Voting

[lynxreign]

I know this is later in the day and many of you may have already voted. Just a reminder: vote.
Another reminder: Brown is a birther who said he didn't think Obama's parents were married.
He's a teabagger, he's a creationist, he's anti-gay marriage.
He has the same brilliant ideas for how to get out of the recession that Hoover had for getting out of the Great Depression.
He thinks foreigners don't deserve rights.
He's in favor of torture.
Oh, and he's flat out stated that he'll be the 41st vote against health care reform.

Comments

[head58.livejournal.com]

I'm not a big fan of Brown or his positions on a lot of things, but spreading untruths about him does nobody any favors.

His stupid line about "not being so sure" Obama's parents were married doesn't translate into him being a Birther. It's an unfounded logical leap. If anything it would cement Obama being a US Citizen even more.

And the only source for the creationist charge is a comment Bob Kerrey made about Brown (and later retracted). Has Brown ever said anything himself that gives this impression?

The other stuff is more public record (I haven't seen the ad you mentioned last week where he said foreigners don't have rights) and I think there's plenty of ammunition against Brown without people (and I'm not accusing you here, I've seen this spreading in a lot of places over the weekend) making stuff up.

[bryant]

Agreed. I find the wedlock comment... disturbing, but more because it's one of a number of ways to question Obama's legitimacy. Doesn't make him a birther per se, just makes him yet another Republican who wants to throw doubt on Obama's past.

Also, of course, it plays into all the stereotypes about race.

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

I was more equating his being a Birther with his being a teabagger. I was under the impression that the fundraiser he attended on Jan 2nd was supported by both, but it may have just been the teabaggers.

His comment about Obama's parents not being married is a way for him to call to the birthers without flatout stating he's one of them. The birthers have no logic about them anyway, so he just calls the President a bastard, lets them know he's questioning the circumstances of his birth and can claim later that that's not what he's doing at all.

As for the Creationist thing, I mentioned it here since I'd seen it elsewhere and as Brown hasn't done anything to show me he's not a "movement conservative" it seemed believeable. If we strike that and the birther/teabagger thing and only go by his own ads, he'd still be a disaster for America.

Hell, just his ad about the economy: cut taxes, empower businesses and cut spending, that's what Hoover did and created the Great Depression.

[head58.livejournal.com]

I hear you, I'm just saying (and you agreed) that it's unnecessary to toss in logically unsound assumptions with his actual stances to get solid Dems to turn against him.

I still can't bring myself to swallow my disgust for Coakley though. Not sure what I'll do about that.

I don't think Brown being elected would be a disaster for America. It's not like the Democrats were doing anything with their 60 vote majority anyway. And they'll find a way to game the system and shove the crippled, ineffective, insurance- and phara-driven health care reform through before Brown is sworn in anyway. Speaking of, how's that mandatory insurance thing working out for you?

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

I just wish the things about Coakley had come out before the primary. The biggest thing the Dems need to do is dump Reid. If they'd get someone in there willing to fight, they wouldn't need 60.

It isn't bad, quite honestly. Certainly not as bad as I expected. It isn't what I'd really want, but it could certainly be worse.

Since the Dems aren't currently willing to fight, keep bending over backward for Lieberman and since Obama is far more Centrist than I'd hoped, incremental healthcare reform is the best we can hope for right now.

What we really need if we ever want to see real healthcare reform and a host of other things, is a Liberal/Progressive party. The Dems are center and they marginalize their liberals.

[head58.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with all these things.

[bryant]

Sotomayor. Stevens is going to either drop dead or retire pretty soon and if you don't think the Republicans are going to stonewall any reasonable replacement, you're nuts. The Supreme Court is about ten times more important than any individual Senator.

Also I gotta point out that we have an economy. Obama needed 60 votes for the stimulus bill, which has worked out better than I expected. This is easy to forget because things aren't great, but a year ago I was seriously expecting we might be in Iceland's shoes.

Also I'd like to see DADT repealed, and that's going to happen via a defense appropriations bill, and that won't happen if Brown wins.

[head58.livejournal.com]

grrr. Logical man makes logical points. Hatred for vile possibly sociopathic power hungry attorney-general...being overridden!

[editswlonghair.livejournal.com]

That Bryant, he is wise. ;)

[bryant]

The Supreme Court thing is the issue that really tips me. But I've been a single-issue voter on that subject for a while now. ;)

[kaisilverwolf.livejournal.com]

What Bryant said.

Also, Brown said in his op-ed in the boston globe that he supports military interrogations at Gitmo rather than trials by jury. He also said he supports waterboarding (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/05/brown_coakley_clash_over_suspected_terrorists_rights/) but asserts waterboarding is not torture.

Considering that these "interrogators" have already been shown to torture people they KNOW to be innocent,(http://www.pillsburylaw.com/siteFiles/News/1259B22146574C540A8871C2C3131CA2.pdf), I find Browns support of them and Guantanamo deeply disturbing and reprehensible.

From everything i've read, Coakley is a machine-bred asshat. But if you find her hard to swallow, i find that Brown makes me truly disgusted and nauseated.

[head58.livejournal.com]

I've been advised by counsel that it would not be wise for me to discuss my views w/r/t military interrogations in this forum.

[brainiacfive.livejournal.com]

Do they have legs?

[head58.livejournal.com]

You win!

[chaoticmoth.livejournal.com]

If I was in MA I would have to consider voting in the election, I agree with you that much.

[editswlonghair.livejournal.com]

I chalk up Scott Brown to being the Republican version of, say, Ned Lamont... or hell, even Obama: He's essentially an empty suit upon which the theocons and teabaggers have pinned their hopes and aspirations. That's reason enough not to vote for him IMHO. Even if he were my kind of fiscally conservative/social libertarian sort of Republican I like (with the departure of Jeffords and Chaffee, I don't think those even exist anymore), I still wouldn't vote for him. Not in this current political climate, and not with the GOP being as overrun with criminally insane as it is.

I don't mind Coakley, I'm just not particularly thrilled with her either... she's pretty much John Kerry all over again. And given the way her campaign was run as essentially a sleep walking fait accompli, it feels like '04 all over again.

Once again, Democrats demonstrate their knack of pulling defeat out from the jaws of victory. For once I find myself hoping that the party machinery will churn out a win.

[editswlonghair.livejournal.com]

If Brown wins, that gives the GOP the big mo and frames the narrative for the 2010 midterms, which the Dems may lose in a big way. And a GOP majority probably means Inhofe as chair of the senate environment committee... That prospect fills me with just about as much dread as Palin as VP did. :(

[eregyrn.livejournal.com]

This.

Even if it weren't for everything else... I am in NO MOOD to give the GOP the opportunity to gloat that "the first Republican senator from MA since 1972, in the Bastion of Liberalism Ted Kennedy's seat" would represent.

As it is, they're going to be making hay out of it being much closer than it was "supposed" to be. Because that's what they do, without respect to why the particular conditions in that state and that election exist.