Analysis of the Scott Brown Victory in MA

Could anyone have ever dreamed of a more unusual scenario? The seat held by Ted Kennedy for over 40 years has now been replaced by a Republican in Massachusetts.

The Stage was Set

Let’s rewind to 1994. In the midst of a surge sweeping across the nation against the Democratic majority after a Clinton victory in 1992, in Massachusetts, a man named Mitt Romney dared to challenge the lion of the Senate himself: Ted Kennedy. But while Romney managed to lose by the second smallest margin in Kennedy’s nine elections, the score was a 17-point difference: 58 to 41.

By 2004, Romney was governor of Massachusetts. In an effort to avoid a Romney-chosen senator should Senator John Kerry win the White House, the Democratic majority of the Massachusetts state senate passed legislation that would keep the governor from being able to appoint a U.S. Senator until a special election was held.

But in 2009, with a Democratic governor in place, the Democrats reversed the legislation to allow a Democrat to be appointed to replace Ted Kennedy after he died. Before his death, Kennedy had even requested the reversal himself. After Kennedy’s death, Paul Kirk was appointed to replace him. The seat remained in the hands of the Democratic party.

On November 3rd of that year, GOP candidates Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie won the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. Both states had Democratic governors.

That same month in Massachusetts, Democratic candidate Martha Coakley led Republican Scott Brown by as much as 31 points. The Kennedy family endorsed Coakley to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. At that point, it appeared obvious that the seat will continue to be in Democratic control.  After all, in Massachusetts, Democrats outnumber Republicans by as much as 3 to 1. But independents outnumber Democrats in the Bay State. And the hypocrisy of the Democratic party had worn down the respect of their constituents.

The Meteoric Rise of Scott Brown

Through a series of gaffes by Coakley herself, Scott Brown began to rise. Coakley’s numbers started to drop. Whether it was the pointless sparring with Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling or the arrogant and elitist opposition to schmoozing with hockey fans at Fenway Park, Coakley couldn’t seem to keep her mouth shut. If that wasn’t bad enough, her claim that terrorists no longer reside in Afghanistan certainly didn’t buy her any foreign policy points.

But in spite of Coakley’s best efforts to sink her own campaign, it still seemed unlikely that a Republican would be the one to replace Ted Kennedy. However, in early January, a Rasmussen poll revealed that Coakley’s lead narrowed to a single digit margin, albeit a 9 point margin.

In a debate with Coakley, Brown was asked how he could sit in Ted Kennedy’s seat and vote against the healthcare legislation that Kennedy had fought so hard for in his career. Brown responded, “With all due respect, it is not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It is not the Democrats’ seat. It is the people’s seat.”

For some reason, the wind was suddenly at Brown’s back. Perhaps even to the surprise of some Republicans, Brown was gaining momentum. Rasmussen’s next poll had him losing by only 2 points. A Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll had him up by 1. Coakley’s lead was vanishing before her very eyes. In the latter polls of the campaign, it was fully erased, replaced by as much as a 15 point margin of victory for Brown according to PJM/CrossTarget.

On the night of January 19th, Coakley delivered her concession speech. Brown had won 52 to 47.

Is Brown the New Face of the GOP?

Perhaps it’s a bit early to say that Brown is the face for the GOP brand. Typically, Republicans require dues to be paid before its leaders are rewarded with a  higher status. It took Ronald Reagan several years to become a major voice in the party, having lost to Ford in 1976 before winning the nomination in 1980. But if there’s one politician whose own meteoric rise could provide Brown a pathway for an early entry into the presidential fray, it would be none other than Barack Obama.

Obama was  still a state senator in Illinois back in 2004 when he delivered the keynote address to the Democratic National Convention. He was elected as a U.S. Senator later that year. By February 2007, he had declared himself a candidate for the White House.

Brown was also a state senator when he won his U.S. Senate seat. While it may seem the least bit unlikely, Brown could very well be among the names floated for the 2012 GOP nomination.

But even if Brown did find himself amidst the field of candidates in the GOP primary, he would probably not win the support of many social conservatives. While Brown remains to the right of most Democrats on abortion, he is still essentially pro-choice. This would prove to be a rather difficult hurdle to overcome should Brown have loftier aspirations.

An Unusual Victory, A Glimmer of Hope

To say that Brown’s victory is historic would be an understatement. The Bay State has not had a Republican U.S. senator since 1978. Kennedy’s seat hasn’t been held by a Republican since 1952.

If he is seated soon, Scott Brown will bring a screeching halt to the Democratic supermajority in the U.S. Senate, thus being the one man who can dissolve the liberal dream of Obamacare.

It seems evident that there is a trend in America towards the right. A trend towards smaller government. A trend towards fiscal responsibility. A trend against runaway spending. A trend towards transparency in government.

Last night, the people of Massachusetts spoke to the nation about the kind of government they want. If this type of sentiment is displayed there, in the bluest of blue states, it will not end with them.

Finally, it seems that America may be correcting its course.

Gallup Poll: More Americans are Pro-Life than Pro-Choice

A recent Gallup Poll has found that more Americans are pro-life than pro-choice. I personally don’t find this to be terribly surprising. I’ve always thought that when the choice between the life and the death of an unborn child is on the table, most individuals that value life would logically choose life. And while a CBS poll taken back in 2007 indicated similar results, this is the first time in the history of Gallup’s poll that pro-life has ever overtaken pro-choice.

Pro-Life: 51% Pro-Choice: 42%

The poll found that in most categories, the number of pro-life individuals has increased. Such categories include not only conservatives and Republicans, but also include moderates, Catholics, Protestants, and even those of other religious preferences. Also among Republicans, the amount of pro-choice voters has dropped from 36% in 2008 to 26% in 2009, the lowest it has been in 9 years.

Could it be that the Obama administration’s pro-choice policies are polarizing to the American people? Note the sharp downturn in pro-choice voters from 2008 to 2009: 50% to 42%. That’s quite a drop.

I’m hoping that these trends will continue throughout the elections in 2010 and 2012, except yielding different results than in 2008. America badly needs pro-life leaders to champion the cause of life in the face of an extremely pro-choice Obama administration.

Thoughts on President Obama’s First Few Days

Most people know what I think of Barack Obama. He’s a liberal Democrat with a record to prove it. So obviously, he and I will disagree on a host of issues. However, I just thought I’d lay out some random observations that I’ve had over the past few days. 

I’m seeing a lot of Bill Clinton in Obama. A lot of his cabinet choices are Clintonian (i.e. Hillary Clinton herself). Like Clinton, I think he, in some ways, tried to campaign as a centrist that reaches across the aisle; not unlike John McCain who did that as a conservative and failed miserably. But I think he will also turn out to be just as liberal as Clinton, if not more so. 

Quite frankly, I see almost a sense of genuineness in Barack Obama. That may come as a shock to those of you who know me. But I get the impression that he truly loves his wife and family. With Bill Clinton, everything about his marriage seemed politically motivated to me. It was like watching two leech-like creatures living in some type of strange symbiotic political relationship. Obama’s not like that at all. If it’s all an act, he’s sure got me fooled. 

As much as I loathe many of the things that President Obama stands for, I have to remind myself that he is in a position of authority. He holds one of the most important offices in the world. As an American, I must respect that office. As a Christian, I must respect and honor his authority. 

But, as Christ commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (Matthew 22:21) and Peter tells us to honor the emperor (1st Peter 2:17), I am also reminded that unlike the first century A.D., we live in a democratic society where people are allowed to choose the highest office in the land. 

You see, Barack Obama would exist with his political stances whether or not people chose to vote for him. There will always be people that hold viewpoints like his. So in the U.S.A., perhaps my frustration should not be with Barack Obama as much as it is the people that voted him into office: the people that were swayed by the sweet notions of “Change You Can Believe In” and the mindless, incessant chanting of “Yes We Can!” 

Honestly, Barack Obama will bring change. That’s a fact. He has already signed an executive order to lift the ban on funding for abortions performed overseas. He has promised to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. Military, which is something that Bill Clinton would not even do. And should it pass, Obama has vowed to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, giving women the right to terminate their pregnancy at any stage.

So, Obama voters, you’re getting your change…and much earlier than I had expected. I must say, I even agreed with the President’s decision to freeze the salaries of White House workers making over $100,000 a year. 

Like I said, I respect the office of the President. I respect the authority that goes with it. I respect President Barack Obama as a fellow human being and as the leader of our great nation. I would even say that his Presidency has already brought a strong sense of optimism to this country. 

But…

I believe that if I have every right to support the good he has brought, I also have the right to oppose the evil that he brings to America. That’s right, I said evil. I believe that the murder of an unborn child for the sake of convenience is nothing but wrong and ungodly. I believe that the practice of homosexuality is unnatural and opposed by God. 

I will not forget what his man stands for. No matter what wonders he works for our country in other areas, and I do truly hope he does, I will not sweep these moral issues under the rug. I will not abandon my principles because some politician managed to win an election based on style over substance, ignorance over issues and eloquence over ideals. 

So as Christ and Peter honored and acknowledged a morally reprehensible Caesar as leader of the land, I honor and acknowledge Barack Obama as President of the United States. But unlike them, I have the opportunity to vote out my leader in four years.

Barack Obama is Pro-Abortion

Contrary to what some may believe about Barack Obama, it is a known fact that he is pro-choice. His record and his platform clearly demonstrate that. There is no sense of ambiguity. There should be no doubt. Barack Obama is a staunch supporter of a woman’s right to take the life of her unborn child.

But in an effort to remove all misconception or any form of doubt you may have, allow me to address Senator Obama’s stance on this topic.

Direct Quotes

This is a direct quote from his website: “[Senator Obama] has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.” From this statement, it’s very clear that Obama stands by Roe v. Wade and does not want it to be overturned.

When speaking about the importance of sex education, he said “look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” I’ll try not to interject too much into this statement, but it seems obvious to me that he considers unplanned pregnancies to be some type of punishment to the mother of the child.

Infanticide in Illinois

I personally find this part of Senator Obama’s record to be extremely troubling. As a State Senator in Illinois, a bill known as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) was first introduced in 2001. This legislation was designed to protect the lives of infants who were born alive after failed abortions. Obama opposed this measure in 2001 and in 2002, claiming that the language used in the bill could have the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade.

However in 2003, the bill was proposed again, with language that addressed the concern that many pro-abortion groups had about it potentially overturning Roe v. Wade. Obama voted against it again, even after NARAL had dropped their opposition to it. A federal version of this bill containing much of the exact same language passed through the U.S. Senate 98-0 in 2002. Obama claims he would have supported the federal bill, but if actually he stood against the same bill at a state level, can you really trust that statement?

When aborted babies were being born alive and left to die alone in soiled utility rooms and there was legislation proposed in Illinois which would have stopped it, Barack Obama opposed it three times in a row. Fortunately, the bill passed through the Illinois Congress in 2005, after Obama had left to become a U.S. Senator.

The Freedom of Choice Act

Barack Obama has voiced ardent support of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). In fact, he has said that one of the first things he’ll do in office is to sign it into law as soon as it passes through Congress.

Pro-Choice Organizations complain that after Roe v. Wade, many of the federal and state laws that have passed since then have “eroded” the “fundamental right” to abortion. However, they firmly believe that FOCA will ensure abortion rights in spite of the possibility that Roe v. Wade could be reversed. It has been estimated that FOCA would result in 125,000 more abortions per year due to the nullification of certain state and federal abortion laws caused by its passage.

On top of all that, FOCA would allow for taxpayer-funded abortions at any stage of pregnancy. Just imagine our taxes actually paying for virtually every kind of abortion at any time during the pregnancy. If that’s not contrary to the nature of American values, I don’t know what is.

Conclusion

Speaking for myself as a Christian and as a pro-life conservative, I cannot morally condone voting for anyone who supports abortion. But throughout Senator Barack Obama’s career, he has adamantly, by his own admission, supported abortion rights. Not only that, he has supported the right to abortion at practically every stage of a pregnancy. I cannot fathom how anyone who considers themselves pro-life could support a candidate like Senator Obama. If you believe in the sanctity of human life, I strongly urge you to consider this information when you vote on November 4th.

Why I Plan to Vote for An Electable Candidate

This may be a controversial post and I’m sure many will disagree with me. But that hasn’t really stopped me before…

I’d like to start out with a quote from Winston Churchill:

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

That sounds completely un-American, doesn’t it? We strongly hold to the ideal of democracy in America. Our nation was founded on that principle. Quite frankly, it truly is the most optimal system. I’d be hard pressed to disagree with it.

But think about the majority of Americans. Think about the things that sway them, the factors that come into play. People look at a candidate’s religion, their family life, their looks, their background, whether or not they have a dog, how big their house is, how much money have, how they made their money, etc. Have you noticed that I haven’t mentioned how they stand on the issues?

Think about the reasons people vote (or don’t vote) for a particular candidate. “I like the way he (or she) looks.” “He seems to have a good family life so I could vote for him.” “I don’t like him because he’s a Mormon.” “I won’t vote for somebody named ‘Obama,’ that sounds Muslim to me.” “I don’t like him because he’s been married three times.” “He cheated on his wife, so I can’t vote for him.” “Well he certainly looks presidential.” “We’re not ready for a female president.” “I think America needs a black president.”

Unfortunately, it’s impossible to deny that this mindless drivel has entered into the political process! There are voters in America that vote based on trivial information rather than where a candidate stands on the issues. Furthermore, some will vote for a candidate of a particular party without questioning the candidate’s stances.

I wonder how many times a voter does not make up their mind who they will vote for until they arrive at their particular polling place.

So many Ron Paul voters, Mike Huckabee voters, and Sam Brownback voters act like I’m crazy because I tell them that their candidate won’t win. They act as if I oppose the issues that their candidate stands for. Oddly enough, I don’t necessarily disagree with thim on the issues! I just know that based on various dynamics and circumstances that we are in, their candidate is unelectable.

It’s not that I necessarily think that the Presidential election is a complete popularity contest. I do believe that some voters have truly researched their candidates and are voting according to their conscience.

But while truly educated voters do exist, there are several more that aren’t. It’s almost as if the candidates have to “trick” the American public into voting for them because honest and logical persuasion is merely an afterthought.

In conclusion, this post is not necessarily an argument against democracy, but rather an argument for an American public that will truly research its candidates based on ideology and principle rather than personality and popularity. I want Americans to see through the smokescreen of trivial circumstances and examine the candidates based on their stances. Until that is achieved, Churchill is making one heck of an argument against democracy.

Fred Thompson’s Abortion Record

Lately, good old Senator “Right Said Fred” Thompson is facing an unusual amount of criticism for a non-candidate due to his alleged lobbying for a pro-choice organization back in 1991. Thompson has claimed to not recall any such lobbying, and his spokesman has said that even if he did, it wouldn’t be unusual for a lobbyist like himself to “give advice to colleagues for clients with whom they personally disagree.”

Whether this story has caused you to question Thompson’s conservative pro-life credentials or not, I thought it’d be good to look at his record to see how he actually handles the issue as a Senator.

• Thompson voted against partial-birth abortion 4 times.
• He voted against Overseas Military Abortions 3 times.
• He voted against Congressional Support of Roe vs. Wade.
• He voted against using federal health insurance funds to cover abortion.
• He voted against federal funding for research on aborted fetuses.
• He voted to override a Presidential veto on a bill prohibiting late-term abortion.

Concerning abortion, his Senate record is virtually flawless. Regardless of what people are saying about his agenda, I believe that his votes speak for themselves.

I’m not even an avid Thompson supporter (yet). But I really don’t believe that Thompson, according to his record, is anything but pro-life.