Posted on 12/13/2010 6:06:15 PM PST by nbenyo
Sen. Scott Brown says he will not support the DREAM Act and called the bill aimed helping illegal immigrant college students "backdoor amnesty."
Massachusetts Republican made the comments Monday during a Salvation Army charity event in downtown Boston.
The federal proposal would allow some illegal immigrants to qualify for permanent legal residency by graduating from college or by joining the military. The Senate is slated to vote on the measure this week.
But Brown said he wasn't supportive of the bill.
Brown's remarks come as a coalition of educators, religious leaders, and immigrant advocates made a last ditch appeal to Brown to support the proposal.
Brown has also been a target of a national campaign by advocates trying to persuade the moderate Republican to support the measure.
I am pretty sure Lemieux is a no vote.
“B-B-But.......he’s a RINO!!! We can’t support him!! We need to purify the party, even if that means a Democrat will win his seat in 2012 and be in place for the next generation in Massachusetts!!”
Sounds like a good plan to me (no, not me, but about half of the people on this site - you know, the ones that would prefer a Kennedy-clone in place of a guy who’s with us 60% or more of the time).
“You got it. I’m darned glad for everyone of these RINOS in the senate. Give me a RINO to a RAT anyday. I know I’ll be called a RINO for saying this but only an irrational person would disagree.”
Let’s see, if we get rid of the RINOs, the Dems would have 65 Senators that ALWAYS vote how Obama wants them to (i.e., never having to worry about filibusters) - rather than the 58 they have now. Sounds like a good deal. LOL.
“....if we get rid of the RINOs, the Dems would have 65 Senators that ALWAYS vote how Obama wants them to (i.e., never having to worry about filibusters) - rather than the 58 they have now. Sounds like a good deal. LOL.”
We would have single-payer healthcare, cap-and-trade, open borders, etc. but at least those 35 remaining Republicans would be PURE!!
“We would have single-payer healthcare, cap-and-trade, open borders, etc. but at least those 35 remaining Republicans would be PURE!!”
Exactly, what’s more important - stopping the programs you mention above, or maintaining party purity? Party purity, of course.
Now, don’t we all feel better - DON’T WE?
Why in the world would any Republican allow anything to pass in this session, after the voters have spoken and the cavalry is on the way? It doesn’t make any sense. Run out the clock, you RINO morons.
The time to worry about cleaning house is during a primary--after that, it's too late, it's ALWAYS vote straight Republican--ALWAYS!!!
NO, they wouldn't as there is no such thing as a PURE Republican. We are human and it is impossible for every one to always agree and if we get so ticked off each time we disagree with an otherwise very good lawmaker, we're always going to be in turmoil.
Congressman Steve King is one of the finest lawmakers in congress and no kidding, we have a purist radio talk show host here in Iowa who at one time was calling for someone to primary King because King was asking the Iowa legislature to pass legislation requiring a residency requirement in order to get a marriage license. It was King's way to stop gay marriage from spreading to other states.
But to this nutcase radio talk show host, by King doing this, he was surrendering to the fact there was such a thing as gay marriage. Fortunately, King again showed he plays chess while others play checkers.
But this shows the unrealistic expectations of people. We must deal in reality and the reality is we're better off with RINOs than RATS.
“Sen. Scott Brown says he will not support the DREAM Act and called the bill aimed helping illegal immigrant college students ‘backdoor amnesty’.”
Wow. I thought Brown would fold like a cheap suit on this.
Maybe there is hope to stop it after all. I’ve been praying that this would be halted somehow, but have been getting more pessimistic with spaghetti spines like Lugar tripping over themselves to vote for amnesty.
I concur. Given the magnitude of Brown being in a position to possibly stop the friggin' DREAM Act(?!), the question that arises in my mind is "are there some states (i.e. this is not POTUS and it is most certainly NOT EVERY state) where a conservative can support a GOP primary candidate who is not the most conservative one running?"
Hmmm. I don't know the right answer but I do know how Croakley would have voted on DREAM.
The state currently has more unemployment than it would like. The last thing it's blue collar residents want is illegals coming in, taking jobs and reducing wages.
Yea, you’re right, Coakley would have done the same thing. (do I need the /s?)
Either these idiots are for it or they’re against it. Don’t they even know where they stand on the issue? Enough drama and deal making. VOTE - YES OR NO.
Now that's where you are wrong (and I didn't think that was possible!) greatgrandma. There are some on FR who obviously intentionally choose not to deal in reality.
I am so, so sorry. I should have known. :)
True, but we’ll take care of them.
"Well, you wouldn't deal in reality either if reality was living in your mom's basement bedroom. Blogging away as if you were master of the pure conservative universe is so much more appealing".
I’m trying to be a better girl.
“Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”
If Brown is a “stopped clock”, what was Kennedy? He was right about once a decade.
Brown is against Amnesty and the Dream act. It is the liberal media that tries to confuse.
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.