Now that the dust has settled from the earth-shattering victory of Republican Scott Brown, who will now be Massachusetts' junior senator, let's examine his postions on the issues, and see if the Republicans' enthusiams over his win will last very long.
Scott Brown on health care reform:
"I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage... In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 health care law that was successful in expanding coverage..."
The law he's referring to is a government health care program that forces people to buy insurance, exactly like Obamacare. The idea is to achieve universal coverage, exactly like Obamacare. Those who can't afford it get subsidized by taxpayers, exactly like Obamacare. And four years after it was passed, 98 percent of Massachusetts has signed up.
And even if we hear that this type of health care is state run, IT IS STILL GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE, and Scott Brown supports it. So it's actually okay to force people to buy socialist health care now? Big government is okay as long as it's Big State Government?
Brown also supports big banks which was one of the basic things the Tea Party was upset by. When Brown's Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, asked if he supported Obama's proposed tax on the Big Bonuses, Brown said he was so opposed to raising taxes ever, on anybody. The tax on those bonuses would have returned some of the taxpayers' money. Why wouldn't he support that?
Brown also supports the voluntary bussing of inner city minority school kids to suburan, mostly white schools.
"I am a strong advocate for the METCO program, which provides lower-income students with broader educational opportunities," he says. He's referring to a Massachusetts program for busing minority kids into white school districts. It's run by the State Department of Education and funded by $20 million in tax money. And when the governor tried to scale it back during the budget crisis, Brown criticized him for "disproportionately cutting a program benefiting inner-city minorities."
The tea parties overlook this, saying Brown supports charter schools. Well, so does President Obama. Brown and Obama agree on this as well.
Brown also supports one of the biggest mandatory federal government programs of all, Medicare — although, to be fair, this appeared on his Web site in the form of concern that Obamacare might end up lowering the quality of care "for elders on Medicare."
Here is a list of more LIBERAL issues Scott Brown SUPPORTS:
1. He supports legal abortion: "This decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor," he says.
2. He's against a national law prohibiting gay marriage: "States should be free to make their own laws in this area," he says.
3. He supports government investment in green programs: "I support reasonable and appropriate development of alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal and improved hydroelectric facilities."
4. He's politically correct on Israel: "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."
5. And he doesn't even want to bomb Iran! He's backing Obama's cautious incrementalism! "I support the bipartisan Iran sanctions bill..."
Can it really be true? Is the movement founded in scorn for politicians who abandon their principles for power already abandoning its principles for power?
The answer is a resounding YES! Scott Brown appears to be a conservative any LIBERAL could love.
He may have an "R" after his name, but his positions are most definitely LIBERAL.
Maybe Tuesday's election wasn't a defeat for Liberal ideals afterall.
"Trump has, thus far, made casual phone calls to the leaders of Taiwan and Pakistan, two significant countries on the world stage involved in fraught issues.
He has also casually suggested that flag burners be not merely tried as criminals, but deprived of their citizenship. He has done these things, and others, without the slightest introspection, consultation with others, knowledge of the issues, or even acknowledgment of institutional structure or constraint. And all this as president-elect, before he is even inaugurated.
These, my friends, are not the actions of a president, but those of a caudillo, asserting his power to actuate major policies on his whim, and his alone, without constraint or consideration. This is the man whose most famous line prior to his political campaign was, 'You're fired!' Or, worse than a caudillo. He is demonstrating, over and over again, that in his mind he conflates the state, and the country, with himself, and himself alone. He then hosts victory rallies and claims an overwhelming electoral victory in a country which voted by more than 2.5 million votes for his opponent over himself.
Do not trivialize this." -- Michael K.