In 2302, when we discuss the behavior of individual legislators, we point out the tension that can exist between the needs of the constituents and the party caucus. Scott Brown's election to the U.S. Senate empowered the Senate Republican Conference by giving them enough vote to fight off attempts to stop a filibuster, but that doesn't mean that all their members will join. Brown might be a Republican but he represents a liberal state, so his constituents wont support him if he votes with the conservatives.
Perhaps this bests explains his decision to vote against a filibuster on a jobs bill that eventually passed the Senate (it will now head to a conference committee in order for it to be reconciled with a House bill passed previously). He faces re-election in 2012, which is not that far away.
This points out an irony when party's grown in size, they may actually lose strength because they may become less cohesive. As long as the Republicans in the Senate were small in number and mostly conservative, it was more likely that they could stay together. But once you add a moderate -- and possibly a tad liberal -- voice to the mix, this cohesion becomes compromised. In fact, if he chooses to be vocal in his positions, he might choose to be a thorn in the side of Senate Republican leadership. I wouldn't be surprised if he teams up with fellow northeastern Republican Senators Snowe and Collins, and perhaps others, to force their way on issues important to them and their constituents. Remember that they hold the key to a successful filibuster. They are in a position to force a great many concessions if they choose to do so.
