Dang it, you beat me to this one.
Shortly after his election, The New American ran an article on him which pointed out his left-leaning tendencies:
Mass. Sen. Scott Brown: The Next Generation of Neocon
Folks, It’s Just Talk
But the depth of the ideological contest ended on this narrow issue. The Brown versus Coakley contest was not a choice between a true constitutionalist and a liberal. Even on the broader issue of government healthcare mandates, ideology did not matter. Brown is a fervent supporter of Massachusetts’ healthcare mandate, shepherded through the Democratic state legislature by Republican Governor Mitt Romney in 2006. Massachusetts is the healthcare model that the federal government is using, particularly its mandate that will impose a fine this year of up to $1,116 on Massachusetts taxpayers’ income tax returns if the residents have not purchased health insurance. The government mandate is precisely what many Republican State Attorneys General have labeled as unconstitutional and threatened to sue in federal court to stop. If the government can force taxpayers to buy one product such as health insurance, these Republicans argue, what’s to stop government from forcing them to buy a car or house of government’s choosing?
Yet Brown continues to defend Romney-care as stoutly as he condemns the ObamaCare modeled after it. “In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage,” Brown stressed on his website, “but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it.” Brown’s dispute is partisan, not ideological. Despite Brown’s enthusiastic defense of Romney-care, Massachusetts voters have soured on it. A November 27 Rasmussen poll last year found that only 32 percent of the state’s voters consider that reform a success.
National talk-show hosts who describe themselves as “conservatives” have heaped laurels on Brown as a “conservative” champion, but there’s little about Brown’s history or agenda that suggests conservatism. Specifically, Brown:
• is openly “pro-choice” on abortion, just like his Democratic opponent Coakley, writing on his campaign website that “this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor”;
• opposed a 2008 ballot initiative in Massachusetts to repeal the state income tax that would have saved families an average of $3,500 per year;
• backed tax increases pushed by GOP Governor Mitt Romney (which Romney labeled “fees”), such as increasing automobile registration taxes.
Brown is clearly a “borrow and spend” Republican. His response to a Project Vote Smart survey as a State Senate candidate indicated he wanted to either “maintain funding status” or increase every manner of welfare spending program while supporting no significant specific program cuts — at the same time claiming he would “greatly decrease” every state tax. Brown hasn’t changed his deficit-building stance since then, as he predictably describes himself as a “budget hawk who supports a temporary freeze on non-defense discretionary spending.” Non-defense discretionary spending accounts for just 18 percent of the federal budget. The “mandatory” programs are responsible for huge federal deficits. Calling for a temporary freeze is just a politically clever way of avoiding specific program cut proposals. And Brown doesn’t enumerate any spending cuts he’d favor other than “waste,” which is precisely what liberal Democrats do.
Read more: The New American
