the same?

Brown was against the bill, Brown gets special treatment, Brown is now likely to vote yes for the bill. Sounds just as slimy as the HC deals that were made. I know, I know . . . business as usual in D.C.

You would do well to educate yourself on the actual bill and the Brown points of contention - not saying you are not justified in being upset as I too think it is a bad bill, but Scott Brown does not appear to have done anything to dispute his claims of being an independent member of the Senate...

Why are you ignoring what he did? He got a special exemption for his state and is now likely to vote yes on the bill. Do the other 49 (or is that 56?) states get the same exemption? Why not? Why is it ok for Brown to get this deal and no other state? I'm aware of his other issues with the bill. Why isn't his special treatment an issue with you?

I was pissed when the Dems did this shit in the HC bill and it pisses me off that Brown is doing the same thing now. You don't seem to have any problem with it. Why does Brown get a pass?

 

[Sinatra]

Scott Brown was never the "Tea Party Candidate" - he enjoyed support from those affiliated with the Tea Party - but he also enjoyed support from voters who were longtime Democrats as well.

By that measure, you could call Scott Brown a Reagan-Democrat candidate, which is what his leanings tend to indicate.

Scott Brown signaled the beginning of the end of the Democrat-Progressives, and ending that will play out very well for the Republican Party in November 2010.

Right.

So I guess when YOU called him

The very essence of the tea party revolt...

You were what? full of shit then or full of shit now? I mean above and beyond your normal capacity for full of shititude?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1892505-post66.html

Scott Brown's victory was the very essence of the Tea Party revolt - you don't appear capable of understanding the rather simple reasoning behind that quite accurate statement.

How does a Pro Life Tax Cut Republican who promised to be the NO vote against the healthcare bill get elected in the former seat of Ted Kennedy?

Scott Brown represented a change for Mass voters from the tax and spend liberalism that now runs DC. As such, his victory was indeed the very essence of the Tea Party revolt. And if this anti-government sentiment has taken deep root in Mass., the depth of those same roots are now running very deep throughout the nation and will prove decisive in making very significant gains for conservatives in the upcoming November elections.

 

[Yurt]

Well, if a 'Scott Brown Republican' means voting no then cutting backroom deals then switching your vote to yes, I say **** 'em. Corruption is corruption no matter what letter is next to their name. I don't care if he's a moderate but I do care that he's a hypocrite. He bellyached against the Cornhusker Kickback in running for election then turns around and does the same when he's up to bat?? Give me a break.

Oh I've no doubt that November is going to be a bloodbath . . . or close to it. Even Gibby thinks so. Problem is, will it really make any difference? Time will tell.

That is not what Scott did - but also know that he understands some who support him will be upset at his decision to now vote for Finreg after the changes he requested be made. He is attempting to protect business in his own state - I don't fault him that - it is not very similar to the Cornhusker example.

Sometimes he will vote with Republicans and fewer times he will not. Sounds like a more principled issue-by-issue politician than the simple "party line" that caused diminished effective government during the Bush years, and even more so now under Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

As for a Democrat bloodbath - yes indeed. Gibbs is now in full on damage control mode - the White House will repeat that midterm losses are "normal" and that in no way does the election reflect America's views on Obama's agenda. Of course, the degree of these losses will be so significant as to be a direct reflection of Obama's agenda...

Brown made a deal for special treatment (exemptions) for his state in the bill, yes?

Nelson cut a deal for special treatment ($100m in medicaid funds) for his state, yes?

If Brown was just "attempting to protect business in his own state", wasn't Nelson just doing the same?

Brown was against the bill, Brown gets special treatment, Brown is now likely to vote yes for the bill. Sounds just as slimy as the HC deals that were made. I know, I know . . . business as usual in D.C.

um....i'm pretty sure there was a huge chunk of the bill cut out, like the taxes or bailout funds or something like that, scott wanted it out and it was taken out...at least i thought i heard on that radio a bit ago

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

POLITICO Breaking News:
-----------------------------------------------------

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) announced Monday that he plans to support the Wall Street reform bill, which is expected to give Democrats enough votes to pass the landmark legislation. “While it isn't perfect, I expect to support the bill when it comes up for a vote. It includes safeguards to help prevent another financial meltdown, ensures that consumers are protected, and it is paid for without new taxes,” Brown said in a news release.

well that senate seat was short lived for you Mr Scott Brown.

I am one of your constituants who runs a small business and has a big mouth...just saying i'll be expressing my dissapointment as much as I do now with "tax it all" devaul

(as if scott brown will ever read this post)

 

[Sinatra]

That is not what Scott did - but also know that he understands some who support him will be upset at his decision to now vote for Finreg after the changes he requested be made. He is attempting to protect business in his own state - I don't fault him that - it is not very similar to the Cornhusker example.

Sometimes he will vote with Republicans and fewer times he will not. Sounds like a more principled issue-by-issue politician than the simple "party line" that caused diminished effective government during the Bush years, and even more so now under Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

As for a Democrat bloodbath - yes indeed. Gibbs is now in full on damage control mode - the White House will repeat that midterm losses are "normal" and that in no way does the election reflect America's views on Obama's agenda. Of course, the degree of these losses will be so significant as to be a direct reflection of Obama's agenda...

Brown made a deal for special treatment (exemptions) for his state in the bill, yes?

Nelson cut a deal for special treatment ($100m in medicaid funds) for his state, yes?

If Brown was just "attempting to protect business in his own state", wasn't Nelson just doing the same?

Brown was against the bill, Brown gets special treatment, Brown is now likely to vote yes for the bill. Sounds just as slimy as the HC deals that were made. I know, I know . . . business as usual in D.C.

um....i'm pretty sure there was a huge chunk of the bill cut out, like the taxes or bailout funds or something like that, scott wanted it out and it was taken out...at least i thought i heard on that radio a bit ago

You are quite correct - Brown's primary contention was the added "bank tax" that was within the bill. The Democrats wanted to initiate yet another tax that would have been passed on to the consumer - and at a time when there is still a credit crisis that is hurting small business - so in effect, Brown was helping consumers all over the nation, not just in his home state.

Brown demanded that multi-billions tax be removed from the bill and it was.

It's still a rather crappy bill, but Scott Brown was able to make it somewhat more tolerable, and for that I commend him.

 

[Yurt]

Brown made a deal for special treatment (exemptions) for his state in the bill, yes?

Nelson cut a deal for special treatment ($100m in medicaid funds) for his state, yes?

If Brown was just "attempting to protect business in his own state", wasn't Nelson just doing the same?

Brown was against the bill, Brown gets special treatment, Brown is now likely to vote yes for the bill. Sounds just as slimy as the HC deals that were made. I know, I know . . . business as usual in D.C.

um....i'm pretty sure there was a huge chunk of the bill cut out, like the taxes or bailout funds or something like that, scott wanted it out and it was taken out...at least i thought i heard on that radio a bit ago

You are quite correct - Brown's primary contention was the added "bank tax" that was within the bill. The Democrats wanted to initiate yet another tax that would have been passed on to the consumer - and at a time when there is still a credit crisis that is hurting small business - so in effect, Brown was helping consumers all over the nation, not just in his home state.

Brown demanded that multi-billions tax be removed from the bill and it was.

It's still a rather crappy bill, but Scott Brown was able to make it somewhat more tolerable, and for that I commend him.

yeah, that was it, thanks

 

[Sinatra]

um....i'm pretty sure there was a huge chunk of the bill cut out, like the taxes or bailout funds or something like that, scott wanted it out and it was taken out...at least i thought i heard on that radio a bit ago

You are quite correct - Brown's primary contention was the added "bank tax" that was within the bill. The Democrats wanted to initiate yet another tax that would have been passed on to the consumer - and at a time when there is still a credit crisis that is hurting small business - so in effect, Brown was helping consumers all over the nation, not just in his home state.

Brown demanded that multi-billions tax be removed from the bill and it was.

It's still a rather crappy bill, but Scott Brown was able to make it somewhat more tolerable, and for that I commend him.

yeah, that was it, thanks

____

And methinks this bill, among others, will be again revised following the November elections.

The RESET button is gonna be hit hard...

 

[Article 15]

You are quite correct - Brown's primary contention was the added "bank tax" that was within the bill. The Democrats wanted to initiate yet another tax that would have been passed on to the consumer - and at a time when there is still a credit crisis that is hurting small business - so in effect, Brown was helping consumers all over the nation, not just in his home state.

Brown demanded that multi-billions tax be removed from the bill and it was.

It's still a rather crappy bill, but Scott Brown was able to make it somewhat more tolerable, and for that I commend him.

yeah, that was it, thanks

____

And methinks this bill, among others, will be again revised following the November elections.

The RESET button is gonna be hit hard...

Get used to a big fat veto on any attempt to repeal legislation from the previous Congress.

 

[Sinatra]

yeah, that was it, thanks

____

And methinks this bill, among others, will be again revised following the November elections.

The RESET button is gonna be hit hard...

Get used to a big fat veto on any attempt to repeal legislation from the previous Congress.

We are counting on just that scenario...

 

[Article 15]

____

And methinks this bill, among others, will be again revised following the November elections.

The RESET button is gonna be hit hard...

Get used to a big fat veto on any attempt to repeal legislation from the previous Congress.

We are counting on just that scenario...

I'm sure you are.

Too bad for you unless the GOP takes both houses there wont even be a need for a veto.

 

[Sinatra]

Get used to a big fat veto on any attempt to repeal legislation from the previous Congress.

We are counting on just that scenario...

I'm sure you are.

Too bad for you unless the GOP takes both houses there wont even be a need for a veto.

And that is the beauty of the impending November election - veto or no, the Obama agenda will be bereft of authority.

And make no mistake, much help will come from the Democrat side on this.

If he manages it, let Obama have a Clinton-like 2nd term - America will be the better for it.

2006 and 2008 were mistakes that will be largely corrected in 2010.

From there, 2016 will be along soon enough...

(though 2012 is not without significant opportunity as well...)

 

[Flopper]

That's cause he cut backroom deals. Didn't he campaign against backroom deals? Why yes, yes he did. Typical pol. And we're suppose to vote in a better bunch? How, when they're all the same?

Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts cuts backroom deals he campaigned against | D.C. Now | Los Angeles Times

Don't tell me a Republican has broken ranks with his party and will vote for something he believes in. Too bad we don't have more congressman who vote their conscience instead of the party line. They might actually earn the respect of the people who sent them to Washington.