Will Senator Brown vote for finanical reform?
A politically correct Sen. Scott Brown on CBS Face the Nation speaking about the president:
"He has a good family. He has two wonderful daughters...I recognize that challenge and what that can hold and I respect the office of the president and I've always said that he is an American," Brown said. "I know he cares deeply about our country, but there's just different priorities."
Instead of talking tough and challenging Tim Geithner and President Obama's sweeping overhaul of the financial systems in the U.S., Scott Brown digressed and said President Obama is a "good man" because he has the challenge of raising two children. What? Does Brown have inside information about the president and his parenting habits that we don't know about? Since when does raising two children on a millionaire's income qualify as challenging?
Narcissism runs deep in the political landscape, and it takes one to know one. Mr. Brown gives Obama a nonchalant pass while the president is spending our great nation into an abyss of economic destruction that may take generations to reverse.
Brown has proven to be worse than I predicted the day after he got elected. He not only doesn't give a damn about the people who put him into office, but he arrogantly uses a stick and a carrot with talk of being the "41st vote" and the "60th vote" when the issues that really matter get down to the wire. Not good enough, Mr. Brown.
Well, the Senator from Massachusetts will shortly have his moment to shine or perish when the financial regulatory bill comes up for a vote. In Politico:
"The bill is not a good bill, period," said Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), a GOP bellwether on the issue. Brown said he would join a filibuster on the bill unless Democrats make improvements to it.
Notice how Brown indicates, "unless Democrats make improvements to it." Classified as a Republican in name only, Brown is showing his willingness to compromise with the likes of Tim Geithner, and thereby dashes any hopes that he will make good decisions for America in the future. At this moment, all forty-one Republican senators are united against passage of this bill, but it sounds like it will end up being a case of Nelson and Stupak all over again.
How many times does Lucy van Pelt have to take away the football from the American people before they wise up and vet future politicians on their whole lives, not just on the blathering rhetoric they use to cover their real intentions.
Woe to those politicians who abuse the public trust.