This legislation will adversely impact Main Street when the focus needs to be on Wall Street... I don't think everyone is aware of the unintended consequences...
That is so not true. Wait, what does that even mean?
No I mean but seriously, that means "nothing." Do voters actually think like this, "I believe this completely unsubstantiated and unsupported claim that this politician is making, because he's framed it with my favorite cliche?" Everything is bullshit.
Anyway, then he said some other things.
He said, "I cannot support proceeding on a bill I haven't seen" (but which would adversely affect Main Street Main Street Main Street. What's so great about Main Street, have any of these Senators seen Blue Velvet).
He also said, more or less, "In fact, in actuality, I voted no for a very specific reason having to do with one relatively arcane component of the bill, because I am again apparently the only Democratic Senator who is allowed to hold out for a bill I consider to be absolutely perfect rather than an acceptable compromise and a main step forward for our legislative agenda; did I mention that said component of the bill happens to affect very few people, but does affect the single richest person in the state I represent?"