« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Ron Johnson Beating Russ Feingold

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  July 15th, 2010 at 01:21 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Okay, so it is within the margin of error and only one point ahead, but it is against Russ Feingold. That’s great.

It is 47 to 46 in Ron Johnson’s favor. More troubling for Feingold, the polling shows that 42% of Wisconsin voters strongly disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy with another 8% somewhat disapproving.

Johnson has been steadily going up in the poll while Feingold has been holding steady. Dave Westlake, by the way, trails Feingold 37% to 51%.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • redtillimdead

    Johnson’s terrific new ad hitting Feingold on his lies about Johnson’s record and Feingold’s no vote on banning drilling in the Great Lakes. http://www.youtube.com/ron4senate#p/a/u/0/PNzArwyU2Uk

  • ilgop24

    Johnson will need to self fund to match Feingold’s war chest. This poll is more of a referendum on Feingold although Johnson’s a solid candidate. Johnson and Fiorinia’s ability to self fund in what were once considered longshot races is a huge asset to the RNSC

  • rdelbov

    real deal–DeMint-Redstate-NSCR apparently all agree.

    Great poll numbers

  • toadold

    Boy. I’m going to have to break out my violin for the Democrats. As more Senate seats fall into the in play zone they have to make some funding decisions on House vs. Senate seats. Is a Senate seat worth investing in if they are just going to lose enough to be unable to have a super majority even with the help of RINOs or are they facing a loss of majority in the Senate? They are starting to admit to themselves that they are cooked in the House elections but do they want to save enough to be able to comeback in 2012?
    Do they want survivor who wll keep up the good fight or survivors who are scared of 2012.

  • izoneguy

    I am sure he is toast.
    This is financial version of ObamaCare – about the same number of pages, no one read it and now that they have passed it they can see what is in it. What a travesty. I shields Fannie & Freddie – the very institutions responsible for the financial meltdown. Nothing good will come from this.

    Congress Sends Obama Sweeping Financial Overhaul Bill

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/reid-schedules-test-vote-banking-overhaul/

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    So why is he toast?

    And how are Democrats going to hit him on their own bill anyway?

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Look, internet conservatives and faebook warriors cried the same thing the last time he voted with the Dems. They screamed betrayal and Benedict, as if the only reason he won was because of them, baloney.

    After he voted with the Dems a couple of times his poll numbers jut kept skyrocketing. No, there is no mythical sleeper army of conservatives in Mass that put him over the top, conservative Dems and independents put him over the top and they dont want a knee jerk Republican.

    Its kind of like San Francisco liberals screaming at Blanche Lincoln of a Tim Johnson for supporting a gun rights bill. Its the same thing.

    Yeah, the Mass GOP is going to sell him out, so some Martin Meehan can be their Senator.

    He’s super strong in uber-liberal Mass and getting stronger:
    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/28/brown_outpolls_kerry_obama/

  • Scope

    by voting for Financial Deform, it shows that Brown is either really stupid, is easily convinced by the wrong people, or that he is a Big Government guy. This bill is the Financial equivalent of the Healthcare in it’s sweeping power grabs by the Progressives in Congress and the WH.

    As to Brown being toast when he comes up for reelection in 2012, that is hard to say. Half of the people who voted for him wanted him to stop the overreaching Obama legislation (not just Obamacare), and, the other half wanted him to go to DC to help improve the O’s legislative agenda. In other words they wanted him to work in a bipartisan manner in DC. It’s only a matter of time before he finds himself with half his arms missing.

    He seems to not be a man of principle, of any kind. He got some phone calls from Geithner, and, even though he told his constituients that he was a no, Geithner changed his mind. It’s no wonder that Reid, Obama and Kerry are always calling him and trying to be his best friend. He is the most welcome Republican on the Hill by the D’s.

    Brown is proving to be a Progressive Republican, much the same as Snowe, Collins, Graham, McCain and a few others.

    Oh, I read today that as of now Brown is a no vote on the Disclose Act. That’s until Chuck U Schumer starts calling him, and putting on the pressure.

  • chihank

    Why is anybody surprised at his liberal votes? Remember Brown voted for MassCare (aka RomneyCare). Brown is what is needed to get elected in Mass. sadly. 2012 will be tough for Brown with Obama on the ballot. Mass will vote for Obama regardless of how low his approval rating. After all, Deval Patrick is less than unless, but he is poised to win re-election.

  • earlgrey

    In reality, I dont’ think our victories in November are going to be as big as many of us think they should be. Is that a good thing to keep up momentum.

    So what happens next, does the pendulum swing back and the activiists slink back into their hole or has the sleeping giant awakened for a generation? That’s how long I think it will take to right the ship.

    Interested in other’s opinions.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Its not so much that he is labeled one thing or the other, its just that he is representative of his constituents. Brown’s record is to the Right of the average voter in Massachusetts. Can’t ask for much more then that.

    The only reason he has “yay” votes is because the Dems know they had the votes to bring it to the floor. When Obama lobbied him for amnesty, he would not budge, nor would he budge on cap and trade, and now the DISCLOSE act. The Dems never brought cap and trade, immigration, DISCLOSE, and numerous other bills to the floor because they know they couldnt get the votes.

  • redtillimdead

    Who would have not forced Dems to remove the bank tax, who would have passed this bill months ago, and who the Democrats would have gotten a much more liberal bill with. Hey, I’m fine with Scott Brown in the Senate. I guess some people here would rather have Barbara Boxer’s BFF in the Senate though.

  • redtillimdead

    Carnahan is much too liberal for the state, and Obama way to unpopular. Portman has too big of a cash lead for Fisher to remain competitive once Portman starts really spending.

  • izoneguy

    be running away from Obama like he was radioactive by 2012….

    There is a dem somewhere in Mass. (Coakley?) who will use Brown’s yes vote against him in 2012. The dems will sound & act conservative to get elected in 2010 & 2012 – but don’t fall for that. Brown did the “I am a conservative” trick. This bill will be so toxic by 2012 and be shown as another shining example of the progressive’s failure that Brown has enabled. He will lose so much more by voting yes then he would have lost by voting NO. Of course Martha Coakly would have been worse. But that does not excuse Scott Brown’s idiotic yes vote.

  • tngal

    Politico says the vote was down party lines except for
    three Republicans voting for it . You’ll never guess who.

    Scott Brown
    Susan Collins
    and Olympia Snowe

    I’m beginning to think these three need to have (?) after their names. That way no one confuses them with any party.

    Also Russ feingold was the only D voting against it.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39788.html#ixzz0tmdXS4zi

  • Swamp_Yankee

    nor did Scott Brown pull any conservative trick to get elected. There are very conservatives here. He ran more as a man of the people, and most people here still hate Wall Street a lot more then the government.

  • rdelbov

    in MO-OH-PA-FL is an accurate predictor of how the November races will come out. I can see the followingsenate races being settled by 1 to 6 percent.

    PA-FL-OH-IL-WI-MO-CO-NV-CA-WA–now a 6% win in Florida could be 300K votes so close is a relative point. That’s 10 races. I could see NV edging to 10% but I think the others races will be MOE in polls until election day. Maybe Florida too.

    Now ND-AR-DE-NH-KY-IN project-in my opinion-to be wins beyond the MOE.

    I have my opinion as to how these senate races will turn out. They all could to the GOP’s way. We could even see some GOP movement in CT & NYB.

    We could lose some of those 10 states I listed up there. We could win them all–its 3 1/2 months to election day. Either way many races will be close

  • eburke

    I didn’t send Scott Brown a fair chunk of change because I thought he would be the next Jim DeMint because Jim DeMint couldn’t win in MS.

    Therefore, I didn’t jump his shorts when he cast a few votes that weren’t exactl;y ‘conservative’, ‘specially the unemployment extension bill because, in the end (and understand this correctly) we’re just talking money.

    This is about a fundamental restructuring of our financial system which gives scads of advantages to our political opponents, imposes crushing regulations on small businesses (the same small businesses that Brown touted as needed for economic growth), and enshrines discrimination at all levels of our banking system. We’re not talking some penny-ante bill here. Next to HCR, this is the worst piece of legislation passed this year.

    And your point about him voting AYE ’cause the Dems had the votes is just BS. They needed 60 to get cloture and Brown gave them 60. If he’s so freaking popular in MS he could’ve taken one for the ‘team’ on something this important.

    That’s what pisses me off about the NE RINOS. I don’t *expect* them to be conservatives so don’t even start with that. But by God, if Harry Reid can get Ben Nelson, Byron Dorgan and Mary Landrieu to toe the line while voting against the wishes of their constituents then by God Mitch McConnell ought to be able to get Brown and the Maine Blueberry Muffins to hew the line on something this fundamentally major to our nation and our party.

    Sorry, Swamp. I know you worked your butt off on his campaign but there’s no excuse for this. Period.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Whether it be from the perspective of classic conservatism, or from in the classics liberal tradition of the founders, I still believe in the principles of representation. I never expected a strident ideologue who would systemically defy the wishes of his people

    Some people are mad that hasn’t voted with the GOP every time, but that’s not Massachusetts, that’s not what the people wanted, that not what the people expected, that’s not why they sent him to D.C.

    Its not about excusing this, its about understanding it. Any liberal activist with a clue would take whatever they could from a Dem Senator that got elected in Utah and not sweat the fact that maybe they voted for a tax cut once and voted for gun rights, as long as he rode with them on a number of other fundamental issues. Its just a tactical understanding of politics and the real demographics of Massachusetts. Where I’m from, 20+ unemployment in the cities is the norm and that was before the recession. In Boston, one of every three voters is foreign born. There are more college kids per capita in Mass then any other state in the country. He has a very tight rope to walk.

    In the end, this isn’t as transformation as other bills. It doesn’t fundamentally alter society like other pieces of legislation These things can be undone rather easily.

  • earlgrey

    If ever there was a time when the line between D and R was most apparent it is now. I don’t doubt what you are saying, I just lament the reality, and I believe that for victory in the long run that has to change.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    This is in heavy circulation in Massachusetts:

    There is a 24/7 campaign against him that will not stop until 2012. Those who think some slings and arrows on facebook are something new to him don’t know Massachusetts, don’t know the Boston Globe. He is in a perpetual state of war here.

  • eburke

    stated, both in this post and in numerous others, that I have not and do not subscribe to the ‘purity’ test. So I’m more than a bit disappointed that you chose to post in your reply to me this:

    “I never expected a strident ideologue who would systemically defy the wishes of his people” or this:

    “Some people are mad that hasn?t voted with the GOP every time, but that?s not Massachusetts, that?s not what the people wanted, that not what the people expected, that?s not why they sent him to D.C.” or this:

    “Any liberal activist with a clue would take whatever they could from a Dem Senator that got elected in Utah and not sweat the fact that maybe they voted for a tax cut once and voted for gun rights,”

    But here’s where you and I truly part company: “In the end, this isn?t as transformation as other bills. It doesn?t fundamentally alter society like other pieces of legislation These things can be undone rather easily.”

    This *was* a fundamental piece of legislation…it *will* alter society (go read the Washington Examiners look at the legislation) and it will *not* be easily undone.

    The fact that you wrote the last paragraph leaves me wondering just what issues you believe *are* fundamental enough to demand party loyalty.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • swami7774

    Brown didn’t run as Jeff Sessions. If he had he wouldn’t have gotten elected. That’s not who he is.
    He’ll be with us 70%+ of the time, which is a damn sight better than the guy he replaced(or the hag he beat).

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    is HUGE

  • zachv

    Johnson is a small business owner, who has proven himself to be incredibly successful. Thus the ability to self fund and reach Wisconsin voters.

    Compare that to Dave Westlake’s $5,000 in the bank [I'm not kidding] and Sen. Feingold’s on hand $4.3 million.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Financial regulations can be changed. they don’t change the culture at large. You cant undue amnesty. You can repeal card check, but once the unions are created, they are permanent. You can repeal health care, but once millions of people become dependent or intertwined with the government, they effects the psyche, the culture. You can try and change cap and trade, but once economic energies are rerouted towards green corridors, whatever has been built becomes permanent.

    Changing the derivatives cap from 3% to, say, 10% is not that hard by comparison. You can downsize and eliminate a bureaucracy. As corporate counsel for two fortune one hundred companies, we see financial rules and regs get shifted all the time. From Glass to GLB, SOX… It happens all the time. Financial regulations can be overturned. They regulate a tiny, tiny sector of society of society, (a sector by the way that spurned conservatives, supported Dems, and were, at least to some degree, complicit in the meltdown.)

    These financial regs do not create a new, large class of government dependents. It does not make millions of people reliant upon the government. It does not alter the psyche, the soul, the spirit or the culture of the American people. It does not create a new class of Democrat voters. It does not make it more difficult for conservatives to get elected. It does not stifle conservative speech… That is the type of stuff that is transformational.

    I

  • izoneguy

    Chances are you will be run over by something.

    Voting for the financial bill won’t garner votes from the left.
    He will lose support from the right. Obama’s run was about to hit a brick wall. Brown helped push the progressive agenda that much farther. Obama is like a snake. You cannot de-fang him. You must cut off the head. In this case Brown supplied Obama with new fangs.

  • izoneguy

    Obama’s Financial ‘Reform’ Doesn’t Fix Anything

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/15/john-lott-obama-financial-reform-senate-skyrocket-crisis/

    The 2,319 page financial regulation bill that just passed Congress is filled with vague, complicated language.

    Some language will weaken our financial system and make it less efficient.

    Other language appears to mandate racial and gender employment quotas in dozens of Federal agencies.

    In the name of making sure that there is not another financial crisis, the bill does nothing to address what caused the mortgage problems created by government regulations that forced banks to make risky loans that they didn’t want to make.

    It does nothing to rein in the $400 billion in losses created by government entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Just as President Obama is driving oil rigs out of American waters to other nations, he is going to drive some financial operations overseas.

    He is going to raise company costs and make it costly for them to buy insurance.

    We have yet another example of government financial regulations begetting more regulations. Regulations that force financial institutions to make risky mortgages remain in place.

    And if Scott Brown did not understand this – then he is a bigger idiot than I thought he was.

  • rdelbov

    1st in PA-CO-OH-MO-NV-FL there is a history of fairly close elections and the partisan divisions are pretty strong. There is a large labor-AA-liberal base in all of these states with an offseting conservative base. So in a stae like OH where its so clear to be that we should win by +10 percent you have a 40% or D base. The democrats spend huge resources to win the middle and turn out their base. I suspect that in PA-OH-MO you see 75% of senate and Gov races settled by 8% or less. Close elections are just the norm. Florida and Nevada does have its share of landslide races but there has also been a ton of close senate races. Reid lost one race by 87 votes and won another by 400 votes.

    Now in IL-WA-WI-CA you have 4 blue states where the GOP has a great chance of winning a senate seat. Three incumbents are running too so no GOP candidate is going to romp in those circumstances by +10%.

  • From ME to You

    It will, however increase the stranglehold that government has on business and finance.

    Instead of 10,000 rules and hoops you’ll now have 15,000 rules and hoops. If you’re an already extant entity, the cost of compliance can be added to your prices/rates. If you still have customers willing to pay the higher rates you’ll stay in business, if not…

    If you are trying to start a business, the initial cost may prove prohibitive.

    The delay between the signing of the bill and the creation of the thousands of new rules and regulations will cause potential investors to hold onto their money until they can figure out how to not get screwed!

  • Swamp_Yankee

    No one argues that.

  • rdelbov

    for this. He did pledge to vote to reform Wall street but he could have easily have found hundreds of reasons to voted no on this. Brown’s rational is almost certainly that this bill just changes the rules on already heavily regulated industry. There are millions of rules and regulations on this industry. Lets remember that because of FDIC insurance anytime the congress wants to yank the chain in the banking industry they do.

    I still, however, support Scott Brown. I pointed out all of the things he has stopped so far the other day. No use going over them again.
    Having 41 GOP senators also means we cannot just get steamrolled by opening the debate on a bill and then having several democrats vote no it.

  • Scope

    those that voted for Obama, and are a tad bit embarassed that they did so, but, they still like his personality. There is no defense of Brown’s vote, unless you are really trying hard to prop up a loser. Hey, it’s not a disgrace to admit you were wrong, just admit it, and, move on. It’s not necessarily the original crime that gets one, it is the attempt at the cover up that sinks the ones that keep trying to prop up the lie. Scott Brown’s campaign was built on a lie. He was never going to be the 41st vote against Ocare. It was never coming back to the Senate by the time he got there. He knew that, and, so did anyone paying attention. That was the first big false selling point of Brown.

  • Scope

    is that Redstate has brought out those that are moderates, and, those that are conservatives. A great test of where the members fall.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    forcing Dems to use deem and pass and exposing their treachery, DISCLOSE Act, amnesty, cap and trade, national security, terrorism, taxes, second stimulus…. all mean nothing to you I guess.

    Why are you so bitter towards him. There wasnt a single Republican in Congress from Mass (10 house seats and 2 Senate seats) Not one in any executive office in Mass. In a state senate of 40, there are 5 Republicans.

    I’m quite proud of my vote and the work we are doingin this hostile environement. But some people are so petty and bitter, I dont get it.

  • Scope

    for one of the O’s most important pieces of legislation that will add to the list of must repeal bills. Brown says he is voting no on the Disclose Act, great. I wish he would have voted for the Disclose Act rather than the Financial Deform bill. It’s one of the most important votes in this Congress, along with Ocare, and, he apparently is squishy enough to be convinced that this is a good bill. Either that or he doesn’t have a clue what the legislation will do in harming this country, and, everything harmful it will do is still unknown. Remember Dodd said that it would have to be passed in order to know what’s in it. That should have been Brown’s first Red flag.

    Just as the O promised that there would be no federal funding of abortions in Ocare, and went through the useless motions of signing an executive order to prop up his argument, and to appease Stupak, we just learned of Federally funded abortions becoming a reality in PA. If Brown believes for one minute that he made the bill better by having the bank tax taken out, he is as naive as Stupak. I promise there will be a bank tax, and then some.

    Reading an article on who voted for Brown in his Senate election, it was believed that half that voted for him did so so that he would stop the Obama power grabbing agenda. The other half that voted for him did so so that he would “reach across the aisle and improve legislation.” With this vote he didn’t stop the agenda, he enabled it. With this vote, he didn’t improve the legislation, he concentrated on one little area, the bank tax, and then ignored the worst of the bill. I’d say he just screwed a majority of who voted for him.

    I am certainly not alone with my anger at Brown, read around the web. You will find that probably 8 in 10 articles addressing the issue are also angry and disgusted with Brown’s Financial Deform enabling vote. From a Republican/Conservative perspective, he has surprised even some who knew he would not always tow the party line. This was his most important vote to date, and, after this I expect no help for the R’s out of him, simply because he is stuck on listening to and agreeing with the wrong party.

  • izoneguy

    The markets going down the day after passing historic “Financial Reform” – must be a glitch….

    The elevator is going to hell – courtesy of your elevator operator – Mr. Obama……

  • izoneguy

    Quotas Hidden in Bank Reform Bill Will Cost Taxpayers Millions

    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/financial-reform-quotas-millions-business-taxes-banks-reid-biden-obama/2010/07/15/id/364795?s=al&promo_code=A4AE-1

  • izoneguy

    Dodd-Frank may backfire on Democrats.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704682604575369360615508520.html

    If President Obama is proof of anything, it’s that governance isn’t so much about the “whether” as the “what.” There’s no longer any question whether this White House can close a sale. Its problem is the country doesn’t like what it’s selling.

    Which brings us to yesterday’s passage of Mr. Obama’s financial overhaul bill. The press is hailing it as another big Obama victory, one that allows the president to brag about fulfilling his agenda and allows Democrats a “reform” to wave going into midterms.

    Maybe. Or maybe there’s every reason to believe the financial overhaul?like stimulus and health care?proves more political liability than political benefit.

    Like stimulus and ObamaCare, this bill barely survived Congress. That alone is noteworthy, considering the White House had been raring for this fight, figuring it an easy score against Republicans who were to be painted as either with the administration or with the Wall Street robber barons.

    That line did spur Tennessee’s Bob Corker to rush into “bipartisan” talks, giving Democrats ammunition against his fellow Republicans. And in the end it proved enough to lure the GOP’s weaker links?Massachusetts’s Scott Brown and Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins?into Mr. Obama’s trap. But that was it. All the forces of the White House’s populist fury against Wall Street couldn’t net it more than six House and Senate Republicans in total.

    And it was a trap. Too bad Scott Brown did not heed the warnings….”Nooooo, go back it’s a trap!”

    Given the radical and experimental nature of this bill, they will, like with the stimulus and health care, have cause to read in coming months about unintended consequences. The White House is not going to be able to prove it fixed the financial system. But it will have to answer questions about the small business that can’t get credit, or the Midwest farmer who has been priced out of the derivatives market.

    And the timing is hardly fortuitous. The White House got this far by trashing Wall Street and greedy CEOs. It did this so frequently that the discussion is shifting to how its antibusiness policies are hurting recovery.

    The Business Roundtable, its onetime reliable ally, has revolted. The Chamber of Commerce unloaded on the administration this week, calling its polices a “general attack on our free enterprise system.” Mr. Obama now gets to sign a bill that will lard job-sapping regulations on the business community as a whole, as even the White House frets how to reassure the public that it is pro-business.

    There are, of course, liberals in Congress and the White House for whom this political risk means little. As with health care, the true believers viewed the financial bill as another opportunity to vastly expand government control over the economy, and move the U.S. closer to the European system. They got their ideological victory; never mind about the political fallout.

    But for those Democrats worried about keeping their jobs, it’s far from clear this bill will help. The financial regulation bill was cast from the same big-government, antibusiness mold as ObamaCare and the stimulus. The public turns against those laws by the day. Maybe financial regulation will prove third time lucky for this majority. They shouldn’t count on it.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Nobody is happy with the vote.

    Its just foolish to say the people regret their votes or support. That’s just stupid. Illogical on any level. As if we would be better off having Martha Coakley, no filibuster and the Dems getting 90% of their agenda through, as opposed to getting 30%. I repeat, Brown has get many important pieces of legislation from even getting to the floor.

    Trying to equate Brown voters with Obama voters might be the lamest thing I?ve read here in a while. Your insistence that everyone knew health care wasn?t going back to the Senate is just nonsense. No one knew what was going to happen.

    Swami is from Cape Cod. I am from New Bedford. We have family and friends here. My parents are buried here. My brother owns a bar here. My other brother owns a fishing business here. My nieces and nephews go to public school here.

    I became a member of my townRepublican committee 15 years ago, when I was 21, a few months after I graduated college. I’ve been to the last four state GOP conventions. I?ve shed blood, sweat and tears trying to help build the GOP here, trying to save and protect the pockets of good people that live here.

    The stupidity of internet activists who proclaim that Republicans never win because they never run is just embarassig. Then their are others who just want us to quit all together. We have a Right of Center Republican in the most liberal state in the union and everyone should be happy about that.

    What the f*ck have people like you done for the people of Massachusetts and the GOP up here, other then jump on threads, stalk people like Scott Brown and whine?

  • Scope

    and once again say, sometimes it is very hard for someone who worked their heart out to get Brown elected to admit that on this bill in particular, he was a loser. It takes a person who is willing to admit they were wrong to gain any credibility, with any or every issue. It really doesn’t matter where the majority of the Mass. voters, who helped elect him stand, I have some really serious doubts that the majority of his voters would have backed him on this vote. If you look around, some of the most liberal states are now at least looking at the Republicans to stop the massacre to the country. No no no, Scott Brown has shown that he is willing to be persuaded. No constituents appreciate someone who can now be seen as a loose cannon, especially when you don’t have a clue as to when or where that cannon will go off. I would love to believe that Brown is still sitting on the fence, however, for him to fold on one of the most important bills to give the feds even more power, he has shown that he has fallen off the fence, unfortunately on the left side. What bothers me most about him is the stories, as told by he himself, about all the calls he gets from Reid, Geithner et all, and then he winds up voting for their bills. That is absolutely unnerving for me.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    for many of the same reasons he opposed ObamaCare, and that is the DISCRETION given the executive. In the Dodd bill, the President can regulate/take over any company he “deems” a threat to the economy. I supported Brown on unemployment extension and the puny second stimulus (the one they are discussing now is actually the 3rd or 4th…) and even cloture on this, but to actually vote for it is a HUGE negative for Brown.

  • Scope

    his biggest talking point in his campaign was that he would be the 41st vote against Ocare. I am remembering that he did support Romneycare in Mass. I would understand if he believed that states have the right to pass what their residents want, but, with voting for the Fin. Reg. bill, he has gone over to the side of the feds, rather than the states. I can no longer trust him on any votes. Some like to say that he is against Cap and Trade and the Comprehensive (chills) Immigration legislation that may come up in the lame duck Congress. After Fin Deform, which he said he would vote against just a week or so ago, do you trust that he would vote against the final push for the Dems. agenda in December? I can’t, and. I think he has put himself into a McCain position, a Maverick that you can never trust further than you can throw him.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    of a democrat’s vote!