Posted on 01/08/2010 11:41:07 AM PST by Bluestateredman
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
Martha sez:
Immigration policy needs to be resolved on a federal level, and the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants need “a path to citizenship,” Coakley said yesterday. “We need a policy that makes sense for 12 million people who are stuck in a purgatorial status quo,” said Coakley. “It doesn’t do us any good to do nothing.”
A distinction should be made between hardened criminals here illegally and those whose only crime is immigrating without going through proper channels, she said, though, “I think there have to be some penalties involved” for those who have broken the law in coming into the country illegally.
Violent criminals and drug dealers should be deported, but the federal government “doesn’t have the ability to deport” every person in this country who is here illegally, she said. “As attorney general, I have gone after the companies that have exploited workers,” and getting employers to pay fair wages helps American citizens compete in the marketplace as well, she said.
You have to stop the hordes someplace, no? If they cannot pass anything for the next 12 months while the GOP gets it together for a comeback then the damage will be lessened.
Yep, every morning from seven to ten, on 96.9 Boston Talks. The main reason I look forward to their show most morning is because it means Imus in the Morning is over.
If he loses, and ObamaCare is rammed right through on 60 votes, then abortionist judges will be the very least of our problems, because government will sooner or later be forcing you to pay for other people's abortions.
Well, what makes you guys think that Brown will not accept a 500 billion dollar bribe from Reid to go along with ObamaCare? Or, if not, that Reid won’t pick off Snowe or Collins or some other RINO whore for $500 billion or so?
Or, if push comes to shove, what makes you think that he won’t simply change the senate rules so that 50 votes are all that’s required to pass it. There is absolutely nothing stopping him from doing that if it’s what it takes.
“A poll this week put him ahead of Coakley 65 to 21 among the state’s largest voting bloc - the unenrolled.”
To me this is the most interesting part of the post, this poll mirrors the majority Independent support Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie won last November. If Brown wins the Indie vote by huge margins similar to the 2009 VA and NJ results then he might have a real chance to pull a major upset. A foot of snow and 50mph wind gusts on election day would help too.
Would like to believe this but, the rest of the article is straight from the liberal playbook.
unenrolled = independent?
Many people meet Brown and then say that he smells like a Reaganite dressed up as a moderate. Many of us up here aren’t 100% sure what he is all about.
He could be a liberal pretending to be a moderate.
He could be a moderate pretending to be a Reaganite pretending to be a moderate ... It’s all play-acting when the culture degrades to the point that the electorate is a Godless Super-Majority.
If Brown is really a Reaganite, he is under no obligation to discuss it with the selfish, unchurched, counter-culture, corrupt critters known as the Massachusetts general election voters.
I believe the poll, Indies have abandoned the Dems, case and point VA’s and NJ’s results last November. One more point, Indies elected the Dem majorities in 2006 and 2008, they were the main catalyst that sent Bambi to the WH, and because of his, Pelosi’s and Reid’s reckless abuse of their “mandate” Indies have said goodbye to the Rats. Go Scott Go!!!
She doesn’t support him, she is a liberal who is supporting Butch. If he votes at a 50% ACU rating it will be 50% higher than Butch.
Darn I hope that you are right. In a sane society I would have no doubt.
So what if he does? At least there's a chance that he won't, as compared to the 0.0000% chance that Martha Coakley won't.
Why do you persist with these foolish objections to Scott Brown? It's not like there's any other viable choice available to Massachusetts.
Here's the thing: what makes me think that he won't work actively to subvert the legislative process and pass ObamaCare is that he has said outright that he opposes it. He opposes it in part because it would damage RomneyCare, granted, but he still opposes it.
And because he is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Massachusetts Army National Guard JAG Corps, completed airborne training at Fort Bragg in 1983 and has infantry and quartermaster training as well, is a recipient of the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service, and has been a soldier for over thirty years, I believe that he will keep his word.
I don't think I should besmirch the good name of the Army and our nation's soldiers by jumping to the conclusion that such a soldier as Senator Brown is just another pinko-commie left-winger just waiting for a chance to stick it to the Constitution and the American people on behalf of the Massachusetts Kennedy/Democrat machine.
I think his sense of honor and his pride in his country, as demonstrated by his service to it, gives him credibility and worthiness of my trust that the conniving reptile Martha Coakley completely lacks.
Massachusetts has a unique opportunity. The loss of the legendary "Kennedy seat" to the Republicans in a deep, deep blue state would be a stunning, staggering blow to the Democrats - not just because it would have the potential to slam the brakes on ObamaCare, but because it would fundamentally damage the confidence of incumbent Democrats across the nation. It would force them to recognize how radically out of touch with the American public they are, and to come to grips with their impending electoral doom if they persist as Obama/Pelosi/Reid lapdogs.
And even if the Democrats can flip a thirty-year National Guardsman to their side, persuading him to disregard his honor and break his word after his stunning upset victory, can they also flip all the Democrats for whom his victory will have been a nuclear bomb detonated among their hopes for their future political careers?
Martha Coakley was so confident about the inevitability of her royal inheritance of the Kennedy Senate Seat, so arrogant in her certitude about the "D" after her name, that she went on vacation instead of bothering to talk to the voters about it.
Thanks to this confluence of events, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in Brown's candidacy. We must, must, MUST take advantage of it, for the sake of all of our children's futures.
I'm pinging Jim because I want to draw in all the FReepers who oppose Brown, and I'm going to start with three names:
Mary Landrieu, Max Baucus, Byron Dorgan.
These are three communists who have, or have had, perpetual Senate tenure from states where communism is unpopular. You cannot understand what must be done to win back (and keep) the Senate until you understand these three (there are more like them, but these three make the point sufficiently well).
When these three are down home, they look and act like normal people. Max has a cowboy hat. Byron has overalls. Mary sucks mudbugs (sorry, but that's what you do with 'em. Louisiana FReepers can correct me).
Even when they're in the Senate, they usually or often talk like normal people.
But when the Death Star needs those last three votes - well, lets say that all the passion and effort (Make those calls! Send those letters! It's a Levin surge!) normal people put into changing what these three are going to do - to try to get them to vote on the floor like normal people - is wasted energy. They wear those hats, they suck those mudbugs, they endure all those FFA events, rodeos, and fiddlefests, JUST SO THAT WHEN THE TIME COMES THEY CAN VOTE TO DESTROY AMERICA.
And you know what else? When the core commies in those states see Max or Byron or Mary acting normal, they STFU, because they know that a six-year term in the Senate is worth a lot.
Right now, we don't have ANY of those Senators, which is why we only have 40. To get them, we need conservatives to run in Massachusetts, New York, and yes, California, who can look as normal in Cambridge, Manhattan, and San Jose as Baucus, Dorgan, and Landrieu look when they are at home doing their thing.
We need Senators from those places who can even vote the wrong way to preserve credibility when it doesn't matter. The Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate are MASTERFUL in selecting just who can afford to vote "yes", and who they can allow to vote "no". That's why health care only got 220 votes in a House that would have given it 260 if necessary.
In short, we need to invent our own blue dogs. I don't know what to call them, but I'm open to suggestions.
The opposition to Brown comes down to the fact that he's trying to look like Massachusetts. But guess what?
HE'S RUNNING FOR THE SENATE FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
Maybe he'll be a bad Senator, I don't know. What Martha Coakley will be, on the other hand, is beyond question. AT least Debbie Stabenow and Maria Cantwell will have some competition for stupidest Senator (and yes, I know the field is large).
But I bet you anything that, when the time comes for somebody to fall on his sword and STOP cap and trade, or STOP citizenship for illegals - for somebody to be the 41st vote even if it means losing next time - that Scott Brown will be your guy.
Give it up and help him out, please. Time is short.
I'll close with Hippocrates' famous maxims, which pertain to politics as well as medicine:
Life is short, but the Art long
The occasion fleeting
Experiment treacherous
And decision difficult
Megadittoes.
I DON'T actually think it will change the bad behavior of sitting Democrats.
But I do think it will smash the spirits of many activists. All of them subscribe to the Brezhnev Doctrine (The armies of socialism march in only one direction).
They are animated by the feeling that their tide is rising.
Reversing that is worth 20 more House seats and a few in the Senate come November.
A Brown victory is of enormous symbolic importance.
"To destroy your enemy in head-to-head battle is not the best way to win. It is much better to crush his spirit and break his will to fight..." Sun Tzu.
Unfortunately, politics isn’t about purity. It’s about possibility. I don’t see how putting Coakley in office advances the ball. I understand your argument. I just don’t agree with it.
Just to expand on my point, I’d be all for getting Bennett out of office in Utah. But if that fails, I can’t see how electing his subsequent Democrat opponent would be advancing the ball. We need to fight it out in Republican primaries. Then, except in extreme cases, i.e. Lindsey Graham, we need to stay on board with the Republican primary winners.
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.