Brown, Changing With The Weather

Could there be any candidate for Congress more phony than Senate candidate Scott Brown? Any one?

Debating incumbent Jeanne Shaheen on Tuesday night, Brown, who had moved to New Hampshire to run for the Senate, was asked by NBC's Chuck Todd why he is running in the Granite State after he lost his Massachusetts seat in 2012 to Democrat Elizabeth Warren.  The Concord Monitor reported

“Because I live here,” Brown said, explaining that his mother worked as a waitress on Hampton Beach and his father worked in the state as an airman. “I have long and strong ties. I’m running because I care about New Hampshire and care about restoring America. That’s why I’m running.”

The audience laughed, though far less than the candidate deserved.  Brown, who has run a commercial arguing that President Obama and Senator Shaheen "don't understand" the terrorist threat, was reminded by Todd that he had "suggested that the Islamic militant group ISIS could come across the U.S. border, in fact, saying that is, quote 'the most obvious pathway for terrorists to enter our country.'"  So Scott Brown was asked ” What is the evidence for that assertion? We've had terrorists come across the border, the north of the border. "

Brown responded "with respect, I did not say that. What I have said is that ISIS is real." Yet David Weigel points out that last month the Repub had claimed "these ISIS thugs have been saying for months that they’re going to send people here to kill Americans on as big a scale as they can, and never mind that a porous border is the most obvious pathway for terrorists to enter our country.”

Then there is climate change.  Grist's Ben Adler notes of Brown

During his 12 years in the Massachusetts state legislature, from 1998 to 2010, he voted for strong state limits on greenhouse gases and in favor of forming the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a carbon-trading system for Northeast states. In 2007, the Massachusetts Audubon Society gave him a perfect rating on its scorecard.

Soon afterward, unfortunately, Scott Brown became a Repub on the national stage and accepted gobs of money from the fossil fuel industry. He voted for oil subsidies and against higher fuel standards and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. As of his (losing) re-election campaign in 2012, he had whittled down his acceptance of scientific fact, maintaining "I do believe man plays a role." Two years later, he now denies climate change is scientifically proven.

When Lindsay Graham, stoking additional fear of ISIS, declares "this president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed here at home," he appears almost to believe it.  Anyway, he's a Senator from South Carolina and may need to compensate for a suspected sexual orientation differing from the majority of his constituents.

However, Cosmo Scott (second and third photographs, below, from the AP) does not need to compensate, he's from the (relatively) liberal northeast, and he played a progressive previously.  Not so now, and the editors of Cosmopolitan magazine wrote in September, "Scott Brown may have been Cosmopolitan’s ‘sexiest man’ in 1982, but in 2014, we’re picking brains over brawn — and that’s Jeanne Shaheen,”

But Scott Brown, positioning himself between what he once was (or posed as) and what his party now demands, joining Chris Christie as a Repub who believes in nothing other than himself. Or as Adler figures, "either Scott Brown was lying in 2012, or he is lying now, or he doesn’t really believe in anything at all. (I’d put my money on the latter.) "

Share |

And She Doesn't Live In A Teepee, Either


It was full steam ahead for conservative bloggers, writers, and talk show hosts when Boston's other paper, the Boston Herald, reported in late April that Elizabeth Warren, who as a professor at Harvard Law School (from which she now is on leave)  had told the institution that she was in small part of Cherokee heritage.    A blogger at Ace of Spades HQ claimed "When people are willing to lie that easily for little or no reason, they'll lie about anything. Someone should start reviewing her academic papers."   Syndicated columnist Mark Steyn, who periodically substitutes for the host on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, wrote "Alas, the actual original marriage license does not list Great-Great-Great-Gran'ma as Cherokee, but let's cut Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Crockagawea Warren some slack here. She couldn't be black. She would if she could, but she couldn't. But she could be 1/32nd Cherokee, and maybe get invited to a luncheon with others of her kind – "people who are like I am," 31/32nds white – and they can all sit around celebrating their diversity together."  La Shawn Barber blogs "The point I tried to make in the column was how ridiculous it is for the blond, blue-eyed Elizabeth Warren to list herself as a racial minority, an American Indian, not that the descendants of American Indians cannot be blond and blue-eyed.

Limbaugh himself couldn't be restrained,  commenting "This is the woman Obama wanted to run a consumer fraud division or what have you.  But what reservation did this woman grow up on? When was the last reservation she was at? What's the last pack of cigarettes with no sales tax that she bought?  But this is who they are."

Ever the opportunist, Limbaugh used the flak over Warren's claim as fodder for generally attacking liberals, whom he claimed

categorize people. They make moral judgments on people on the basis of surface matters.  They don't see the humanity of an individual.  They see the skin color; they see the sex, the gender, the orientation -- and from there they make their judgments on people.  And here's proof of it.  She is an Indian, one-thirty-second of an Indian, because her papaw had high cheekbones.  And all Indians have high cheekbones.

Before critiquing racialism, Limbaugh should have checked in with his preferred Massachusetts Senate candidate, incumbent Scott Brown (R-Cosmo), who at his debate with Ms. Warren, unashamedly argued "Professor Warren claimed she was a Native American, a person of color.  And as you can see, she is not."

Credit Scott Brown for political acumen.  Recognizing he is running in Massachusetts, he has avoided criticizing  Democratic President Barack Obama and has employed the politically correct terms "person of color" and "Native American."

But American ethnicity is a complicated matter, a melting pot or mosaic or at times even a hodgepodge.  It may be hard enough for a member of one Indian tribe to recognize another, and probably more difficult for, say, for a Caucasian, Asian, or black person to make the distinction.   And here comes Scott Brown, native and resident of the State of Massachusetts, with fewer of its residents of such background than 40 other states, to say of Elizabeth Warren, "and as you can see, she is not."   Among the Senator's detractors was Bill John Baker, who asserted "The Cherokee Nation is a modern, productive society, and I am blessed to be their chief. I will not be silent when individuals mock and insult our people and our great nation.”

The perfect term for the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North America and South America and their descendants, formerly referred to as "Indians" and increasingly as "Native Americans," remains elusive.      Julia Good Fox, professor of American Indian Studies at Haskell Indian Nations University, states "I think people still have this perception that all American Indians look like this image of Plains Indians from the 1800s.   We don’t look like how we would have 200 years ago either, so to expect Indians to look the same (as they did then) makes no sense."

Nor does it make any sense to assume, as Brown does, that all such individuals are "persons of color" (whatever the phrase means).   Bill John Baker would know.   He is 1/32 Cherokee, the same as claimed by Elizabeth Warren.  And this "person of color" looks like this:

Share |

Republican Response Regrettable (And Lacking Alliteration)


Evan McMorris-Santoro of Talking Points Memo probably is a very nice man.     But is he living in an alternate universe?

Massachusetts' Scott Brown, recipient of gobs of Wall Street cash, voted for the Blunt amendment permitting all employers to deny to employees preventive health care on a whim.  If the employer can claim a religious or moral objection, any service is fair game and can be eliminated for the employee.    Worse yet, Brown then wrapped his attack on health care around the First Amendment, arguing that the measure enhanced religious freedom and was consistent with the position of the late Senator Edward Kennedy.     Wrong vote, cowardly (and misleading) excuse.

But Brown (as of now) stands alone in the GOP firmament in his condemnation of Rush Limbaugh, who this past week referred to Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke as a "slut" or "prostitute."     He claimed, falsely and with obvious ignorance of the mechanism of birth control, that Fluke "said that she was having so much sex, she can't afford it."        

Brown tweeted "Rush Limbaugh's comments are reprehensible.    He should apologize."   National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee chairwoman Carly Fiorina said the remarks were "insulting in my opinion," the next best thing to characterizing them flatly as "insulting;" and "a distraction from very real and important issues," suggesting that Limbaugh's primary sin may have been political ineptitude.

The assessments by Brown and Fiorina stand alone and don't warrant McMorris-Santoro's observation "looks like Republicans aren't going to stick by Rush Limbaugh this time."       The TPM contributor, as evidence, cites Speaker Boehner's spokesman who, channeling the old playground excuse "so's your old man," remarked "the speaker obviously believes the use of these words was inappropriate, as was trying to raise money off the situation."

McMorris-Santoro noted that House Oversight Committe Chairman Darrell Issa (reputed to be the wealthiest member of Congress) "does not agree 'with many comments that have been made during the effort to examine the constitutionality of Obamacare’s mandates on individual freedom, including the ones by Mr. Limbaugh, I find your narrow focus on this particular comment to be self-serving and dismissive of other inappropriate comments and attacks on Americans of faith.'"      And he calls that- wait for it- "the least condemning criticism of all the Republicans who weighed in Friday."     Criticism?

A little earlier, McMorris-Santoro had argued "With one phone call, President Obama has forced the Republican candidates for president into a Sophie’s Choice with potentially far-reaching implications: Do they stand up to Rush Limbaugh, who made divisive comments about a law student this week, or do they stand up for a highly influential conservative leader who’s embarrassed the Republicans who’ve crossed him in the past?"

Obama's phone call was commendable, strategically and ethically, but McMorris-Santoro takes from it the wrong lesson.       Blogging "early indications are Rick Santorum has chosen the former path," he notes the ex-Pennsylvania senator from Virginia remarked "He’s being absurd, but that’s you know, an entertainer can be absurd.      He’s in a very different business than I am.”     Santorum's statement was rather clever, but rather disingenuous and hardly critical.

Memo to McMorris-Santoro:     when an immensely influential political figure says something outrageous and a politician claims the guy is merely an "entertainer," he is excusing the speaker, holding him to a different, less severe (with apologies to Mitt Romney) standard. This is regularly demonstrated by Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert, who regularly make brilliant but outrageous comments- and have proven almost completely immune from criticism.      

Mitt Romney initially took a pass, first avoiding the controversy while later stating merely "I'll just say this which it's not the language I would have used."    Digby maintains Romney could have seemed "all prim and proper" if he had remarked "my parents taught me to be respectful of women and that isn't respectful."       It would have been mildly critical but not confrontational, and would have come off as charmingly old-fashioned.       There would have been no criticism of the candidate, especially because it would have appeared to be a shot against his parents.       Politicians and journalists know:    never, ever criticize parents.

Lord willing and the creek (Indians) don't rise, Senator Scott Brown will be displaced by Massachusetts voters with the remarkable Elizabeth Warren, and Brown's utter indifference to the importance of contraceptive, and other health care, coverage will play a role.     But as of now, on the issue of Rush Limbaugh, Brown's comment is about the only one not worthy of criticism.


Share |

Hope From Massachusetts

It was short and sweet last Wednesday morning when Elizabeth Warren announced (video, which you probably already have seen, below; text from Chris Bowers at DailyKos)

I'm gonna do this. I'm going to run for the United State Senate, and the reason is straightforward. Middle class families have been chipped at, hacked at, squeezed and hammered for a generation now, and I don't think Washington gets it.

Washington is rigged for big corporations that hire armies of lobbyists. A big company like GE pays nothing in taxes and we're asking college students to take on even more debt to get an education? We're telling seniors they may have to learn to live on less? It isn't right, and it's the reason I'm running for the United State Senate.

You know, I grew up on the ragged edge of the middle class, and I know it's hard out there. I fought all my life for working families, and I've stood up to some pretty powerful interests. Those interests are going to line up against this campaign, and that's why I need you.

Go to elizabethwarren.com, sign up, get involved, be part of this.

We have a chance to help rebuild America's middle class. We have a chance to put Washington on the side of families. We can do this, together.

Two days later, while noting that he has contributed $50 to Warren's nascent campaign, a DailyKos blogger remarked

The only reason Warren can be the hot candidate right now is because the economy is such a major issue. In 2004, when the war in Iraq was the topic of the day, I don't know if a candidate like Warren would have made any sense to the voters. And if she gets elected, the political landscape will change. Foreign policy will eventually take over the headlines again, and we will have to see how she adjusts.

There is little need to worry. Iraq is not a big issue now is not likely to be so in thirteen months. The wars there and in Afghanistan matter so little politically that Republicans, as conservatives, generally support both ventures while Democrats, as liberals, are far less enthusiastic. Still, Republicans give President Obama little credit for his relatively muscular foreign policy while Democrats assign little blame. And the President remains, even with continuing economic woes, fairly popular among Democrats, rather unpopular among Republicans. There is little interest in that region, whether among politicians or voters.

We don't know the views of the Harvard law professor toward foreign policy nor on a wide range of cultural issues. But we do know what she thinks about the growing dominance in American society of powerful corporations and their relationship to the deterioration of the middle class. The figure behind creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, Ms. Warren hasconsistently demanded that the interests of the public be put ahead those of powerful special interests. If she is successful in unseating Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, it is unlikely she will be assigned to the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, or even Environment and Public Works committees, but rather to those in which she can bring her expertise and passion. Her influence will be far greater in the areas of banking, finance, and housing than elsewhere.

As we have found in Barack Obama, there is a limit to the impact any one individual can have on the federal government, "Washington," or the nation's affairs generally. But Elizabeth Warren would bring to the U.S. Senate deeper knowledge and greater commitment than did Senate or presidential candidate Barack Obama. Moreover, it's a safe bet there will be no candidate for the United States Senate in this election cycle who would be a more effective spokesperson, not for the "change we can believe in" (?) but for the change the American people need.

Share|

Hope From Massachusetts

It was short and sweet last Wednesday morning when Elizabeth Warren announced (video, which you probably already have seen, below; text from Chris Bowers at DailyKos)

I'm gonna do this. I'm going to run for the United State Senate, and the reason is straightforward. Middle class families have been chipped at, hacked at, squeezed and hammered for a generation now, and I don't think Washington gets it.

Washington is rigged for big corporations that hire armies of lobbyists. A big company like GE pays nothing in taxes and we're asking college students to take on even more debt to get an education? We're telling seniors they may have to learn to live on less? It isn't right, and it's the reason I'm running for the United State Senate.

You know, I grew up on the ragged edge of the middle class, and I know it's hard out there. I fought all my life for working families, and I've stood up to some pretty powerful interests. Those interests are going to line up against this campaign, and that's why I need you.

Go to elizabethwarren.com, sign up, get involved, be part of this.

We have a chance to help rebuild America's middle class. We have a chance to put Washington on the side of families. We can do this, together.

Two days later, while noting that he has contributed $50 to Warren's nascent campaign, a DailyKos blogger remarked

The only reason Warren can be the hot candidate right now is because the economy is such a major issue. In 2004, when the war in Iraq was the topic of the day, I don't know if a candidate like Warren would have made any sense to the voters. And if she gets elected, the political landscape will change. Foreign policy will eventually take over the headlines again, and we will have to see how she adjusts.

There is little need to worry. Iraq is not a big issue now is not likely to be so in thirteen months. The wars there and in Afghanistan matter so little politically that Republicans, as conservatives, generally support both ventures while Democrats, as liberals, are far less enthusiastic. Still, Republicans give President Obama little credit for his relatively muscular foreign policy while Democrats assign little blame. And the President remains, even with continuing economic woes, fairly popular among Democrats, rather unpopular among Republicans. There is little interest in that region, whether among politicians or voters.

We don't know the views of the Harvard law professor toward foreign policy nor on a wide range of cultural issues. But we do know what she thinks about the growing dominance in American society of powerful corporations and their relationship to the deterioration of the middle class. The figure behind creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Board, Ms. Warren hasconsistently demanded that the interests of the public be put ahead those of powerful special interests. If she is successful in unseating Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, it is unlikely she will be assigned to the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, or even Environment and Public Works committees, but rather to those in which she can bring her expertise and passion. Her influence will be far greater in the areas of banking, finance, and housing than elsewhere.

As we have found in Barack Obama, there is a limit to the impact any one individual can have on the federal government, "Washington," or the nation's affairs generally. But Elizabeth Warren would bring to the U.S. Senate deeper knowledge and greater commitment than did Senate or presidential candidate Barack Obama. Moreover, it's a safe bet there will be no candidate for the United States Senate in this election cycle who would be a more effective spokesperson, not for the "change you can believe in" (?) but for the change the American people need.

Share|

A Question For Scott Brown


Whine, whine, whine:

Why is it that I’m always the one that has to vote with the Democrats? Bipartisanship is a two-way street, you know? Why can’t they also work together to pay for these things within the budget, within the monies that we already have? Why is it that we always have to add to the deficit?

A Daily Kos blogger today argues that the Republican Senator from Massachusetts should be able to vote his conservative principles and is able to do so. Procedural rules this Senate "controlled" by Democrats have adopted, without a Constitutional basis, require a supermajority, 60 votes, for passage of major legislation.

It is not a nod, but an embrace, to the bipartisanship this President worships and the Democratic Party believes the nation demands. With eeven one GOP vote (a major slog, these days), it still requires unanimity in the Democratic caucus (which includes conservatives Nelson of Nebraska, Landrieu of Louisiana, Begich of Alaska, and Pryor and Lincoln of Arkansas). It is a major gift to Senate Republicans, who value cohesion more than anything else, which enables a mere 41 Senators to block measures essential to the nation's recovery and economic justice.

No one at Daily Kos, or anywhere else, should have to explain that to Scott Brown. Nor should anyone have to explain to him why it cannot be done "within the monies that we already have," that we "always have to add to the deficit."

Of course, we don't "always" have to add to the deficit. There was plenty of money during most of the 1980s but President Bush enthusiastically cut the income taxes of the wealthy, increased spending, and borrowed prolifically. That was just fine with virtually every member of the Republican caucus of which Brown now is an unapologetic member.

So, no doubt, he is questioning why at this time the deficit must be increased. Aside from the reluctance of Congress or the White House to question the defense budget, there is a simple explanation, one which a young Scott Brown probably was taught in college, if not in high school:

The basic economic problem is not very complicated: If no one spends, no one works. Since the financial market crash in late 2008, consumers, businesses, and state and local government have cut back on their spending. In order to keep people working, as the Great Depression taught us, the federal government must therefore compensate by increasing its own fiscal deficit. As jobs return, consumers resume buying, businesses respond by investing, and state and local government revenues grow. When we're back to full employment, the federal budget should return to balance.

(For a complicated explanation of the ameliorating impact of a budget deficit during recession, here is Krugman.)

At Daily Kos, the answer to Brown's complaint, reported by the Boston Globe, that he must be "always the one that has to vote with the Democrats" is the inability of the Senate, and hence the federal government, to accomplish anything without at least a modicum of GOP support. Though true, it begs a more basic, political question. Why does Scott Brown have to be the one? Who is telling him that?

Is it the Democratic leadership (and why would he be listening to them)? Is it Bown's constituency in Massachusetts, a state in which Barack Obama and liberal/progressive policies are still fairly popular? Is it the Republican leadership, which feared defeat of a bill clamping down (gently) on unpopular Wall Street due to uniform opposition of the GOP? Passage of the bill with little Republican support may be the best of both worlds for the national GOP. Tout to its conservative supporters opposition of the party to a bill which may be insufficient to provide major reform- while still depriving the DNC the opportunity to attack the GOP for scuttling popular legislation.

Or there could be an alternative explanation. Apparently, Matt Viser of the Boston Globe didn't think to ask the Massachusetts Senator who is twisting his arm. Somebody, though, ought to. It may answer a few questions- or at least raise a few worthy ones.

Share|

Scott Brown For Financial Reform, Sort Of

Scott Brown's Facebook page is replete with comments from individuals angry about the 60th vote he provided in the U.S. Senate in favor of financial reform. Cindi Scott Benton remarks

We have to know... we HAVE to KNOW... what was it that changed your mind on this today??? You said NO... and then said YES??? WTF????????

Michael Wall more simply asks, rhetorically,

You voted for this bill, 2000+ pages of regulation? Why, just why?

Perhaps we can help them. In order to pay for the legislation, a House-Senate conference committee had inserted a provision which

would raise the level of funds the FDIC is required by law to hold in reserves to insure bank customer deposits. The FDIC would increase its so-called reserve ratio from 1.15 percent to 1.35 percent, or $1.35 for every $100 in deposits. The fund is supported through fees on the banking industry.

The change would shift the burden to the largest U.S. banks since the earlier plan would have also assessed hedge funds. Dodd said small banks would be exempt from having to pay for the increase.

As of June 28th, the Massachusetts Republican supported financial reform, which had passed the Senate with his vote after the Volcker Rule was weakened. wherein

Lawmakers agreed to an exemption pushed by Brown, for example, that would allow banks to continue to invest at least a small amount of their capital in hedge funds and private equity. The measure would prohibit a bank from placing more than 3 percent of its capital in such investments.

In English, a blogger at Alternet explains:

Brown demanded that the Volcker Rule—a ban on risky proprietary trading by banks—be watered down. Proprietary trading doesn’t serve any client or help any business, it’s just a naked bet, and when those bets are made through the commercial banking system, they’re subsidized by taxpayer perks (those perks are designed to boost economically productive lending).

One of the biggest banks in Massachusetts is State Street Bank. It’s a pretty boring institution—except for its prop trading operations. Throughout the crisis, it made decent money, and generally didn’t run into any trouble—except from its prop trading operations. State Street’s gambling operations backfired big-time, forcing taxpayers to step in with billions of dollars in bailouts.

What did Brown learn from this episode? Why, that State Street deserves to keep gambling with taxpayer dollars! Prior to Brown’s efforts, the Volcker Rule would have banned any proprietary trading at major banks. After Brown’s efforts, banks can put up to 3 percent of their capital into a proprietary hedge fund. That dealt a tremendous blow to the substance of the reform. When banks sponsor proprietary hedge funds, they collect lots of money from outside investors. If those hedge funds go under, the bank’s reputation is immediately on the line, and it faces a tremendous amount of pressure to bailout other investors in the hedge fund. If they don’t stand behind the hedge fund, investors wonder why, and it can spark a run on the bank.

So even if only a small amount is initially invested in the fund, banks often end up paying out several times their original investment to cover losses (Bear Stearns put about $40 million into a hedge fund and had to pay $3.2 billion when it went under). There are some provisions in the reform bill limiting the degree to which big banks can bailout their hedge funds, but they will be extremely difficult to enforce.

In sum, Brown actively weakened U.S. financial stability, and hit taxpayers with unnecessary fees, and did it all for the express benefit of a handful of special interests.

Still, on June 29th, however, Brown wrote a letter to Senate Committee on Banking Chairman Chris Dodd and House Committee on Financial Resources Chairman Barney Frank vowing to oppose the bill when it came back to the Senate because of the new provision. Of course, the conferees amended the bill to Brown's liking because, in Obamaworld, no bill may be passed without Republican support, even if it means losing the support of progressive Democrats. (Ultimately, this provision was dropped because at the last moment it was found to violate Paygo rules.)

The Administration had a choice. It could have accomodated Democrats Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who wanted the original, powerful Volcker language, and Washington States's Maria Cantwell, who advocated the stronger derivatives language initially proposed. But it chose instead to placate Massachusetts' Scott Brown and Maine's Susan Collins (sound familiar?). And it proved easier to appease an opportunist like Scott Brown, bereft of any ideological underpinning, rather than to demand a bill which would have effectively addressed the abuses of the nation's financial institutions.

Really, then, notwithstanding the shock of Scott Brown's right-wing followers, the financial reform bill (now named after Senator Dodd and Representative Frank) followed a similar script to that of health care reform (although the Republican support there ultimately failed to materialize), one highly favorable to their side.

While giving appropriate blame to the Blue Dogs, Open Left's Chris Bowers observed on June 29

Just in case you hadn't noticed, the New England Republican party is, in fact, the governing party of America right now.

Consider Wall Street reform, which is now going back to conference committee in order to appease Scott Brown and Susan Collins.

Consider unemployment benefits and jobs. The bill was defeated at the behest of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Scott Brown. However, now that Snowe has said unemployment extensions should be passed as a stand-alone bill, well, it looks like Congress is going to try and do just that (the House failed to pass such a bill a few minutes ago, but only because it required a two-thirds majority since the rules were suspended).

The country is being run by a regional rump party.

Have no fear, conservatives. All this is occurring with 253 Democrats in the House of Representatives, 59 (once the replacement for West Virginia's Bob Byrd takes the oath of office, expected this coming week) Democrats in the Senate, and the "Si Se Puede" Democrat in the White House. Imagine what will transpire once there is a GOP majority in Congress and/or a Republican president.

Share|

Bipartisanship, One Way


David Broder, who has been overrated for almost as long as Betty White has been alive, was half right yesterday. He used his syndicated column praising the recently-deceased Robert Byrd (who should be praised) as a cudgel to promote his favorite cause, bipartisanship. He wrote

Today, unfortunately, on the big issues that ought to be beyond partisanship, action in the national interest has almost vanished because the party leaders, unlike Byrd and Baker when they led their parties in the Senate, do not display that consciousness or evoke it in others.

On financial industry reform as in health care and stimulus legislation: haven't we seen this movie before? The Associated Press reports that Massachusetts Senator Scott

Brown scored an exemption for home-state interests like Fidelity Investments and the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. from some new restrictions on trading. He also persuaded congressional negotiators to let banks invest up to 3 percent of their capital in private equity funds and hedge funds, a change that would help such banks as Boston-based State Street Corp.

Then this week, Democrats bowed to a more philosophical demand that knowledgeable officials say was choreographed by

Republican leader Mitch McConnell. On Tuesday, Democratic negotiators agreed to remove a $19 billion tax on large banks and hedge funds after Brown threatened to vote "no" because of it.

Brown wouldn't say whether the concession was enough to win his vote. And he made clear that he wouldn't make that decision in time to pass the bill and deliver it to President Barack Obama by Independence Day.

"Over the July recess, I will continue to review this important bill," Brown said in a statement.

This is yet another episode of one-way bipartisanship from the Obama Production Company. One party compromises, compromises, and compromises some more- including on its principles (we must, after all, praise The Dean of Washington Journalists). The other party responds "thanks, but I'm not so sure. Maybe next time."

Senate Democratic leadership cannot be held blameless, of course. It seems only sensible- or prudent, as Bush 41 would have put it- to have elicited assurance from the Senate's newest Republican that he would vote in favor of the legislation before giving him a sweetheart deal for local insurance interests. Burned once, leadership should have received a promise from Brown before agreeing to change the funding mechanism, one which was programatically and politically wise. It's another round of fool me once, shame on you- fool me twice, shame on me.

Share|