The Brown Raid, 2010: Target-Massachusetts!

In early 1942, the United States did something which was incredibly audacious and led to the loss of every aircraft sent on the mission.

Army B-25 (Doolittle Raid).jpg

They sent B-25 bombers to bomb Japan.

While the raid failed to inflict material damage to the enemy war effort, it greatly disrupted their strategic approach to the war and their use of available resources. 

The Republican Party and conservative activists have had many recent successes. Now it's  time now to take the battle to the "home island" of the Democratic Party.

It's time to play to win the 2010 MA Senate special election to replace Ted Kennedy. We need to rally behind Scott Brown

Hey, I know the conventional wisdom is this will be a coronation for Martha Coakley and we'd best not throw money into the wind. Jeez, this is even what RedState is posting. 

Coakley is the prohibitive favorite to win the January 19th special general election in this knee-jerk Democratic state.

And that's precisely why suddenly jumping in makes so much sense. 

The Democrats think this one is already won. They aren't expecting a fight. They are expecting something akin to the CA 10 special, where the game but underfunded Republican quietly lost by 10 points,

So there's a huge element of surprise.

There's really not enough time (the election is January 19) to spend a whole lot of money; especially when the Commonwealth is really not that large. (about 80% of the voters are in the Boston TV market; which is cheaper than San Francisco or Philadelphia).

So guess what, we could squander  a couple of million dollars and achieve little. But the "movement" seems hell bent on throwing a lot more than that trying to oust Barbara Boxer in the nation's most expensive campaign state. Well I think doing this makes more sense.

Why?  Huge risk, but even greater potential reward.

What would the impact to our party have been of losing the Senate seat held by Barry Goldwater or Bob Dole? Imagine the Democrats losing Ted Kennedy's seat?

The reaction across the nation would be pretty much like this. just two years earlier!A buddhist monk standing against a background of snow capped mountains while a tsunami is charging over them.

Even a highly competitive--albeit unssuccesful-- election night would inflict huge psychological damage on the Democrats. If Ted Kennedy's old senate seat was in jeopardy, why should a Blue Dog risk political oblivion when it's a lot less painful to just walk away? What's the value of potentially accelerating a couple of dozen Democratic house vacancies? A lot less than the cash which the party can readily replenish I say.

The Doolittle Raid told the Japanese there was no safe refuge from the American military. The Brown Raid into the heart of liberal Massachusetts sends the same message to the Democrats.

And if it fails, well, we weren't supposed to win anyway and we can raise more money. It's early in the cycle. 

As for the "we can't win in MA" argument; well. folks it's a special election. And in the horrendous political environment of 2007 the GOP came within a few thousand votes of winning the 5th District; losing to the widow of local icon Paul Tsongas. 

RedMassGroup has an excellent analysis of the 2009 senate primary and the 2007 5th District special; which are virtually parallel races.    

In the 2007 MA-5 special the Democrat primary had 55,517 votes cast versus 13,493 in the Republican primary for a 4.11 to 1 ratio of ballots cast.  In the 2009 US Senate race the Democrat primary had 664,795 votes cast versus 162,706 in the Republican primary for a 4.08 to 1 ratio of ballots cast.  Those numbers are similar....

Ultimately Niki Tsongas defeated Jim Ogonowski 51% to 45%.  Her margin of victory was slightly smaller than polling indicated.

The difference--well I think Scott Brown is a better candidate than Jim Ogoronski and the political environment is a hundred times better for Republicans.

The sad parallel is the GOP failed to properly fund the 2007 race, and we'll probably decide not to go all in on this one too. Nothing ventured; nothing gained.

Can this be done? After all, MA did vote for Obama by over 20 points. But he won going away in NJ, too, and the Democratic incumbent this November lost by 5 points on the "normal" election day; let alone dealing with the turnout vagaries of a special election held in mid-January where a small cohort of highly motivated voters can be decisive.

Back in September I suggested that there were enough non-liberal voters across suburban and exurban eastern Massachusetts to win a Senate special. I stand by my reasoning.

 In the 2002 election almost 80% of the the total vote in the Commonwealth was cast in the Boston media market and Romney won by more than his statewide plurality here; Democrat Shannon O' Brien actually carried the areas in the Providence, Springfield and Albany TV markets.  And the critical area was not the close-in urbanized area. O'Brien won the city and the close-in's by a 209,000 to 134,000 margin. But in the rest of Middlesex and Norfolk counties, and in Essex and Plymouth counties...Romney amassed a 576, 000 to 414,000 margin.  In the reaches beyond I-495 (metro Worcester and Cape Cod) Romney won  by 202,000 to 144,000.

Well, what's changed? Scott Brown still represents part of the I-495 belt. (called the "Off-ramp region" by one local scholar). Deval Patrick is still painfully unpopular, and Obama, Reid and Pelosi are less popular even in the Northeast than they were then.

So, folks, to my mind the question is not why do we go after the Ted Kennedy senate seat?

To paraphrase Ted's late brother Bobby, I see an election we can win and ask;:  Why Not?! 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Victory over Massachusetts at all costs!

Discussing Massachusetts as if it were enemy territory that needs to be bombed is about as dim-witted as it gets.

The fact that this post has been promoted to the front page illustrates just how very lame this site has become.

Ironman, you use the word "we" a lot in this post - is that the chickenhawk we? Are you going to write a big check to Scott Brown?

Former centerfold Scott Brown?

F-bomb abuse of high school sophomores Scott Brown?

Only the third-most well known person in his own household Scott Brown?

The last two special elections in the Northeast (NY-23 and NY-20) both saw lots of outside money coming in on the right, and both ended up sending Democrats to Washington - and those were districts wherein Republicans held the advantage in voter registration.

So maybe instead of making erroneous and tortured analogies to past history you could instead have a look at recent history and learn its lessons. Starting with the fact that voters care about issues - not a word about them in your fantasy-filled post.

And, by-the-by - the Republicans claimed the scalp of the Senate Majority Leader in 2004. And then they were routed in 2006. So not only is your analogy wrong, but the strategic point you think you are making is wrong as well.

Perhaps I'm emulating their former Governor

as Mitt Romney made a point of "running against Massachusetts" in 2008.

If you're offended by my military analogies perhaps we'd better banish the terms "blitz"; "trench warfare", "flak" and "base" from political discussions since people might draw the wrong conclusion. Would you be less offended if I suggested we needed to spread the gospel of Republicanism to the Bay State and convert the masses through an evangelical approach? Or is that mixing church and politics?

I'm also wondering where the downside was for the Democrats in running hard in VA and TN in 2006---they defeated a once-invulnerable incumbent in a Bush +7 state and nearly won an open seat in a Bush +14 state.  The Democrats don't stay in their own sandbox, we'd be fools to keep conceding 40% of the country, especially as the national tide is going our way. 

FYI. The MA GOP knows who I am and what I'm doing for them. It's worth a lot more in volunteer time than the check IMHO.

As for Brown's "blemishes", if we are going to sit on our duffs waiting around for Mr. Perfect we are going to get very fat atrophied gleuts. Perhaps you favor this agenda, I do not.   

Mitt Romney made a point of "running against Massachusetts" in 2

Mitt Romney made a point of "running against Massachusetts" in 2008

And how did that turn out?

A distant third

Hah! A distant third. Which makes him the John Edwards of the Republican Party.

Self-aggrandizement from Ironman - what a surprise!

FYI. The MA GOP knows who I am and what I'm doing for them. It's worth a lot more in volunteer time than the check IMHO.

Self-aggrandizement from Ironman - what a surprise!

 

Ironman thinks he is to Mass what Palin was for NY-23?

 

...or something?  LOL. That make sense, even Palin is not crazy enough to put her little finger in this race (at least not yet). I hope Ironman gets his due credit from Mass GOP even when and if  she does that.

 

Make the Rubble Bounce in the Back Bay!

Seriously, though, I hope the GOP does spend a lot of time and money promoting the thin-skinned homophobe (who I had never heard of before) who posed nearly naked in his youth. He'll lose and he'll probably act like a jerk again in the glare of the spotlight.

Brown's negatives = good looking and has fab wife and kids

Wow. That's the worst you got on Mr Brown? No drowned mistresses and media coverups? No corrupt payoffs? No using Governor's office money for personal perks? No money in the freezer? No earmarks for favored pals? A one-time 'sexiest man in America' is a dis-qualifier?

Mr. Brown, a lawyer, is not even the most high-profile person in his household. His daughter, Ayla, competed on “American Idol” in 2006, and his wife, Gail Huff, is a longtime television reporter in Boston. His other daughter, Arianna, is a student at Syracuse University. Before Tuesday’s victory, Mr. Brown’s biggest splash may have happened in 1982, when, as a 22-year-old law student, he was named “America’s Sexiest Man” by Cosmopolitan magazine.

 

"I call that porn." - Sarah Palin

"I call that porn." - Sarah Palin

So John, you agree with Sarah Palin on cultural issues?

 

Since she is an authority on things for you, I guess you take her advice on cap-and-trade and ObamaCare ... right?

 

So you disagree with Sarah Palin on cultural issues?

So you disagree with Sarah Palin on cultural issues?

Answer the question, coward

Sarah Palin is a wonderful person, but I cant judge something I havent seen.

You, on the other hand have made yourself an expert on Mr Brown and his Cosmo mag pose.

I dont think what Mr Brown did in 1982 in front of a camera when he was 22 is of any real importance, however you label this. Back then Obama was doing drugs. If a drug abuser can get in the white house, a good looking guy who posed for Cosmo can join the US Senate.

 

Here you go.

Judge for yourself, always happy to help.

 

www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/scott-brown-nude-in-cosmo

Photobucket

Alinsky Rule 4.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

If people could be perfect, there would be no need for Jesus to have died on the cross.

Thank you for showing the falicies of moralism.

One of the most amazing statements by the Apostle Paul is his indictment of the Galatian Christians for abandoning the Gospel. “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel,” Paul declared. As he stated so emphatically, the Galatians had failed in the crucial test of discerning the authentic Gospel from its counterfeits.

His words could not be more clear: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed!” [Gal. 1:6-7]

This warning from the Apostle Paul, expressed in the language of the Apostle’s shock and grief, is addressed not only to the church in Galatia, but to every congregation in every age. In our own day — and in our own churches — we desperately need to hear and to heed this warning. In our own time, we face false gospels no less subversive and seductive than those encountered and embraced by the Galatians.

In our own context, one of the most seductive false gospels is moralism. This false gospel can take many forms and can emerge from any number of political and cultural impulses. Nevertheless, the basic structure of moralism comes down to this — the belief that the Gospel can be reduced to improvements in behavior.

Sadly, this false gospel is particularly attractive to those who believe themselves to be evangelicals motivated by a biblical impulse. Far too many believers and their churches succumb to the logic of moralism and reduce the Gospel to a message of moral improvement. In other words, we communicate to lost persons the message that what God desires for them and demands of them is to get their lives straight.

In one sense, we are born to be moralists. Created in God’s image, we have been given the moral capacity of conscience. From our earliest days our conscience cries out to us the knowledge of our guilt, shortcomings, and misbehaviors. In other words, our conscience communicates our sinfulness.

Add to this the fact that the process of parenting and child rearing tends to inculcate moralism from our earliest years. Very quickly we learn that our parents are concerned with our behavior. Well behaved children are rewarded with parental approval, while misbehavior brings parental sanction. This message is reinforced by other authorities in young lives and pervades the culture at large.

Writing about his own childhood in rural Georgia, the novelist Ferrol Sams described the deeply-ingrained tradition of being “raised right.” As he explained, the child who is “raised right” pleases his parents and other adults by adhering to moral conventions and social etiquette. A young person who is “raised right” emerges as an adult who obeys the laws, respects his neighbors, gives at least lip service to religious expectations, and stays away from scandal. The point is clear — this is what parents expect, the culture affirms, and many churches celebrate. But our communities are filled with people who have been “raised right” but are headed for hell.

The seduction of moralism is the essence of its power. We are so easily seduced into believing that we actually can gain all the approval we need by our behavior. Of course, in order to participate in this seduction, we must negotiate a moral code that defines acceptable behavior with innumerable loopholes. Most moralists would not claim to be without sin, but merely beyond scandal. That is considered sufficient.

Moralists can be categorized as both liberal and conservative. In each case, a specific set of moral concerns frames the moral expectation. As a generalization, it is often true that liberals focus on a set of moral expectations related to social ethics while conservatives tend to focus on personal ethics. The essence of moralism is apparent in both — the belief that we can achieve righteousness by means of proper behavior.

The theological temptation of moralism is one many Christians and churches find it difficult to resist. The danger is that the church will communicate by both direct and indirect means that what God expects of fallen humanity is moral improvement. In so doing, the church subverts the Gospel and communicates a false gospel to a fallen world.

Christ’s Church has no option but to teach the Word of God, and the Bible faithfully reveals the law of God and a comprehensive moral code. Christians understand that God has revealed Himself throughout creation in such a way that He has gifted all humanity with the restraining power of the law. Furthermore, He has spoken to us in His word with the gift of specific commands and comprehensive moral instruction. The faithful Church of the Lord Jesus Christ must contend for the righteousness of these commands and the grace given to us in the knowledge of what is good and what is evil. We also have a responsibility to bear witness of this knowledge of good and evil to our neighbors. The restraining power of the law is essential to human community and to civilization.

Just as parents rightly teach their children to obey moral instruction, the church also bears responsibility to teach its own the moral commands of God and to bear witness to the larger society of what God has declared to be right and good for His human creatures.

But these impulses, right and necessary as they are, are not the Gospel. Indeed, one of the most insidious false gospels is a moralism that promises the favor of God and the satisfaction of God’s righteousness to sinners if they will only behave and commit themselves to moral improvement.

The moralist impulse in the church reduces the Bible to a codebook for human behavior and substitutes moral instruction for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Far too many evangelical pulpits are given over to moralistic messages rather than the preaching of the Gospel.

The corrective to moralism comes directly from the Apostle Paul when he insists that “a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus.” Salvation comes to those who are “justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” [Gal. 2:16]

We sin against Christ and we misrepresent the Gospel when we suggest to sinners that what God demands of them is moral improvement in accordance with the Law. Moralism makes sense to sinners, for it is but an expansion of what we have been taught from our earliest days. But moralism is not the Gospel, and it will not save. The only gospel that saves is the Gospel of Christ. As Paul reminded the Galatians, “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” [Gal. 4:4-5]

We are justified by faith alone, saved by grace alone, and redeemed from our sin by Christ alone. Moralism produces sinners who are (potentially) better behaved. The Gospel of Christ transforms sinners into the adopted sons and daughters of God.

The Church must never evade, accommodate, revise, or hide the law of God. Indeed, it is the Law that shows us our sin and makes clear our inadequacy and our total lack of righteousness. The Law cannot impart life but, as Paul insists, it “has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” [Gal. 3:24]

The deadly danger of moralism has been a constant temptation to the church and an ever-convenient substitute for the Gospel. Clearly, millions of our neighbors believe that moralism is our message. Nothing less than the boldest preaching of the Gospel will suffice to correct this impression and to lead sinners to salvation in Christ.

Hell will be highly populated with those who were “raised right.” The citizens of heaven will be those who, by the sheer grace and mercy of God, are there solely because of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Moralism is not the gospel.

Alinsky devoted his book to Satan

Just a reminder when one mixes an Alinksy Rule with Gospel teaching.

Alinsky sought to use the weapons of institutions to destroy those institutions. These days, morality is used mainly as a tool to bring down the inconvenient.  If you stand up for moral standards you are the declared enemy of all those who live down below them. Our culture celebrates the denigration of moral standards in many of its cultural products and as such you stand against the tide of defining deviancy down.

In the old days, they had blasphemy as the rule, the boundary line that you couldn’t step outside. That’s gone and a good thing for a free society. The replacement is Political Correctness, the New Morality of the amoral age. that morality is very far from the Christian conception. To use Christianity to undermine moral standards themselves is not to serve Christ, but to serve Alinsky and the man he dedicated his "rules for radicals" too.

It is well to know that moral actions speak louder than attempts to sway others. It is also important not to let human imperfections be used to assault the concept of the good or virtue. You may be saved by grace, but when you say ... "But these impulses, right and necessary as they are, are not the Gospel." Perhaps in salvation, but ... is not the Sermon on the Mount part of The Gospel? As Pope Benedict put it in his biography of Jesus, what Jesus added to "The Law" was no less and no more than Himself. As you put it - "The Church must never evade, accommodate, revise, or hide the law of God." That is to say  - the Law remains.

 

Satan is a liar

I am not suggesting we should not have moral standards. One should expect punishment for lack of moral standards. Both direct when laws are broken and indirect of shame and suffering ... But, I will object to attempts to tear down people because of claims they do not live up to a standard that the person doing the tearing down does not claim as a standard.

I would not go as far as to say that Cosmopolitan publishes porn [a legal term which the community must have a consensus about], but I would like to see the magazine not placed in front of children none the less. I discern a difference between Scott and the publication; the publication wishes to continue with these types of images - I would agree that these images are wrong ... If liberals want the magazine behind the counter I would support them (but they do not). The images being wrong however does not make Palin a bad person; I would not refuse to sit next to them in Church.

... that being said I expect Satan to attack the Palins with all he has. Moralism is no match for Satan.

PERFECTLY STATED!

"I will object to attempts to tear down people because of claims they do not live up to a standard that the person doing the tearing down does not claim as a standard."

I agree 100%.

For me, it's a commonsense thing. People are imperfect, yet we can and should aspire to the ideal.

There are liberals who tear down conservatives for failing to be perfect individuals, and then turn around and support liberals who do far worse, saying that they are not concerned nor wish to judge others. It's a one-way street. In other words, liberals are hypocrites. On this thread  we see that hypocrisy played out as a liberal tries to accuse Brown of doing something bad without admitting that he cant bring himself to say its bad (because he doesnt really believe it). Liberals want conservatives to live up to standards that liberals themselves dont hold!

I will not condemn a person for being imperfect but I will condemn one if they are unreformed and themselves tearing down a standard I believe in.  So long as a politician owns up to who they really are then we can see whether they have the character needed.

 

You are in good company

Henry Coppee, page 147, says: "The argumentum ad hominem is not a fallacy when the design it to teach pure [p. 66] truth, and when no unholy passion or emotion is appealed to. In this application it was used by our Savior himself to the Jews on many occasions with great force and beauty. His touching and yet searching appeal to them for the woman taken in adultery sent them out one by one before his power. Each one felt the argument and admitted the conclusion." But some one may say: "To charge her accusers with the same crime did not prove her to be innocent." Certainly not; neither did the Savior intend that it should. But he intended to stop the unholy mouth of her hypocritical accusers. He knew these men cared nothing about the woman's guilt. He knew they were after him, and not her, and were using her in an effort to get him to commit himself in such a way that they could make out a case against him. The woman's guilt was a mere pretext. And the fact stands out clearly that Jesus stopped their mouths by charging they were as guilty as she.

      Again Jesus used the argumentum ad hominem. He healed a sorely afflicted woman on the Sabbath. The ruler of the synagogue became very indignant. Jesus replied: "Ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound, lo, these eighteen years, to have been loosed from this bond on the day of the Sabbath?" Jesus virtually said: "If I am guilty, you are even more so, for you do a less needful thing. If you are justified in what you do, I am even more so."

I call that Palin

 

Millions of young Americans smoke weed and have children before they get married, but not many post nude in mags for money. Next up:  Sarah "I call that porn" Palin supports Levi Johnston for Mayor of Wasilla!

 

How many officials used cocaine like Obama did?

" I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it."

http://husaria.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/does-obama-have-cocaine-related-...

 

Destroying kids hearts and minds

Child porn destroying kids hearts and minds has been peddled by Obama's "safe schools czar" :

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/14/obamas-safe-schools-czar-tied...

OK, you've seen it now.

but I cant judge something I havent seen.

OK, you've seen it now. Agree with Sarah or not?

I agree with Sarah Palin that

Kevin Jennings should be fired:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/kevin_jennings/index.html

 a guy peddling explict gay porn to kids shouldnt be a "safe schools czar" ... that's like putting an arsonist to head up the Fire Department.

 

 

OK, you've seen it now.

but I cant judge something I havent seen.

OK, you've seen it now. Agree with Sarah Palin or not?

 

I disagree...

but for far more coherent reasons than "Mead50."

In a state like Mass., the last thing you want to do is to get the public interested in the election.  I was just saying the other day that it could be revealed that Coakley was the perpetrator of a triple homicide, and she would likely gain more votes from the added publicity than she'd lose from the damaging news.

What I think they should do is to lay relatively low -- ads to boost likeability and name recognition are alright, but keep the election talk to a minimum -- then blast the state at the last minute with a massive GOTV campaign, and hope that the combination of that with the general enthusiasm gap are enough to take you over the top.  

But I could be wrong.

Not sure we aren't more in agreement than you think...

I absolutely agree that if we follow the same slash and burn tactics here the NRCC did in the two NY races it will be a huge waste of time and money.  Personal attacks on Martha Coakley are only going to fire up the Democratic base which is way too large in MA to overcome in a high turnout election. 

Brown has made the point, though, that a vote for him is a vote against one-party government. Putting substantial resources behind that message is the sort of media strategy I was envisioning.

And yep, you still need the GOTV effort of the decade. That goes without saying.

Get out there and CAMPAIGN

You are probably wrong for the simple reason that campaigns need energy and visibility to get voters motivated, and only by being loud and 'out there' can you do it.

You NEVER lay low in a campaign when you are the underdog, you go everywhere and do everything.

 Every Republican in the Northeast should be "man on deck" for this guy. (oops another military analogy)

Ironman is right, this is a long-shot and for that very reason showing a CLOSE result would be as disruptive for the Democrats as waiting for 2010.

 

Dear Voters of Massachusetts

Dear Voters of Massachusetts,

We have nothing but contempt for you, however, we would still like you to vote for our candidate in the upcoming election. We could do the conventional thing and describe how doing so is in your best interest, how our candidate will support policies that will benefit you, etc. But, in truth - we don't really care about that arcane, parochial shit - want you to vote for him just because we will cackle with glee if we can win this seat. So, on election day, please remember, it is not about you, it is about us.

Sincerely,

The Republican Party, Ironman Branch

PS: Sorry that our candidate is a clown, he was the best we could come up with on short notice. We promise that, if elected, he will keep his clothes on and will not be allowed to address groups of high school students.

I Read the Links John

More people do that than you may think...

So in addition to being a Republican & not a statist far left airhead, you hate Brown because he's handsome & will confront a bunch of snarky, bratty children who attack his family with grotesque profanity? I think a man who will confront those who attack his family is a good thing. I think you may want to work on your own self-esteem issues...

Good.

You see, I wanted you to read the links - otherwise, I would not have provided them, now would I?

I don't hate Brown. I think he is a clown. There is a big difference there.

Mitt Romney is from Massachusetts and he is quite handsome - how is it that has been able to get through life without posing nude but Brown has not?

"I call that porn." - Sarah Palin

What sort of successful adult feels the need to "confront" high school sophomores in the way that Brown did?

If Martha Coakley did what Brown did, you'd be calling for her imprisonment.

confronting hypocrites

 

"If Martha Coakley did what Brown did, you'd be calling for her imprisonment."You are a hypocrite. If Martha Coakley did what Brown did, you'd be saying there was nothing wrong. And you'd be right.

I'm not sure how Brown being named 'sexiest man' by Cosmo when he was 22 makes him disqualified today. Sen Byrd was in the KKK when he was 22 .. I'd say what Brown did was far less offensive than what Democrat Byrd did.

 

 

Did Cosmo, after "naming" him, rip off his clothes and

make him lie in front of the camera?

"I call that porn." - Sarah Palin

 

The Desperation of Smith, obsessed with Brown's buff body

SO WHAT?!? That was in 1982, at aged 22... he posed for Cosmo and paid for law school.

I am guessing you are clueless or jealous.

It's time to get the porn industry to stop funding the Democrat party. But then you dont really care about real issues, or the fact that Democrats like Rep Sanchez are in bed with the porn industry, you just have a stupid gotcha talking point to bully people with. F the Hate, buddy, put your H8 in the backseat.

Sen Al Franken has done and said things far more offensive as an entertainer, Sen Byrd was a KKK member, Chris Dodd a sexual harrasser, Nancy Pelosi giving her hubby special interest breaks, sen Feinstein diverted money to help her hubby, Landreiu a sellout for $300 million, Murtha an earmarking corruptocrat, Burris a liar and ego-maniac, Gov Deval Patrick an incompetent corrupt fool, ...

... and the list goes on, but you dont care about Democrats, the guy with an R is a human being who did something that he must be crucified for ...

But, but, but.....

Your candidate is a clown and there is now amount of words you can type that is going to change that fact.

 

jealous clown Smith goes after successful lawyer Brown

You post what you are trying to get characterized as "porn" on this website and you call others a clown. Either you are a porn-peddler or the stuff is tamer than you let on.

you call a successful married lawyer a 'clown' while you clownishly obsess over some pics that are over 20 years old? What kind of a LOSER are you? If you have a problem with those pics, maybe you should go after Obama for letting them snap him in a bathing suit. seriously, dude, you have issues ... The thread headline should be "jealous clown Smith goes after successful lawyer Brown"

As for this ...

"Your candidate is a clown and there is now amount of words you can type that is going to change that fact."

Yeah, whatever.

"

 

 

Sarah Palin says it is porn, not me.

You post what you are trying to get characterized as "porn" on this website and you call others a clown. Either you are a porn-peddler or the stuff is tamer than you let on.

I'm not the one calling it porn - Sarah Palin is.

And I had to post it in order to enlighten you, as you were pretending that you hadn't clicked on the links and didn't know what it was all about.

In response, you post a photoshopped picture of Obama. Sums it up nicely, I think.

 

Coward liberal

Now you disown quotes the very quotes you post here. So you disagree with the quotes you posted or are you a coward who refuses to answer the question? What kind of a retard are you posting things and then disowning them?

"And I had to post it in order to enlighten you"You didn't have to do anything, and it wasnt enlightening, its a big 'so what' whether you drool over his pecs or not ... it just exposed you as an obsessive fool.

How can I disown something that isn't mine?

Only Sarah Palin can disown the things she says.

Dear cowardly Liberal

Your choices: You can disown posting it and/or say you do not agree to it.

Or you can stand 100% behind what she said. ("Hey, I posted porn on NextRight! Look at mee!")

Or you can be a coward-fool who posts something and then pretends to have nothing to do with the statement while refusing to actually say whether you agree or disagree with it.

10 posts from you and counting, and you STILL are too cowardly to even say whether you agree or disagree with the Sarah Palin quote that YOU POSTED!

You are a yellowbellied coward.

What I did is posted a picture on The Next Right

which Sarah Palin says is porn, and which you said was OK until I posted it, and now you seem really upset that I posted it.

But, at the end of the day, this isn't about me - it is about Scott Brown, Clown.

Coward again fails to answer the question

The pictures and the whole issue is a big "so what?"

You were so obsessed you posted links and the pics directly. Meh.

Post #11 and you STILL are too cowardly to even say whether you agree or disagree with the Sarah Palin quote that YOU POSTED!

you show yourself to be a fool and a coward.

"But, at the end of the day, this isn't about me - it is about Scott Brown, Clown."

It's all about you and your small-minded obsessions. It's not about this 50 year old State Senator and successful lawyer because you havent talked about his real current positions, agenda and philosophy.  Instead, you obsess over a guys pecs and focus on what someone did something decades ago that you think is SOOOOOOO important.

C'mon out with it coward: Do you agree or disagree with the Palin quote you posted?

 

Allow me to quote you.

but I cant judge something I havent seen.

OK, you've seen it now. Agree with Sarah Palin or not?

 

The American Revolution

The American Revolution started at Lexington in 1775.  Americans are ready for Massachusetts to send a strong message to federaly tyranny from arrogant bureaucrats.  Remember, it's......it's we the people.....not you the government.

 

Finally, someone just wrote a book, with Lexington in it briefly, that shows Americans standing up to tyranny  & starts the 2nd American Revolution.  It's insightful to todays threats from career politicians.  Maybe, the voters in Massachusetts can stand up to a government that ignores our freedoms that were won in Lexington.

www.booksbyoliver.com

You should read more about it.

Perhaps you should read a book. If you did, you would learn that nothing was "won" at Lexington. Something was started, but it couldn't be carried through because the militia were outnumbered, outgunned, and disorganized. It wasn't until the Continental Congress established an Army and officers that the stalemate in Boston could be resolved and the British sent packing.

But of course, the only way you can make your narrative make sense is to airbrush the Philidelphia government out of the picture.

 

John Smith's 12 cowardly posts

To "John Smith": You are now on Post #12 and you STILL are too cowardly to even say whether you agree or disagree with the Sarah Palin quote that YOU POSTED!

I already said that this whole issue is 'so what?' to me. But it's not to you. Why?

You keep pushing the issue while failing to even go on the record and state whether you agree with a quote that YOU POSTED.

You are a coward and a hypocrite.

Allow me to quote you.

but I cant judge something I havent seen.

OK, you've seen it now. Agree with Sarah Palin or not?

John Smith's 13 cowardly posts

Apparently you lack not only common sense and cohones, but the ability to read.

I repeat: I already said that this whole issue is 'so what?' to me. The 25 year-old pics look pretty tame to me. 

But it's not 'so what?' to you. Why?

You keep pushing the issue while failing to even go on the record and state whether you agree with a quote that YOU POSTED.  Do YOU Agree with Sarah Palin or not?

You are a coward and a hypocrite for failing to answer this simple question 13 times.

 

Allow me to quote you.

but I cant judge something I havent seen.

OK, you've seen it now. Agree with Sarah Palin or not?

 

John Smith - 14 cowardly posts and counting

You continue to be too dense to realize that I've already answered that question; it's no big deal and seems tame to me.

Answer the question you are too cowardly and hypocritical to answer: Do you agree or disagree with Palin's quote that YOU POSTED?

 

Just can't bring yourself to say you disagree with your

Sarah, can you?

If this were a Democrat you'd be yelling porn! porn! porn!

Same ol' same ol' from your camp.

What do I think? I think Scott Brown is a clown who has a big FAIL next to his name with regard to the standards of your uber-Godly party, as defined by Sarah Palin - however, you are such a partisan hack you can't bring yourself to concede that maybe - just maybe - the voters of Massachusetts are going to look at this photo and say "what a doofus".