As if to underline his attitude toward the Commonwealth as an enemy to be subjugated, Scott Brown has adopted a new slogan “Red invades Blue: Take Massachusetts.”
More proof, as if any were needed, that the Brown campaign sees itself as a national movement coming to teach Massachusetts a lesson.
We don’t need anyone to “invade” our state and install an anti-choice, anti-Wall Street regulation, pro-torture, climate change denying George W. Bush replicant. We already had eight years of George W. Bush.
More to the point, it is hard to see how rhetoric about “invading” and “taking” Massachusetts will appeal to local voters. Presumably, that language won’t be in the TV ads.
Please share widely!
Our state is controlled by Social Darwinist, Socialists who believe that their democratic all-controlling party knows all that is good for its citizenry. This so-called “invasion” you speak of is being achieved by Massachusetts voters, not Bill Clinton. It would be very nice to have our citizens vote on some of these “pro” and “anti” issues. We are going to choose our next senator for the Senate. Not Bill Clinton, not Barack Obama, not the labor unions in the democratic pocket.
As for your “pro” and “anti” words:
Anti-choice meand pro-abortion. Basically it’s not the public’s business.
Anti-Wall St. means Socialism.
Pro-torture: You want we should applaud terrorists?
Climate change: You’re full of shit, read a bit more.
The people of the Commonwealth are going to start to “Throw the bums out” right here. I sincerely the rest of the nation has the gumption to follow our lead.
Our 10% of the electorate cares about our state. Your 40 % doesn’t.
No matter what happens on Tuesday, the Republicans won a national victory, and Bob’s somewhat over the top reaction no doubt makes it sweeter.
<
p>However your rhetoric leaves a bit to be desired:
<
p>”Anti-choice” means pro-life (which as a presumed pro-lifer you should know). FYI, I prefer and use “pro-life” descriptively as being more appropriate to an issue full of moral conflicts. Semantics aside, a majority of Americans, including a 49% plurality of women now define themselves as pro-life. However that opposition is limited to restricting funding and limiting access, not banning the procedure.
<
p>”Anti-Wall Street” means regulation, and on that point I’d suggest that you read Adam Smith (“Wealth of Nations”), Alexander Hamilton (“Report on Manufactures”) and other conservative sources on the need to so regulate.
<
p>The opposite of pro-torture is to cease being an outreach mechanism of the Iranian Foreign Ministry. For good militarily literate conservative observations, I’d suggest Michael Yon or Small Wars Journal.
<
p>Is the Department of Defense full of shit? It’s the branch of government most concerned about the issue].
<
p>As to your last point, the rhetoric was a bit… intemperate. I think that it’s reasonable and useful to grant the humanity of political opponents, while conceding the existence of folks on this site who are less than willing to reciprocate.
<
p>This is an election, not a holy war.
I’m not the one using terms like “invade” and “take,” that is the Scott Brown campaign.
<
p>I agree that that rhetoric is over the top. In fact, my post is an objection to casting his campaign as an “invasion” of Massachusetts.
<
p>I’ll give you “replicant” might be a bit harsh, but there isn’t much daylight between George W. Bush and Scott Brown, so it also is accurate.
<
p>As to my description of his positions, those are all completely accurate as described at length and with lots of supporting detail here.
<
p>Brown is perfectly welcome to run as a highly partisan Republican anti-choice candidate. There is an argument for that position. But he can’t say that he is independent when he actually has a 96% GOP voting record, or that he supports Roe v. Wade while he simultaneously advocates for a ban on late-term abortions, as he has done.
<
p>I welcome Bill and his friends to post whatever they like so long as they follow our rules and be civil, which they usually are, more or less.
Not your original post.
<
p>One of these days I’m going to have to write a post about the fine art of how Republicans successfully exploit Democratic panics, to their electoral advantage.
<
p>They learn it in the larval CR stage.
Just ask the “Christian” coalition (nothing remotely Christian about them).
<
p>Just ask Pat Buchanan.
<
p>Unlike liberals, who base their opinions on facts and reason, as well as devotion to the Constitution, the rule of law, and caring for others, right-wingers (I don’t want to dignify their positions by calling them “conservatives” – this would insult traditional conservatives) base their opinions on ideology and disproven notions. Brown may not actually be Bush-Cheney, as he insists, but his positions are mostly indistinguishable from theirs, except for abortion where he tries to have it both ways. His economic positions amount to more of the same policies that created our current economic disaster.
<
p>These people really are the Western equivalent of the Taliban and the theocratic rulers of Iran. While they don’t stage terrorist attacks to kill innocents, but they did support a war based on lies in which thousands of civilians died.
On BMG, I would say it is fair to say Brown supporters are going to vote for Brown and Coakley supporters are going to vote for Coakley regardless of ANYTHING we write about the candidates positions, statements or issues.
<
p>Am I wrong?
I was so sure I was this close to getting you to vote for Coakley.
I absolutely love commenting here and talking to my good friends. I’ve learned so much about the “dark” side and how you guys think. It’s helped me be a far better and smarter pontificator in person.
<
p>I only wrote the above comment because I realized I will be voting for Scot no matter what and that almost everyone else here will be voting for Martha come hell or high water. So the chatter going on today and over the next few days really will make no difference. I’ll still enjoy mentioning any inconsistencies from Martha and will be quoting the latest polls showing Brown gaining momentum… but I think we all know that this a zero sum game from the standpoint of convincing people to do otherwise on Jan 19th (or in my case, I already voted by absentee ballot).
<
p>Enjoy!
<
p>PS I promise to wear my BMG t-shirt at the State Republican convention in April where I’ll be a delegate.
Just curious… is there anyone in MA who will change their minds based on the Boston Globe endorsing Martha (or any other candidate in a race)?
At least for the sake of your seven year old and your mother. One day you’ll thank us ala David Brock.
<
p>Plus, don’t forget about pity.
<
p>And comedy value.
I honestly enjoy BMG very much and look forward to a wonderful 2010. Can you imagine if Brown pulls this off. It will be a “shot heard round the world”. 6 more days!!!!
because… ?
when he went around the country badmouthing and ridiculing Massachusetts at conservative venues – the very state he was the sitting governor of. Nice going, Scott. Win friends and votes by promising to invade your own state, the state in which you serve in the Legislature. Go invade yourself, will ya?
on left blogsites only to get corporate globo-fascism from Obama. So I’m no fan of the box of rocks Christian anti-abortion set. Is there any middle ground here? No, you get gay marriage followed by pre-kindergarten sexual orientation classes.
<
p>Let’s put the IRS in charge of health care?
A peace prize winner working in earnest for new wars in Yemen, Pakistan, Columbia….whatever?
Extending global poverty by Bernie Madoff carbon ponzi scams?
Yes, I happen to be even beyond the radical media compromised Tea Bagger movement. Whatever Scott really is a rejection of Obamacare and CO2 carbon scams might buy us another year.
accusation to mind. I don’t find Scott Brown to be a serious politician and this certainly does nothing to dissuade my feelings.