The Scott Brown Senate Win in Massachusetts

The election of Scott Brown was certainly a big win for the indignant citizens of Massachusetts and the rest of the country who have been scorned and dismissed with contempt by the Liberal Democrat power brokers. They figured that the people of the state would do a "ditto" to replace the uber-liberal Kennedy with another place-holder to perpetuate the Democrat hegemony in that state and the Senate. They did not count on any effective opposition.

Good news. They got the nastiest surprise of their lives.

But before we pop the corks and start to celebrate, we need to be aware that Mr. Brown, while portraying the outward aspect of an apparent presidential possibility for the Republicans, still has some very troubling baggage. He is not pro-life; he is pro-big government solutions to health care. He claims to be the architect of the Massachusetts health care system that exists now. He has said he will bring his plans to Washington.

The last thing we need is a RINO bringing another tired, shopworn, socialist health care plan to Washington, on a wave of hysterical celebration that we have "won." I am not saying that Mr. Brown is a "ringer", but I am suggesting that there could be serious danger in lionizing this man before his ideas are vetted by the constitutional, traditional portion of the electorate that are partly responsible for putting him into office.

I am troubled by his lack of religious background. I searched his Face book page in vain for any mention of church affiliation. Certainly he has a sterling record of public service, serving on numerous civic and governmental positions, and honorably in the military. I have little doubt of his ability to serve effectively and intelligently at a certain level of executive performance, but I am very concerned about his lack of moral "bottom" as it derives from the eternal principles found only in Christianity. He is not pro-life except in some minor ways. That is troubling.

Perhaps it is asking too much for the ultra Liberal people of Massachusetts to immediately vote in someone who has top-flight conservative credentials. But it would have been nice.

We need smart, likeable, articulat, good-looking, presentable people to teach the message of traditional American conservatism to the entire country - to articulate it like Reagan did – but I fear this man may fall seriously short of that because he lacks the religious convictions that form such a substantial basis of Americanism itself. Without that foundation, all one has is the facade of conservatism without the content. Such a one is incapable of speaking from the heart of something he does not know or believe, and when placed in a position of substantial public trust (like practically the entire US Senate and House as it is constituted now), will not only fail to deliver on our expectations, but worse yet, deliver the Progressive menu served up on a platter labeled "conservatism." That will be another betrayal and huge setback.

Celebrating is in order; but a healthy caution is in order too. I hope and pray that this man may be more unknown than potentially sinister. Perhaps, being young, he may prove to be much more of what we really need than has appeared to our eyes so far. Maybe this will be a time for him to get some lessons from some of the same people who elected him in simple Americanism from the grassroots perspective. It might even be the making of the man. It is never too late to learn, if one has a willing heart. I hope that is the case. We don’t need any more Republicans in Name Only in any elective office.