A politician's personal life is about the last thing you need to worry about.
Posted on 02/01/2010 7:04:06 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Scott Brown of Massachusetts may have taken away the Democrats’ filibuster-proof Senate majority, but the Republican senator-elect isn’t your typical conservative.
“I am a fiscal conservative. And when it comes to issues affecting people's pockets, and pocketbooks, and wallets, I'll be with the Republicans if they are in fact pushing those initiatives," Brown said in an interview set to air Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
But there are issues on which he might break with his party – most notably, abortion.
“You are pro-choice, yes?” Barbara Walters asked Brown in the interview.
“Yes,” Brown replied, explaining later that he feels the issue “is best handled between a woman and her doctor and her family.”
But Brown isn’t your typical pro-choice politician either.
“Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but I think we need to do more to reduce the amount of abortions,” he stated. “And the difference between me and maybe others is that I'm very – I'm against partial-birth abortions. I'm against federal funding of abortions. And I believe in a strong parental consent notification law.”
Last week, Brown became the first Republican to win a Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972, defeating the state’s attorney general, Martha Coakley, with 52 percent of the votes. His win gives the GOP enough members to block legislation, including the current health care reform bill, in the Senate.
In his interview with Walters, Brown said, “Everyone really is the 41st senator.”
“And what it means is that now there will be full and fair debate. And there will be no more closed – behind closed doors actions,” he added.
Brown had expected to be sworn in sometime this past week, but the timing of his swearing-in still remains in question.
The waiting period for the arrival of absentee ballots has not yet been waived despite the five-point margin with which Brown won.
Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin has sent a letter to the Senate clerk declaring Brown the unofficial winner of the seat.
Great point!
I vote, yes.
Sorry my FRiend, but anyone who believes that Roe v. Wade was a legitimate Supreme Court decision and who does not believe it should be overturned is NOT a conservative. Period.
Roe v. Wade was the worst kind of liberal judicial activism and that decision was clearly the worst abuse of judicial power in the history of the Republic.
Since Scott Brown is not bothered by the decision in Roe v. Wade, and has no desire to bee it overturned, Scott Brown is not worthy of holding a seat in the United States Senate and is clearly not worthy of being called a conservative much less a "genuine conservative."
Maybe you missed the Memo, by FRiend, but Free Republic is a PRO LIFE website.
Of all the horrific Supreme Court decisions in American history (and there have been some horrible ones like Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell), ONLY Roe v. Wade can be directly linked to the deaths of innocent American human beings. The death toll currently stands at over 52 MILLION and another innocent life is added EVERY 24 SECONDS, anyone who isn’t determined to end that deserves nothing but contempt.
Excellent analysis!!
The vast majority of Americans in every state are either pro-life or they don't really care one way or another. Therefore a pro-life candidate should be electable everywhere.
But Mother Theresa would have voted, and that's what we have to concern ourselves with. There may be no saints on the ballot (at least not yet), or there may even be one but who is incapable of getting elected. We are given a vote and we have to exercise it prudently and justly in order to "make" ourselves saints.
A politician's personal life is about the last thing you need to worry about.
I think that's about as likely as Coakley caucusing with Republicans and filibustering.
I might add, if he’s actually posing pornographically in that shot, then you’re purveying it here.
No, she would have voted AGAINST Coakley.
Ever wonder why the pro-aborts are so keen on government funding? Their own studies say that it would lead to 300,000 more abortions per year. That’s $150 million more in abortion revenue—primarily from poor women (the ones Sanger wanted to sterilize).
Brown’s election has stalled government funding for now. I think Mo. Theresa would have voted for this, if it was explained to her. She didn’t sit on her ass until she came up with a perfect plan to save all the babies of Calcutta, she went out and saved them one by one. Some were lost, of course. Life is messy.
Yes, Mother Teresa of Calcutta (spelling her name correctly here, I believe,) would have voted for Brown over Coakley. I would have too if I had been a voter in MA. That still does not vindicate Brown’s switching around his views/flip-flopping in Kerry and Romney style, to get elected.
I haven’t seen any actual flip-flops. He ran as pro-choice in 2004. He claimed to be pro-choice in the televised debate in January as well. Coakley tried to make abortion the issue in this campaign and it bit her hard.
We definitely need to be on the lookout for flip-flops though because he is going to be under intense pressure from Boston media and polling.
Yes, and then she would mark an X next to his name, to save those she could.
No, that's what separates ritual-purity-obsessed Pharisees from Christians. The MA Senate election was a hard choice--there are little babies really being killed today, tomorrow, the next day, next year, all the way through the end of Kennedy's term in 2013. Those babies can't wait for us to find the perfect candidate, they need us to give them the best chance they can get.
They don't play games with the devil.
One of the games the devil loves to play is called scrupulosity.
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.