Is Scott Brown, candidate du jour for those seeking a conservative in the Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy, a pro-choice guy? Here is the paragraph from his web site:
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
Don't get me wrong - I completely agree with the opinion offered on the subject. Nowhere, however, is the litmus test phrase written. The one about the sanctity of life. The one that purists insist must be uttered to gain support from the pro-life community. It is a nicely nuanced paragraph of common sense. It is refreshing.
My curiousity was peaked yesterday as I read Kathleen Parker's column in the Sunday newspaper on Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown. He is running unexpectedly strong in the race against current Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Coakley has not led a particularly aggressive race, according to reports, until recent polls slapped the Democrats awake. Massachusetts, typically the most blue of states, is just presumed to remain in the Democratic column. For the seat of the "lion of the Senate" - which means he milked the job all his career as an adult - to be even a maybe change up is a true barometer of the times.
Scott Brown sounds like my kind of Republican, on paper anyway. Not being a resident of the State of Massachusetts, I have no real knowledge of the man. I am interested because 1) I would love to see an upset in that seat and 2) the grassroots Republicans have embraced Brown with real vigor. So, to learn he is pro-choice from Parker's column was a bit of a surprise. Typically, the grassrooters are relatively new to the world of politics and are those also must likely to succumb to the nonsense of purity tests. They have not yet learned that to win elections, one must grow a political party and not shrink it.
Brown sounds like a sound Republican. He is a fiscal conservative - favors tax cuts in the mode of JFK. He opposes government expansion. He is a no vote on a second stimulus bill. He is more hawkish than pacifist when it comes to finishing the work in Afghanistan. He believes we must be on the offense not defense in the war on terror. So, the only agenda item resembling Coakley's is the issue of choice. And, with a more practical view, Brown is in step with regular American voters. Most importantly, Brown is favored by Independent voters three to one. They make up the majority of registered voters in Massachusetts.
Do I really think a Republican will beat out another typical liberal in Massachusetts? No. I do, however, like what I see. The Coakley campaign has called on Bill Clinton to campaign for a candidate who presumed herself the entitled winner from the beginning. She needs the boost from Bubba now and that is sweet music to Republicans. Who would have imagined that the Obama wave would have come to such a quick crashing crescendo only one year into his administration, even in the State of Massachusetts?
The gloves are off in this contest. The Democrats are desperate to pass some sort of Obamacare before the 2010 election season and can only do so by saving every last vote Reid has purchased so far. The Democrats in Massachusetts are worried - the story that they will delay Brown's swearing in if he wins is testamont to that. Paul Kirk, the current placeholder, was sworn in with record speed.
2010 is going to be good, my fellow Republicans. Whether we win in Massachusetts or not.