So Raybo Thinks Cover Boy Brown Ain't So Bad For A Republican

                       So Raybo The "Democrat"  Thinks  Cover Boy Brown Ain't So Bad For A Republican


"I’m a Democrat but I’m tired of all the polarization, the pettiness, the bickering. Scott Brown is a person that you can work with"   -Former Vatican Ambassador, Raymond  Leo Flynn, July 2012


"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."  -  Sen. Jim DeMint, R. Kentucky, July 2009


         What a hoot!  Former Vatican Ambassador Ray Flynn is on television lately endorsing the Cosmopolitan cover boy Scott Brown for Senator.  He says "I'm a Democrat," but he endorses the Republican Party's prettiest magazine Cover Boy as a person "you can trust," based on nothing more than his notion that Brown his someone "you can work with."

         In order to make that point, Raybo has to preface it by saying how tired he is "of all the polarization, the pettiness, the bickering."  But just who does he suppose is responsible for all that polarization that makes him so tired?

        Would that be  President Obama who took office four years ago, naively thinking he could reach across the aisle to Congressional Republicans to get America up and running again after the Bush administration cut taxes and deregulated us into the worst economic debacle in 80 years?  Would it be the all too accommodating President Obama who's repeatedly caved to the GOP by compromising on everything from extending the Bush tax cuts to no-strings bailouts for Wall Street?  You think that's what Raybo means by "polarization?"

         Or would it be Congressional Republicans like Kentucky Senator Jim DeMint who proclaimed that partisan Republican opposition to Obama's health care bill, virtually identical to Massachusetts Romneycare, was intended primarily to be Obama's "Waterloo?"  That leaked quote was a candid admission by top GOP  leadership that opposition to Obama policies is based first and foremost on politics, to "break" the Obama administration, and the public interest be damned.

         So what Raybo is in fact saying about Cover Boy being someone "you can work with" is faint praise at best.  He's basically saying that  Cover Boy isn't as bad as the majority of Congressional Republicans, because he's supported a few Obama initiatives on issues where opposition would be political suicide here in progressive Massachusetts.  The funny part, though, is the bit about "trust."

        Let's begin with Raybo himself.  Can we  accept at face value his claim that he endorses the Cover Boy simply because "you can work with him" unlike the great majority of today's Congressional Republicans?  Is that all there is to it for Raybo?  Does that even make sense, given that Brown has supported the vast majority of the GOP's obstructionist opposition to Obama administration policies for promoting the general welfare and the economy. 

         Does it  make sense at all, where the most important partisan difference in Washington today is the need to raise revenues. Under the Constitution, Art. I, Sect. 8, Congress is expressly given the power of taxation to pay the national debt, i.e. to balance the budget by levying taxes, but Cover Boy Brown has joined almost all other GOP Congressmen in signing the mindless Norquist pledge never to raise taxes under any circumstances. 

        That's a matter of ideology on which no compromise is possible, no willingness to "work with" anybody on anything really important to the national interest, as starkly opposed to pragmatism in service of Congress' mandate to promote the general welfare of all Americans.  That's the aggressively partisan principle to which Cover Boy Brown has sworn his allegiance with the Norquist pledge.

        So why does the self-proclaimed Democrat Raybo really believe that  the Democrats can "work with" someone like the Cover Boy who has pledged never to compromise on this singularly most important issue facing America today?  More importantly, who does he think he's kidding with that load of . . .malarkey?

        Look, the only important national policy issue Raybo has ever worked on, before being appointed as Ambassador to the Vatican, was to oppose a woman's legal right to choose abortion over unwanted pregnancy.  Raybo has always opposed Roe v. Wade, and in fact stridently attacked John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election over Kerry's promise to protect and preserve a woman's Constitutional right to choose by not appointing any abortion opponents to the federal bench.  That helped Bush win re-election, and led directly to the appointment of the theocratic Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

         Raybo is in fact a founder of Liberty, Life and Family, a Washington based anti-abortion group which regularly characterizes Roe v. Wade as legalizing "genocide," comparing pro-choice advocates to Nazis.   So, why should we think Raybo's support for Cover Boy Brown has nothing to do with this issue of singular importance to him simply because he doesn't say so?

          Scott Cover Boy Brown, while running for the Massachusetts State Senate awhile back, voiced support for Roe v. Wade in general terms.  But during the 2010 Senate race to replace Ted Kennedy, John Rowe speaking for Citizens for Life  had this to say to Boston Phoenix reporter Adam Reilly:

We’re behind him. . . .The pro-life vote is very important at this point. It can make a big difference. . . .We always welcome people coming over to our side.

The Boston Pheonix, "Don't Quote Me,"  1/4/10.  Brown refused to speak with Mr. Reilly when he tried to follow up with him on Mr. Rowe's comment. 

         The Cover Boy's record on the abortion issue has done nothing but erode women's rights under  of Roe v.Wade, as much as politically feasible for a Massachusetts Senator.  Brown opposes federal funding for abortion, supports strong parental consent rules for minors, and supports the ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion. But none of that stuff has anything to do with Raybo's endorsement, right?

         I mean, c'mon.  How stupid do they think we are?  How contemptuous of the voters' intelligence can they be?  Ray Flynn may have been a Democratic mayor of Boston once upon a time, but he has always been a Roman Catholic first and foremost, marching in lock-step with the Vatican's orders, and most forcefully on the abortion issue.   And we're supposed to think that's got nothing to do with today's endorsement of Scott Cover Boy Brown?

         Liz Warren is a true defender of women's rights, and if elected she will do everything in her power to promote women's rights, from equal pay for equal work to federal funding for poor women who can't afford an abortion or another child.  That is very clear, while Cover Boy Brown is someone an ardent "pro-lifer" like Raybo Flynn can "work with" and can "trust."

        Raybo, along with  Brown and his campaign hacks, clearly aren't telling us the truth about why an erstwhile Democratic pol like Flynn is endorsing Brown over a strong, progressiven Democratic candidate like Liz Warren.  They are, instead,  clearly sending a coded message to Citizens for Life members that the Cover Boy is still their guy, they can "trust" him and they can "work with him."  But they don't want to come right out and say so because they know it will alienate  Massachusetts voters concerned with womens' rights under  the Constitution. 

        They don't trust the average voter who isn't an ardent pro-lifer like Raybo, so they send a coded message to the folks who say abortion is "murder."  In so doing, they insult our intelligence, which is the GOP game plan from the top on down anyway. 

       Thus, the real message that comes through loud and clear under  from Raybo's endorsement of  The Cover Boy,  despite all the static about trusting and working with him, is that neither Ray Flynn nor Scott Brown can be trusted getting anywhere near our Constitutional rights or the progressive public policies that advance those rights.  Trust me.









                               welcomes thoughtful comments and the varied opinions of our readers. We are in no way obligated to post or allow comments that our moderators deem inappropriate. We reserve the right to delete comments we perceive as profane, vulgar, threatening, offensive, racially-biased, homophobic, slanderous, hateful or just plain rude. Commenters may not attack or insult other commenters, readers or writers. Commenters who persist in posting inappropriate comments will be banned from commenting on