Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Coakley vs. Brown: The Fine Print

Voters in Massachusetts on Tuesday had 2 clear choices before them. Other than a referendum on health care reform as proposed by the Obama administration, there were other issues as well that werent being hyped as much in the national media such as "41" or "filibuster proof"....

"Brown, who upset Democrat Martha Coakley by a margin of 52-47 percent, isn't a social conservative on every issue, but he's not a social liberal either. Backed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Brown is pro-choice but sides with pro-lifers on a host of issues, including supporting parental notification laws and opposing partial-birth abortion, taxpayer funding of abortion and the so-called Freedom of Choice Act. Coakley, also pro-choice, takes the opposite stance on those specific issues and was endorsed by the major pro-choice groups.
The difference between Brown and Coakley is even greater on homosexual issues. Brown opposes "gay marriage" and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and supports the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Coakley, an outspoken supporter of "gay marriage," again took the opposite stance on those issues."Scott Brown not only voted against our community, but he did so unequivocally, proudly and loudly," Arline Isaacson, chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus, told Keen News Service. "Brown voted at least 20 times against marriage equality, over and over again."

Brian Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, saw it much differently, calling the election "a victory for marriage."

Link to the full article. You see people? Just do what you think is right in your heart and the little things take care of themselves. America is decidedly NOT ready for some grand social experiment toward relativism despite the capacity for White Liberal Guilt to help the Mau Mau Messiah ascend to the throne of power.


Ginx said...

You give voters credit for having intelligence that not even you possess, JD. The fact is she was cold and stand-offish, and her lack of knowledge regarding Red Sox baseball was more of a factor than Obama, healthcare, gay marriage, or Brown's choice in vehicle.

I would be more than happy to bet money he does not win re-election, which I believe will be in less than six years (since he is stepping in mid-term).

JD Curtis said...

To me it seemed like the democrrat party in Mass. had an attitude like.....

"She's been around a long time. She says all of the right things. She's been supportive in the past. Let's go with her."

Hindsight is always 20-20 but I agree with your "cold and stand-offish" assessment. Check out this link. Especially the picture at the bottom> I think this did more ham to her campaign then she realizes.

Ginx said...

It comes down to the simple problem of democracy: we elect who we like, not who can lead us best. The fact is, we should be able to produce people who are both, but we've let ourselves down for a long time.

feeno said...

Geenks is 100% correct about us electing who we like the best, not who leads us the best. I wish I would have thought of that. And I'll be using that line first chance I get.

Thanks old buddy!


Ginx said...

It's funny... no matter what your political stance, everyone agrees our government is wrong. It could be Democrats or Republicans in power, no one is happy with what we get. I'm going to have to go with Lord Edward Cecil on this one:

"Compromise: And agreement between two men to do what both agree is wrong."