I have no idea why Scott Brown was given the fluffy task of guest-hosting Bill O'Reilly's show on August 23, 2013. I don't want to get into Scott Brown's head, or the heads of people who work at Fox News, or Bill O'Reilly's head. All I can say is that the "Talking Points Memo" Scott Brown gave was offensive. He basically tarred anyone who has criticized Chris Christie. This is rich, considering how nasty Chris Christie has been to his rivals like Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal.
Trying unsuccessfully to channel the famous Shylock speech from Merchant of Venice -- "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" -- Brown poses an awkward rhetorical question: "Don't we all care about the same things?" He lists fiscal strength, a balanced budget, and national security.
There is no mention from Scott Brown at all of social conservatives who worry about religious freedom, the sanctity of marriage, and the rights of children to be raised by a mom and dad. (If I were libertarian, I wouldn't be wild about Brown's commentary, either.) So we have a pretty clear idea of what kind of big spenders Scott Brown wants in his "big tent." (Can we please find a new cliché?) I'm thinking rich corporate homosexuals who are interested in having in vitro kids by surrogate moms and shutting up anyone who objects.
Nowhere did Scott Brown mention the fact that Chris Christie had just signed into law a moronic statute making it illegal for minors to get therapy to avoid homosexual behavior. Christie was not content merely to sign this stupid law and join an elite class of like-minded governors including Jerry Brown (who signed the first state ban against "ex-gay" therapy in California). He also belly-flopped into the realms of psychobiology and theology, insisting that gay people are born that way and that homosexuality isn't a sin. To say such a thing, he had to have never read the actual research by sexologists who can find no proof of genetically caused homosexuality. He also must have never read a book called the Bible.
Maybe Brown didn't feel the need to mention this, since the ex-gay therapy ban has not been proposed in his own state of Massachusetts yet -- oh, wait. It has.
Has Christie or Brown ever heard of someone named Donnie McClurkin? McClurkin, a Christian black musician who used to be involved in the homosexual lifestyle, was recently blacklisted from a concert in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. The reason? He's not in the homosexual lifestyle anymore. It's not like he's based in New Jersey -- oh wait, yes, he is.
So Christie is lazy enough to sidestep reading about "ex-gays" in his own state, even though McClurkin's story was all over the conservative press. Why read the conservative press when you're Republican? That's such a "divisive" expectation.
Scott Brown's two minutes of brow-beating and hand-wringing against Christie detractors would have viewers believe that disaffection with Chris Christie's performance all hinge on fat jokes and his hugging President Obama just before Romney lost a presidential election. Not at all, Scott!
This would be like saying that if I take issue with Scott Brown's foolish vote to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell -- a vote that looks even more foolish in retrospect, now that we've learned how much homosexual rape was bring kept secret three years ago, and how much it's increased since the 2010 repeal -- I am really just poking fun at him for posing nude in the early 1980s and losing a Senate race to a white woman who once wrote Cherokee cookbooks.
He did pose nude in the early 1980s, and come to think of it, that should have set off alarms in Republican minds when they were hyping up his run for Teddy Kennedy's old seat. Something tells me that someone who feels comfortable disrobing in front of a camera and being gawked at by masturbating strangers won't fully understand why many men and women would want to keep Don't Ask Don't Tell in place.
It isn't as if Scott Brown has been sexually abused himself -- oh wait, yes, he was. Like many women who are sexually assaulted and later become strippers or prostitutes, Scott Brown probably dealt with his sexual trauma by modeling nude ten years after being mauled at a camp. Perhaps he feels that because he dealt with male-male sexual abuse his way, other men should have to figure things out on their own.
He gets to showcase his wounds in interviews and write a book about the whole experience. He expects other men who don't want to be sexually mauled by homosexuals to be stuck showering inches away from them in Army barracks with no recourse to therapy to avoid falling into homosexual behavior themselves as a consequence of the trauma. And now, if a man feels threatened by a homosexual aggressor in the military the way Scott Brown was threatened by a male aggressor when he was ten, there will soon be no chaplains to consult in faith-based terms. The chaplaincy is slowly being cleansed of anybody who doesn't rubberstamp the gay lobby's ideology.
Welcome to Scott Brown's and Chris Christie's brave new world of strong national security: instead of banning discussion of homosexual acts in high-risk situations where naked young soldiers are vulnerable, use the police powers of the state to ban discussion of things that young people with homosexual attractions can do other than become adult homosexuals.
We had to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell law to see what was in it -- pace Nancy Pelosi -- and now that the law is gone, we have several thousand more men who've fallen victim to the sexual anomie that supporters of Don't Ask Don't Tell, unlike Scott Brown, rightly feared. I am sure that the new laws banning ex-gay therapy will give us more of the same theatrics.
Both Scott Brown and Chris Christie can't connect dots. This whole recent fracas began when Christie bashed Rand Paul for worrying about a police state and then bashed Paul and Jindal for being too much like college professors. Scott Brown, apparently as much of an airhead as Christie, has jumped into his little dinghy, and the two of them want to row off to some island in an alternate universe where conservatives don't care about government interfering with their therapy sessions, stifling their religious beliefs, and listening in to their phone calls. What's important is landing big donors, winning, and succumbing to their respective worldly vices: posing nude and binge-eating. Why think when you can just stuff your mouth, strip naked for a photog, and shout your mouth off in Jersey and Boston accents?
So I say, to Hades with them both. I'm sick of this crap.
To paraphrase a line from a great Gilded Age novel, "it is much safer to be fond of dangerous people." In this day and age, with the gay lobby wielding tremendous power and influence, it's safer to agree with them than to get into arguments with them.
Except if you want to run for national office as a Republican. If either Brown or Christie ends up anywhere on the national Republican ticket in 2016, I am voting third party or writing in someone else. I think all conservatives should draw a bright red line at this point.
Very interesting and while I had already ruled out Chris Christie and do not at all agree with New Jersey's new bill, I have now added Scott Brown to the list of those that can forget the presidency anytime in the future.
Funny in that Scott Brown took on O'Reiley show - gotta be a story there. But, since I'm not one of Bill's ardent fans - I might make a guess that maybe the Chris Christie people thought this was a good time to get some coverage of their "boy".
I agree Linda -- Christie is not a blimp on my screen and Scott Brown has already proved that he is not to be trusted as far as his "Republican" identification. Guess you could describe them both as sub par!
Christie is nothing but a fat flipper looking for whatever he can get from whoever at all costs. He cares little about loyalty or what real justice is. As for Brown I'm not familiar with him, but from what I'm reading here I'd say he and Christie make a good team of know-nothings.
The GOP had better do something soon to put some good moral people out front. Hopefully that will eliminate this two and more like them.
Linda, I drew that line with the middle of the convention changes in rules. I will not vote for a selected candidate under any circumstances and that is what is offered by both parties at this point.
As for the wonder twins, my only question is how they managed to get themselves branded republicans. After all, they certainly don't have any of the values and positions I am given to understand suitable for a republican.