Fortunately for us Brown is one of the only legislators to vote independently utilizing reasonableness. It's been so long since Washington voted that way is why you probably missed it.

. Massachusetts politics is a one way street with no right turns allowed. Tap dancing and fancy footwork are a hallmark of every elected official in this state. Slippery slopes lead into giant pits where once ambitious politicians land. Senator Brown's old pick up truck sits idling next to Aunt Fannies cookie-mobile loaded with Harvard boosters and left leaning money bags. Good luck Scott!

Scott Brown had a rather lackluster career in the state senate and is a bit of a "hack" in his present and, hopefully, temporary job. Massachusetts doesn't need a Republican; we need a leader with truly long term, sincere, honest commitment to the people.

Political theater like his 2 weeks "active duty" in Afghanistan? I wonder how many National Guard lawyers are flown to the other side of the planet for 2 weeks? Granted I was in the the reserves a long time ago but I never saw anything like this. If the DoD hasn't done this for other National Guard JAG officers then his campaign should reimburse the taxpayers.

The senator is criticized from conservatives out of state for his positions, and in the state from various political opponents for the same reasons. Is he a staunch right-winger or more moderate? His record so far indicates moderate views and political and party independence, which resonates with many voters in this state, and also frustrates liberals. What I troubling Globe columnists and other liberal advocates is that this may force Elizabeth Warren, a well-qualified candidate with minimal ties to the local Democratic power base, to shift to the center in her political views. She will need to find a way to shed the "Cambridge liberal" label to broaden her appeal to voters in this state during the upcoming campaign. It will be interesting to see if voters and the power base are willing to accept this message. If not, then the question becomes if voters are willing to send yet another politician to Congress who, as Joan seems to indicate, will vote in lockstep with the rest of the delegation.

A truly long term, sincere honest committment to the people? When I read references to the people, I sync into words like the proletariat. A "party of the people" - really? Then download "hack" and lackluster into my hard drive and and my spam alarm starts clanging. It reminds me of one writer on another day who declared that 100% of all the imbeciles and idiots in the world were registered Republicans. This is the muddy, brown water Senator Brown is trying to stay afloat in. Perhaps, if he proposed some social "people" programs and voted in lock step with Dirty Harry, his future would be secured with the "people" of Massachusetts.

This would be an interesting column if the writer had credibility as unbiased author. Given her support for Elizabeth Warren how can this be inerpreted as anything but talking points directly from the Warren campaign? Moreover,there is absolutely nothing original or new in this column. What a waste of time and space. Time for someone new with fresh ideas and some intellectual curiosity.

We want politicians who step across the aisle, who are willing to "buck" their party and vote the way they feel is right. And then they get slammed for it. No wonder Washington is such a mess- apparently the electorate does not know what it really wants.

If Brown wins, it will be a bigger upset than when he beat Marsha. Voting Democrat in Massachusetts is a cultural issue. My grandfather was a Democrat, my father was a Democrat, so I'm a Democrat. Who cares about the issues?

"One minute, Brown is signing Grover Norquist's no-new-taxes pledge; the next minute, he's leaving the door open to raising tax rates in an overhaul of the federal tax system." I've seen no indication of this. Sen. Brown said that if Washington becomes responsible in how it spends tax dollars, he'll consider overall tax reform that might increase revenues; big IF. He also talks about closing tax loopholes, not raising rates.

I don't get her point here: "Do voters want an all-Democratic delegation, which votes in virtual lockstep on every major issue? Or, do they prefer a little more diversity and a little less predictability in Washington? Is Camelot done, or does enough sentiment remain to return a Democrat to a Kennedy's seat, and perhaps send a new Kennedy to Congress?" If the Dems are voting correctly on every major issue - and by "correctly," I mean as I would vote, in a way that benefits the 99% and not just the 1% - then, yes, of course, give me "lockstep." And who would want "a little more diversity" if you're diverting away from what I think is right. "Predictability" is exactly what I want in representatives: I want to be able to predict how they'll vote on issues that I care about. This isn't a game: votes in Congress have real consequences on real people. My support for Warren and maybe Joe Kennedy has nothing to do with the Camelot mystique, and everything to do with how I think they will vote. Vennochi has been weirdly negative about Warren. I'd like her to be explicit about why.

Perhaps if Menino was quietly for Brown, Menino should become a Republican and find out whether he can be re-elected again and again as mayor.I recall over and over again Curley, but at least he knew he was a Democrat.

I think Massachusetts should take some solace from that fact the the electorate actually prompts this Senator to endorse some positions that are contrary to his monolithic party. There are plenty of states where Senators seem to have nothing to temper their capriciousness and their ideological fixations. That's a shout out for our engaged citizenry. Brown faces a very tough test in Elizabeth Warren, however. Initially I thought she had no chance, but she has surprised me. Even if Brown manages to win, he is going to have to slide left and begin advocating for consumer protections if he hopes to grab the independent votes. Ideology aside, only an idiot would be opposed to curbing predatory lending practices, or abusive manipulation of credit card rates and fees. And don't give me that "buyer beware" stuff. Those contractual agreements are awful - as in unclear and unbalanced in favor of the lawyers in major corporations over average consumers who were encouraged relentlessly to sign them and who probably lack the training to understand the legal nuances lurking within. Though it did teach us well - any one who still trusts a large corporation to act in good faith with an essentially powerless individual consumer truly does get what they deserve. For being so stupid and gullible.

Voting democratic is hardly "cultural". Either you believe that American citizens with medical conditions should have ready access to healthcare, or you do not (though you claim the market will take care of things as cover...) I'll tell you one thing. If republicans were sincere, they'd say: Know what? I'm glad my fellow citizens will no longer go bankrupt when they learn they have a serious medical condition. I may think the current healthcare plan is not optimal, even not very good, but I can work on that moving forward. The important thing is that my constituents will be able to secure health care - guaranteed for the first time. Results for my constituents, even imperfect, are more important that getting exactly what I want exactly when I want it. But what do they say? Repeal Obamacare. With no concrete alternative on offer. And you there? That kid with the unemployed, uninsured parents who has leukemia? We'll work on something for real soon, promise... Chew on that for a minute.

so the globe pleads for bipartisanship m(especially on Obama's agenda) yet we have Brown who tries his best to vote on each issue on its merits, not by party affiliation, and The Globe does not like it?

Michael, never mind that there are conservatives in this state that would like a vote in the process. When I moved to Massachusetts I knew my vote (I tend to vote Republican at the national level) did not matter. Should a large segment of the population be disenfranchised?

The one party rule thing is working out so well for the Commonwealth.

Sorry, but a vote for Brown is indeed a vote for McConnel, Cantor, Boener, et al.

Let me start by saying that, as a liberal, I have no affinity for Scott Brown. As one commenter pointed out, I want a representative that holds the same views as I do, that is my REPRESENTATIVE in Congress. That having been said, I would have a bit more respect for Brown if he had produced more in his two years in D.C. Whether you liked Ted Kennedy or not, in his decades of service, he produced tons of legislation, he reached across the aisle regularly for support, he cultivated many collegial affiliations of all backgrounds, to bolster his work for what he believed in. He was a real workhorse with respect to his legislative role. Unfortunately, he's been replaced with Brown, someone who's done none of those things and who's been content to be passive, wait for votes to be taken, wait for other colleagues' legislation to be proposed, always analyzing and reading through a bill, when if he had been part of the development of the legislation in the first place, he wouldn't have had to always take the time to sort through a proposed bill. I don't think we should be surprised at this, given Brown's record in the Mass Senate, where he was a virtual unknown with few, if any accomplishments. If, when he went to D.C., he had morphed overnight to a bill developer, a deal-maker, a connected guy, that would have really made headlines. But of course, he hasn't. And don't tell me he's biding his time, building his network. After his "honeymoon period" in D.C. and in the media, after he was first elected, he has become marginalized, possibly by his own hand. He must feel like the luckiest guy in the world – he went to D.C. with a huge pay raise, and he doesn't have to work any harder at all. Well, maybe to raise more campaign funds. But, folks, I don't think we've actually got a go-getter in Scott Brown, nor will we ever have. And that's a real let-down for the "people's seat".

I think that a few months ago, everyone, including me, thought Scott Brown was unbeatable, probably including Scott Brown. Elizabeth Warren has changed that. Not because she is a liberal, or a professor or a woman or a Democrat, but because of what she has done vs. a hibernating Scott Brown. If you do not know Warren, please take a few minutes to read this: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/11/elizabeth-warren-201111 If you don't have the time, the next is a very short intro: http://janebryantquinn.com/2010/07/why-elizabeth-warren-should-head-the-new-consumer-protection-bureau/ There is also ample information out there, print and video, showing Warren in full battle mode, slamming Obama officials and others on behalf of the middle class ("Where did the money go, Mr. Geithner?)in several hearings. Unfortunately, there is a need to keep reminding voters of Brown's dismal record. That should not take away from the positive message that we can do better in Massachusetts and Elizabeth Warren is the person to carry our banner.