You don’t have to be an independent “swing” voter to be fed up with obstructionist gridlock in Washington. Believe me — enlightened Republicans and Democrats are sick of it, too! But if swing voters are, arguably, less ideological and more centrist than voters affiliated with the major parties, their pragmatic analysis of the consequence of their Senate vote is critical before Nov. 6.
The Podium
Comments
***2 http://www.bostonglobe.com/ugc/comments/h/topic/uuid/9c6923ce-180c-11e2-a1ce-189b8f02b2fd?offset=0&limit=25&sort=OLDEST_CREATE_DT ***Sen. Brown is in a no-win situation for himself. Either he works for the best interests of the people of Massachusetts on every issue, not just some of the minor ones that the GOP will let pass, or he fails to be a good representative for us. The majority of Massachusetts voters are not extremely conservative. If he wants to get ahead in the Republican Party, (and we don't know the answer to that question as yet), he must tow the party line. I'm sure he wants to be a "player" with them, but he wants to keep his job. The only way Sen. Brown will keep his standing and advance in the GOP is by being extremely conservative. That's what they're looking for in their ranks. The only way he can be a sometime "this" and a sometime "that" in this era of the political whirlwind is to identify himself as an Independent. He has been reluctant to state his position on many issues since he took office and/but the voters deserve to know if he's working for us or the GOP extreme. It's impossible in this era, as Mr.Kirk implies, to serve two masters.
There are many paths to reduce gridlock. The author really is saying what is needed are 2 liberal ideologues from MA in the US Senate. In more keeping with a real democracy, what is needed are more people to evalauate legislation on the merits. First regarding what is best for MA and then, what is good for the country ( hopefully most of the time this will be the same). In this latter scenario, only Senator Brown fits the description. Professor Warren , despite her lamentations is simply a liberal ideologue. Often times a bill is a mixture of various pieces of legislation, some of which are good and some truly awful. Choices must then be made and sometimes the goodness of one does not overcome the badness of the rest. I would feel so much better about Profesor Warren if she would encourage POTUS to pay equally for the same work in his own house, force credit card companies to stop charging usorous rates, and recognize the $250K amount for the designation of "richness" is only to find enough taxpayers to reach the POTUS chosen amount of desired revenue increase. Certainly this amount is not rich in MA, CT, NJ, NY, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles or San Francisco. And if it were, about $170K would be considered rich in Omaha. Wealth ( of which some have obscene amounts:Career politicians, entertainers, pro athletes, the crowd on Wall Street) is a different story however. Mr. Kirk knows all this but apparently does not care. ROCI
Scott Brown claims he is bipartisan but his voting record shows that he supports big banks, big oil and the 1%. Brown has voted 278 times to block the President’s agenda. Scott voted against 3 jobs bills and has said he will not vote to cut taxes for the middle class unless the millionaires and billionaires also get a tax cut. Wall Street, with Rove’s and the Koch brothers’ help, is fighting to try to keep Elizabeth Warren from being elected. Her significant work on the Consumer Financial Protection bill is one key reason. Elizabeth is for the middle class and will vote for education, infrastructure and research jobs.