Well, color me surprised! Five, count ‘em, five members of the party of “NO” actually said “Yes” to something.

Scott Brown (R-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Kit Bond (R-MO) and George Voinovich (R-OH), in a stunning spectacle of unimaginable bipartisanship voted to block a filibuster on a $15 billion jobs bill.

The relatively small, yet hardly insignificant, jobs package includes a Social Security tax break to encourage hiring, and allows small businesses to write off, instead of depreciating, purchases of large equipment. It will also replenish the Highway Trust Fund and expand the Build America Bonds program, which will help to create much-needed jobs.

On his blog, Mr. Brown writes, “This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.”

Wow, principles.

And what does Mr. Brown get for having them (at least on this one, possibly only, occasion)?

Blog flames galore — as of this writing, 27 pages worth of mostly negative comments — including accusations of dishonesty and demands for refunds of campaign contributions. Of course, there is also the usual name calling; “RINO,” “sellout,” and even “marxist.”

Maybe it’s just me, but I think Mr. Brown’s detractors might be overreacting just a bit as Mr. Brown only voted in favor of letting the jobs bill go to the Senate floor, and he may still vote “no” when it comes time to actually pass the jobs bill.

We saw this last night and thought it was terrific. Mr. Stewart captures Mr. Beck’s nutty conspiracy theorizing — complete with incomprehensible blackboard diagrams — just about perfectly. And, BTW Mr. Beck is recovering from his emergency appendix surgery.

And that’s exactly what it is. It seems that a number of our Congresscritters — Republicans as well as Democrats (never let it be said that we subscribe to any sort of partisanship, for we are loyal to no political party)– are representing the insurance companies rather than we, the people.

And what are these two “tough” issues? Believe it or not they are abortion and immigration — as if!

Now health care reform — or rather, health insurance reform — is supposed to extend coverage to tens of millions of Americans who do not have health insurance by requiring that almost everyone buy health insurance, while obliging businesses to cover their employees, and providing subsidies for lower-income people. It is also supposed to keep insurance companies from turning people away (or canceling their existing polices) due to their health status.

But now the House has to dither over the relatively minor issues of abortion and immigration.

The anti-abortion Democrats (yes, such creatures do exist) aren’t satisfied with the language regarding prohibitions against the federal funding of abortions. They say the stipulation that people will have to use their own money for abortions isn’t straightforward enough. Oh well, at least they don’t seem to be looking to outlaw abortion entirely, just a more solid declaration against use of federal funds for abortion.

They still cannot make up their minds about whether or not illegal immigrants would be allowed to buy insurance in some new purchasing exchange — whatever that’s supposed to be in its present incarnation. Regardless of rude Congressmen who shout “you lie” at the president, the White House doesn’t want illegals to have access to the exchange.

Of course, abortion and immigration, in and of themselves, are important issues, but they shouldn’t be holding up the larger issue of a very urgent need for insurance reform.

A couple of funny, but oh, so true, statements about the Public Option and why we need it. Damn the health insurance industry for making me into a bleeding heart liberal who nods my head and goes “oh yes, indeed, she’s absolutely right” — to Nancy Pelosi!