Letter: Is Brown really gone?
Is Brown really gone?
Listening to Scott Brown’s farewell speech on the radio yesterday morning, I was struck by how much it sounded more like the first salvo of a campaign to return him to the US. Senate.
He reminded us of what we’d lost by “losing” him — his bipartisan stance, his reaching across the aisles, etc. etc. etc.
And, as if to clinch the argument, he said he would never do away with the filibuster rule. The filibuster, he instructed us, is the one way that a single senator can voice his or her opposition to a bill before a vote. By implication, he was once again contrasting himself with Elizabeth Warren, who is working with several of her senate colleagues to reform the filibuster — not overturn it. Invoking the filibuster used to require that a senator stand and read aloud the objection, or even the Bible, or the yellow pages, for hours or even days on end, presumably enabling negotiations to take place on the floor.
Instead, the filibuster has evolved to the point now where, to stop discussion or vote on a bill, a senator need only say the word “filibuster” — and then go to lunch.
Maybe that’s why Scott Brown does not want to reform it. Or maybe he really does not understand what’s at stake in allowing the filibuster to perpetuate gridlock. Either way, he does not belong back in Washington representing the people of this state.
And that’s a real possibility in the minds of some, now that Senator Kerry’s seat may be in play.