Posted on 01/30/2010 11:18:04 AM PST by the invisib1e hand
When I arrived at his cramped state senate offices, Scott Brown had just opened one of the many packages he's received since his stunning U.S. Senate victory 11 days ago. A local artist has done up a version of the iconic red, white and blue collage from the 2008 presidential campaign that shows Barack Obama with the word "Hope." This one features a smiling Mr. Brown instead, but the word below is different. It reads "Change."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
That is an opinion with which I heartily concur.
I presume he is playing to a largely pro-abortion constituency when he says that. I’m not defending him on it, but he does have an actual record of voting on the right side on some issues.
In point of fact, yu could say that he was lying when he said that in the debate, if you want to put it in the worst light. Because Coakley, for instance, would support having minor girls get abortions without parental notification, but he would not. She would support partial birth abortion, but he would not. He’s on the record for voting the other way.
I wouldn’t say or do some of the things he is willing to say and do. I can’t compromise on those issues, But then again, I could never get elected to anything in Massachusetts.
It seems to me that the most serious RINO problem at the moment is that the RNC and the Republican pols support RINOs even in conservative districts and states, where a conservative might actually get more votes. That’s another matter entirely.
I'm sure the Lord is thankful for the daily guidance you give him.
Next time we play the game "Who is Most Conservative" we absolutely MUST have you as the judge, referee, and umpire rolled into one and you can have a ball making pronouncements from your elite mountain-top.
Thou seem to be really full of thyself.
What exactly is your point? So Scott Brown is not a conservative on the issue of abortion. So what. Should the GOP not allow him to caucus with them in the Senate?
Taking the old Kennedy seat from the Democrats column and denying it to Coakley is good news. That is not the issue. This Scott Brown phenomenon is out of control with some FReepers even promoting him as the GOP nominee for President in 2012.
Brown's a Pro-abort northeast liberal, a big govt statist who voted for RomneyCare, who supports states deciding gay marriage rights and believes man is a major cause of global warming. As a candidate Brown accepted serious campaign support from the despicable phony Mitt Romney. The day after his election win Brown was making robocalls for John McCain in Arizona. Also Brown said, not only would be work with Democrats in the Senate, but he'd vote with them on some issues.
All the good will Brown has received on FR over the last few weeks is outrageous, appalling and pathetic.
Yep. As a back up to your line of thinking, I offer obama as Exhibit A
You didn’t answer the question about Coakley. Don’t be disingenuous.
Well, anyone who thinks Brown is presidential material is nuts, and I’ve said so on a number of threads. There are a few possible supporters here, just as there are a few Romneybots here, but I think that was mainly exuberance after he managed to beat Coakley.
And, of course, mischief-making on the part of the press, who first raised the idea. Not yet seated in the Senate, and they’re calling him presidential. They wish.
Voted YES on Extending corporate tax credit 5 years. (May 2003)
Implement the death penalty in Massachusetts. (Nov 2002)
Voted NO on 3-year moratorium on charter schools. (May 2003)
Vouchers for public, private, or religious schools. (Nov 2002)
MA already has health bill; don’t impose new federal bill. (Nov 2009)
Voted NO on Constitutional call for universal health care. (Jul 2004)
Opposed two-way bilingual programs; supported English-only. (Jul 2003)
No affirmative action in public employment nor contracting. (Nov 2002)
Voted NO on raising income tax to 5.95% to offset deficit. (Apr 2003)
Finish the job in Afghanistan: keep Taliban and al-Qaeda out. (Nov 2009)
Campaign disclosure but no donation limits
Voted YES on defining marriage as one man and one woman. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on $300M to offset the budget deficit via bonds. (Apr 2003)
I found him wanting on the following issues : Abortions should always be legally available. (Nov 2002) BASED ON HIS RECORD IN MASSACHUSETTS’ SENATE, I HAVE TO SAY HE LEANS RIGHT.
All things considered: I'd say that at this time he was the only choice. We are not going to be able to replace outright...but rather incrementally (like our enemies).
I’m betting John Kerry.
Think again. JFTR. On Jan 8th I first caught Scott Brown appearing on Hannity. From that point until Jan 18th, the day before the election, I posted on a grand total of just 17 Brown threads out of some 1,000 threads posted concerning his candidacy. For the most part, posters were civil to my opposing Brown. While many posters showed a lack of decorum and intelligence. But the level of support favoring him was in the neighborhood of 85%. Many of the threads posted since Brown won the election have been nothing but pure infatuation. With some posters having an obvious crush on Brown so bad, you could envision them sliding off their chairs at the mere mention of his name, if you know what I mean. I'd call that more, irrational exuberance of the juvenile mind, then anything else.
We needed to put the kaboosh to the “Safe Seat” ideology. Brown isn't a perfect conservative, but he isn't a Swimmer Kenedy either.
The rush everyone felt after the Dem’s lost Fat Teddy’s Senate seat is understandable. Three cheers!
The level of enthusiasm for Brown before and after the election, remains way overblown and misplaced, and for good reason. Brown is no conservative.
No more irrelevant than yours is. Illustrating absurdity with absurdity.
The new Demonrat mantra! Woof, woof, let granny eat dog food...spoof on 'let them eat cake'.The articles also contain the new big fees to Tricare for Life the retired over 65 Military's secondary health ins)
obama's war on seniors See the links in post 43-46 and on the last page.
Expanding support for families balancing work with caring for elderly relatives with a $102.5 million Caregiver Initiative adding $52.5 million in funding to Department of Health and Human Services caregiver support programs that provide temporary respite care, counseling, training, and referrals to critical services. The administration says the extra funding will allow nearly 200,000 additional caregivers to be served and 3 million more hours of respite care to be provided. It also adds $50 million to programs that provide transportation help, adult day care, and in-home services, such as aides to help seniors bathe and cook, help which eases the burden for family members and helps seniors stay in their homes.
Even the commie rag Mother Jones is reporting the cut and gut to granny's SS/Medicare.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/obama-puts-social-security-chopping-block
Bambi in his own words I' won't cut Medicare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0EAP47SdcY
I appreciate what you are saying. That voting record, by itself, would appeal to conservatives. But I don't know how much of that is window dressing -- if those initiatives never had a shot at passing, voting for them cost him nothing but bolstered his image as a "conservative." (I also would avoid equating "leaning right" with being conservative).
I am not saying the man does not mean well -- I have no idea. I'm only saying that he's no conservative -- for what appears to be conservative in Massachusetts qualifies as straight-up socialist in the real world. How much more so when contrasted with the Obama administration.
I am also saying that universal health care by any other name is still straight-out socialism, and socialism ought not be said to be a conservative principle. Neither the legalization of abortion.
"Compromise" has its limits. The seemingly popular validation of Scott Brown has, imho, decisively moved the nation much further to the left than it was in Nov, 2008.
Did the media ever really clearly convey Mr. Brown's positions on healthcare and abortion during his campaign? I only saw smattering of it here. Now that he's in, the Wall Street Journal comes clean. That's bogus.
And when the media starts telling us that Obamacare is "dead," my gut is that it can only mean that some other trojan horse is being set to march in.
Enter Scott Brown, and the catalyst for the Great Moral Compromise of 2010.
I'm not.
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.