Let’s compare the two:
Just as Tom Coburn voted against troop funding to stall the healthcare bill, so too did Scott Brown vote against paid leave of absence for employees of the Commonwealth who volunteered for the Red Cross after 9/11. His reasoning? The deficit was too high. So, 3000 Americans died, and many were trapped in the rubble, and Scott Brown didn’t want to pay Massachusetts employees who took time off work to help the rescue efforts, in spite of his large legislative salary, National Guard salary, party leadership salary, and excessive per diems costing the tax payers well over $100 K a year? And, not to mention the money he makes in his law practice. Couldn’t that easily fund the salaries of the volunteers? Some record there. Like Tom Coburn, Scott Brown is frighteningly anti-government; so much so that he even voted against the seatbelt law. If the nightmare of Scott Brown (R-MA) comes true, nothing in Obama’s agenda will ever happen. Some may say, well, it’s only healthcare, and they can just pass the Senate bill verbatim. Well, it’s not just healthcare. It’s jobs, financial regulation, cap and trade, the repeal of DADT and DOMA, etc. If Scott Brown wins, nothing will happen under Obama.
Yes, Coakley sucks. She’s run a horrendous campaign. She managed to piss off the two biggest demographics in Massachusetts with recent gaffes: Catholics and Red Sox Fans. She’s not a very easy person to like, and her term in the Senate will probably be marked with mediocrity. In fact, if this were a regular time or there were an average Masachusetts Republican candidate (Baker and Mihos, I’m talking about you), I would probably vote Republican. However, the 3 remaining years of Senator Kennedy’s term are crucial. In less than a year, we will almost certainly not have 60 votes in the Senate. Much remains to be done while we have this unprecedented level of control.
Also, Scott Brown is not an average Massachusetts Republican. He, in addition to being a generally dislikable person, is an obstructionist in the style of Tom Coburn. I’m willing to accept a Republican like Baker, Voinovich, Snowe, Graham, or Brooke representing me in the Senate. However, Scott Brown won’t be that type of Republican. Scott Brown will be the type of Republican who can be summed up in two letters: N-O. If he is elected, he will be an embarrassment to Massachusetts, and (even worse) embarrassment an to Tufts University (sorry, as a Tufts student, this is personal for me).
I can understand why people don’t like Coakley. I don’t like her either. I will work for whoever decides to primary her in 2012. I will do everything I can to help a Democrat beat her in 2012, just like I did everything I could to stop her in the primaries. However, this Tuesday, I will proudly cast my vote for Senator Coakley, and not for Senator Cosmo. All you disillusioned Democrats and Independents, remember: the time to express your dissatisfaction with Coakley is September 2012. January 2010 is a time to hold your nose and vote
and I’d vote for Tom Coburn if I could. We need pragmatic people to solve our problems and non people in bed with lobbyists and the unions.
<
p>Congress could fix issues like preexisting conditions with the swipe of a pen… simple. This is all about picking up 30 million more Democrat voters. There next army of voters will be illegals. I dare them to bring up trying to get citizenship for the illegals now when the country is so angry against them already.
<
p>Make my day!!!
You do realize that Scott Brown takes lobbyist and PAC funding too, right? He’s as much in bed with the lobbyists as she is.
<
p>Also, he won’t fix anything, he’ll just block everything. The Republicans, while managing to obstruct things in ways never before thought possible, have completely failed to propose alternatives. Scott Brown will just worsen this gridlock