I'd find it a lot easier to support Brown if he wasn't pro-choice.  Not that I live in Massachusettes or anything - t's just hard to be excited over another republican who is not truly conservative on key issues.

Stephen, I did a little bit of research when I read your post here, and from what I can tell... he's PERSONALLY pro-life, but appears to support a limited pro-life policy. I know that he's against the "day after" pill as he supports a bill that goes against allowing the day after pill in cases of rape, without parental consent.

This is apparently his direct stance on the issue: http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues

"Abortion
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."

What I gather from this is that he's being "political" about his response, but from what I can see, he's definitely a pro-lifer.

Todd, most pro-choice politicians will say the same thing: They're personally pro-life, they want to reduce abortions, but they still believe it's the woman's right to choose.  Mario Cuomo championed this logic in the late 80's and early 90's and it is now the default position for many pro-choice politicians.  Of course, as they say this they usually continue to vote to advance abortion rights at every opportunity.  I think it's a stretch to call Brown pro-life.

That being said, Stephen, politics is always about choosing the lesser of two evils and, in this case, I don't think there can be any question which candidate represents the best option for conservatives to win.  A  Brown victory might very well spell defeat for Obamacare.  For no other reason alone, this makes Brown's victory an important event for conservatives.  At the end of the day, would we rather elect a moderate Republican, comparable to Olympia Snowe, from the bluest of blue states or another Ted Kennedy liberal?  I think the choice is clear. 

Plus, as Todd pointed out, Coakley called Curt Schilling a Yankees fan.  This should make every conservative's blood boil. 

You do make a good point Matt, but I do think it would also be a stretch to call him pro-choice. The only bills or additions as a state senator that he's voted for that I'm aware of have been pro-life. That said, I haven't done that much research on it...

 From everything I've heard and read about Brown he is definitely pro-choice as we would commonly define it but he is quite vocal in his support for certain limits on abortion such as late term abortions,  so-called partial birth abortions and parental notifications, etc.  In the absence of anything resembling a pro-life alternative I'll take this as a first step in the right direction.  Otherwise, I pretty much agree with Stephen's comments, above. 

I cant believe the number of gaffes she's had recently.  She's like a female version of Joe Biden.  She has no one to blame but herself.

As far as his stance on abortion, I think he's more PRO-LIFE than he is PRO-CHOICE.

Stating that he's Pro-Choice simply becuase he doesn't agree to all 10 points on the litmus test is like saying you're either totally with us, or totally against us. It would be in the same vein as a radical leftist calling a moderate Democrat a Republican.

Regardless of his lack of definitive stance on the issues... his actual record (that I've been able to uncover) has been 100% pro-life. It would be like calling me Pro-Choice because of my belief in the use of condoms for families who either don't want children, or additional children.

Either way, I'm excited to see what happens tonight. Unfortunately, I'll be in class. Then again, I can't say being in class will be unfortunate, it will just be unfortunate that I won't be able to glue myself to the TV.

According to wikipedia:

Brown supports Roe v. Wade, calling it "the law of the land", and the right to legalized abortion. He endorses restricting or banning intact dilation and extraction, known by its opponents as partial-birth abortion, and creating parental consent laws for minors who seek an abortion. He opposes the idea of a litmus test on abortion-related issues in Supreme Court confirmations.^[1] He also opposes federal funding for elective abortions in accordance with the Hyde Amendment.^[6] The Boston Globe has described his positions on abortion as "nuanced".

Supporting Roe V. Wade is a lot different than just supporting contraceptives during sex.   I'm glad he doesn't support partial-birth abortion but my feeling is that we should have a higher standard for politicians than just making sure they don't support killing newborn babies.  That should be a given!

If I lived in Massachusettes I would  vote for Brown for the reasons Matthew mentioned above, but I wouldn't be excited over it.  The only reason why conservatives are forced to vote for moderate presidential candidates is because they willingly elect these fools to smaller offices when they're the "lesser of two evils."  We need to expect more from our politicians or be willing to support them all the way to the White House.

I've never found anywhere where he's actually said he "supports" Roe V. Wade. He's simply said in every case I've seen that he wouldn't change it and recognizes it as "the law of the land". Unfortunately, it is the law of the land. He's only said he wouldn't actively seek to change it, but that doesn't automatically mean he supports it.

Everything he HAS actually voted on in his position as state senator, has been PRO-LIFE.

I think it's a stretch to call him Pro-Choice simply because he doesn't follow lock, stock, and barrel with the movement. My take on it is that he supports it simply because it's what "the people" voted on. I certainly don't support it either... but I recognize, unfortunately, that it is the law. If he's willing to ban "morning after" pills... I can assure you he's pro-life. Even the most moderate pro-lifer's often don't have a problem with that pill.

I support life as much as you guys do. The idea of abortion is totally abhorant to me... but I have to look at these things logically rather than what my emotion tells me. That's what sets conservatives apart from liberals. Everything I've read is that he is a pro-lifer, but simply is being politically correct with the way he's wording his "stance" on abortion. ALL he's saying is that he doesn't intend to actively fight Roe Vs Wade.

The thing is though... people have to really be careful about counting their chickens before they hatch. He is not guaranteed this seat. As a matter of fact, it's pretty obvious that if Brown wins by only 2,000 votes, that Coakley will end up getting the seat. After all the lawyer action of throwing out votes that are "unfair", and whittling it away in the local judiciary system... Coakley would win. Brown needs a STRONG win of ~3,500 or more in order to actually win the election.

All I heard Todd say was

"I can assure you he's pro-life"

except for the fact that

"he doesn't intend to actively fight Roe Vs Wade."

and when did "the people" ever vote on Roe Vs. Wade?

Look, I'm not saying I don't agree with you and your views, I'm just saying that you can't use an all or nothing argument. Just because he doesn't actively campaign to fight Roe Vs Wade, does not automatically make him Pro-Choice when every other thing he's done (and voted for as a state senator) has been Pro-Life.

By who's measurement of judgement do we use to determine the definitive definitions of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?

Unfortunately, Roe Vs. Wade more or less was because of the judicial system which was appointed by the people.

I can guarantee to you though that if a bill was made to overturn Roe Vs Wade in the next Federal election... I can pretty much guarantee to you that it would pass.

someone said pro life is conservative....huh?

If a bill was made to overturn Roe Vs. Wade in the next federal election . . . I can pretty much guarantee you that Brown would oppose it.

Todd, since you aren't "truly conservative," do you plan to stop writing for a conservative blog?

C, hahah... well... hopefully they'll continue to let me blog on here.

can someone explain to me why coakley saying someone was a Yankees fan when they're really a red sox fan makes her unqualified to hold public office

D.A., it's not that it makes her unqualified, but to the potential voters I think it shows that she's out of touch with Massachusetts. If you live in MA, you're expected to know certain things that are important to the state. The Red Sox are a big part of Boston. Obviously not the most important thing in the state, but considering they won the championship after decades of trying... I know basically nothing about baseball. Seriously. My sport is Formula-1. I do know however that they were under the curse of the bambino (Babe Ruth) for decades. The fact that they won (I think in 2004) was a huge moment in MA's history. You would have to have been DEAD all through 2004 not to take notice of it since I'm sure it was headlines everywhere. To be completely unaware of this would mean you would have had to have been completely out of the loop with the people of MA.

That means to me, that your agenda is not in the best interest to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Whether that is actually TRUTH or not, makes no difference, that's the impression she would give.

At least that's what I can tell.

is it any more out of touch than bobby jindal claiming the saints could be the first team in league history to go undefeated and win the superbowl?

yes

DA, I think it is. Honestly, you would REALLY want to do some research before making comments like that (you as in Jindal), but honestly... the Dolphins went undefeated in 1972, that was 38 years ago. The Red Sox championship was just a little over 5 years ago and is still fresh in everyone's minds. It's also not as bad because it's a lack of knowledge about another team in another state. Coaley's lack of knowledge is in relation to a team in her own state. It's certainly in the same vein, but one is definitely worse than the other.

Btw, Todd, you are not a poser.  You are as much a true conservative as Sarah Palin is.

"I answered [to Katie Couric]...that I was unapologetically pro-life...I would personally counsel such a girl [rape victim] to choose life, despite horrific circumstances, but I absolutely didn't think anyone should end up in jail for having an abortion." Going Rogue: An American Life  pp. 277-278

Thanks C, I think that's a compliment... but I'm not sure.

Hi,

I am Ben Katz, the man mentioned in the article. If you are going to quote the Boston Globe, get it right. The article clearly stated that I was a volunteer coordinator, not a volunteer. This is not a volunteer position; I coordinated the volunteers. I was a paid staffer for the Maine Democratic Party with a great deal or responsibility.

If you're going to cut and paste quotes, do so responsible and correctly. Those two sentences were not spoken or written consecutively, so please represent that by placing an ellipsis between the sentences. Those are two very different sentences from two different portions of an interview.

Furthermore, I do not regret working or voting for President Obama. I was simply expressing exactly what I felt: a little bit of disappointment. But that's not an unhealthy, unnatural or entirely negative reaction. To be disappointed is to love.

For people to be disappointed in the ones they love is not only extremely common, but a sign of love. We all know the parental cliche: "I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed." To be disappointed is to feel that someone we love has done something, and maybe we wish they had handled it differently. To be disappointed is to know someone so intimately that we are certain that they are wonderful and have the capacity to make the best decisions, and often we can back that up with proof. Many patriotic Americans want the best and the brightest from all of our representatives at all times out of love for their country. Maybe that's unrealistic. But to be truly proud to be an American is to want to be even more proud.

Disappointment means that we expect the best because we know someone can deliver it. That's a sign of believing in someone fundamentally, knowing them, and caring about them. If someone cuts you off in traffic and runs over your dog on their way to burn down your house, you're not going to say, "Gee, you really disappointed me." There are different, harsher words for that. Similarly, what the vast majority of Americans felt or feel about former President Bush is a lot more harsh than disappointment. Life is hard and so are the times, so when we are fortunate enough to see drastic improvement, we can be thankful while promising to never give up.

I also feel reinvigorated by the President's State of the Union speech, and have an overall positive opinion of the man as a President. I am not a victory for conservatives, so please do not treat me as such.

Ben Katz

Maine Democratic State Committee

Hi Ben,

    I apologize if you were misquoted. This is a direct quote from the Boston Globe:

“I do feel disappointment, yes,’’ said Ben Katz, 26, a former Obama campaign volunteer coordinator in Maine. But Katz acknowledged that he and others like him might have had unrealistic expectations of what Obama and a Democratic Congress could do - especially with the filibuster in the Senate. “Some made unrealistic expectations of Obama as a messianic figure,’’ Katz said.

..and this is what I put: 

“I do feel disappointment, yes. Some made unrealistic expectations of Obama as a messianic figure.’’ Katz acknowledged that he and others like him might have had unrealistic expectations of what Obama and a Democratic Congress could do - especially with the filibuster in the Senate.

Nothing that I put would suggest a different meaning or viewpoint.

As far as the comment though, I feel there is a fundamental difference between conservatives and democrats. Specifically, it's in the way we ultimately choose to handle problems. Let’s take an example of homeless. If there are hundreds of homeless people, and the shelters are packed. The immediate response by the majority of the Democrat party would be to create more homeless shelters at the expense of the taxpayer. The goal of course would be to alleviate the suffering.

The Republican solution would be tax cuts in hopes that it would cause corporations to create new jobs. The goal focusing explicitly on eliminating the root of the problem.

NEITHER of these solutions are necessarily the right one. The Republican solution might resolve the problem in the long run, but at the expense of several lives. The Democrat solution would save lives, but ultimately bring everyone else down.

I realize it's more complicated than that simple example... but this is a fundamental difference in ideologies between Democrats and Republicans.

Obviously, I do not speak for the Republican party, but my viewpoint is that these views can solve problems together. I truly believe in maintaining the Republic. The purpose of the Federal Government is to maintain the union and provide for a strong military to protect it. "Socialism" should not be mandated at the federal level. I strongly believe this. Every state is its own small country in the eyes of the Republic (make no mistake about it, we are a Republic). Socialism at the local level is acceptable. The local community pays the taxes for these subsidies, and they directly benefit to it. Different solutions are applicable to different states. Mandating health care from the federal level is unfair to other states which serve to benefit little (if any) from it, while they instead may pay more to benefit someone else.

Fire departments, police departments... they are paid for at the local level. This directly correlates with the expenditures of the local community. Ultimately... this decision is for the people. What America asked for was solutions to common problems. A reform of some of the issues we deal with in health care, a plan for Iraq and Afghanistan, and reduced spending.

What the people instead got was drastically increased spending the likes that all 8 years of the Bush presidency has never seen, and a force-feeding of nation-wide socialized health care that puts 1/6th of the US economy directly in the hands of the US Government (which has never been known for fiscal conservatism). I was angered even more by the State of the Union address because it was simply more of the same. What I got from most of the Democrat pundits is that Coakley lost because she wasn't "Liberal" enough. This is absolutely absurd.

Immediately following the SotU address, we saw Obama quickly vote to raise the debt limit to 1.9 trillion!? He also talked about passing Cap & Trade which as you know is an all encompassing tax bill.

America does NOT want more taxes... they want fiscal conservatism. The fact is the majority of Americans ARE happy with their health care. The majority of the problems that we face can be resolved by simple legislation and modified regulation. We don't want full-fledged socialized medicine where the money flows through the US Government.

Todd,

Thank you for your response and apology. Without getting into the rest of it, kindly change the part of the article that refers to me as a volunteer and list my title as volunteer coordinator, as the Boston Globe did and as history actually was. I do not care if you capitalize it or not, but the post is incorrect and now you know it, so please change it to reflect the truth.

Thank you

Ben Katz

Hi Ben, I added "coordinator" to the title. I'm curious however... doing a quick search, I can tell that you are working towards a political career. No doubt this is because you care about the issues but obviously have a different perception of how these problems can be solved.

Can you explain to me why you so strongly support a GOVERNMENT RUN & SPONSORED healthcare plan, rather than one that's regulated tightly by the government, but managed privately?

What I'm getting at is, I fail to understand the purpose of supporting something that puts 1/6th of the US Economy into the hands of politicians. I want to believe that the majority of politicians mean well. Unfortunately, for whatever the reason may be, the financials of government programs typically swell to unreasonable proportions. This isn't the exception, this is the rule. (I dare you to find a program where the money flows through government's hands that hasn't).

If in the private industry a company screws up, the CEO is fired. In sports, if a coach screws up badly after a year... he's fired. No IF, ANDs, or BUTs. In government, if a politician does something corrrupt; what happens at best is there is a special election and the person is ousted. More typically however... he / she is pardoned by his party support and remains in office.

I can give several examples of privately run financials that are mandated / regulated by the government. If you have children, you've no doubt heard of a 529. This is an investment account where the investments and finances are privately managed. Each state has one, and you can pick ANY state's 529 from within ANY state (sounds like Tort Reform, doesn't it). In any case, the investment risk and the type of portfolio are all mandated and controlled by the government. They must meet strict requirements.

Why wouldn't you prefer an option like this which you can be CERTAIN would not be rife with corruption and fiscal waste?