Posted on 01/20/2010 10:25:30 AM PST by bmweezer
Thanks devolve. When I wrote that I wasn’t referring to Brown, just a ‘general, overall’ thing.
And I believe what I wrote too.
The guy has not even set up an office or staff and some are pouncing on him already. I’ll reserve judgment until he has a chance to carry out the main missions he has set forth for himself to accomplish. No one is going to get it all right no matter how good they are.
Same here. I am as pro-life as anyone, but have had to strategically vote for pro-choice candidates, because the alternative was someone worse. If I voted only for pro-lifers 100% of the time, I’d have to become a Constitutionalist, and perhaps help send more socialists to Congress or the state capital.
Reagan would have accepted Scott Brown to help stop this piece of shit health care bill that would have brought misery to millions of Americans. You have to play the hand your given. I’m a realist not a dreamer. If you want to stay out of the process go right ahead.
This fact has certainly made me stop and wonder!
We need a pro-lifer in there -- not someone who supports abortion. Yes, it is bad news. I would have voted for him rather than Coakley had I lived in MA, but I wouldn't be happy about this fact at all!
I agree. When Brown gets his senatorial email address, phone and fax numbers, we need to FREEP him about this issue — pro life and not pro-baby killing/abortion.
Where does Rush fall when it comes to pro-life issues?
He’s better than Coakley, who, in addition to her political beliefs, was a truly vile individual.
For that matter he’s better than McQueeg and Grahamnesty, at least on Cap and Tax.
Sometimes that’s all you can ask from a candidate.
Precisely with you and me.
God Bless Rush.
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.