Savior of the Republican Party?

Well, Scott Brown won an election because he's personable, articulate, drop-dead handsome (which sure doesn't hurt in our American Idol culture), ran a smart campaign, and was the only "conservative" game in town - but primarily because he promised to oppose the president's unpopular health care plan. Now that he's safely in office, he's already dissing the people who contributed heavily to his campaign -- tea party activists. In mid January he claimed he didn't even know those people. And maybe he doesn't want to, because after all -- they (we) are the great unwashed who really believe in the constitution and traditional values.

Brown didn't mind knowing the tea party people last April when he addressed a rally in Worcester. He didn't mind carrying some tea party videos on his website and accepting the tea party "money bomb" that helped propel him into the Senate. Now he's throwing them under the bus. Thanks, Scott. Just like a politician!

This is one more indication that Brown lacks integrity. Will it be politics as usual behind the mask of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?" Pray for Scott Brown, but don't buy into the hype that he offers conservatism anything new. Being a fiscal conservative is all well and good, but we sure don't need another social liberal in Congress, especially one who sees himself as a "leader" as he told Barbara Walters. He's handsome and a smooth talker for sure, which are two reasons he won and the accountant in New York didn't. Whether he's going to be good for conservatism is another question. And one thing I can predict with almost 100% accuracy: the temptations of Capitol Hill will not be good for his soul. Will he withstand them? He's already demonstrated he couldn't even withstand the temptation to lie about his connections to the tea party movement. He should have been thanking "those people" for helping to send him to the Senate.

Below is a video of a portion of the Scott Brown/Barbara Walters interview. Despite his Everyman image, the interview demonstrates that Brown does not stand for those of us who defend traditional values. He's another "big tent" Republican with a few bones thrown to the pro-life community. It should concern every serious Catholic that someone as charismatic as Brown is now perceived as the "savior" of the Repbulican party and perhaps the icon of what a Republican should be, i.e., a "moderate." There ain't nothing "moderate" about butchering babies and turning a blind eye to the abomination of same-sex marriage as long as the states choose it. But here we are back at square one with a popular big tent Republican trivializing the most important issues of our day.



You can read a transcript of the complete interview here.

Phil Lawler of Catholic World News Explains What Happened in Massachusetts

Phil Lawler is from Massachusetts and his insight on the election of Scott Brown is astute and interesting. Author of the fascinating book, The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture, Lawler is well positioned to describe the collapse of the Kennedy myth.

Check out "What happened in Massachusetts?"

The Sweeter Side of Scott Brown

Scott Brown’s Candy-Making Nuns

Well, where there's life, there's hope. Scott Brown needs a lot of prayer considering his immoral positions on abortion and homosexual marriage. But having a group of cloistered nuns praying for you is a game changer. Keep this man on your rosary list for his own sake and the sake of the country.

So Who is Scott Brown? A Sobering Reality Check from AFA of Michigan

I'll be honest. I'm glad Martha Coakley was deep-sixed, but who knows in the long run (and in God's eyes) what the better part would be? Only time will tell whether all the hope pinned to Scott Brown was justified. So all of you cheerleaders for Brown, hold your enthusiasm to modest levels until we see what the future brings. A man who posed nude for Cosmopolitan in 1982 and holds the kind of positions you'd expect from someone so morally blind, may turn out to be another Arlen Specter. His social positions are certainly more in line with liberal Democrats than conservative Republicans. Gary Glenn of AFA Michigan points out just exactly how out of tune with those of us who care about family values he is. Pray for him and write to him!

Mary Ann

_____________________________________________________

Gary Glenn

American Family Association of Michigan


A sobering reality check, just so we know precisely who it is whose election we're all supposed to be celebrating today, who even some nationally prominent conservative and pro-family activists insistently urged us to support in this week's special election in Massachusetts...

Republican U.S. Senator-elect Scott Brown:

* Believes abortion on demand should be legal for all women 18 years of age and older (though he phrases it in more politically soothing terms on his campaign website), with the sole exception of opposing one particular late-term abortion procedure which does nothing whatsoever to prevent an abortion from being performed on the same baby at the same time by some other procedure. http://brownforussenate.com/issues

* Favors legal recognition of homosexual "civil unions"
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1954918,00.html

Remember only a short decade ago in 2000, when pro-family activists labeled "civil unions" signed into law by Democratic Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont as "same-sex marriage in everything but name...a major step toward radically redefining our most important social institution and overturning four thousand years of Judeo-Christian moral teaching...plac(ing) homosexual relationships on the same legal footing as marriage...subversive...destructive of society's most important institution...extremely damaging"?) http://www.cwfpac.com/pressReleaseArticle.php?id=19

But in 2010, we were told by some this week, we should support a Republican politician who favors this precisely same radical redefining of marriage.

* Believes each state should be free to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples, according to his campaign website, which by logical deduction means he would oppose a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, since that would constitutionally prohibit any state from redefining marriage. http://brownforussenate.com/issues

Or, as summarized by GOProud, the homosexual activist group recently at the center of controversy over its being accepted as a sponsor of the Conservative Political Action Conference: "Brown...has stated that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is settled law and that he personally supports civil unions. Brown has also said that he believes marriage is a state issue and that each state should be free to make its own law regarding same-sex marriage. ...(Brown is) in favor of civil unions, oppos(es) a federal marriage amendment and (has) the same federalist approach to marriage that President Obama has."
http://www.queerty.com/in-defense-of-scott-brown-why-the-gays-should-embrace-or-at-least-not-smear-this-anti-gay-politico-20100114/

So Democrats who favor abortion on demand, support homosexual civil unions, and oppose constitutionally protecting marriage are of course bad, we're told, but a Republican who favors abortion on demand, supports homosexual civil unions, and opposes constitutionally protecting marriage, pro-family voters are told we should actively support, send money, make phone calls for...

If you're among those who've pledged to themselves never to support a candidate who thinks it should be legal to torturously kill prenatal children in the womb, take note this week of which organizations and individuals whose word and leadership you can trust to help you keep that pledge.

Gary Glenn
American Family Association of Michigan
http://www.afamichigan.org/

Why I would never support Scott Brown

Suppose you were trying to decide whom to vote for in a Senatorial election. You had already ruled out one candidate, but were considering the other who was great on economic issues. Only one problem -- he is a white supremacist who believes in segregation. Do you think you'd vote for him? Heck no! Everyone repudiates that position (which is the politically correct position to take).

Now lets take a look at Scott Brown. All the conservative talk show pundits have jumped on his bandwagon. The excitement level on Laura Ingraham's show is sky high over polls showing him ahead of Martha Coakley. Sean Hannity is on the Brown soapbox. I haven't listened much to Rush, but I expect he's singing Brown's praises too. Brown is the tea party movement's candidate as well and they are calling for money, money, money to get him elected.

Not me!

If I lived in Massachusetts I would not vote for Scott Brown. Why? Because he favors killing unborn children. You can read about his position here. All I had to see was that he thinks abortion should always be legally available and he went straight into the "disqualified" column. Some, who would object to my being a "purist," ("Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.") are the same folks who would disqualify outright a white supremicist. Is being a bigot less serious than supporting the murder of the innocent? I don't think so.

The local pro-life group has endorsed Brown as a "pro-life" vote. Which simply illustrates that the pro-life movement is so corrupted at this point it's hard to understand what many groups actually stand for. Is it really okay to support killing the innocent victims of rapists? What does that say about the survivors? Their lives are completely demeaned by the exceptions legislation.

What if I said I'm opposed to murdering people except obnoxious teenagers who smash mailboxes? Would you call me pro-life?

Some call Brown's position "highly nuanced," but regulating the circumstances under which you ALLOW the murder of children is like regulating the circumstances under which you allow killing blacks, or jews, or any other class of persons. IT IS IMMORAL IN THE EXTREME.

As a pro-life Catholic I'm no longer willing to support those who advocate crimes against humanity even if they are "less evil" than their opponents and would regulate "some" abortions.

Scott Brown is not pro-life and calling him pro-life illustrates the corruption of language in our culture.