How Long Till FR Turns On Brown?

Jan. 20. 2010 | tlb

[tlb]

The dem campaign tried to portray Brown as a right wing Neanderthal. As far as I can tell from a distance, he in reality is a centrist mildly leaning to the left.

For that particular state in 2010 this may be their idea of a conservative, but it's difficult to imagine anybody like an actual across the board conservative winning this election. Even against Coakley.

The only big political name from outside the state he brought in to campaign was bogeyman Rudy Giuliani. He seems tight with Mitt Romney and Romney policies. In his victory speech he prominently and unreservedly praised Ted Kennedy. He's spoken in favor of alternative green energy technologies and has said the battle over gay marriage in the state is settled. And at some point you can depend the Obama administration will find issues his state would wish and demand he support. That's a lot of failed litmus tests for both the purists and the paulists.

Will people accept the reality that a centrist is better then a Kennedy Machine puppet? Or can we look forward yet again to Truth Files, barrages of RINO and traitor accusations, and snide and petty posts about his nude modeling photos.

Once the health bill is settled it will be interesting to see how long before the sugar buzz ends and the daggers come out.

[roamer_1]

As someone said last night, he’s a RINO, but he’s OUR RINO.

How quickly you forget.

[Diogenesis]

Sen. Brown was NOT for usurping the Mass Constitution
for Romney’s gay marriage imposition for his friends
in the Boston Globe and New York Times.

Nor was Sen. Brown for a coverup of the BIG DIG like
the carpetbagger Romney who got campaign donations.

Want more, Connecticut-RomneyBOT?

[TAdams8591]

"We need to take what we can get right now and build upon those successes until we have the kind of Conservatives we want. That’s how the Libs got to where they are now. We’ll never have true Conservatives in power if we insist upon perfection this very minute."

Bravo, well said. And intelligent, thoughtful, conservatives understand that. Anyone advocating any other strategy is pushing a losing strategy, and is in my book a likely socialist infiltrator.

[Diogenesis]

Sen. Brown was NOT for making fake badges and his own "laws".
Your Master Romney was. Now is that conservative? No.

Romney aide’s bogus badges: Sources detail ‘illegal’ security tactic

" Boston Herald - Friday, July 20, 2007
In an apparent violation of the law, a controverisal aide to ex-Gov. Mitt Romney
created phony law enforcement badges that he and other staffers used on the campaign trail
to strong-arm reporters, avoid paying tolls and trick security guards
into giving them immediate access to campaign venues, sources told the Herald.
“They (the aides) knew the badges were fake and probably illegal,”
said a presidential campaign source who asked for anonymity
because the story could damage the individual’s career.
Two additional sources confirmed that the badges - described as bright silver plates with a state seal attached -
were first created and used by Garrity while Romney was still governor." Romney Presidential campaign caught with fake LEOs and fake badges in two states (includes NH).

Myth Romney 2007 campaign's dirty tricks included phoney State Troopers caught in two states
before he was caught using push polls, fake and deceptive stories to the Press about others,
and other dirty tricks on a daily basis.

FAKE TROOPER (and Chief of Operations)

More here

More here - Romney aide is the focus of probe

Romney aide accused of faking badges

[CharlesWayneCT]

If Romney had the same views as Brown on abortion, I couldn’t have sent him money or supported him either.

But I’m not touching Brown or anything. And I support Sarah Palin. But I know that this makes no difference to you. Because you have your talking points.

So far as I can tell, most Romney folks seem to really like Brown, in no small part because he is what Romney was, and is castigated for, and I think it makes them feel somewhat validated that, after they were personally attacked time and again for Romney’s past views, those same people embraced Brown (albeit not for a national election).

I haven’t seen any of the Romneybots attacking Brown. Of course, some of what I’ve said would be seen as attacking Brown, but I’m not one of the Romneybots.

It is fun though watching you work so hard to find ways you can distinguish Romney from Brown so you can be happy that Brown won in Mass. while attacking Romney for positions he took when running for election in Mass.

I do think people should leave Brown alone, but we should not deceive ourselves into thinking he’s the candidate we have been looking for.

The reason I think so many are, is because they have not yet reconciled their support for Brown with their hatred of RINOs, and are not quite ready to admit to the pragmatism they have embraced.

But it will come. And I’m not quite sure, even though I’m a pragmatist myself, whether it is good or bad. Because while I understand the theory of blocking Obamacare, I also understood the concept of backing only real conservatives, and if that meant liberals won and implemented their ideas, the people would see the tragedy that results and would be ready to come to the conservative side.

I don’t know which group is right. I tend to flit back and forth between the two — the pragmatists who accept moderates in some places, and the idealists who think you need to vote your principles, not play politics.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Were we talking about religion here? Although that is one difference between Brown and Romney.

[mlo]

"He's spoken in favor of alternative green energy technologies..."

There's nothing wrong with green energy technology. Just let people decide on thier own when to use it.

[TAdams8591]

A realist understands there are times when it is important to be pragmatic and times when there aren't. The Brown race, at this time, is the perfect example of a time to be pragmatic.

Interestingly, Brown's vote on healthcare will actually help the pro-life cause, another consideration in the evaluation of his candidacy.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, it’s not my view, but I don’t personally hold every person who mindlessly says that abortion is a personal choice PERSONALLY responsible for the deaths of all the children.

If a politician actually passes a law which leads to abortions, then I blame them for abortions. I don’t call my friend baby-killers because they don’t believe that abortion should be illegal from the moment of conception.

I believe that abortion is evil. I also believe that every human being is evil. But in the realm of evilness, I don’t say that almost half the country is evil, simply because half the country doesn’t oppose abortion.

Ignorant, but not evil.

But, if you do assume that anybody who publicly supports a woman’s right to choose is “evil”, and if that “evil” disqualifies them from being elected, then we should not send money or vote for pro-abortion candidates.

I try not to do so, but I have voted for candidates in the past whose idea of “pro-life” only kicked in after the 1st trimester. So I’m a hypocrit. I’ve supported candidates who allowed for a rape/incest exception — a position which makes no sense if you believe in the personhood of the preborn, as I do. So I’m a hypocrit.

But I’m not ready to attack other freepers who were willing to send money and donate time to electing Scott Brown. I am glad he won. I couldn’t send him money. So I’m pretty much on the outs with both sides on this one. Because I’m a hypocrit. I want to stop Obamacare and it’s public financing of abortions more than I want to oppose a person for their pro-abortion views which will not effect any laws that I am aware of at the national level.

Expediency sounds so bad. But if we elect someone who will vote against the only pro-abortion bill in congress (freedom of choice act) against a candidate who supported it, aren’t we doing a good thing, even though the candidate supports abortion in many cases?

I’d prefer every candidate be pro-life.

[RockinRight]

Forget what???

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don’t even live in Connecticut. But I don’t imagine you care about that fact either.

Senator Brown says that the Mass. gay marriage is settled law — since the basis of that law was the supreme court ruling (the legislature never passed anything), I don’t see how you can believe as you incorrectly do that the constitution was usurped, but say Brown is against it.

He did support the referendum, but so did Romney.

[Stentor]

He is no, and never has been, a Sarah Palin.

Whew. That means he won't campaign for McLame then.

[Stentor]

He is no, and never has been, a Sarah Palin.

Whew. That means he won't campaign for McLame then.

[CharlesWayneCT]

You sure are full of them, aren’t you.

I presume that you have verified that none of the people you have attacked here today (that you say were either on Romney’s staff, or where his supporters) were on Brown’s staff of paid or unpaid volunteers?

Probably not. What difference would that make to you? Would spoil the fun and all.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, it hasn’t been fun, but anyway, I’m done with this thread. Have fun without me. I’m glad Brown won, and don’t care if people start attacking him later, we can deal with it later.

[Diogenesis]

Trying to confabulate a "story". The fact is this:

Live with it, and admit you support A Constitution-stabbing GOP-backstabbing chameleon.

Romney imposed gay marriage by his fiat against the Mass. Constitution by using improper executive authority.

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor Bishop Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'

"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.

"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."

Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...

Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."

"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."

And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:

* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.

"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)

"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."

* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.

"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."

* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."

"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.

"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

[gusopol3]

Thanks, I missed the Constitution reference, even though I read the sentence and found it the best part of the speech. It’s strong enough for me.

[chris_bdba]

If he helps kill healthcare and never votes FOR abortion or other extreme leftwing policies then he will always be good to me.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Your “experts” are idiots. Common sense should show that to you, but it never has in the past, so I don’t expect you to have a newfound wave of common sense now.

So you can continue to believe that an entire nation of conservative legal scholars all somehow failed to miss the opportunity to file suit in Mass. to stop Romney from taking an “unconstitutional” action, even though they DID spend millions of dollars trying to get a referendum passed to put the issue on the ballot to overturn it.

So they must have been pretty stupid not to see what you think you see. Nice to know you are so much smarter than the entire population of the pro-marriage movement, who somehow failed to recognize this, and therefore never mentioned it once in all the hundreds of statements they made on the subject.

Of course, for those of us with common sense, and who can actually read, we know that the court did exactly what all the pro-marriage psople SAID it did, on that day when it legalized gay marriage. only the few biased people at your favorite organization are willing to peddle a crackpot legal theory that helps them attack their nemesis.

[Diogenesis]

Commonsense is what the CONSTITUTION says.
RomneyBOTs and ObamaBOTs like you HATE CONSTITUTIONS.

You want them destroyed.
Yet, they read clear and in English.
They show what should have been done.
Dictator (your Master) Romney did not do that.

Romney is no conservative.
Romney has no integrity.
Romney is a carpetbagging CONSTITUTION-stabbing fascist.

Q.E.D.