I would vote for Brown if I lived in MA but it’s fact he did vote for Romneycare. We should cover this up? I’d rather see it discussed. Facts are facts.
As to why Myth and McLame are backing him, they are unfortunately prominent Republicans, they will offer support to a Republican in a key special election and if he thinks they can help, that Republican will not refuse their aid.
The only other candidate on the ballot is running as an independent but he’s a libertarian and self proclaimed Tea Party candidate. His name is Joe Kennedy, because of that name he will likely take more votes from Croakly. He seems a typical Libertarian party type meaning he’s probably well to Brown’s right on fiscal issues but holds other views one may find unsavory, for example he says on his website he wants to repeal DOMA. He will get like 2-4% of the vote.
No one knows for certain how conservative Brown would vote. Some people like Rabs will not support anyone with the hint of a wrong view on any key issue. I don’t share that view but I respect it.
My view is there is a middle ground between voting for any piece of liberal trash just because they are an (R) (I DON’T respect that view) and dismissing the large majority of elected Republicans as just as bad as a rat and our enemy. I look at every race on a case by case basis.
I don’t think Brown is a Mark Kirk or Olympia Snowe. I hope I’m not wrong but I’d wager he’s a moderate-to-conservative like most people think. Even if he does suck he’s worth supporting now because of the critical Obamacare issue. If he turns out to be a liberal creep like Snowe or Ed Brooke (eww him and Barbara Walters...eww) then we can give him the kiss off in the future. Hopefully he’s a decent Republican.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were some Coakley plants here trying to convince FR that Brown is RINO scum so that they stay home on Tues. It certainly would be the most viable tactic given that "what's her name", DemonRAT Coakley's support has collapsed.
But we do have to be honest with ourselves and not overhype expectations for this guy. Brown is 10X better than Coakley but he's not a solid conservative. I heard one freeper compare him to Senator Kyl (who has a 95% conservative rating), except to say Brown is "much better" on immigration? If you expect Brown to be a more right-wing version of Jon Kyl or Barry Goldwater c. 1964, you're going to be disappointed. But on the other hand we have his voting record in Mass. Senate and he's certainly not a left-wing DIABLO like Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter. I'd venture to guess he'd probably vote similarly to Mike DeWine or Norm Coleman -- right-of-center and with us about 60%-70% of the time. He's probably cast a few important votes that really pi$$ off the conservative base, but he'll do the right thing most of the time. Given that there is no conservative third party candidate and the major alternative on the ballot is an elitist, totally marxist bbbbiatch, I think the question of who to support is a no-brainer.
As for a couple of RINOs endorsing Brown over a RAT in the general election, so what? If Romney smells victory for the GOP and wants to be on the winning side I don't care. It means as much as saying Mark Kirk is a closet conservative due to John Thune endorsing him when he's way ahead in the polls. It's quite different than if Brown had a more conservative primary opponent who was neck-and-neck with him, then Olympia Snowe showed up to help the RINO cause.
This situation isn't compariable to Dede Scozzafava at all. In that case, you had a far-left "Republican" that was funded by ACORN and endorsed by DailyKos, running in a right-of-center district where she been annointed by the state GOP without a primary -- AND there was a viable conservative alternative on the ballot to vote for.
Likewise, Scott Brown may not be a solid conservative but he IS further to the right of at least three (and possibily more) Republican U.S. Senate candidates annointed in more Republican-friendly states -- namely Mark Kirk, Mike Castle, and Rob Simmons. They may come from states that also voted for Obama, but there are pockets of conservative Republican areas in Illinois, which has elected many solid conservative U.S. congressmen in recent years -- compared to Mass. which has elected none.
Someone on Illinois Review noted that a vote for Scott Brown is a vote for liberty, but a vote for Mark Kirk is not, and noted some reasons why:
Scott Brown is a center right candidate. Mark Kirk is a center left candidate. Brown opposes partial birth abortion - Kirk supports it. Brown is attacked by pro-abortion groups, Kirk received a 100% rating from NARAL. Brown is pro-second amendment and received an A rating from the NRA, Kirk received an F from the NRA and an F- from the GOA. Brown supported the interests of the Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government 93% in 2007-2008. Kirk received mediocre ratings from taxpayer watchdog groups, including supporting Taxpayers for Common Sense 33% of the time and supporting Citizens for Tax Justice 17% of the time. Brown recently voted against an increase in the state's sales tax from 5% to 6.25%, and continues to say he supports repealing that increase. Kirk voted YES to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 by July 2009. Kirk also voted YES to help Pelosi Democrats expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)subjecting American working families to a tax increase amounting to tens of billions of dollars. Brown says cap and trade is a mistake and doesn't work and Kirk...well we know Kirk's record on that. Kirk had the opportunity to vote against Cap and Trade - he failed. Instead, he voted with Nancy Pelosi (after a closed door meeting with her) & supported the largest tax increase in American history. Not to mention cap and trade is yet another government power grab and the phoniest scheme ever devised, with the possible exception of papal indulgences. Kirk's vote puts him to the left of over 95% of the Republican delegation in Congress. Scott Brown and Mark Kirk? No comparison.
Now I'm sure the mainstream media and the GOP leadership will all take credit for Brown's victory if he pulls it off on Tuesday, and proclaim it's proof that American wants more "moderate Republicans" But it's up to us to educate the public about the truth -- that although Scott Brown is moderate he's much more conservative than the kind of "Republicans" the media insist we "have to" run to "win" in Obama states. If Scott Brown wins, it will show that a Republican won the most Democrats state in the union -- with NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, and the Sarah & Jim Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence all OPPOSED to his candidacy.
The Mass. Senate race is the opening shot of the 2010 election season. What happens there will resonate with the rest of the country.
And if Scott Brown wins... Well, it will show that Mark Kirk, Mike Castle, and Rob Simmons didn't "have to" get in bed with the left and embrace Obamunism to "win" in states that voted for Obama.