Scott Brown appeared on Jim Braude last night on NECN to talk about his support of the Blunt. But bizarrely, rather than defend the amendment he sticks his head in the sand and pretends the bill which he co-sponsored doesn’t include “moral convictions”. Here’s a link to the video, as it should be seen to believe (can’t get it to appear while trying to embed) [fixed -ed.].
Greg Sargent gives the blow by blow:
“You acknowledge that Senator Blunt’s amendment that you’re supporting goes far further than religious objections, no?” The reporter asked.
“No, I don’t,” Brown answered, adding that “one of the cornerstones of our Constitution” is “to allow for religious freedoms.”
The reporter then incredulously pointed out that the bill also allows for denial of coverage due to “moral conviction,” and pressed Brown again and again.
“That’s the language,” the reporter said. “I’m repeating it verbatim, Senator Brown.”
“I disagree with your interpretation,” Brown said. “It’s very clear that this is about the ability for religious groups — churches, universities who want to practice their faith in adherence to our Constitution.”
The video is a must see, Brown had difficulty getting this thoughts together, kept on throwing Coakley’s name out there, religion, attack by Warren, etc. almost like he was given his talking points but couldn’t put them together. But by far the most bizarre was the “I disagree with your interpretation”, Braude exasperated, tells Brown “I’m reading this verbatim”.