Energizing the base is good, but elections are decided by swing votes.

Yeah and the swing voters are definitely in an anti-incumbent mood.

True BUT Reagan did the opposite of Obama and the economy recovered.Obama's leftist policies will not lead to recovery Americans expect.Where did you get 47? Most polls I see say 44-45 range and dropping.

Obama also has a lot of baggage Reagan did not.Due to Obama's racist connections, actions, remarks, the costly vacations and other controversies he has lost independents, esp white male independents and I would be shocked if he got them back.

Well they don't have to be an extremist but when someone runs as a Republican which implies some conservative views they are expected to vote that way most of the time because their principles should demand it, esp on major Dem pushed issues of the Obama agenda.This is a fight for the future, no time to for warm fuzzy cooperation with Obama and his goons.Time to fight their agenda to best of ability until can regain enough seats in congress to stop them and get the US back on the right track.

I was initially excited about Brown winning the seat Kennedy held for so long but a red flag for myself and many was when he continually praised Ted Kennedy after his election, red flag for sure because no self respecting conservative could praise a slug like Ted Kennedy.Sure you do not speak ill of him publicly since he is dead but you don't praise him either, let it be.Then Mr Brown goes to Washington and joined the usual traitors like Snowe, Collins etc If you vote for an an Obama bill, then you are endorsing the Obama agenda and are no Conservative or Republican.

Brown voted for the wasteful and ineffective jobs bill shortly after entering office.So his first vote as a US Senator was the wasteful "jobs bill". Hows that working out? oh yea unemployment is still high and prob going to rise some more.

This is from an article I read and the author said it best:

Today Senator Brown announced that he will be supporting the financial reform bill known as Dodd-Frank. Yes, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are the ones who has a massive role in creating this mess now want to right the law that fixes it. Scott Brown supports it because they eliminated the tax increases to pay for it.


"I decided that while the bill was far from perfect", he writes in his Facebook post, but it is a "vast improvement". In other words the bill still sucks, but I'm going to vote for it anyway because I don't have spine and I want to try and keep my liberal voters happy in my liberal run bankrupt home state of Massachusetts.

Brown is a RINO, if he had true Conservative/Republican principles he would have voted NO for that crappy bill by Dodd-Frank.

So most of the time thus far on the major issues, Brown has voted with the other side, hmm.I was happy he voted against Kagan, guess even Libby prone Brown saw the potential she has to cause harm.

Brown is a RINO, it's obvious.

re: Scott Brown
 

you have to decide if you want electable moderate candidates or pure, but unelectable conservatives. The democrats got their majority in 2006 by running conservative, pro-gun, anti-abortion candidates in conservative ridings.

Brown is a Republican who managed to get elected in Red liberal Massachusetts. He can't vote with the Republicans all the time if he wants to get reelected in 2012. If you check his votes, you will see he still votes with the Republicans most of the time. He is picking his no votes wisely to have the most impact in Mass.

You have to decide which is better to have in the senate, a moderate republican or liberal democrat? I'm sure the democrats would say the latter.

Well, that's just it, isn't it? You can compromise and get yourself into the game, or you can be ideologically pure and sit back home and watch it on TV. Our government is founded on compromise.

or post on an internet forum....;)

Easy to be pure when you don't have to answer to constituants...:arrgh!:

I see your point about being a Repub in Mass and all that, I had considered that but he does damage when he votes for crappy things such as the jobs bill etc in order to go along to get along, which is a huge part of the problem in D.C., no one has principles they stick to except for a few.I'll give him a chance but thus far I am highly disappointed

Your disappointment is nothing compared to what you'd be feeling if we had elected Martha Coakley.

Do you live in Massachussetts? If not, then saying you'll give him a chance is meaningless. You can love him or hate him, and it won't make one bit of difference.

The thing that I liked the most about Reagan was that he loved jelly beans. I was a kid during his presidency, so there you go. :rotfl2:

No I do not live in MA but his votes do not only affect MA but the entire country so my opinion as well as others matter.

August, good point, better than Coakley but MA could have done better than either of them.

Not really. You can't vote for or against the guy if he does well or poorly in your estimation, and he doesn't represent you. So no, your opinion of him doesn't matter much. Not saying you can't have an opinion. Just saying it doesn't make a difference.

:har:Ha! I just looked at the comment section on the first post video. Damn thats what you call a desperation but my favorite is "Mr Putin gemme "rinda, i`am desparate russian good for nothing vodka drinker and i need some attention". I think we have a winner on this thread, 46. Well.... here is your magical number 3. GoFYS :salute:

They broke the mold when Ronnie was born.

Well I agree, *if someone better had been running for that office*.

Don't get me wrong. Martha Coakley has done a good job as State Attorney General. She's a pitbull when it comes to going after lawbreakers, but as a legislator she would have been a rubber stamp for the ruling party who would have exacerbated the problems in Washington rather than helped to alleviate them.

Nobody here really thought Brown would make a better legislator. He got elected because he was able to successfully cast himself as an outsider who would vote his own conscience rather than along party lines.

Which was exactly my point. I can try to do something about Orrin Hatch. I can't do a thing about Bill Nelson except make noise.