Brown demands to be sworn in earlier than planned; Dems rush to capitulate

[Beet]

By GLEN JOHNSON, AP Political Writer Glen Johnson, Ap Political Writer – 22 mins ago
BOSTON – Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown changed course and demanded he be sworn in to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on Thursday, an accelerated timetable that conservatives had been clamoring for and one that Democrats quickly accepted — and had already been moving to accommodate.

Brown said he wanted to be present for unspecified votes, and his swearing-in would give the GOP 41 votes in the Senate — the precise number it needs to sustain a filibuster of Democratic initiatives.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said he expected a ceremony at 5 p.m. Thursday.

"If that's what he wants to do, I expect he'll be sworn in as early as (Thursday) afternoon," Manley said.

The demand reversed Brown's earlier declaration that he did not want to be sworn in until Feb. 11, a grace period he said he needed to hire a staff and prepare for his new responsibilities. That timetable was reitered Tuesday morning on Brown's Facebook page.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_el_se/us_brown_swearing_in

[Beet]

READY THE CATAPULTS!!!....STEADY....STEADY...

[Beet]

Obviously the GOP backed obstructionism when it was clear Franken had won, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Let the damn man be seated, he won fair and square.  I see no reason to be hypocritical and if Brown turns out to be a Maine-style Republican, might as well start letting him know that you know he reasonably won an election and is now a peer of all senators.

It's not like the Senate's doing anything these days anyway.

How the hell is seating him on the regular schedule hypocritical or denying that he reasonably won an election?

The other 99 Senators in the Senate had to wait until the regular schedule to be sworn in. What's wrong with treating Brown like the other 99? Are all the other 99 Senators illegitimate then?