Posted on 01/11/2010 3:35:51 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for Edward Kennedy’s old U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, has become a somewhat unlikely national candidate.
In liberal Massachusetts, after a Camelot-worthy sendoff for Senator Kennedy, and in an age of “hope and change” that was ushered in in no small part by Kennedy-family endorsements, this seat has been considered a safe Democratic hold. But polls have begun to show the race tighter than anyone would have predicted — one showed Brown in fighting distance of pulling off a win. Brown still has a steep hill to climb, but the possibility that Attorney General Martha Coakley’s lead is now in the single digits warrants moving the race from Solid Democratic to Lean Democratic.
So Brown — you may be thinking — isn’t really a Republican. There must not be an important difference between him and the Democrat.
Indeed, Scott Brown probably never owned a poster of National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr., as Eighties Republican pop-culture archetype Alex P. Keaton did on Family Ties. And he is, in fact, a supporter of Roe v. Wade. A longtime friend of his even told the Boston Globe that “Scott would have made a great Democrat, but he comes from a Republican family.”
But don’t take that too literally. You don’t want to get the wrong idea here.
There are prudential reasons for pro-lifers to support Brown. During a debate, Brown confronted Coakley: “Being supported by EMILY’s List [an organization that funds female politicians who support legal abortion], she will go down there as a social crusader and be obligated to file the bills that will have full [partial-birth] abortions and also lower the age of consent and also provide the federal funding.” As Brown made clear: “I’m not in favor of partial-birth abortion. I am not in favor of federal funding of abortion. I do not believe in lowering the age of consent to get abortions as Martha does.”
When the Supreme Court upheld the federal prohibition on partial-birth abortion, she was livid and wrote (in a co-authored op-ed): “In one fell swoop, five justices set back the cause of a woman’s individual liberty and self-determination, as well as decades of established legal precedent.” In 2007, she was among seven state attorneys general who sued the Bush administration over conscience protections for health-care providers who had moral objections to playing roles in abortions and contraception distribution. During the primary fight, EMILY’S List and its members reportedly gave Coakley some $500,000.
The Boston Globe has reported that in the Eighties, “Coakley was a private lawyer who volunteered her time to help minors get court orders for abortions when they could not get their parents’ consent.” Spending your free time working to help girls get abortions without their parents suggests a certain deep commitment to the issue.
And while there has been some suggestion in the Massachusetts press that Coakley moderated her position when she announced that she would have supported the Senate health-care bill despite some faux restrictions on abortion, it is important to realize that even pro-choice heroine Barbara Boxer voted for that bill — because they are faux restrictions. Coakley’s doing just fine by her radical-feminist supporters.
Brown, on the other hand, despite not being opposed to abortion, has the endorsement of pro-life groups in the Bay State.
Brown is not someone you can expect to be a leader in opposition to legal abortion. But if you are in fact opposed to legal abortion, he’s with you on some reasonable restrictions. And, furthermore, and immediately pressing: He opposes the health-care bill, which, at the moment, would begin federal funding of abortions for the first time, despite the fact that a majority of Americans oppose abortion.
Brown’s “Right” on other things, too, having cleverly used old John F. Kennedy clips to show that not all Kennedys would roll over in their graves if a senator from Massachusetts supported tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. As a National Guardsman and JAG lawyer, he speaks about national-security issues with the confidence and care of someone who understands the stakes of the war we’re in — something his opponent hasn’t managed.
I understand completely the desire for political leaders who will defend what really is the human-rights issue of our day in the United States. With Scott Brown, you are not going to get the next Rick Santorum, a leader in the Senate for the most defenseless. But you will, if what he says and what he’s done are indications, get a vote with you more often than not.
As a Massachusetts Planned Parenthood official put it: “He has actively done things that undermine abortion rights.”
And, with Scott Brown, you also get a vote in opposition to a health-care bill that (if the Senate version prevails) will violate the consciences of a majority of Americans by using taxes to end the lives of the unborn.
Scott Brown may support the Supreme Court’s activist, deadly Roe v. Wade decision. But that’s not up for a vote anytime soon. If Scott Brown goes to the U.S. Senate and votes against a health-care bill that would mandate federal funding of abortion, he would be more of a pro-life senator than Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Ben Nelson of Nebraska — two supposed pro-life Democrats who voted for the bill. A pro-lifer in name only doesn’t do much good. I’ll take a non–social crusader who’s a good vote on restrictions that are more likely to come up during his tenure than an entire overhaul. That’s a big tent I can live with — a big tent that saves lives.
Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online
Copyright 2010, Kathryn Jean Lopez. Distributed by Newspaper Enterprise Assn.
I contributed last night to Scott. If you or your friands and family can send him a few bucks, it can help.
...and to think, just a little while ago I was thrilled that the murdering bstrd was now known as Ded Kennedy (D-HELL) instead of just "The Swimmer."
This would be too good to be true...kick her azz, Scott...please, give us this one...help cleanse us of the memory of that drunken murdering slob...
I contributed from Colorato on Sunday. Today there was a “Money Bomb” fundraising drive today with a goal of $500K. Just a few minutes ago the total just for today was $758K and the new goal is $1M. The direct link to contribute is in my tagline. I am calling on FReepers to contribute to Free Republic too!!!
Up to $790,000.00!
I’ve lived in the Northeast my whole life, and I lived in MA for 22 years, and in a liberal hellhole, at that.
Even in MA, there are tons of conservatives. All of them are registered Democrats, but they’re conservatives, none the less.
Reagan appealed to them because he WASN’T a Republican. Oh, yes, he was running as a Republican, but he wasn’t born Republican.
And there were many other things that made him different from the species Republicanus newenglandensis.
He didn’t look down his nose at them.
He didn’t care that they smoked.
He disn’t care if they had a few drinks (He won Massachusetts the day he visited the Erie Pub in Dorchester and hoisted a few, no Republican has done that before or since).
He didn’t care that their children didn’t dress up for church, or what parties they went to.
He even knew that people occasionally let fly a few curse words, and he didn’t hold that against them.
None of the born Republicans that these people knew were ever like that. And very few of them are like that today.
Scottso may have the touch. Martha doesn’t have it. On that much hangs.
Does he really have a chance? Is the election next week?
It would really be great if he won!!
Part of this is rising fear and distrust of Obama. Part of it is Martha Coakley, who is an absolute horror. How on earth did the Kennedys settle on her?
Too bad the democrats won’t allow it anytime soon if Brown wins.
A TTD - Truly Toxic Democrat. All the worse because she isn't even intelligent.
“I have heard that if he does win it will not be a instant swearing in like in other special elections. They will do numerous recounts and wait for military and write in votes and then it may be in March or April before he is worn in so he does not upset the apple cart of health care.”
Probably try...but let’s jump off that bridge when we get to it...right now, let’s all send prayers up...this guy will absolutely tear their hearts out if he pulls this off. A (R) sitting in the seat of Ded Kennedy (D-HELL) will be almost enough for me...
Wait...It’s NOT Ted “the Dead” Kennedy’s seat...
But in light of the potential coup de grau if they can get this guy in there, can he get a new chair, seat, whatever???
Know what I mean???
If Brown wins this election, the earthquake in DC will be so huge that many vulnerable RATS in both chambers will pull back from BOcare. House members will know that BO and Pelosi cannot save them in November with 10 percent unemployment. Senate RATS will know that Reid won’t be there next year to punish them. In short, it will be every RAT for himself. BOcare will implode whether they play games w Senator-elect Brown or not.
I hope you are correct.
lived there a dozen years, hate to say it, but I don’t think they’re gonna let it happen. not only that, he’ll lose in a blowout. “we just keep counting til we win” originated in that state, was perfected in Chicago.
Hope I’m wrong, often am.
Goalpost was moved to $1M dollars. Right now, he’s received $807,177.98.
Imagine Scott Brown!
TO-DO LIST
I don’t want to piss in everyones Cheerios but Brown is going to lose. Massachusettes, Rhode Island, Vermont and Connecticuit will never again send a Republican to congress. The other two North Eastern states (Maine and New Hampshire) will only send a Republican who toes the Liberal line. I visited my family in RI over the holidays, and even people in RI are stil mourning that fat, murdering bastard Ted Kennedy. It’s sickning. If people in RI are still crying over him, how do you think people in MA are. They won’t turn over Teds seat to a Republican. Besides Obama still has a 64% approval rating in MA and 58% of Massachussete’s voters support Obamacare. Coakly will win, unless all the Libs stay home on election day.
The North East is a Liberal hell hole. Conservatives shouldn’t even waste money up there. The people are utterly stupid and clueless. Why does Rhode Island keep send the drug addict, drunk driving Patrick Kennedy back to congres over and over? Because the people are STUPID!
Sure, "Emily's List Democrats" are plentiful enough, but the notion that Coakley fires them up is laughable. On the other side, Mass independents and conservatives are very excited about the potential upset.
Ultimately, Brown will probably lose, as underdogs usually do. But defeatism helps nothing.
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.