UPDATE: If you have a Facebook account, please link here to Join and show your support for Martha Coakley in these final hours before the election on Thuesday.
This election will be held on Tuesday…THIS Tuesday in Massachusetts. What does it mean to the rest of the country? If Brown were to pull off a win over Martha Coakley, the democratic candidate, it will leave the democrat Senate seats with 59, rather than 60. That is enough to swing the pendulum on any and ALL issues presented by the Obama administration to a body consisting of enough members to make the Party of NO have real influence.
Scott Brown is a perfect example of a Stealth ReBiblican Candidate. They parade themselves as “moderate” when they are anything BUT! This very short clip is Brown in September 2008 defending Sarah Palin’s impending grandma-hood while taking a demeaning swipe at the legitimacy of Obama birth. Notice the dripping smugness and arrogance…yeah…he is a real “moderate”, uh-huh, I’m buyin’ his objectivity.
And…then we have Queen Esther returning the favor to Scotty Boy, even though he posed in Cosmopolitan without benefit of the hockey stick! Here she is stelling Sean Hannity that “Thank God” things are going to turn around and she looks forward to “interviewing” Scott Brown. (side note: That just makes me chuckle…Palin interviewing someone! Pulease! Okay…just had to get that out of the way)
The phrase “Thick as Thieves” certainly comes to mind. These are not conservatives. They are not republicans. They are truly in a category all to themselves. Honesty is abandoned. Fabrication is taught and rewarded. Hate and intolerance is encouraged. And the harvesting of ignorance is unmatched!
My friend, Sarah Jones, wrote a great article over at politicususa.com on Pinnochio Brown…
Stealth Candidate Scott Brown, Lying About His Beliefs
by Sarah JonesModerates and independents need to start paying very close attention in future elections, as the right is running “stealth candidates”. Apparently, the majority of voters don’t want a religious extremist and/or racist in office, so the only thing for a teabagging birther to do is LIE about their beliefs in order to get elected. Enter Scott Brown as Massachusetts’s US Senate stealth candidate. Brown is running as a moderate conservative. Hmmm…[read entire article here]
This is going to become a common and recurring manipulation.
ReBiblican candidates are clearly most at home within the Republican Party they succeeded in steeple-jacking over the past 30 years, but do not think for a moment that they will not pose their “moderate” conservative candidates where ever they perceive a win.
And as far as Palin’s endorsement? Well, look at how that worked for them in NY 23!
Had him at eighteen and then went on and earned a Phd!
Yes…just a slightly different scenario than Brown's lame attempt at elevating the status of Palin while trashing Obama's mother and Barack's heritage. Gotta just love the conservative family values, doncha?
Brown's stealth approach is on display if you look at the abortion issue. In his statement he's clear as mud, not quite for it, not quite against it, but if you look more closely at his record… one of the first bills he filed (which didn't pass) was to allow professionals in an ER to keep rape victims from getting the morning after pill.
Thanks for bringing attention to this.
Thank YOU! This is exactly the kind of information that we need to have come to the surface in these final hours before Tuesday's election.
I would like to cite that vote Brown made if you have any more detail on that. I will dedicate another post to Brown tomorrow and welcome as much information from all of you as you can find and/or are already aware of such as what Holly just noted in this comment.
These people hate the light of truth and reality. The brighter we make it, the greater the likelihood that they will run for cover back into the dark crevasses of Fox nation.
Michelle Obama told an audience in MO in 2008 that Obama's mother was 'very single' when she gave birth to him.
UofM-KC, July 10, 2008 – "Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him".
Are we not supposed to believe Michelle, our gracious First Lady?
President Obama's mother was three months pregnant when she married his father. Mrs. Michelle Obama's statement notwithstanding, the Obama parents were married in February and Barack was born in August. If there is a link to this statement Mrs. Michelle Obama made at U of M-KC, I would like to see it. It may be that she meant his mother was "alone,", i.e., that his father had gone back to Kenya.
Hi sunnyjane. When were the Obama Srs divorced?
Here is the link to her comments at UofM-KC http://blog.showmeprogress.com/showDiary.do?diary...
I gots some LOVE for my Michelle! She don't lie!
I sincerely hope that your lapse in grammar was unintentional and not intended as a condescending racial slur toward our First Lady…that lacks not only respect and class, but won't be tolerated.
Hi Leah. It was neither.
Good…I have had a long day responding to some very ugly people who can't debate without getting hateful and resorting to ugly insults on the bible verses inscripted on rifle barrels issue…
Thanks for clarifying…
She indeed did Say "very single". It is our responsibility as educated, U.S. women to hold her accountable for this statement and ask her to explain her error, or find out if she simply meant something different than what she said. Seems a little fishy to me.
I'm not sure if anyone notices on this blog that you are doing EXACTLY what you are criticizing others for – Hatriot-ing(? interesting word). Why is it so difficult that we ALL have different beliefs. None of which are right or wrong and the most effective way to proceed is to communicate NOT communihate. I can imagine what you all might say, however before you do remember that two wrongs do not make a right. Why not work towards an compromised solution rather than badmouthing the "other" party. Aren't we all working together for a better america. Why do you think you are better than Palin or Brown or any other democrat for that matter?
I am neither party. I am so drawn to these arguments and character and issue bashing because it gets us or U.S. no where and don't you all think we've gotten no where for long enough now.
All I ask is you do the research objectively and find something about every person you dislike or "hate" that you do like and vice versa. No one is perfect and we all know this.
Stop bashing and start working at a better future.
Why is it that Hatriots can take positive words like "gracious" and make them sound ugly?
Perhaps a little off topic here, but…it is interesting that many, MANY people have pooh-poohed Sarah for saying that her favorite "founding father" was George Washington — their ridicule stemming from their belief that he was NOT a "founding father." In fact, he was. By virtue of his being the Constitutional Convention delegate from Virginia, and consequently being elected president of the Convention, he certainly WAS one of the "founding fathers."
What Sarah probably doesn't know, givien her penchant for not reading, is that in his farewell address after serving two terms as the country's first president, Washington soundly rejected the idea that the new Constitution should include “a divinely authoritative religion."
And so it stands today, and so it SHOULD stand. The Founding Fathers made SURE of that.
This country fortunately had Founding Fathers that do not suffer chronic amnesia like we seem to do in this country today. The horrible events and sufferings of theocratic rule was recent in their minds when they formed the rules by which we all live by in America.
The First Amendment and the Establishment Clause have been tested and upheld by the Supreme Court to mean that we are NOT a theocracy.
Palin is an indoctrinated Christian Dominionist who will continuously seek "confirmation bias" whether she finds it in truth or fiction. They will just keep her hooked up to that kool aid IV thru a permanent port rendering her drunk in her delusion that she is Queen Esther…
Thanks, sunny jane,
I see Brown's words as an attempt to throw a little red meat to the birthers and other conspiracy theorists. It's a very simple matter to check/verify information, which is what I do when I have a question about anything. I use the Google function. It's easy.
Leah,
I remember reading last year that republicans have been telling their candidates to run as democrats if that's what it takes to win in their districts/states, and once they win, they can carry out their rebiblican agenda. We must be on the lookout for these types of candidates. This is one of the reasons I love your blog. You help expose them for what they are. Your work is very important because the MSM will not properly vet these types of candidates running for political offices.
Your support means so much! Thank you. You are absolutely correct about monitoring ALL political candidates, especially in this upcoming year of campaigning. I refer to them as Stealth ReBiblican Candidates and in fact, I am in the throws of creating a new site in addition to this blog site, that will be a informative Call to Action site.
I will track these Stealth Rebibs, create a Voters Guide, a Dominionist Code Speak Lexicon and more. You will love it. And they won't! Hang in there with me, we are going to make a difference together.
There is an article out there that talks about Brown and the belief that rape victims requesting EC should be turned away from an ER that doesn't offer it if the provider's "conscience" doesn't allow them to give it. There was some comment he made about it "not being about the victim". He and Sarah have a lot in common.
Yes they do indeed…and as I have said about Sarah, if she looked like Susan Boyle she would be a non-topic. Same with Brown, if he looked like Gene Wilder…we wouldn't be discussing Scott either!
Oh Stanbunny…if only! I would like us to work toward compromise and the betterment of all. In fact you will find no more enthusiastic supporter of the Eisenhower Republicans and my wish that they would re-group and take their Party back!. I miss the "old days" of arguing over whether or not we would fill the pothole…but when and how much we should spend to do it! Those were the days. When arguments were based on issues and not what was preached from the pulpit. When you could disagree in the halls of the legislature and not get personal and attack the other because they aren't Christian and therefore have no sense of family values or morals. (very arrogant BTW). When after debating a bill, or an amendment and considering the will of the constituency…both could actually find a way to do what was in the best interest of the people! And after all that, go out to dinner and enjoy each others' company. Liberal and conservative…arm in arm, just kinda hangin' out. Like people. Yeah…that is my dream for America, gosh darn it! A better future indeed! Thank you stanbunny!
Washington's Farewell Address is not the easiest piece of literature to read and understand. It is certainly written in English, but in a style not familiar to modern Americans. A student of early American documents would be wise to consult summaries and analyses. In doing so, one will discover that George Washington had a good deal of assistance and advice in writing his address. One suggestion was to include a statement that morality required a divinely authoritative religion. Washington rejected this idea and chose instead to use phrases such as "Religion and Morality are indispensable supports" and " It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." He does not mention any god let alone the Christian God. Neither does he say that the Christian Bible is the sole definer of virtue or morality.
I think we can forgive sunnyjane this confusion. I, for one, am impressed that she has made the effort to learn about our founding fathers and the documents they have left to us.
Just my opinion, of course, but I suspect sunnyjane would have given a quicker and better answer to Beck's question than "all of them."