2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBrown/Warren debate
As I was watching the debate last night, I was thinking about
Browns statement of his bipartisan record. I seem to remember when he won, he was touting that he was now #40 thus giving the rethugs the fillibuster majority they needed.
Does anyone else remember this and I wish someone could remind Warren of this.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)him as independent and bipartisan to appeal to MA independents and moderate dems.
It's a lie. Look at his voting record. Looks at the outside money he is getting.
The bitch mcconnell and scalia want seats at the table in MA soooooo bad.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)As point of context, we know Republican strategy since January 2010 is to use obstruction to cause President Obama to fail, even if that failure comes at a great cost to the American people. Scott's election in January 2010 made him the 41st Republican in the US Senate, the precise number of votes Republicans needed to block "Up-or-Down votes" as known as "filibuster" legislation. At the time, Republican Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell dubbed Scott Brown "41". Clearly he saw the political significance of Scott's triumph as he proudly announced that his and Republicans' #1 goal is to make President Obama a one term president. Scott's election enabled this partisan obstruction, as long as Scott brown played along...
....A study of Browns actual votes in key situations shows that, over 75% of the time, Brown sides with his right-wing Republican colleagues instead of working toward bipartisan compromise.
http://www.universalhub.com/2012/scott-brown-no-job-crusader-he-was-key-republican
Beer Snob-50
(6,676 posts)he was proud of the fact that he was going to be the lynchpin in this obstruction play
TroyD
(4,551 posts)Most vote totals I've seen show he votes about 75% of the time with the Republicans.