Scott Brown: Obama is a Good Man and Not a Socialist

Scott Brown: Obama is a Good Man and Not a Socialist
Scott Brown delivers some un-Tea Party thoughts on Obama

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) continued to distance himself from the members of the fringe right by refusing to call President Barack Obama a Socialist today on CBS’ Face The Nation. When asked the Socialism question, Brown said, “I think the President is a good man… I know he cares deeply about our country. But it– it’s just different priorities.” Brown also took a swipe at the birthers by saying that he knows that Obama is an American.

Here is the video from CBS News:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

When asked by host Bob Schieffer whether he thought Obama was moving the country towards socialism, Brown said, “I don’t think he’s making proper choices when it comes to dealing with the– the free market and free enterprise and allowing businesses to– to really run themselves and create jobs. And as a result, larger government is happening and we’re creating jobs but they’re all government jobs. And the private sector is definitely– definitely suffering.”

He clarified his answer when he was asked about Sarah Palin and the right wing’s charge that Obama doesn’t share American values, “I– I think the President is a good man. He’s– has a good family. He has two wonderful daughters. And I recognize that challenge what– what that can hold and–and I respect the office of President. And I’ve always said that, you know, he is an American. I know he cares deeply about our country. But it– it’s just different priorities.”

These are the statements of new senator who knows that he represents a Blue state where President Obama is popular. It is obvious now that Scott Brown is no Tea Party member, and certainly not a birther. He intentionally distanced himself from the rhetoric of Sarah Palin and the far right. There seems to be a push back going on from a small group of moderate Senate Republicans who are rejecting the extreme attacks against President Obama.

These comments are smart politics for Scott Brown. The fastest way for him to lose his Senate seat in a couple of years would be for him to move to the far right, and be totally out of step with his constituents in Massachusetts. Brown is not a radical Republican. He is a fiscally conservative moderate, who took the money and support of the Tea Party, but probably never had any intention of implementing their agenda. Brown is definitely more Mitt Romney than Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
.

If you’re ready to read more from the unbossed and unbought Politicus team, sign up for our newsletter here!

11 Replies to “Scott Brown: Obama is a Good Man and Not a Socialist”

  1. Damm, get me a cold compress lol

    This guy might make a good partner for the only other honest republican, bob Corker

  2. @Shiva, I think the Tea Partiers should be very very upset right about now, but Brown was never going to be one of them. Key members of his staff worked for Romney in MA. They are following the moderate path, or else Patrick Kennedy is going to come home and reclaim that seat for the Dems.

  3. @Conservative Heart, Butt hurt much, has for Brown he would like to be reelected and the way for that to happen is to move toward the center were the votes are.

  4. Anyone against Sarah Palin and the Tea Party’s agenda has a chance at having a conscious view of life for the benefit of this country. Hopefully Brown is sincere. I certainly have doubts, but let’s see what he does for the rest of his term.

  5. @Conservative Heart, Why, because he cares about his political future and would like to be reelected? And what is so wrong with respecting the office of the President? All of our politicians should do so, whether they agree with all of the President’s policies or not – they should still respect the man in charge and the office he is over.

  6. Scott Brown showed his real colors when he recently endorsed McCain’s bill—S.3081 that if passed, would allow Government to forever detain U.S. Citizens On Mere Suspicion? See below:

    Are You Scheduled For Government Interrogation If Senate bill 3081 Is Passed?

    On March 4, 2010, Sen. John McCain introduced S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.”

    Sen. McCain’s S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations; Government can charge that attending demonstrations “materially supported hostilities.”

    Considering how often Sarah Palin defends Free Speech, one can’t help wonder why Palin is helping McCain’s reelection to the U.S. Senate after he introduced possibly the most anti-Free Speech Bill in Modern U.S. History. Perhaps Palin or her Tea Party supporters haven’t considered McCain’s legislation might be used by a corrupt government administration to crush them. Tea Parties might question Palin whether she supports Sen. McCain’s bill the “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.” (S.3081)

    Under S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government will have the power to detain and interrogate any individual without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners; or U.S. civilians. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)

    At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney.

    S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.” The “supporting hostilities” provisions in S.3081 are so broad Government could use “suspicion” to detain U.S. corporate executives on the premise their corporations “supported hostilities” by providing goods or services to a nation engaged in hostilities against the United States.

    How might Americans respond should Government use this bill to take away their loved ones, family members and friends on mere suspicion? It is foreseeable McCain’s bill will drive lawful political activists underground, perhaps creating the domestic terrorists McCain said we needed to be protected from.

    McCain’s bill mentions “non-violent acts” supporting terrorism in the U.S. and or emanating from America against a Coalition Partner. Non-violent terrorist acts” are covered in the Patriot Act to prosecute Persons that support “coercion to influence a government or intimidation to affect a civilian population.” However, U.S. activists and individuals under S.3081 would be much more vulnerable to prosecution, if (charged with suspicion) of “intentionally providing support to an Act of Terrorism”, for example American activists can’t control what other activists might do illegally—they network with domestically and overseas. Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needs probable cause to detain or prosecute someone. But under S.3081, law enforcement and the military can too easily use (hearsay or informants) to allege “suspicious activity” to detain an individual. It is problematic under S.3081 that detained individuals in the U.S. not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.

    Notably, McCain’s S.3081 mandates (merging) Federal, State and Local Police and subsequently the U.S. Military to detain and hold Individuals in the U.S., even without probable cause. Interestingly a Rand Report prepared for the Army, recently made public, appears to suggest that U.S. Government develop a Local, State and Federal U.S. “National Police Stabilization Force merging State law enforcement with the Feds. What could happen to State Rights and what Laws and Jurisdiction would be used to prosecute state Citizens arrested by a National Police Stabilization Force? A National Police Force could potentially be sent by the President into any State with the approval of its governor, against the wishes of its Citizens? To clarify the Rand Corporation report visit:

    Historically it is foreseeable under S.3081 that “erroneous informant information” could be used to detain innocent Individuals. Other countries have used lying informants to imprison; even execute political opposition.

    Under S.3081 government may use an individual’s phone call and email information to allege without probable cause “suspicious or hostile activity against a U.S. civilian population or the United States to detain Americans.”

    (Make Your Own Determination If The Analysis Herein Is Correct) See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 at:
    assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf

    FYI: below is enclosed a copy of “Hitler’s Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933.” Although the Nazi Decrees are written differently than S.3081, the McCain bill could bring America to the same place crushing free speech and personal liberty. Note how the Nazi Government in Section (1) and (4), similar to U.S. S.3081, suspend personal liberty— shutdown Free Speech to intimidate Citizens speaking out against Government:

    See Section 1
    “Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

    Similar to McCain’s S. 3081, but using different wording the Nazi Government in Section (4) see below, suspended Constitutional rights, ordered the arrest of Citizens for any ACT that might incite or provoke disobedience against state authorities. McCain’s S.3081 instead mentions detaining and prosecuting Individuals for “supporting hostilities” against U.S. Government. S.3081 is so broadly written any person or group attending a protest could be arrested without provable cause and detained if government charged a protest-supported hostilities.

    See Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

    DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE

    Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

    In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

    Section 1
    Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    Section 2
    If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

    Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

    Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

    Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

    Section 5
    The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).

    Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

    1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;

    2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;

    3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

    Section 6
    This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

    Reich President
    Reich Chancellor
    Reich Minister of the Interior
    Reich Minister of Justice

Comments are closed.