In Brown Versus Attorney General Martha Coakley, Conservatives Display Usual Lack of Principle

Glowing City Skyline wallpaper

According to conservative blogs Scott Brown can just skip the official vote tally and be sworn in today for the Senate race in Massachusetts. TPM/Research 2000 has Attorney General Martha Coakley(D) ahead by 8%. While Nate Silver is calling it a toss-up. As I was scanning the extreme right conservative blogs ( there does not appear to be anything resembling a moderate conservative blog) many are fascinated by this juiced up controversy of the day: A Brown supporting blog out of Massachusetts actually has this in quotations. Which for those that made it through the sixth grade means it supposed to be what someone actually said, Coakley: “You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room”

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a seperation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (…stammering) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

To the right-wing fringe, “You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room” – a reference made in regards a patient’s rights versus what a caretaker might believe is twisted by the Red Mass Group conservative blog as meaning that Coakley does not believe in the First Amendment. Typical propaganda twisting by someone who has no real knowledge of the country they live in or the wall that protects us all, regardless of religious beliefs from the tyranny of another religious group. This is what Scott Brown supporters – Red Mass Group, Big Journalism, RedState, The Natural Truth, Weasel Zippers, Hot Air and The Anchoress believe. One, that a hospital employee’s beliefs trump the proper care for a patient. A patient’s religious beliefs are be trampled in deference to the religion of the hospital or the hospital’s employees. Those familiar with the wall that separates church and state, a wall that thank goodness Attorney General Coakley is familiar with, says you cannot force your religion on a hospital patient. If someone has that kind of zealot’s mind-set on health-care in a modern U.S. hospital, a medical related career is something you might want to think about long and hard. This doctor refused to treat a child because the infant’s mother had tattoos. So when a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan, who has tattoos, is refused medical treatment – do you think these same Brown supporting right-wing Republicans are going to side against the vet. We can also assume these same Brown supporters ( an important point since Brown claims to be a moderate) would force an adult Jehovah’s Witnesses to have a blood transfusion regardless of their wishes simply because the hospital employee, of another faith, believes medical circumstances dictate they should. Most doctors and hospitals take Medicare, Medicaid and veterans health benefits so they are obligated to adhere to legal precedent in treating patients without prejudice. I could say that I have never read so much unthinking, drooling, stupid, historically ignorant trash in my life, but that would be a lie. I read them every time I visit a conservative blog. They do not have principles, they have a rhetorical bat to beat the adversary or issue of the day, then back pedal like fanatics to rationalize a position on which they have spun like tops.

Joan Walsh notes once again the Beltway’s herd mentality, I’m reading “Game Change,” and I can’t help wondering about sourcing holes — and why women are the worst villains

I wrote then about my discomfort with the book’s mostly anonymous sourcing – there is no index or source notes – as well as its strange practice of “quoting” inflammatory statements in mere sentence fragments, without full context, and Heilemann and Halperin’s Bob Woodward-like zest for recreating thoughts and conversations they couldn’t have been a party to. (I particularly enjoyed the opening scene, set in Obama’s room at a Des Moines Hampton Inn just before the Iowa caucuses, when the candidate woke up anxious in the middle of the night, feeling like “the dog that caught the bus.” Were they there? Now that’s a story!) I have the book, and I’m making my way through it, but I’m surprised more people aren’t asking the questions I have about it. ( emphasis mine)

“Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions.” –Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:419

“[If] the nature of… government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope.” –Thomas Jefferson to Pierrepont Edwards, July 1801.

“I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another.” –Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

Join the sheeple, vote for Scott.

Brown hasn’t shown courage needed to stand tall in Senate

We’ve already had a good early test of Brown’s inclination there, and it’s been on health-care reform. If he were really an iconoclast, Brown could easily say this: Look, I have enough doubts about the legislation that I will vote against it, but I’m not going to support a filibuster to keep it from even coming to the floor.

That’s not what he’s done, however. Instead, Brown has campaigned on his eagerness to deny the bill’s supporters the last vote they could need to overcome a filibuster and bring the legislation to a vote.

Problem number two: Even as a candidate, Brown hasn’t displayed the courage such a doughty role would require. We saw a good demonstration of that failing in Monday’s debate, and on a matter he himself brought up. Asked about spiraling entitlement costs, Brown said he liked an idea that is gaining popularity among deficit hawks: establishing a bipartisan commission that, like base-closing commissions, would present recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote.

Now, any sober budget analyst will tell you that, given the magnitude of our fiscal problems, a realistic plan will require both spending cuts and new revenues. But when moderator David Gergen asked Brown if he would support such a commission’s recommendations if they included tax increases, Brown said no. That’s hardly the portrait of an elected official prepared to stand tall.

Brown would fit in Bush’s shadow perfectly – why let anything even come to vote.