Having a Republican that sorta sometimes doesn't follow the party, doesn't mean he is pushing back. Oftentimes, a Senator can be allowed by their party to do show defections to provethey are not controlled by the party. Both parties are controlled by the big money interests. I would rather have someone pudding back against that. Warren may do that.

Two of NY's state senate races are in a similar scenario right now. Both are in recounts and both involve Republican senators who broke from the party to vote for gay marriage legislation this past summer. Both races have boiled down to local referendums on the vote, which is unfortunate, because one of them looks like he will be defeated by an ultraconservative candidate that will create an even deeper split than the one that already exists in the state legislature. So yes, it would be better to leave more moderates in office, but it's not up to the moderates :)

@Tan

That is a decent point. Several of the bills Brown jumped ship for were never going to pass anyway, so it quite easily could have been all for show.

Abge - How consistent with the party is he on the *close* votes....then you find out his true colors. Has a vote ever failed by 1 or 2 votes where he went against the party? Or is he only *allowed* to stray on easy wins so as to have his campaign issues as a "moderate". that's the only way you can really tell if he's his own man is via his consistency, or lack thereof.

@Krellin

I agree. I'm actually looking into that now. Should be enlightening.

I watched their debate last night. She did a very good job of painting him as a friend of big oil and the 1% and he really didn't have a lot to say to defend himself other than "release your employment records to prove that you weren't hired because you are native american".

I just finished listening to it and I agree. Also, I looked up that stuff about Travelers and I was rather unimpressed by how disingenuous Brown was.

I can't beleive how many peole are duped by the "1%..." line of reasoning. Who do you think invests in companies, new technologies, starts companies, *employs* people, employs carmakers/shipbilders/restaurant workers/etc when they spend their money? Why are you not equally upset with the 1% on the bottom who often leach off society generationally...yes...*generationally* by way of family culture, learning how to work the system for handouts. why don't those people bother you?

By the way...the Demoncrat party...FULL OF 1%ers.....Ohhhh the hypocrisy...Uhhhh...OBAMA probably is a 1%er if you look at his wealth, my friends. Obama the all-caring...who's half-brother lives in a mud-hut in Kenya...There's a compassionate 1%er Demoncrat for ya...What has Obama ever invested in with HIS money to help anyone? Where are his business interests? Where are his generous handouts to the poor?

Therefore...why don't you look up Warren's income/family wealth and see what things she is doing with it...Have the integrity to stick by your 1%-bashing beliefs and apply them equally...

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having a lot of money. I just think the people that do should pay a little more than they currently do.

As for the bottom 1%; I don't see them driving around in Lamborghinis, so I don't really see your point...

I really don't have an inherent problem with the 1% and I don't feel duped by it at all. What I do have a problem with is how some of them are fighting to make this a country that revolves around and governs for corporations and wealth creation rather than people. I also have an issue with how the right wing Karl Rovians blow the social issue dog whistle to get people on their side when they really don't care about those issues or those people at all.

Krellin, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Obama's donated between 14 and 30 percent of his income to charity in the last three years, including all of his Nobel prize winnings.