Posted on 01/15/2010 9:51:31 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Frum sees him as an antidote to the Tea Party madness:
Strong on defense and school choice, opposed to the Obama administration’s signature initiatives, Brown voted in favor of Mitt Romney’s health plan in Massachusetts. He describes himself as pro-choice (subject to reasonable limitations), accepts gay marriage in Massachusetts as a settled fact, and told the Boston Herald editorial board he would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor.
(Excerpt) Read more at andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com ...
Yes, Frum is THAT delusional.
Wasn’t Herbert Hoover a pubbie? And wasn’t he the President when the Crash occurred? So how did Silent Cal cause the Conservative Movement problems?
.
HELP SCOTT DEFEAT THE ‘RAT’S SOCK PUPPET!!
(stole this from another FReeper, but bears repeating)
•People in ANY state can volunteer for the phone bank! http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/phone-calls-for-freedom-call-1?commentId=2600775%3AComment%3A1891491&xg_source=activity
•Anyone… Anywhere… Contribute! https://www.icontribute.us/scottbrown
•Live in or near MA? Volunteers still needed at many regional offices. If you can help, please email Laura@brownforussenate.com and she will tell you how.
•If you live in Massachusetts, become an election judge. In Boston they pay $135-$185 and they NEED Republican monitors.
Needed; military and retired law enforcement VFW and police organizations etc to monitor polls- prevent the voter fraud they’re plotting right now. Video tape everything; document everything; prosecute the perpetrators. http://www.cityofboston.gov/news/default.aspx?id=3599
. .
Nothing is perfect in this world, you just have to play with the cards that you are dealth. I already voted for Scott Brown at town hall, thousands of people have already voted by absentee. There is a lot of enthusiasm here.
I grew up in Newton, Massachusetts. Fellow FReepers, a true conservative Republican cannot be elected in Massachusetts. This is the best you are going to get, and Brown hasn’t won yet. Massachusetts is chock full of the worst leftist whiners, the worst sick, twisted freaks in the country. Massachusetts is a conservative hell on earth. That is, Boston is to the left of San Francisco.
” I already voted for Scott Brown .....”
My grandchildren thank you.
You did more than vote, you served your country.
Well, Hoover was Coolidge’s Secretary of Commerce, and was in office for 9 months when the stock market crashed; Coolidge had set the policies that basically were in effect - including the budget - while Hoover was in office when it all fell apart. He certainly didn’t help it, but he didn’t set it up...
Additionally, Coolidge had a Republican majority for his entire term in both the Senate and House, something Ronald Reagan never had. During Coolidge’s term, the Democrats made steady gains in the Senate and House; he didn’t keep it together, unlike George Bush who saw actual gains, and Ronald Reagan who saw the Senate switch from Democrat to Republican majority.
Coolidge may have had good ideas, but he was a pretty weak political leader. You have to have actual leadership skills and charisma as well as sound ideas to be an effective political leader; apparently rabscuttle thinks just having a good idea is enough.
Defense spending included? How about tax receipts? Government should get out of abortion and marriage? Eliminating Federal and State regulations on abortion and marriage would be conservative? Criminalization of drugs?
See how complex it is?
>> He should NOT be elected, unless the end result desired is another {Snowe, Collins, Jeffords, Chafee}.
We want the most Conservative representatives possible in each State. There’s sufficient difference between Coakley and Brown on every major issue including abortion that qualifies Brown as the more Conservative candidate.
Unless you prefer the more Liberal candidate, it would seem rational to either support Brown, or avoid marginalizing his campaign.
It’s not about ignoring RINOism, but the consequences of not selecting the better representative.
Are you suggesting that Coolidge was responsible for the crash, i.e., that small-government conservative policies lead to economic disaster?
Eliminate overseas nation-building and foreign welfare aid.
How about tax receipts?
Stop diverting SS/Medicare funds to all sorts of Big Government boondoggles.
End the income and payroll taxes straight up.
Government should get out of abortion and marriage?
Government should not be allowed to define what constitutes marriage.
Eliminating Federal and State regulations on abortion and marriage would be conservative?
Federal, yes. State, depends on the State.
Criminalization of drugs?
Well, since gluttony is bad, overeating should be prohibited and consumption of food by individuals should be regulated, with certain "bad" foods prohibited outright.
When do we start regulating food?! /sarc
When did it crash, and what policies did Hoover enact prior to the crash?
The fact is - the crash happened under the policies put in place by Coolidge. The crash was October 29, 1929. Hoover was in office for less than 8 months, and the budget was not even a month old when it came apart.
Was Reagan responsible for the recession of 1981/1982? Was George W Bush responsible for the recession of 2001/2002?
And you conveniently ignored the fact that Republicans lost seats under Coolidge, and continued to do so under Hoover. Reagan gained seats...
Not at all complicated. Does the Constitution grant FedGov the authority to:
1. Promote baby murder? No, it’s a STATE matter and should revert there. At least at the State level, it could at last be treated as the murder it is.
2. Promote marriage? NO. That should be a RELIGIOUS matter, between the couple and their church and their God. Could the STATES ban “marriage” between same sex couples, children, adults and children, humans and goats? Yes.
3. Ban grown folks (Americans) from ingesting/inhaling things of which the Government disapproves? Not only NO, but HELL NO.
Not complex at all, is it? The CONSERVATIVE position to all the above is, NO, government (especially FedGov) HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY, period.
Defense spending... well, since defense of our borders is Constitutionally MANDATED, what do you think? Tax receipts? Get rid of the income tax, put FedGov on a diet and then talk to me. Right now 90 percent of what FedGov does, INCLUDING your precious war on some drugs, is flat out UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Shrink government to its Constitutional limits, then we can see what else we want to get rid of.
Neither of which come from the DOD budget.
Stop diverting SS/Medicare funds to all sorts of Big Government boondoggles.
End the income and payroll taxes straight up.
Great, what about increases in capital gains taxes? Does Government then fund itself on duties and tariffs? How is that an acceptable expansion of Government?
Government should not be allowed to define what constitutes marriage.
Great, so marriage between Adam and Steve is no problem. Got it. I wonder how many conservatives would agree with you.
Federal, yes. State, depends on the State.
So conservatism/small Government only applies Federally; nothing about States or localities.
Well, since gluttony is bad, overeating should be prohibited and consumption of food by individuals should be regulated, with certain "bad" foods prohibited outright.
It's being advanced right now... Good luck finding certain fats and oils being used in New York City, Seattle, and a host of other localities.
And you didn't answer the question about criminalization of drugs. I take it you're for the legalization of drugs, then? No problem cooking meth, growing pot? Also legalization of prostitution, I assume, is OK with you?
Trite sayings are great for sloganeering, but they really aren't a platform...
And I have yet to see you define why Brown in a RINO and should not be supported, as you so strongly demand.
Great - pre Wade v Roe, WA and NY had legal abortions. Pretty sure CA and IL would do it now, too, at a minimum. No problem there, right?
2. Promote marriage? NO. That should be a RELIGIOUS matter, between the couple and their church and their God. Could the STATES ban “marriage” between same sex couples, children, adults and children, humans and goats? Yes.
Cool, so opposition to gay marriage laws by conservatives is misguided. Got it.
3. Ban grown folks (Americans) from ingesting/inhaling things of which the Government disapproves? Not only NO, but HELL NO.
Great! Meth labs and pot farms all around, please! Probably will be needed to relax all those folks with their new married homosexual couples moving in next to them...
Not complex at all, is it? The CONSERVATIVE position to all the above is, NO, government (especially FedGov) HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY, period.
Except that above you EXPLICITLY states that the States have the right to regulate those behaviors. Which is it? Bad for FedGov only? Or bad for all Government?
Defense spending... well, since defense of our borders is Constitutionally MANDATED, what do you think?
So that's the exception...
Tax receipts? Get rid of the income tax, put FedGov on a diet and then talk to me.
Wait... The income tax is constitutional, too! So some parts of the Constitution are to be rejected (income taxation) and others accepted (defense). You like to pick and choose from the Constitution a lot?
The way to shrink Government is actually quite simple, if people would get out of their simplistic mindset (that is pervasive with folks like rabscuttle): you vote for the most fiscally conservative candidate with a legitimate chance of winning each time. Regardless of your own personal litmus test. Any other vote will not achieve what you seek - restricted Government.
If Brown does not believe exactly as Rabscuttle believes, then Rabscuttle is against him.
In other words...
"Vote Republikkin! We're you're only hope! You have nowhere else to go!"
Capital gains taxes are income taxes.
Great, so marriage between Adam and Steve is no problem. Got it.
That's not what I said.
By allowing the Government to define marriage, you cede control over the definition to the Government, and therefore, whenever a faction that holds beliefs that you do not agree with gains power (as is the case now), they also gain the opportunity to re-define marriage.
I take it you're for the legalization of drugs, then? No problem cooking meth, growing pot?
Two things: one, what you do in your house and on your property is your business; and two, I don't like the Government treating me like a criminal just because I carry cash or buy cough medicine at the grocery store.
Also legalization of prostitution, I assume, is OK with you?
Considering we already have 535 whores on Capitol Hill, sure, why not?
And I have yet to see you define why Brown in a RINO and should not be supported, as you so strongly demand.
Romneycare.
Support for a regional cap-and-trade initiative in New England.
Ain’t it funny (yet sad) how so many conservatives believe that government is the solution instead of the problem?
Thanks Gator, I have a couple of grandkids of my own. :^D
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.