I’m Not Sure Why This Is A Surprise
Scott Brown is not the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. Would it be nice if he voted against this silly “Jobs Bill”? Of course; hell, they spent $780+ billion last Spring and the unemployment rate went from 8% to 10.1%, so this paltry $15 billion in this Bill should only cost the economy 50,000 jobs or so, a pittance by the current Administration’s standards. The thing to remember is Brown won as a Republican in the one of the heaviest of heavily Democratic states, and so in the Senate the Right will get one of the votes now from Massachusetts occasionally, and that by any measure counts as a big victory. He’s a politician who’s up for re-election in two years, and this vote allows him some cover for that at frankly very little relative cost or damage to our economy.
Nanny State, People, Politics | Mr. Bingley | 
February 23, 2010 7:27 am
Subscribe
I guess you can stop printing those “Scott Brown for President 2012” bumper stickers. Any rational person would know that he is the best the GOP will do in Mass. And his bromance with McCain suggests that he will be screwing conservatives in the future. But stopping Obamacare is worth it.
Exactly. When his first call is to cozy up to McCain you know what you’re getting. But he beats the poop out of the alternative. He is the best you can hope for out of Mass.
I need to see that Cosmo spread again before I can make up my mind.
It’s best to consider ALL the evidence.
I saw on Instapundit that Brown was asked about this. He implied that it was a cheap way to put the senator no business to rest. He is basically keeping his powder dry for important fights I think.
These days, most politicians are disappointing. But Brown has a fine balancing act ahead of him, and this was a reasonable vote. Especially considering whom he represents, and what little impact this bill will have.
Not too familiar with Scott Brown besides what I’ve read concerning his surprise victory but I couldn’t pass up the moment to take a punch for Obama:
Of course; hell, they spent $780+ billion last Spring and the unemployment rate went from 8% to 10.1%
I have to believe it would’ve been much more worse without the spending.
Well, don, obviously (and thankfully, I might add) we’ll never know, but if you look at the chart in the article here please look at the blue lines. That is the actual projections that the Administration used while they were pushing for the Stimulus. The reddish dots are what actually happened after the stimulus was passed. As you can see things got much worse than what the Administration claimed would happen if no Stimulus were passed. So despite their claims that “we inherited a worse economy than we thought” (and I don’t discount that there is an element of truth to that) I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a rather healthy amount of skepticism as to the benefits of further “stimulus”.
Couple questions, Don. How many jobs were lost or “saved” with the tens of millions of “stimulus” dollars that went to fictional congressional districts and ZIP Codes?
And since they’re your dollars, answer me this:
You have $100 and need to buy $70 of groceries. Taxes take $40. Who goes hungry?