Brown is trying to claim to be a New Hamsphirite because nine of his previous family generations are from there, even though he and his mother both were born and grew up in Massachusetts. Hey, that’s proof he’s no carpetbagger. Politifact gives him a half truth. http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/dec/20/scott-brown/scott-brown-says-his-family-roots-go-back-nine-gen/
Uhhuh. My grandparents spent their lives in Kansas, my mother grew up there, and I spent at least a dozen Christmases out there while growing up. But if I claimed to be a Kansan, I’d be laughed out of the state.
Politifact should be renamed ‘Politequate’ and their motto should be “both sides do it.”
Yep, he’s probably gonna for something any day now. Better give him your cash while he makes up his mind! I think Brown learned his lessons from another ex-GOP darling.
He gave up his six-figure Fox gig to do this, so you know he’s serious. About running, that is; he’s still a lightweight.
FTR, he’s been telling everyone in the NH GOP rubber chicken circuit he was born in the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, so he’s a native New Hampster. So what that it’s in Maine.
Keene is actually in Vermont. (slap! OW! Runs away.
)
Not to hijack, but can anyone explain why tiny little New Hampshire has such a huge legislature? The state senate is only 24 members strong, but their House of Representatives at capacity is 400! That’s more than any other state in the union.
What’s up with that? 
There is some dispute about that. NH has claimed it for quite some time. The Supreme Court ruled the island belonged to Maine, but his claim might get some traction with New Hampeshirites.
Perhaps you should update your files a bit. Southern New Hampshire is, in fact, pretty much Massachusetts north these days and that is where the bulk of the state’s population lives. Neither the old-school Republican Yankees nor libertarians are as thick on the ground as they once were.
The “all politics is local” motto carried to its logical (or illogical) extreme. One of the downsides is that the people with the most time, energy, and inclination to run are retired, wealthy, or just a bit obsesses with certain issues. It fits with the classic NH image, but in reality it’s just a pain.
Even with those considerations, the NH Legislature is still Democratic-controlled. That’s in no small part because the bulk of the state is suburban Boston, literally.
No it ain’t.
So more people can get those nifty cop-repellent Legislative license plates.
OldGuy, NH can claim the shipyard all they like, but there’s no dispute that has any meaning anymore.
Funny. Also sad and true. At some point the GOP will come back from crazy and these weak-kneed obsessively self-consciously nonpartisan organizations will again have a useful role in the public discussion. Until then, what can you say about an organization so desperate for conservative acceptance they name, “If you like your policy you can keep it” the biggest lie of the year not because the government program the POTUS was defending would require they change their policy (Which it wouldn’t. Even if their policy didn’t meet the new standards.) but just because in the meantime insurance companies have deliberately invalidated the grandfather status the POTUS was referring to on individual health plans in order to sell more expensive policies? If a huge asteroid killed millions of Americans would Politifact complain that they could no longer keep their old policies (since they were dead) and use that as an excuse to call Obama a liar?
There’s nothing special about Scott Brown. He is sort of a mimbo. (Male bimbo.)
But, it’s disappointing to see people bashing him here. He is an independent voice in government. He votes his conscience, not just party line. You’d think more people would be supportive of that.
It would be nice to see more people in the Senate who thought about an issue before voting rather than just straight party line robots.
He’s a Republican from a very liberal state and votes accordingly. Why is that an act of conscience rather than political calculation?
Because clearly, “if you like your current plan, you can keep it.”
:rolleyes:
I wouldn’t assume that because lost an election in MA he’s not a good campaigner. He lost in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans something like five to one.
I agree that not being from NH will hurt him, but he does have ties here.
Most importantly, his politics fit NH well. He’s conservative on spending but pro-choice. He’s not on the religious right. He’s a moderate who votes on each bill on it’s merits, not party line. This is something that appeals to many NH voters.
Sadly, the posters here are right who point out that the many transplants from MA are basically turning the state into MA north. It probably won’t be long before we have the same high taxes and corrupt system that MA does.
Sure. It might be either of those things, or a bit of both.
Does it matter?
Would the people be better served alternating between robots who vote straight party line?
It’s actually a great system.
From wikipedia.
The members only get paid $100 a year. Plus it’s not a full time job at all, so anybody that desires it can do it. You only work a few nights a week checking emails and a few days here and there for votes.
This keeps the right sort of people in office. There’s no professionals who need to be in public service for a living, like you have with MA where they make $80,000 a year and probably aren’t employable anywhere else.
A few years back a member of the NH house said some vile things about Sarah Palin. It generated controversy and as a result he simply quit. He said something to the effect of “it’s not worth it for $100 a year.” Again, compare this to MA where even notoriously corrupt politicians hang on to their positions through all sorts of scandals.
I regularly see all kinds of old cars, sometimes with funny political bumper stickers that bear NH House license plates. It’s a good thing.
If it doesn’t matter, why say he’s a man of conscience and we need more people like him? If he’s voting in his own best interest, we already have approximately 100 Senators like him. We don’t have a lot of liberal Senators from conservative states and conservative Senators from liberal states these days, but there are a few.
I know this isn’t what you’re supposed to say, but the answer is “it depends what the robots are voting for.” If you want actual compromise and more sanity, electing one Republican from the Northeast won’t do it.
I assumed a positive reason for this voting record, you’re assuming a negative one. Neither of our assumptions can be proven, so there’s no point debating it.
In any case, we both agree that it’s a good thing, right?
If a man gives $100 to charity, can’t we just say that’s a good thing? Must we ask whether he’s doing it because he wants to help people or if he’s doing it because of the way it makes him feel?
Yes, there are a few. It would be better if there were more. When people complain about a congress that’s dysfunctional, not willing to compromise, and polarized, they are complaining that there’s not enough people like Scott Brown. Not just Republicans but Democrats too.
Wouldn’t it be better if there were more of them?
So are you admitting that you want strict party line votes from both sides of the aisle? You better home the Republicans don’t get a majority anytime soon, because you might get your wish.
Sure it will. It won’t bring 100% sanity, but it’s impossible to argue that it won’t bring “more”. How can you say that it won’t, at least in some small way?
That doesn’t answer why you asserted it in the first place, but OK. And I disagree that voting in your own best interest is a negative for a politician. It’s just a given.
No. It would be better if we have two political parties with sensible, well-thought-out platforms that are good for the country. Right now, there’s one, and that means “drink half this poison” is what passes for compromise. That’s what needs to be fixed.
:rolleyes:
Oh no! Then Republicans might… keep doing what they’re been doing for years. What an awful change that would be.
Because the Republican platform won’t change one iota. Can you tell me anything that changed during Brown’s two years in the Senate?
I would argue that it’s not a negative unless you take it too far. A politician voting in their own best interests is sometimes needed, even if it goes against their conscience. But if that’s all they do every vote then they don’t stand for anything.
My take after seeing Brown in office for a while is that he is what he votes like: A centrist Republican who isn’t too far right on social issues.
Yes. Republicans = Bad and Democrats = Good. I got it.
Brown is one person. He can’t change the agenda of the entire party himself. But what if we had ten Scott Browns? Twenty? Just to pick one issue, as a pro-choice conservative myself: I’d love to see a growing pro-choice wing of the Republican party. That would be a good thing.
Whoosh!