But how conservative is this hunk of a man who came out of nowhere, and where does he stand on various issues? Get better acquainted with Senator Brown, via Joshua Pundit:
So...Is Scott Brown A RINO? No Way.
"Given that he won a resounding victory in Massachusetts, a number of people who shall be nameless are wondering if Scott Brown is simply a better looking version of Arlan Spector.
Creatures like David Frum are arguing that Brown's stunning victory is a win for the RINO's, and a sign that the GOP should go 'bigger tent' AKA Democrat-lite.
He couldn't be more wrong.
Where I see Brown actually falling on the spectrum is as a Classic Liberal..the sort of Democrat Reagan was before, as Reagan famously said, 'the Democratic Party left me.'
By that, I mean he is a small government,strong defense, pro free enterprise fiscally prudent politician who, like Sarah Palin, has tapped into the anger and energy of the American people at gut level.
On social issues, he considers himself pro-choice with reasonable limits and acknowledges gay marriage in Massachusetts as an established fact, both eminently acceptable positions in view of whom his constituents are. it also shows that he's an extremely savvy politician who decided not to fight on the Democrat's preferred turf.
He's an avowed fiscal conservative who has voted against tax increases in Massachusetts, is pro-business and was an outspoken opponent of ObamaCare.
He's pro-gun,pro capital punishment, anti amnesty for illegal aliens and says he favors interrogating terrorists for actionable intel rather than treating them as mere common criminals who are entitled to be read their Miranda rights. Brown's on record as saying that he'd rather see tax dollars spent on national defense instead of providing terrorists with lawyers.
On Iran, here's what he had to say:
I support the bi-partisan Iran sanctions bill and believe that until Ahmadinejad gives up his nuclear ambitions he should be isolated from the rest of the world. With its reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran represents the biggest threat to Israel. Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier who has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Meeting with him confers legitimacy when the only correct response is to treat him as an outcast. A personal meeting with Ahmadinejad, as suggested by my opponent, would embolden him and be used as a propaganda tool to strengthen his position.
And yes, he is also pro-Israel.
On his website, he says this:
Israel has made enormous sacrifices in an attempt to secure peace – including unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. I support a two-state solution that reaffirms Israel’s right to exist and provides the Palestinians with a place of their own where both sides can live in peace and security. As our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel lives every day under the threat of terror yet shares with America a dedication to democratic ideals, a respect for faith, and a commitment to peace in the region. Until a lasting peace is achieved, I support the security barrier erected by Israel which has proven successful in protecting Israeli civilians from terrorist attacks.
And for further information,we have this interview with the Jewish Advocate, Boston's largest ( and fairly Left-leaning) Jewish paper:
Q: Speaking of existing agreements, Israel previously agreed to stop building more settlements. The Obama administration pressed Israel to halt any more settlement activity. Are settlements an obstacle to achieving a two-state solution?
Well certainly, but Israel also has the right to live in its lands without having another country dictate terms before you get to the bargaining table. Whether it's close settlements or not build, you can't be giving away cards before you get to the bargaining table. ... I find it offensive that [Obama is] setting the terms before even sitting down at the table. ... I think that Israel had done more than enough in terms of extending the olive branch to get people to the bargaining table.
Q: Israel's security barrier in the West Bank and its incursion into the Gaza Strip both achieved their aims, measured by the reduction in suicide bombings inside Israel and rocket fire from Gaza. Yet both have been condemned as violating Palestinians' rights. Are Israel's methods excessive?
A: Well, when it comes to your survival, I don't know, what's excessive? When you have people lobbing missiles into your bedrooms, you need to establish security measures to protect your kids, your families. ... And don't forget. when you have Hamas lobbing missiles from hospitals and schools, you're at an unfair disadvantage. Israel and the United States, we follow the Geneva Conventions and the protocols and the laws of war.
...
Q: How concerned are you that Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear weapon? Do you believe economic sanctions can halt the Iranian program? If not, should other measures be considered, or should the world, and Israel, find a way to coexist with a nuclear Iran?
That's scary. Well, first of all there's a couple of things happening. Ahmadinejad ... Martha Coakley wants to have one-on-one negotiations with him. She would go there. That's ridiculous. You don't want to legitimize his regime and give it a propaganda tool. She'd be the only one who wants to do that. Not even President Obama wants to do that. Low-level negotiations are great, but they're obviously playing the cat and mouse game. ...
They're at 28 percent unemployment. Their cash reserves are almost gone. So if there is any type of economic threat right now, that can work ... it would shut their industry down cold. ...
Everyone knows that Israel has the right to protect itself. The option to attack Iran is always there. You don't even need to mention it.
RINO? I don't think so, Bubba.
What Brown represents is the logical next step...resurrecting the old Reagan coalition and defeating the agenda of a dangerous president and his far Left adherents.
Soon come, people. Soon come. The wave has just begun."
Pro choice. What a disappointment!
3 comments:
"this hunk of a man"???
What IS the fascination of rightwingnuts with the alleged physical attractiveness of their heroes and heroines (aka Sister Sarah)?
And why did you decide that the morning AFTER he was elected might be a good time to figure out what he stands for? Isn't that exactly what you accuse us Obama supporters of doing? I, for one, listened to Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic Party Convention, read both of his books, and just about anything I could get my hands on about Obama BEFORE I volunteered to work with his campaign. You, on the other hand, the Anti-Choice Zealot, didn't even know this Brown fellow is pro-choice?
Can he see Russia from his house?
I didn't investigate Brown closely because I am not a resident of Massachusetts. But, it wasn't difficult to determine that he would be a better choice than Coakley. Besides, I want the "let grandma die" bill stopped before seniors are hurt.
This article was meant to inform the public outside of MA about where Brown stands on different issues, nothing more.
The "hunk" comment was just to state that his good looks are a bonus. As a heterosexual female, I can't help but notice his appearance, though that certainly would not be a factor in choosing a candidate.
You may have listened closely to Obama before jumping on his bandwagon, but frankly, you weren't hearing much in the way of truth. Obama lied to the American people to get elected. He's no moderate. They don't come more radical than Obama.
You, as a constitutional law teacher, should recognize that Obama is a huge enemy of the Constitution. Yet, for some reason that does not disturb you. And to think that a city in Colorado has hired a hater of the Constitution to teach its children. Scary!
You complained about Bush being too conservative. Well, Obama is far more liberal than Bush is conservative, by a long shot because Bush is no conservative.
Why are we to believe that Obama is an enemy of the Constitution? Because some rightwingnuts say so? What proof do you have of that? Answer: none.
Post a Comment