What’s that? Scott Brown voted for Romneycare in Massachusetts and may not be sufficiently pro-life and anti-gay marriage for the purification movement of the Republican Party?
Eee-gads! To the plank with him! As we conservatives continue to purge the party of any taint of unsavory or unseemly litmus test politics, we will not suffer easily that brand of apostasy!
Whatever. The country clubbers and beltway types are trying to convince everyone that Scott Brown is the moderate center-right type needed to right the floundering G.O.P. ship and to win back seats in the House and Senate.
This election has represented a convergence of circumstance and opportunity. Whatever social conservative bona fides Scott Brown may lack (and his lacking them is highly questionable at that) he appears to be the right man for the right job. In light of furthering the statist agenda via the continuance of the bailouts and further government intervention into the private sector, Martha Coakley would’ve merely been a Democratic 60-vote rubber stamp.
Scott Brown, of course, has offered an alternative to this increasingly unpopular Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda by pledging to vote against Obamacare and cap and trade and work towards restoring some degree of fiscal responsibility to Washington D.C. and keeping this country safe from its enemies within and without. (And to compare Brown with the porkulus and cap and trade-loving “moderate” Dede Scozzafava is laughable)
Stop right there.
That’s all we need to know. At this point we don’t care where Brown stands on gay marriage, school prayer, the flag burning amendment or even abortion because what he has chosen to focus his campaign on are the only things that matter at this point. And his down the line conservative message has bonded a coalition of Tea Partiers, conservatives, union rank and file and independents that are putting those issues to the fore, ahead of any unstated or downplayed social issues.
That the establishment Republicans would’ve been so hard over on the issues of fiscal responsibility, ear marks and behavioral ethics some 5-6 years ago, we would not be having this discussion.
As for his “yes” vote for Romneycare; when he says he will vote against Obamacare, we take the man at his word. Afterall, even ravenous purgers as ourselves can spare some forgiveness from time to time. Besides, who better to vote against Obamacare than one who’s had a chance to see the awfulness of its precursor up close and personal.
Addendum #1: Coakley Smack:
What was Coakley thinking, having Bill Clinton at a $2,400-per-person fundraiser at the Fairmont Copley while crying Haitian families were clawing through the rubble looking for loved ones? Is rescuing a desperately incompetent Democrat really more important than saving the starving of Haiti?
(ed. note: Back in May of last year, the U.N. named Clinton as its special envoy to Haiti)
This is the kind of political stupidity it takes for a Democrat to lose a Senate race in Massachusetts. You can’t just run a weak campaign, or commit a gaffe or two. You’ve got to run an absolute disaster of a campaign to lose to a Republican here.
And that’s what Coakley delivered. It wasn’t the Hindenburg or the Titanic. It was the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic.
Let’s pile on with the fact that Coakley had a Haitian priest pray for her victory on Sunday. A Haitian priest. Does it get anymore politically tone deaf than that?
Addendum #2: And speaking of tone deaf...
Though it’s not on par with the “clinging to guns and religion” quip in front of Bay Area libs during the presidential campaign, President Obama’s constant ridiculing on Sunday of Scott Brown campaigning around Massachusetts in his pickup (“Anybody can own a truck.” and “He parked his truck on Wall St.”) is every bit as ham-fisted and condescending, especially when one considers the truck Brown has been schleppin' around in is a, wait for it.... a GM!
* Our Google image search for candidate Scott Brown was vastly outnumbered by footballer Scott Brown
Posts
