FinReg passes with help from Senator Brown
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) said Thursday that he flipped his vote on the financial regulatory overhaul because of assurances he received from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Brown on Wednesday voted against cloture to move to a final vote on the bill, saying that he had reservations with the flawed bill. The motion failed, which upset Reid.
But on Thursday, Brown said he received enough guarantees from Reid to feel confident about crossing the aisle.
“I supported moving the financial bill forward today because I received assurances from Senator Reid and his leadership team that the issues related to Massachusetts in the financial reform bill will be fixed before it is signed into law,” he said in a statement. “We are still working to ensure these commitments are fulfilled prior to a final vote.”
You just have to laugh. Maybe it’s just the greenness of being a first term senator, but seriously man….Harry Reid?
The consensus on FinReg seems to be that it’s a toothless “reform” bill, a bill passed just so Democrats and the President can say they “did something” on reforming the financial industry while campaigning for the midterms.
But the merits of the bill notwithstanding……Harry Reid? You took “assurances” from Harry Reid? Maybe it’s just that he’s a rookie senator. Or maybe he’s trying to flex his bipartisanship muscles for the constituents back in the Massachussets. I can’t tell for sure.
But I do know that taking any sort of promise from Harry Reid will not end very well.
UPDATE. It’s getting clearer now:
So why did Brown buckle, after voting to uphold the filibuster on Wednesday?
For starters, he received 3,000 phone calls to his office over the last week, all of them by supporters of Organizing for America, the apparatus that sprung out of President Obama’s campaign for the White House that is now housed inside the Democratic National Committee.
Brown received around 900 calls on Thursday alone, a DNC source said.
Then there is guilt. Reid all but called Brown out by name on Wednesday when he said that the Senate did not move forward on a procedural vote to end debate and overcome the filibuster because a senator had “broken his word.”
So Senator Brown, who campaigned as a rebel-in-a-blue-state type, hero of the resurgent conservative movement, who promised he would stand up to the statist agenda of the Democratic majority in Washington, is easily led around by the nose by said Democratic party. Lovely.
As I noted in the original post, perhaps this is to be expected from a Republican from the Bay State.
Allahpundit ponders the same, which leads to an interesting, if not unwelcome, question:
The left knew they could make things uncomfortable for him in Massachusetts if he didn’t cave, so they turned the screws — and he caved. Which, admittedly, was fully expected after the first filibuster, but is no less depressing for having been predictable.
Exit question: Forgivable offense for a blue-state Republican worried about reelection or primary-worthy sin that’ll have Red State pounding the table tomorrow?
This is the last thing the Republicans need right now.