Brown was elected to be that 41st vote against health deform. He was not elected to oppose a jobs tax credit in a recession. Somehow, I do not think that he has anything to fear from someone who would make that a rallying cry in his next election.

Brown won’t be were I want him to be, but I bet that he will be there 70% of the time if his state record translates to the national. He will oppose socialism. He will be for more restraint fiscally. He will favor conscience clauses and oppose abortion funding. He will support conservative appointments. He will favor traditional marriage. He will oppose tax hikes. He will favor a strong national defense.

He is a great improvement over Ted Kennedy or Martha Coakley. It is much better to have a C student than a low F student. That has to apply to the Senate as well.

The problem is that a segment of movement would only be statisfied with Ron Paul and maybe Tom Coburn. Ronald Reagan would not have been acceptable. They will not get elected in MA or maybe even DE, today statewide. There is a point that we do not need to cross. Not filibustering every bill is vital to allowing the senate to work. If we do it, when we get control, they will. The filibuster should be used for serious issues. Is this not paid for by other cuts. I agree with Dave. This seems silly to even get upset about. That is why I didn’t even cover it. I was more interested in the Canadian official (Newfoundland’s Labor Primer).

Believe it or not, people that pay attention to Glenn Beck would have known this was coming and taken it in stride like I did. It isn’t news major news, any more than Senator Carper’s or Kauffman’s votes were. Senator Brown is doing HIS job for HIS state, and I think his performance has been respectable so far.

I would rather have Sen. Brown 50% of the time than Sen. Coackley 0% of the time. These are the compromises we will have to make if we want to get anywhere.