Posted on 01/08/2010 11:41:07 AM PST by Bluestateredman
For underdog Scott Brown, all’s Weld that ends Weld Margery Eagan By Margery Eagan Thursday, January 7, 2010 - Updated 22h ago
State Sen. Scott Brown has seen his chance to beat front-runner Martha Coakley. It’s moving left.
A poll this week put him ahead of Coakley 65 to 21 among the state’s largest voting bloc - the unenrolled. Independents elected what few Republicans have won statewide here: Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, Mitt Romney, before his presidential flip-flops.
Yesterday morning I would have called Scott Brown a social conservative.
By the time he finished an hour with Herald editors yesterday afternoon, he was calling himself a “social moderate.” Yet he sounded like a social liberal.
Gay marriage, which he once wanted to put up for a referendum? “This is settled law” in Massachusetts, he said. “People have moved on.”
Just the other day, in fact, he chatted up two lesbians at Doyle’s in Jamaica Plain. They were so wowed, they asked for a “Brown for Senate” sign.
Pro-choice or pro-life? Brown, who’s repeatedly pushed for abortion restrictions and has the support of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said he doesn’t like those “labels.” Pressed, he agreed the “choice” should be between a woman and her doctor - the very definition of pro-choice.
Yet in 2005 he sponsored a draconian amendment to a bill allowing emergency room personnel to turn away rape victims seeking emergency contraception. Yesterday he did his best to make such a scenario appear less horrifying.
Terrified victim shows up in the ambulance at St. Elizabeth’s only to be told, “Sorry, try Beth Israel, maybe Brigham and Women’s.” “It wouldn’t be as callous as that,” he insisted.
Scott Brown even said he’d have voted for Sonia Sotomayor, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice ridiculed by the right as the ultimate angry, affirmation-action hire with the far-left agenda and the mediocre SATS.
Forget morphing into JFK, as Brown does in his ads. He’s morphing into Weld-lite. Brown’s not as smart or, as an ex-welfare kid, as patrician. But he comes across as super-nice, super-family guy. He says wonderful things about his wife.
Plus, unlike our previous matinee idol, Mr. Mitt, Brown’s a regular, let’s-have-a-beer kind of guy. None of those Romney the-aliens-have-landed otherworldly expressions. No weird, demonic Mitt chuckles.
No doubt planet-earth Scott Brown will manage to seduce a few of Weld’s suburban soccer moms. But ultimately, it won’t be enough. Not this time. The moms’ll break for Martha. Local politics - Jan. 7, 2010:
* + Brown vows to work with Dems
a good comment to the article:
Finneran-Lang-Eagan Axis of Evil:
http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/06/finneran-lang-eagan-axis-of-evil.html
http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2008/11/homofascist-intimidation-hq-villa.html
From Eagan’s column,”Same-Sex Marriage: Ordinary ceremony turns unique” (Boston Herald, 5-18-04).
... Five minutes after Alexander Westerhoff and Thomas Lang, in tails and tux, walked down a white-carpeted aisle here last night, their wedding became not about same-sex or any sex, but about two people promising their lives to each other.
In many respects this wedding is “like any wedding,” said officiating minister the Rev. Peter J. Gomes of Harvard University . “Preservice jitters . . . anxiety . . . confusion,” he said. “And so we celebrate the ordinariness of the occasion.”
But Gomes also said there’s “something quite unique and special” happening in this small chapel.
You expected Gomes then to speak of history: Yesterday, for the first time, homosexual couples could wed in Massachusetts . Before yesterday this union would have been illegal. Instead, Gomes referred to the two men before him as “unique” in their love. Men who put “16 years’ worth of thought and care and consideration” into getting married.
And so it was in many ways a traditional marriage. Each pew a garland of baby roses. Best man Alex Filias handing over the rings. Traditional vows: “I give you this ring as a symbol of my promise,” said Westerhoff. “All that I am is yours, as long as we both shall live,” said Lang.
Here’s what was different: As the couples joined hands, Gomes pronounced them, not man and wife, but “partners for life” and “truly married in the sight of God and man.” Lang and Westerhoff kissed twice - very quickly - then they received a proclamation of congratulations from the Massachusetts House of Representatives, signed by Speaker Thomas Finneran, who has long opposed gay marriage. It read: “What the SJC has granted, let no vote put asunder.”
... last night in Manchester-by-the-Sea, about 100 guests - men in black ties and women in bejeweled gowns - celebrated their marriage with them. Singers from the Boston Lyric Opera sang arias by Puccini and Lehar. Lang and Westerhoff marched out of the church to a gospel rendition of “Oh, Happy Day,” sung by the red-robed Majestic Ensemble. Westerhoff was occasionally in tears as the wedding party adjourned to the massive home the couple just built together.
Missing from the party, however, was Alex’s mother, who disowned him, the couple said, after their Vermont civil union....
[You gotta be kidding me. RomneyLite. No, Romney exactly.]
If he votes against healthcare, all past and future sins will be absolved. Healthcare socialism is that crucial to stop.
------------------- Is that a RINO?
...Now ask Martha what she thinks about immigration
This is a hit piece on Brown. So obvious. Stay the course. Victory is in our sites # 41.
Would Freepers be willing to elect a RINO in order to stop the health care bill? “
damn right we would...at least some of us would!
Exactly. I have no problems with supporting a moderate Republican in Massachusetts. The other option is a Marxist. You decide.
RINO this, RINO that...the fact is that we don’t have a parliamentary system here, so by nature things will divide themselves among two parties and two parties only, for better or for worse. This will mean conservative Republicans in some states and moderate Republicans in others. It might be nice to where we could have a true conservative party, a libertarian party, a moderate party, and then the Dems would have their socialist party, but it really just won’t happen in the system that we have.
I agree with Scott Brown more than I agree with his opponent. That is good enough for me.
"...I support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance. In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs."
Someone tell me again the difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare?
Maaahhhgery is still kicking around? Does she still have that talkshow with Jim Braude the lefty councilamn from
Cambridge?
There aren't that many 1%ers, they just speak the loudest.
A RINO from MA? Compared to Swimmer?!
MA?!
Just as long as he doesn’t try to run for president, he’s great.
Mass Citizens for Life is supporting Brown.
I suppose the test on whether somebody opposes Brown would be: after Brown wins, ask the person whether they are upset with the results.
The DEMS need Coakley for the 60th vote, yes?
So, Massachusetts should elect Coakley and insure the passage of Obamacare? Not sure I get it.
"While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion."
If a candidate for the United States Senate cannot defend our most fundamental God-given unalienable right to Life, then which other of our unalienable rights will he not defend? Will he stand firm against abortionist judges?
But it seems the purists around here outnumber the pragmatists.
[Someone tell me again the difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare?]
I stand corrected as far as Brown’s background. But given Coakley’s sure vote for Obamacare, versus Brown’s likely no vote, what choice is there right now?
This may be my one exception to the no RINOs rule. They always stab us in the back the first chance they get.
This article, this writer, are shamelessly vicious. A rattlesnake wrote it with its fangs, the venom drips from it.
Do you think, in sick, degenerate, fascist Massachusetts, you will find a virgin conservative?
Scott Brown if elected will vote against the health TAKEOVER by rabied Democrats/liberals and traitorous sellout 'pubs.
I believe if he's elected, he may well work his way back to more conservative thinking. The fact that the RNC & Steele have been unwilling to help him or give him $$ means that he's too conservative for their liking, too independent.
Amen. Why are purists being so myopic? Scott Brown has promised to kill Obamacare and be the 41 senator to filibuster.
What else could possibly matter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.