He's No Ted Kennedy
Political Advocacy Tracker is a roundup of what Christian activist organizations have been talking about over the last week.
Massachusetts' Right Turn
Political advocacy groups stayed up late Tuesday night to see that the unbelievable had actually occurred—a Republican had filled the Senate vacancy left by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy.
The replacement was painfully ironic for Democrats. Kennedy was a long-time advocate for universal health care, and the election of Scott Brown gives Republicans the one additional vote needed to block Democrat health care legislation.
As the dust settled, Christian advocacy groups interpreted the results.
"This election had nothing to do with Scott Brown or Martha Coakley," said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council (FRC). "It was about our President, who stepped into the Oval Office 365 days ago and made a hard-Left turn so fast that it gave Americans whiplash."
Traditional Values Coalition executive director Andrea Lafferty turned the rhetoric against Obama even higher, saying the campaign "was about Obama's nationalized health care plan, his dishonesty, and all of the liberal shenanigans going on in the House and Senate."
The Liberty Counsel said in a statement that it was not Obama's election that was the revolution; it was this win in Massachusetts that was the real "shot heard round the world."
"The tax and spend, big government, anti-life agenda has been pushed back. ObamaCare has been derailed," said the Liberty Counsel statement. The group predicted that if liberals in Congress don't heed this revolution, they will lose badly in the 2010 general elections.
Chuck Colson of BreakPoint said the key issue was "a paramount moral issue" of over-spending and out of control debt.
"The huge turnout yesterday in Massachusetts expressed citizen alarm that Congress is spending us deeper and deeper into debt, and there's no end in sight," he said. "The Senate race in liberal Massachusetts has citizens saying, 'Enough! We're tired of the government trying to cram its radical—and expensive—plans down our throats.'"
Colson recommends the proposal by Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia, in which a blue-ribbon panel would propose changes to Congress, which would then get a straight up-or-down vote on the proposals.
Ashley Home, a policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, gave one of the more colorful analogies to explain the election. "It's like that guy who keeps asking you for a date," she said of the Democratic party's persistent push to pass its agenda. "You keep turning him down politely, until you finally have to just play your mean card and slap him so he'll stop asking. The Massachusetts election result was that slap."
Though conservative groups consistently described Brown as a conservative, he is not a poster boy for the Christian Right. Pro-choice on most abortion questions, Brown was a pragmatic choice for conservatives.
Tom Minnery, senior vice president Focus on the Family Action, said that Brown received support from pro-life groups who were "very astute, very political" because they recognized that even though he was not on their side on all issues, his victory would mean no federal funding of abortions.
FRC's Perkins agreed. "Social conservatives held back criticism of Brown's social views—and, in some cases, openly supported him—because they believe a Brown win fulfills a short term goal of blocking President Obama's abominable health bill," he said. "Of course, the Republican Establishment would like us to believe that Scott Brown's moderate platform on life and marriage is a recipe for conservative success in 2010."
The 'Handicap Icon' Gets New Life
Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness
Not part of the community? Subscribe now, or register for a free account.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Join the Conversation
Displaying 1–5 of 43 comments
See all comments
John H. Guthrie
Actually, CL, I may be a non-lawyer, but I have had one year of Law School at West Virginia University School of Law where I have had courses in Constitutional Law plus undergrad courses at West Virginia University in Constitutional Law by a former member of the West Virginia State Supreme Court. Citing biased experts proves nothing. Experts exists on both side of the arguement.
Dan
"Sen. Nelson... IS from the heartland. So is Harry Reid. So is Max Baucus." To me "Heartland" refers to people with traditional American values - not a geographical location. Prolife is good - political expediency (being "bought off" for your vote is bad. Apparently, many "heartland" constituents think so too.) And CL - I'm ashamed of you! I would NEVER equate "sinners (dopers, smokers, and rock'n and rollers)...lepers, and...the Good Samaritan" with pigs. Tsk! Tsk! So un-PC of you! I expect you to atone for this pc sin by making large donations to "sinner" charities, "leper" colonies, and a "good samitan" organization. (a champion of "the least of these" comparing them with pigs - oh! I'm scandalized!)
Dan
"I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't teach anything like "don't play with the pigs" ... On the contrary. (I Cor. 15:33 - Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." Paul is Jesus' main interpreter.) Anyway you're comparing apples (as in "road") to oranges. But if I read you correctly, you're comparing politicians of today to lepers? I like that comparison - a compelling metaphor and nicely said!! ;-p But that comparison gives real lepers a bad name. The Iowa (?) senator I referenced earlier said he couldn't be a good person and a "good" (read effective!) politician. The rest of the story, as I recall, is that he had children approaching their teen years and he wanted them to remember him as a good (read ethical!) man. He even stated he couldn't be a good man and an effective politician. Ben Nelson et al may not technically be crooks - but many of their constituents think they lack good judgment.
Christian Lawyer
Dan, Sen. Nelson, recently a pro-life hero of the Christian Right, and now labeled a "crook" IS from the heartland. So is Harry Reid. So is Max Baucus. Nelson exercised some pretty bad judgment, but he's not a "crook" and this is coming from one who disagrees with him on so much. Chastise him, scold him back onto the right track, of course. But walking away will never solve anything. So, yes, in order to save families from the devastation of facing a health crisis uninsured, in order to save the lives of the thousands each year who die from lack of access to health insurance, (these are "the least of these" I was referring to), I would work with people I vehemently disagreed with, even people I thought were unethical. Just calling them crooks and being the party of NO will never be productive. I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't teach anything like "don't play with the pigs" since he dined with sinners, touched lepers, and told the story of the Good Samaritan.
John H. Guthrie
Byrd's quote "The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff threatens the Constitutional system of Checks and Balances" can be found at the article and in Byrds letter linked to by the article I cited: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/02/25/25greenwire-byrd-questions-obamas-u se-of-policy-czars-9865.html which can be accessed by any reader of this site. Since our entire Constitutional system is based on Checks and Balances, any threat to the system is by nature unconstitutional. Any assertion of Executive Priviledge is not overstepping the Executives legitimate sphere; these things are decided on a case by case basis. Citing experts asserting the constitutionality of the czars proves nothing. My citing Byrd is to prove the point that the doubts about the czars legal status is a bipartisan one. Oversight is not enough. Sen. Russ Fiengold D-? held hearings on the Constitutionality of the Czars but the administration would not send any witnesses.