Republicans reveal their Big Government side for political gain

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian, www.deskofbrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/republicansrevealtheirbiggovernmentsideforpoliticalgain

Attention all you Tea Party members, Tea Baggers if you watch MSNBC, this is an update for all of the naive FOX watchers and Republican loyalists -- they are lying to you.

President Obama spoke again this week to support financial regulatory reform. Blaming "lobbyists" and corruption is always at the core of his lectures while proclaiming we can't allow "history to repeat itself"

You may have heard tough language of opposition, especially from Scott Brown: "Shame on the president" as Brown "complained that President Barack Obama was derailing bipartisan negotiations on Wall
Street reform for short-term political gain." (Politico article, see below)



I heard and saw clips as I surfed through the news. Of course, the Republicans hot air will fill a room if it will benefit their political gains.

Because the Massachusetts Senator said this:

"The bottom line is, where there are problems [on Wall Street], we
should fix them. I’m not
going to vote on anything or make any statements until I read the
bills,” (adding he'd take a hard look at the proposals and get up to speed)

Where's all of Scott Brown's Ronald Reagan language about "government being the problem, not the solution"?

All we have to do is look to the former Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, who

"... formed an unlikely alliance with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to
propose reinstating the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which
separated commercial banking from investment banking. That law was
repealed in the late 1990s, and many critics say it allowed for the
growth of mammoth and risky
investment banks. Fully reinstating the law would be further
than the Obama administration has proposed."
-Politico

One aide said McCain's vote on Financial Regulatory Reform will "will depend entirely on his analysis of how it plays among Arizona
primary voters"


Politics...Politics...Politics.



“I’m looking at everything. I have not made any decisions.” - Olympia Snowe


“We need to prevent large financial firms from holding taxpayers hostage. I’m still looking at issues.”
- Susan Collins



“I think we all want to see financial regulation take place; I really do. These things
are very solvable. It just takes a little grind-it-out work.” - Bob Corker



The letter to Harry Reid from the Republicans stated:

"As currently constructed this bill allows for
endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and establishes new and
unlimited regulatory powers that will stifle small businesses and
community banks."

In Senator Richard Shelby's letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy
Geithner we read how this is a slush fund for the Treasury to use as
they see fit, would encourage bailout over bankruptcy and explain how
this is the government running financial interests.



That is what the Tea Party and many motivated individuals are fighting to stop. Unfortunately, the Republicans are no different that their socialist counterparts on the far Left - power is more important and they don't care what we think.


Do NOT be fooled by the liars on the right. Look at their voting records, read between the lines and find the Constitutionalists that will fight to save this country.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/gop-leaders-echo-luntz-democrats-wall-street-reform-bill.php



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041603436.html



http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100416/pl_politico/35887



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/04/sen-richard-shelby-r-al-lays-out-his-objections-to-dems-wall-street-reform-proposal.php?page=2

A Year Later

After receiving 66% of the vote in Massachusetts in the 2008 Presidential election, President Obama just witnessed a Republican win the Senate seat held for over forty years by the late Ted Kennedy.

Martha Coakley, the Democrat candidate had won the office of Attorney General with 73% of the vote. The Massachusetts seat is the latest to fall after Republican victories in Virgina and New Jersey (and a near win in New York) special elections.

So why has the tide shifted so quickly?

The President's policies are much, much further left than populist opinion.

As many, manny have already asserted, I believe that the administration misinterpretted the election of President Obama as a mandate for left-leaning, socialism ideals and it was not.

There was a mandate against the George W. Bush policies, but Obama has perpetuated many of the same problems despite blaming the previous administration.

The President will not be judged by his intentions, but by his results and the results have not been positive.

Another area of frustration for both party members is the continued lack of unity. President Obama thought and campaigned on putting partisan politics aside and yet there have been instances of heightened exclusion. He overestimated his ability to bring the parties together, in part, by using "campaign speak" and accusations of obstruction rather than negotiate.

Some stats:

54 percent of Americans disapprove of his economic policy, an opinion probably influenced by the 62 percent disapproval rating on our skyrocketing budget deficit. (CNN poll)

51 percents of Americans approve of his foreign policy and 53 percent approve of his handling of the Iraq War. (CNN poll)

59 percent of Americans currently disapprove of so-called "Obamacare." (CNN poll)

A recent Gallup poll indicates that Americans are less sure that Obama will be able to accomplish his goals in almost every area


One year later we are facing similar problems with different faces in the White House. As I have proclaimed, the practical differences between the two parties is "political language" NOT executed policy changes.

One year we have a bigger, more instrusive federal government and the only difference is the letter after most of the names.

Why a Brown victory may not be reason to rejoice

If, and I emphasize if and not when, Scott Brown wins the Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Republicans will have a lot to celebrate. Overcoming a snowy, rainy voting day will be coupled with a heavy liberal voting constituency.

Of course Scott Brown will be rejoiced by Conservatives and the talking heads will announce the tide has shifted, but I offer a moment to hesitate.

Brown is NOT a Constitutional Conservative.

He's a pro-choice, proud supporter of "Romney-Care", which is quickly failing and racking up massive debt for the Massachusetts' taxpayers. Brown has a great image, a strong military record and has never run from his risque photo spread to help cover his Boston College law tuition.

I agree that Brown is a decent candidate, but mostly compared to his hollow, thoughtless, dishonest liberal competitor. Attorney General Martha Coakley has proven to be a horrible candidate and President Obama delivered arguably his worse speech to date trying to stump for her.

Having a Republican in a seat occupied by Ted Kennedy for over 45 years does appear to be shocking. This election could eliminate the Democratic supermajority in the Senate and could slow the health care reform bills.

But Brown, like Romney, supports government invention in Massachusetts health care, which proves that the form of "Big Government" and the partisanship matters more than a pure conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

I have to be hesitant of a candidate who feels that we MUST buy health insurance and support big government monitoring, policing and taxing constituents accordingly. Sure, he claims to NOT support the current Obamacare bills, but like Mitt Romney, Brown dodges strong stances and provides only the same rhetoric.

So avoid the ticker tape parade and FOX celebrations if Scott Brown wins. It may be signal of the tide changing, but not worthy of hysterical festivities that Sean Hannity will exalt upon his viewership.