>>anti-abortion, pro-corporate, pro-war candidate.
anti-abortion -
Who cares? Not like 1 Senator out of 100 can pass a law banning abortion. Abortion is a red herring used by Democrats to get votes. Personally, I think it should be a state issue not a federal one since nowhere in the Constitution does it give a women the right to an abortion - Roe v. Wade's 5-4 incorrect decision notwithstanding. That said, probably 45 states would pass laws allowing abortions. The other 5 states that elect representatives that do ban the practice - well if that's what their state's citizens want. We are a representative Republic. If Georgia bans abortion and you want one, then move or drive to another state to get one. Or vote at the ballot box to support STATE candidates that are pro-abortion.
pro-corporate -
f you mean pro-profits, I think the majority of Americans would like to see their companies make more profit so their salaries increase. If you mean you'd like to see government set salary caps on executives, tax them to death and "spread the wealth around", well, I think most Americans don't support Marxism. Pro-corporate could also mean let businesses explore new profit opportunities, like drilling for more oil, which many Democrats oppose. Personally, I'm all for alternative energy, but I think we should also drill.
pro-war -
Nobody is pro-war. The question is do we get out of Iraq & Afghanistan tomorrow, 1-2 years from now, or 10 years from now -- and what are the regional affects on such a decision. Iraq is going well last I checked and we're on target to get out. As for Afghanistan, it's Obama and many of the Democrats who said Afghanistan was the "Just War". I think Coakley showed extreme naivete when she said there are "no more terrorists in Afghanistan."
>>Also, if Brown wins, this just means that the Democrats go to a legislative procedure that gets rid of the filibuster, shuts out the Republicans completely and produces an even worse healthcare bill based solely on the Senate bill
Sure, if the Democrats want to tick off Independents and Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats and lose 60 seats in the House, they could do that. Going the reconciliation route would be a disaster for Democrats.
>> it will actually be worse if Brown gets elected in terms of middle-class tax burden and handouts to drug companies.
Democrats still control both houses of Congress, plus the Presidency. I'll take a Brown win & his filibuster against national healthcare. Then I'll take my chances that the near-super-majority Democrats won't tax the middle class to death. Not to mention I doubt 1 Senator in a minority party (only 41 Senators) will set the legislative agenda.
>>MA voters are between a rock and a hard place choosing between a couple of mediocrities who have little to no substantive experience in effectively supporting meaningful legislation
Agreed. But you could throw Obama into that mix as well. He was Senator for less than 2 years and he voted "present" most of the time. He does however have leadership and oratory skills, which is a big reason why he won. You could say the same about Scott Brown. Little legislative experience, but a heart and desire to lead and he is very personable. I'd take an average Joe over an elitist person who has been in Congress for 12+ years from either political party. They've lost touch with the majority of Americans. They think they know what's best for us and vote against the wishes of their constituencies.
Americans don't want national healthcare and they certainly don't want it rammed down their throats. November 2010 will be a bloodbath for Democrats if they don't start legislating from the "middle". Work on the economy and jobs and not a multi-trillion dollar healthcare entitlement that taxes the producers and gives it to non-producers -- or less-income producers that pay less taxes.
]]>
