Sunday, January 10, 2010

Scott Brown loses his healthcare soundbyte

Whatever reasons prolifers were using about how Brown will save us all from Obamacare is starting to leak like a sieve.

Dems say if Scott Brown wins, they'll stall swearing in to pass healthcare

“This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.” A spokeswoman for Coakley’s campaign declined to comment Friday.

And, because I find people having difficulty digesting it, I'm going to say again that what Brown wants to do with healthcare is eerily similar to Roe v. Wade - infect the entire nation with it by doing it at the state level.

Brown also says in this article that he wants to take the proposal for healthcare reform "back to the drawing board" -

The Republican candidate to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy said he'd be a vote to take a proposal for health care reform back to the drawing board because he said the plan could worsen care already available to Massachusetts residents. On healthcare, Brown said each state should be left to handle provisions for its residents, like Massachusetts did when it required coverage beginning in 2007. He said the state could share its programs with other states and replicate them, and work with other congressional delegations if federal aid would be needed to get state-level health care plans in place. Imposing a federal-level insurance plan may mean Massachusetts residents could see lesser care and higher cost, he said

Scott Brown supported healthcare reform here in Massachusetts that actually included provisions to publicly funding abortions.

Is this what we're lobbying to institute across the United States?

Getting good candidates has to happen long before we all have to hold our noses to vote for the lesser of two evils. For prolifers, this is where our future lies. For those of us lobbying the political hierarchy, we'll never be able to get pro-life candidates if prolifers keep answering the revelry to get out the vote for people who get to Washington and work against us.

If we can't get the GOP to embrace real pro-life candidates and put their money and power behind them, we've got to stop lobbying and voting for the candidates they pass down to us.
This is effective politics.

There are people in pro-life political initiatives who are actually trying to change our mission statement to embrace support for Roe v. Wade as a "pro-life vote" and they've had to misrepresent Brown's positions in order to try to be effective. If you're in the game to save the lives of the unborn, the efficacy of this new development is not assisting the cause.

Also yesterday, Jack Rowe of MCFL's message about what he believes Scott Brown will do was trumped by Scott Brown:

And though he has previously said he recognizes Roe v. Wade, the court ruling that legalized abortion, as the law of the land, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life as an expected “prolife vote in the Senate.’’

“I believe - and he has stated - that he would vote for a [Supreme Court] nominee who would be opposed to Roe v. Wade,’’ said John Rowe, who heads the antiabortion group’s political action committee. Brown’s campaign says he would be willing to do so, but he does not view abortion as a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee either way.

The reality is, Brown not only does this say whether a candidate Brown votes for is prolife has nothing to do with the reasons why he'll vote for him, he has said previously that he'd be disinclined to vote for somebody who interprets the constitution about right to life issues from the bench.

It isn't rocket science to therefore conclude Rowe is being dishonest about what Brown will do if he gets to Washington.

I do believe Coakley is treacherous and I understand if you're contemplating voting to keep her out. But before you do, I'm asking pro-lifers to really inform themselves about Brown's positions, look at the bigger picture and prayerfully double-check their consciences to see where you want to draw the line in the sand.

We have two elections coming up where we can make a significant impact and lobby the GOP to put money and power into our candidates - and really uproot the tyranny. Obama's tanking, the GOP is ripe for picking and the people are desperate for direction.

Perhaps it's time to stop giving the drunks the keys to the car.

I've reached the point where I realize voting for the lesser of two evils IS the lesser of two evils and I do hope to educate people about the reasons why.

No comments: