A modest job-creation bill advanced in the U.S. Senate on Monday as the chamber’s newest Republican bucked his party and sided with Democrats on a $15 billion package of tax cuts and highway spending.

Republican Scott Brown joined four other Republicans, 55 Democrats and two independents to overcome a procedural hurdle that sets up a final vote later this week.

Brown was widely hailed as a conservative hero after his surprise victory in Massachusetts last month gave Republicans enough seats to block most Democratic legislation.

His election prompted President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats to call for increased bipartisanship, and an earlier version of the bill was written with Republican input.

But key Republicans withdrew their support after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scaled it back.

Brown said the bill was not perfect but would help put people back to work.

“I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington,” he said in a statement.

Scott Brown said the following about his vote for the bill:

I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families. This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I am voting for it because it contains measures that will help put people back …to work. … I hope for improvements in that process going forward.

Based on the criteria that Scott Brown campaigned on, no one should be surprised by our new Senator’s vote. He said he was an independent thinker, and if he saw a bill he liked, it wouldn’t matter whose bill it was–if it’s good for Massachusetts, he’ll vote for it.

Now, you may disagree with whether or not this bill is “good for Massachusetts,” but for crying out loud, Scott Brown has not done anything that should be a surprise. In fact, if he specifically voted against this bill because of strict party line, I would be disappointed–and I’m equally disappointed in the people who call themselves Republicans who hoped that Brown would be just a rank-and-file Republican who would only vote for a bill if the Republican Party supported it. It wasn’t that long ago that Brown was campaigning, clearly there are more than a few people with short memories.

The problem with politics as usual is that there aren’t enough people willingly to cross party lines and vote for what they believe is a good bill. If you disagree with their judgment, fine, but when you vote for someone who spends millions of dollars telling you he’s going to be an independent voice, don’t be surprised if he “disappoints” you on occasion. Did you think that Scott Brown was an über-conservative? Sorry, if you didn’t know that before you voted for him, than you are the foolish one. If he was a hard-core conservative, he may not be in Washington right now. Think about that.

For the record, I have not read the bill in question; I know nothing about it in detail. I voted for Scott Brown because between him and Martha Coakley, I trust Scott Brown to represent my interests more than Coakley. I can guarantee that over the remainder of the term he is serving, my interests will have been served better by Scott Brown than they would have by Martha Coakley. If your support is going to waver based on singular votes, you’re gonna be in for a bumpy ride.

Do you want to jump ship? Jump ship. You won’t be missed. There may be room on the bandwagon when you change your mind, but don’t expect a warm welcome from me.

Get over it. There will be bigger battles down the road.

WALLACE: Let’s turn to the message from Massachusetts on Tuesday night. Here was the president’s first reaction on Wednesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they’re frustrated, not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened in the last eight years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: But, Robert, Scott Brown had a clear platform, and let’s lay it out — stop health care, cut taxes, end backroom deals with special interest, and don’t give terrorists Miranda rights.

It wasn’t the same thing that swept Barack Obama into office. Scott Brown explicitly campaigned against the Obama agenda.

GIBBS: Well, that may be what he campaigned on, but that’s not why the voters of Massachusetts sent him to Washington. If you look at an exit poll that was done by the Washington Post…

WALLACE: Well, it wasn’t an exit poll, but it was a — I mean, they did a poll.

GIBBS: Well, they did a poll of voters that participated…

WALLACE: Right.

GIBBS: … as to why they voted, right. So more people voted to express their support for Barack Obama than to oppose him. His approval rating among that electorate was 61 percent.

Their enthusiasm for Republican policies among that electorate was — for Republicans was 40 percent…

WALLACE: But you’re not suggesting…

GIBBS: No, no.

WALLACE: … this was a…

GIBBS: No, no.

WALLACE: … mandate for Barack Obama?

GIBBS: Of course not. But I’m also not suggesting that what you said a minute ago meets the truth test either, and let’s…

WALLACE: You don’t think that…

GIBBS: No, no. Chris, hold on.

WALLACE: You don’t think that when they voted for…

GIBBS: Hold on, Chris. Chris, hold on.

WALLACE: … Scott Brown they were voting against Obama’s policies?

GIBBS: That’s not what they told pollsters. No. I think people are angry in this country — they were angry in Massachusetts — that we haven’t made more progress on the economy.

Let’s ask the question on health care. They asked specifically — now, again, this is somebody that you’re saying is all about stopping health care reform.

WALLACE: He said he was the 41st vote.

GIBBS: I understand, and I hope he doesn’t misread the electorate. Seventy percent of the voters in Massachusetts want him to work with Democrats on health care reform. Only 28 percent want to stop health care reform from happening.

Chris, if Republicans want to assume that the outcome of what happened in Massachusetts is a big endorsement of their policies, when 40 percent are enthusiastic about them and 58 percent are angry about them, then I hope they misread that election as badly as anybody could.

What people want in this country is they want to us focus on getting this economy moving again. They want us to work together. And the president has tried, and I hope that Republicans will try to work with the president.

But that kind of anger and dissatisfaction at the fact that Washington far too many times puts the special interests ahead of their interests — that anger still persists. That’s what people said in Massachusetts.

So, are you telling me that the White House believes that Scott Brown was elected to the Senate over Democrat Martha Coakley because of support for Barack Obama’s agenda? Really, Mr. Gibbs?

If a vote for Scott Brown was a vote in support of Obama, then what about the votes for Martha Coakley? You know, the candidate that shared a stage with President Obama days before the election…

“Nearly one year after President Barack Obama was sworn into office, Massachusetts voters sent a clear message to the nation in favor of fiscal responsibility and checks-and-balances in Washington when they elected Scott Brown to the United States Senate.

“Even in the bluest of blue states, Scott Brown’s message resonated with families, seniors, and small business owners who have rejected President Obama’s massive health care takeover and the Democrats’ out-of-control spending agenda in Washington.

“Senator-elect Scott Brown ran an amazing campaign, and the NRSC was proud to be a part of this incredible effort. This election was won as a result of enthusiastic Republican, Independent, and even Democratic voters who championed Scott Brown’s positive vision over Martha Coakley’s negative attacks and unwavering support for the Democrat establishment.

“As we look forward to the midterm elections this November, Democrats nationwide should be on notice: Americans are ready to hold the party in power accountable for their irresponsible spending and out-of-touch agenda, and they’re ready for real change in Washington.”

Compare that to Scott Brown’s campaign, where the enthusiasm is genuinely for Scott Brown and his message.

In fact, Martha is trying again again to save her campaign by rolling out the Ted Kennedy card again with DoingItForTeddy.org.

This is a sad, desperate attempt by Coakley that is not going to work. Past elections have shown that the anti-vote doen’t beat the pro-vote. Let me explain.

In 2004, John Kerry’s “support” was mostly the anti-Bush vote, not a pro-Kerry vote. He lost.

In 2008, conservatives were not excited about John McCain, and he  lost that election because Obama had more positive support.

In 2010, Scott Brown clearly has more positive support than Coakley does. Coakley knows this, but has no choice. She has to run on a negative campaign against Brown, and using Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy to boost her support.

And it’s not just Coakley, it seems clear to me from the people “supporting” Coakley on Twitter that they most are anti-Scott Brown, because all they can do is attack him.

A poll released a day before the special Senate race shows Senator Scott Brown surging to a double-digit lead over Attorney General Martha Coakley in the race for the open Massachusetts Senate seat.

The shift in favor of the Republican Party is a potential disaster for President Barack Obama and his Democratic political agenda.

Brown has surged to a double-digit lead over Coakley in three Massachusetts communities identified as bellwethers, according to the latest SuffolkUniversitybellwether polling of the race for U.S. Senate.

Gardner, Fitchburg and Peabody all show solid margins for Brown, the state senator running against Coakley. The cities were identified as bellwether communities because in the most recent “like election” – the November 2006 Senate race between the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Republican challenger Kenneth Chase – the results in all three communities were within 1 percentage point of the actual statewide results for each candidate. Additionally, party registration in those cities is similar to the statewide voter makeup.

“Brown has continued to build on the momentum that we saw last week in the SuffolkUniversity statewide poll,” said David Paleologos, director of the SuffolkUniversityPoliticalResearchCenter in Boston. “There’s still a day left, and a number of factors, including weather, can affect turnout, but the latest bellwether polls suggest a solid lead for Brown.”

Multiple advisers to President Obama have privately told party officials that they believe Democrat Martha Coakley is going to lose Tuesday’s special election to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for more than 40 years, several Democratic sources told CNN Sunday.

The sources added that the advisers are still hopeful that Obama’s visit to Massachusetts on Sunday – coupled with a late push by Democratic activists – could help Coakley pull out a narrow victory in an increasingly tight race against Republican state Sen. Scott Brown.

However, the presidential advisers have grown increasingly pessimistic in the last three days about Coakley’s chances after a series of missteps by the candidate, sources said.

But White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN: “The President is in Massachusetts today because he believes Martha Coakley is the right person for the job and indeed will be the next senator from Massachusetts.”

It’s sure looking like Scott Brown is poised to become our next Senator.

Hours before President Barack Obama’s appearance with the Democratic candidate in the Massachusetts Senate race, political handicapper Charlie Cook sent an unusual weekend update to his Cook Political Report subscribers saying that Scott Brown, the Republican, is now a slight favorite.

Cook added in his Sunday afternoon bulletin that the race can still go either way.

“This past Thursday, Jan. 14, The Cook Political Report moved the open Massachusetts Senate seat rating from lean Democrat to toss-up, having moved it from solid Democrat to lean Democratic on Jan. 7,” Cook wrote. “We continue to see this race as very much of a toss-up, with Republican state Sen. Scott Brown holding onto a very narrow, single-digit lead over Democratic state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

“Given the vagaries of voter turnout, particularly in lower participation level special elections, this race could still go either way, but we put a finger on the scale for Brown. Last-minute Democratic attacks on Brown have driven his negatives up some and slightly diminished the incredible intensity of support that Brown enjoyed, but it looks more likely than not to hold.”

Scott Brown responded to Obama’s mockery with the following statement:

Mr. President, unfortunately in this economy, not everybody can buy a truck. My goal is to change that by cutting spending, lowering taxes and letting people keep more of their own money.

Maybe under Obama’s economic plan, everybody is getting a truck…

President Barack Obama was making a last-ditch attempt Sunday to save a Democratic-held Senate seat in Massachusetts – and an important 60th vote for his health care plan – as the top Senate Republican called the shockingly close race a verdict against the bill no matter who wins.

“This is, in effect, a referendum on the national health care bill,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said. “It is perfectly clear if it’s unpopular in Massachusetts, it’s unpopular everywhere. The American people don’t want us to pass this bill.”

The legislation has dominated the tighter-than-expected race between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown. She supports the bill. He doesn’t and has said he would vote against it, robbing Democrats of the 60-vote majority Obama has been relying on to pass much of his agenda and thwart Republican filibusters.

With so much on the line, Obama was heading to Boston to campaign with Coakley at Northeastern University in the midst of final negotiations over the sweeping health care plan and the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. His visit underscored the perilous situation facing Democrats in Massachusetts.

Despite the state’s long Democratic tradition, Coakley and Brown are in a dead heat heading into Tuesday’s special election to replace the late Edward M. Kennedy. Coakley, the state’s attorney general, had led Brown, a state senator, by double-digits in polls after the early December primaries.

But the race narrowed considerably over the past week as Brown’s populist message resonated with an angry and resentful electorate in an antiestablishment environment. He’s energized Republicans as well as attracted disillusioned Democrats and independents worried about taxes, spending, government expansion and health care under Obama. In a race this tight, turnout will be the key.

With the personal visit, Obama is seeking to fire up rank-and-file Democrats who outnumber Republicans in this state but who are dispirited just one year after he took office. Turnout is notoriously low in special elections, and Democrats need their loyalists – particularly blue-collar and minority voters who might not be motivated – to show up at the polls.

I love watching the panic state the Democrats are in. It makes me feel warm and cozy on the inside, it really does. I doubt Obama has any ability to save Coakley from an embarrassing defeat at this point. Obama coming to Massachusetts hurts both of them.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been in touch with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Senate campaign about a possible stop in the state by President Obama, AP reports.

More: “The White House has shown increasing alarm about the race, with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel placing calls to top Massachusetts Democrats to assess Coakley’s chances and weigh the costs and benefits of a potential Obama visit.

Still think Coakley is leading in the polls?

If Barack Obama does come to Massachusetts, and Scott Brown still wins, it will prove Obama has no political capital left, and we can start calling him a lame duck.

Meanwhile…

• The DSCC, on behalf of Coakley, uses an image of the World Trade Center as a symbol of Wall Street greed.
• Senator Chuck Schumer uses a sexually explicit term to describe Scott Brown.