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 ...
If by the first, you mean that I will brook no compromise with the sanctity of human life and protection of the defenseless, then you are correct. For these are two of the very few legitimate roles of government. Let's try to get the basics right before we go fixing up everything else.
As for the second, that is a good question. I don't know. I think I would have been a great deal more vocal about what it means to be a conservative, and perhaps that is all my contribution could have been. Perhaps I would have found a way to press the candidate on the protection of basic rights protected by our founding documents such as the right to life.
I don't think I could have, in good conscience, compromised. Lots of other people could (and did) and apparently have no such misgivings. But that doesn't change the realities that I have pointed out on this thread -- that, indeed, anyone paying attention has seen.
If moral compromise is a legitimate strategy in politics, I'm certainly not fit for it. But I'm even less fit to ignore it. If you adopt that strategy, that's your business. Don't kid yourself about what you're doing. Keep it real. Accept facts. The man who was elected is no conservative, if the definition means anything.
No, he is not. He has said it for universal healthcare. He voted for it in Mass. He endorsed it in the article posted on this thread.
"Obamacare" isn't the enemy -- socialism is, and "obamacare" and "universal health care" are simply two manifestations of it.
People, let's be real about this.
An American, sir, would give his life for the protection of the basic human rights enumerated in America's founding documents.
Don't know what else to say except what I already replied. What exactly is your point? What do you think the answer is/was? What do you think you are accomplishing here?
His election was a strong voice, especially from people already living the semi nightmare of their own socialistic system....What are your answers/solutions?
The Senator from Chappaquiddick.
Even McCain, RINO that he is, didn't talk to the Kremlin during the Cold War offering to help sabotage Reagan's placement of missiles in Europe as a counter to the Soviets.
So by comparison, Brown *is* a step up.
Cheers!
One can ba an ardent pro-lifer.
One can ignore it and watch American 'Idle'.
One can be like Sen. Chappaquiddick, who, when asked his opinion on the abortion bill, shrugged his shoulders and said, "I guess I'll just have to pay it." /rim shot>
Or one can be Obama :
Cheers!
No, they're just overconfident after it worked so well with Obama.
However, to quote C.S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters:
The characteristic of Pains and Pleasures is that they are unmistakably real, and therefore, as far as they go, give the man who feels them a touchstone of reality. Thus if you had been trying to damn your man by the Romantic method—by making him a kind of Childe Harold or Werther submerged in self-pity for imaginary distresses—you would try to protect him at all costs from any real pain; because, of course, five minutes' genuine toothache would reveal the romantic sorrows for the nonsense they were and unmask your whole stratagem.
This is how Obama got elected : "Your life sucks, doesn't it. Vote for Hope and ChangeTM. Vote for ObamaTM>
But now that people's lives really do suck, we're not going to fall for it again: and there will likely be a grave backlash against those who (as we see it) took everything away from us just when it was going great.
Hence the desperate spin to start the new narrative of "the lost decade".
But people who have lost their jobs in the last six months to a year just ain't gonna fall for it.
Cheers!
Then we just repeat to the Democrats, only much louder : "#%&! yourself and the NEXT Trojan Horse you rode in on."
Cheers!
?
I hear they have a “real conservative” heaven ...I hope you make it
Cheers!
last time I checked, the mortality rate on abortions approached 100%.
Exactly what are you too clever to say directly?
Secondly, even though Brown does assume that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, he doesn't seem militant about actively promoting even more abortions, and wild-assed sex ed (like Kevin Jennings) which would lead to a greater *number* of abortions.
(Or for that matter, Obama himself, who according to ABC, said:
"ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is 'the right thing to do.'")
Cheers!
I see. I guess you're right. 1.4 million abortions a year is better.
You do see that a person is either pro-life or pro-death, don't you?
Cheers!
I see your point. Obama's zeal can probably be traced to more immediate political debts.
But I don't think the people who presume to power and influence can be considered apathetic about anything that impacts on the welfare of the citizens, any more than a surgeon can be apathetic about the instruments he uses or the organs he removes.
They either are or aren't defenders of the innocent and they either do or do not defend the principles put forth in the founding documents of the land, to wit, the right to life.
Apathy is not permitted.
“Our party is a big tent,” he said. “We can house many views on many issues. Abortion is no exception.”
Some sources say Atwater coined the political phrase “big tent” that day. But, while his use may be the most famous, the term had been used previously by both Republicans and Democrats.
Back in 1975, Democratic House Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill told a reporter: “The Democratic Party is a big tent. We are widely diversified.”
During the 1980 presidential election, the Republican National Chairman at the time, Bill Brock, urged the party to embrace a “big tent” strategy. That year, Ronald Reagan won in a landslide over President Jimmy Carter and Republicans gained control of the Senate – the first time Republicans controlled one of the Houses of Congress since 1954.
Of course Atwater was an advisor to that noted non-conservative Ronald Reagan
I don’t recall Lee Atwater making law.
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.