Two Responses re Scott Brown

On my Facebook page my article on Scott Brown, and the link I posted to his interview with the Boston Herald got a lively and sometimes intense response.  I was led to post two responses to some of the points being made, which I thought readers here might find interesting.

Response 1:

I've notice that some people praise my stand of faith, God and principle to the skies until I maintain the stand beyond the point where they are willing to compromise the fundamentals. We are just shy of reaping the ultimate, deadly fruit of years of listening to the lesser of evils crowd, yet many still fail to see that the first time we sacrificed what we knew to be right to their expediency we made the triumph of Obama and his minions inevitable.
We can yet turn things around, but it won't be by making the same deadly mistake.
I find it ironic that some people think they're defeating Obamacare by electing someone who embraces its worst aspects. True, Brown promises he won't vote for the bad proposals unless they wear a Republican label ( as they did in Massachusetts), but the only thing the label guarantees is confusion and disarray among the conservative forces that should oppose them no matter what party label they wear.
So let's see: When Obama proposes to destroy liberty, conservatives should rally to oppose him by voting for people who will only support the destructive proposals when a Republican (like Romney) proposes them. We're to believe this constitutes being practical and pragmatic.
Of course, it actually sets things up so that liberty can be destroyed with conservative acquiescence, simply by adorning it with a Republican label. I know that by some convoluted logic there are people who see this result as a victory, but I doubt that our morally deprived and government enslaved grandchildren will live in a world that justifies celebrating it. The only thing I'm sure of is that this is a perfect way to assure that no consistent proponents of liberty (real conservatives) ever get elected, which is precisely what the manipulators of the present sham two party system intend.
I am by the way a fundamentalist, not a purist, when it comes to liberty. Where the house of liberty is concerned, I'm perfectly willing to temporize and compromise when it comes to the color scheme in the rooms, the furniture, the rugs, even the kitchen appliances. But when people propose to blow up the foundations, I won't pretend to see a difference between the people who want to use plastique and those who prefer old fashioned dynamite. Not when our faith tells us that standing firm in God's will is the only way we can expect Him to help us avoid having to live among the ruins of our freedom.
 

Response 2

What point is there in unifying around lies? They started by telling us we should support people who were pro-life but quiet about it; then, it was people who spoke as if they were pro-choice but were really pro-life; then people like McCain, who started out pro-life and changed in order to pursue his Presidential ambitions, running on a pro-life record but acting behind the scenes to prevent pro-life action. Now we're supposed to tout someone who isn't pro-life, but unashamedly "pro-choice" on child murder; who says he's against Obamacare, but supports its most objectionable features; who claims to believe in the people's right to respect the natural, God ordained family but accepts elite dictatorship on gay marriage in his own state as settled law; who openly vaunts his intention to play the bid-for-power game with the Dems.
We're not at the beginning of a process of lies and betrayal. We're in the midst of the crisis brought on by allowing ourselves to be gulled time and again. We let it be known that we would choose the lesser evil, so now it's all that's offered to us. What's worse, it's all some people want to see or hear about. As a result, evil becomes the standard, and anyone not willing to accept that must be driven out.
On the key moral issues there's little daylight between Brown and Scozzafava. So why the enthusiasm is his case? Because the hint of victory wipes out all allegiance to truth?
Like King Lear in the famous Shakespeare play, many people want to reject and drive out the ones who insist on speaking to them truthfully. Lear turns against the daughter who is loyal to his sovereignty, and listens instead to the two who tell him what he wants to hear in order to gain power and then overthrow him.
Over the years since Reagan left office, this has consistently happened with the conservative base of the GOP. People drive out the voices who reason from conservative principles to conservative conclusions in light of the facts. Then they wonder why they have no good choices for leadership. Now it seems that the only way to get support from some conservatives is to advertise your willingness to betray what they profess to believe. I guess they want you to prove you're sly enough for politics- if you call the competition to see whose the cleverest deceiver "politics".  I'm not that clever. I guess faith makes me foolish. So does experience. When I ran against Obama in Illinois, I called him a hard line communist because that's what the facts make clear. Many in the GOP characterized that as intemperate because Obama "sounded so moderate." After years of accepting deceit from lesser evils, they no longer made the facts their guide. Yet truly to defeat Obama we must restore the standard of truth that refutes and defeats the preference for human fabrication (idols) that is the heart of Obamanism. I will go on trying to rally people to that standard whatever it takes.