After playing coy with reporters all day, the Massachusetts Republican recently announced that he will support the arms-reduction treaty.
Brown told reporters following a closed-session intelligence briefing that he had given the issue “due diligence” and hoped to see the treaty ratified. “I believe it’s something that’s important for our country, and I believe it’s a good move forward to deal with our national security issues,” he said.
Brown is one of eight Republicans to announce that they are at least leaning toward backing the treary. If that count holds, Democrats will need just a couple more GOP votes to get to the 67 required for ratification. A cloture vote is expected on Tuesday.
In addition to Brown, Republican Sens. Dick Lugar (Ind.), George Voinovich (Ohio), Bob Bennett (Utah), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine) and Thad Cochran (Miss.) are expected to back the treaty.
Key GOP holdouts include Sens. Bob Corker (Tenn.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.). Senate aides acknowledged that unless one of these on-the-fence Republicans comes out strongly against ratification, Democrats will likely have the votes they need for passage.
At this point, is there really any functional difference between having Scott Brown or Ted Kennedy as Senator from Massachusetts? Scott's going to find himself a man without a country when he has to take on the Democrat Machine for re-election in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePublius, who's to say he won't switch party affiliations or become and independent caucusing with the Dems?
"Disappointed with the extremism I encountered in the national GOP when I went to Washington" and all that. The press release practically writes itself.
Where does this put the vote count on START?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's a difference, Publius, but it's a pretty darn small one. Seems to be shrinking with each and every vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs far as the Republican national leadership is concerned, of course, the key thing is who he caucuses with. One more vote toward majority status.
The problem for everyone else is that you then end up like the Democratic majority, with an ideologically diverse coalition that either can't agree (the DREAM act) or can only agree when the fence-sitters get their kickbacks (health care reform).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder what all of those Mass Tea Party folk think of Scott Brown now. He even makes Barack Obama look like a pragmatic pol.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBrown is a Massachusetts Repub. There is a big difference between a Massachusetts Repub and a Massachusetts Dem.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Where does this put the vote count on START?"
-------
The goose is cooked. Lugar, Bennett, Brown, Corker, Gregg, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, and I believe Alexander are all gone. Corker, Snowe, and Collins have hedged a bit in hopes of leveraging some votes on amendments, but they'll vote to ratify when push comes to shove.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, we got Martha Coakley after all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe issue is not about whether or not to ratify the new START agreement. The main concern is whether or not sufficient consideration can be given to such a significant agreement during the lame duck session.
It is disappointing that Brown et al would disregard the time threat in order to find agreement with an administration that has proven itself untrustworthy.
Just how did Scott Brown perform his "due diligence"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMichael Savage called it. No big surprise here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, but don't take it personally; we knew he was a RINO when we fell in love with him.
Scott Brown is the best Republican Massachusetts is capable of. And that is, however wishy-washy-lefty he turns out to be, better than any Democrat from Massachusetts. Party headcounts matter -- and with Brown, there is at least a tiny glimmer of a chance of his voting correctly on any given issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd the David Brooks/Christopher Buckley "He's Just Gotta Be A Sensible Moderate That We Can Live With Cuz, Well, Cuz He's So Cool" Award goes to: conservatives who thought it was a swell idea to back Scott Brown. We wound up with ObamaCare anyway (the only position Brown has not screwed the country on), and Centerfold Boy has otherwise been a pretty reliable vote for the Democrats and their policies.
It's time to face facts:
(1) Centerfold Boy is a radical left-wing Democrat.
(2) Centerfold Boy has always been a radical left-wing Democrat.
(3) Centerfold Boy will always be a radical left-wing Democrat.
I am predicting that Centerfold Boy will switch to the Democrat Party (or become a Charlie Crist-style "independent") just before he comes up for re-election. Won't matter, since Democrats will clean his clock anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmendments are losing 33-64, so unless one of those other three shows up as a nay or two of the other three don't show up at all, it'll get ratified 66/67 to 33.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMyKu:
Not Kelly Clarkson.
This American Idol
more like Taylor Hicks.
-----------
People were so excited about this guy. Wrong-headed hasty types were even spewing about a GOP POTUS nomination. Where are they hiding, now?
A Massachusetts Republican is like...
(Feel free to add some) :)
...an Alaska peach
...Van Halen, Gary Cherone era
...finding out what your favorite radio DJ looks like
...a South Carolina Democrat
...sitting in the back seat, middle
...Beatlemania
...David Brooks
...Coors Light
...mashed turnips (thought they were potatoEs)
...blended Scotch
...Anything manufactured by Apple
...the last, er, first, er, whatever three Star Wars movies
...a Port-a-Potty
I guess the recurring theme there was that's as good as it's going to get. Don't consider him a leader of the GOP or a reliable follower of the GOP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have not seen one Republican politician come out and say, "Last week I said the treaty was bad in the following ways, a,b,c,d,e,etc." and then say, "They have fixed a,b,c,d,e,etc in the following ways so now I can support it."
So what has changed? If we, the voter, find out moderate Republicans are horsetrading favors for a vote that will hurt our national security then out with them next time they are up for re-election.
As for Scott Brown, I really hope your staff reads this, NO CONSERVATIVE IS HELPING YOU next election and you are done, toast, good-bye and good riddance. Your potential impact of US politics one year ago unlimited, now you won't even be a gnat on the windshield of Senate history.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott Brown is a Massachusetts Republican, no different than Bill Weld or Mitt Romney, but he is a Republican. Get over it. He is the best alternative to anything else that could have (or may still) come out of Massachusetts. Were it not for him, Obamacare would have been even worse and entrenched than it already is, and we would be looking at a major tax increase on January 1.
Those of you from outside of Massachusetts cannot seem to grasp Senator Brown's tenuous hold on his seat. If he votes the party line on all issues he will be a dead duck, and you'll soon find yourself complaining about Senator Mike Capuano, who is to left of everyone but Karl Marx. Massachusetts is not Texas. You'll never see a conservative elected (or better re-elected) to national office from Massachusetts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin...it's not so much that Brown supported it, it's that he - and the rest of the RINO herd...Corker, Alexander, etc. - couldn't even muster the nerve to say, whoa, we shouldn't be voting on something this important in a lame duck session. If the American electorate sent any message to DC in November it was, "slow the heck down and stop doing so many big crazy things so fast!" But not to these brave and resolute Republican senators...oh no...ah, who cares what the American people want, let's vote on this thing and get it over with. Whatever they *say* the reason is, that's the message Scott Brown and his Beltway brethren are sending to me. THAT is the big thing I have a problem with, not whether or not he'd eventually have voted for it in the new Congress. It is, basically, having the U.S. Senate - especially the Republicans who are voting for this thing now - thumb their noses at the American voter. They shouldn't be surprised if the American voter doesn't take kindly to that the next time these jokers are on a ballot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Scott Brown is a Massachusetts Republican, no different than Bill Weld or Mitt Romney, but he is a Republican. Get over it. He is the best alternative to anything else that could have (or may still) come out of Massachusetts."
------
Hogwash. Even in deep blue states, it's still entirely possible for a strong national security conservative with otherwise relatively liberal views to win statewide election. In New York, for example, people like Giuliani and Pataki may be the "best" the electorate could hope for, but at least they're still with us on defense. You compare Brown to Romney but Romney strongly opposed START and has been staunchly conservative on foreign policy. Scott Brown can't even meet that low threshold: He routinely sides against Republicans on social, fiscal, AND national security issues. While it may not be possible to get a social conservative elected in a state like Massachusetts, I utterly reject the notion that a fiscal or national defense conservative cannot win there or in like states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse