Scott Brown won, and Scott Brown deserves to be congratulated for that.

That said, I’m not so sure the People of Massachusetts will be happy with the result, whether now or somewhat soon.  The one and only caveat to that statement depends on whether Senator-Elect Scott Brown changes the color of his [ more . . . ]]]> First of all, Congratulations to Scott Brown.  I mean that.  Having run for office myself (office, not public office), it’s no easy task.  It’s hard.  It’s fun.  It’s grueling.  And at least part of it is that you hope you end up with as few people hating you as possible.

Scott Brown won, and Scott Brown deserves to be congratulated for that.

That said, I’m not so sure the People of Massachusetts will be happy with the result, whether now or somewhat soon.  The one and only caveat to that statement depends on whether Senator-Elect Scott Brown changes the color of his leaf . . or color of his stripes . . or whatever visual you want to use.

The simple fact of the matter is Scott Brown is largely inconsistent with the wishes and desires of a majority of the People of Massachusetts.  As much as anyone reading this may agree or disagree, Massachusetts is one of the few states (Commonwealth actually) where Gay Marriage is legal.  Massachusetts is one of the few states with a mandatory health insurance requirement that rides along with a, roughly speaking, public option for those who can’t afford full-priced insurance.  Massachusetts is decidedly Pro-Choice on the matter of Abortion.   The People of Massachusetts don’t believe in the Death Penalty . . and soundly reaffirmed that belief as recently as 2007.  And Senator-Elect Scott Brown is incompatible with all those positions.

I’m simply making a point of consistency.

Keep in mind, while he wasn’t my choice, I by no means mean to bash Scott Brown — It’s just that his trajectory doesn’t fit that of the People of Massachusetts.

Scott Brown may have done an exceedingly good job convincing a majority of Tuesday’s voters that he was an independent, truck driving, guy just like you.  But the bigger question is whether Senator-Elect Scott Brown will actually represent the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts once he arrives in Washington, DC as a full-fledged Senator.

He’s won the right to prove himself, of that there is no doubt.  But my suspicion is that ‘track record’ means everything when you have something to look back on.  Scott Brown has been a reliably-voting Republican, and just as colleges look to high school performance to gauge college potential, I find it unlikely that Senator Scott Brown will pivot much toward representing the majority beliefs of the People of Massachusetts.

Again, Congratulations.  I just think it’s going to be tough road, that is unless Senator Scott Brown actually proves his value through his deeds as Senator.

As for a tongue-in-cheek review / assessment of the Special Election in Massachusetts . . .

• This is what happens when one candidate runs the best, most effective campaign they could have ever hoped for . . . and the other candidate runs the worst.  Quite frankly, it was like one candidate saved a truckload of puppies and the other was caught picking their nose in their high school yearbook photo.
• This is what happens when a candidate does such just a great job at marketing that it convinces people to vote for them for reasons like they drive a truck as opposed to (or in addition to) actual / concrete positions.  On this point, I have to call Scott Brown out on the carpet — His issues page on his website read like a 5th grader’s book report.
• This is what happens when a race, an opponent, an opponent’s party . . . and voters . . . are all taken for granted (and not by the opponent).
• This is what happens when one candidate invites the President of the United States to their city, prompting a half-mile of 1,000’s of supporters to stand in line for hours . . . and not hand out a single sign.
• This is what happens when a candidate and a party don’t fight.
• This is what happens when you don’t define your opponent (and let your opponent do it for themself).
• This is what happens when you let your opponent define you.

Again, the DC City Council is considering passing a law that would require the [ more . . . ]]]> Here’s an interesting not-much-reported story related to Gay Marriage.  It seems the Archdiocese of Washington (that’s Washington DC) has issued a News & Events post on its website within the past couple days threatening that they may not be able to keep helping the poor because — get this — the DC City Council is considering passing a law that would require the Archdiocese to not discriminate based on same sex marriage status “the use of a church hall for non-wedding events for same-sex married couples”.

Again, the DC City Council is considering passing a law that would require the Archdiocese to not discriminate based on same sex marriage status “the use of a church hall for non-wedding events for same-sex married couples”.

Obviously, the law applies to everyone so-to-speak, not just the Archdiocese, but what’s interesting in the Archdiocese’s own announcement is the very example they provide . . . and I’m still trying to make sense of it.

I get the Archdiocese hates gay people or, perhaps more fairly put, is intent on pigeonholing them as second-class citizens.  But aren’t they playing their hand a bit too much when they offer — by their very own example — that they do not want to rent their space to same sex married people, even for non-wedding events?

I mean, seriously, let’s say two people in their congregation are gay (very, very likely).  Let’s say they’re a couple and that do or want to get married.  (I have no knowledge of what the status of Gay Marriage is in DC.)  And let’s just step that forward a bit for the sake of argument and say they are married.  The Archdiocese’s own statement indicates that they would be inclined to not rent space to them simply because of their same sex marriage status, even though they were members of the congregation interested in conducting a non-wedding event.  Huh?

Sorry, Archdiocese, but that does sound a little discriminatory to me.

But there’s one last thing I’m curious about . . . Let’s say I wanted to have an event at an Archdiocese-owned location.  What’s the Q&A when I call someone to try and book?  ”So you’re interested in renting a hall — Ok, what date?  Uh-huh.  Ok, are you regular sex or same sex married?”

Weird, huh.

First of all, look at the Republican Party’s infrastructure and what they currently have in place, starting with the Republican National Committee.

There isn’t anything there, at least very little of any actual value. The RNC is a piece of junk and, led by Party Chairman Michael Steele, as apt to say something palatable as it is to say something that gives most Americans the heebie-jeebies. Heck, in a [ more . . . ]]]> Yes, I know — It’s been said before. But I don’t think it’s ever been truer than it is right now, and now is the perfect timing to do it.

First of all, look at the Republican Party’s infrastructure and what they currently have in place, starting with the Republican National Committee.

There isn’t anything there, at least very little of any actual value. The RNC is a piece of junk and, led by Party Chairman Michael Steele, as apt to say something palatable as it is to say something that gives most Americans the heebie-jeebies. Heck, in a Republican stronghold like New York’s 23rd district, the Republican Party couldn’t win, even after fielding and endorsing two candidates. And at a national level, it’s so inept it couldn’t even keep a black man from becoming President of the United States. (It truly bothers me to say that second point, but let’s at least admit that — for at least some portion of the Republican Party — that was their only mission with respect to the 2008 election.)

Moving on . . . In an age where most people — even if they don’t quite believe in Climate Change — at least believe that we should control ourselves, in an age like the one we’re in, Republican’s best chant at the Republican National Convention was “Drill Baby Drill!” morning, noon, and night. Is there some grand scheme I’m not getting?!?

How about the Republican Party’s legacy? There’s not much point in hitching your trailer to a legacy of things like Ronald Reagan if you can’t do anything with it. (Wasn’t Abraham Lincoln the first Republican president!?! Lot a’good it’s doing for the Party right now, huh.) And hasn’t the far Right so twisted whatever was any good in most of that legacy that it doesn’t mean much anymore?

Oh, the Republican stronghold on National Security? That’s even worse. How about starting two wars, one of which a Republican President walked away from (Afghanistan) in favor of starting a second one we never needed to fight in the first place (Iraq)? That’s a blunder of, dare I say, biblical proportions that raises yet another issue of the Bush Administration having actually started one of these wars under veiled religious pretense. (Remember the original Iraq war name, Operation Infinite Justice?)

And domestic issues? Republicans best stance on the leading topic of the day, Healthcare Reform, is to do nothing and obstruct progress, all on an issue that’s only gotten much, much worse over the past two Republican administrations (and largely Republican-held Congress). Huh, I’m supposed to do what?!? Beg my neighbors and bake brownies to raise the $600 / month my health insurance is going to cost me starting December 1st!?! I don’t think so — I think solving problems like this one is exactly why we have government to begin with (and most Americans get that).

But let’s look on the bright side of moderate Republicans breaking away and forming their own Party. Perhaps most important? The amount of credibility, attention, and plain-old Oomph! moderate Republicans would most certainly get would be amazing, if just to see it. We’d all here stereo concussions of both Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh’s heads exploding. Think about it . . . A new party borne out of fiscal conservatism, laissez-faire economics, small government, and responsible spending. Heck, throw in strong military.

Moderate Republican would throw Tea Baggers into a tizzy — Tea Baggers would probably be confused whether ‘laissez-faire’ is something of a hidden agenda of Gay Marriage that they should be opposed to. I mean, c’mon, how hard would it be to confuse and circumvent people who stand there yelling at their Representative or Senator saying, “Keep your hands off my Medicare!”, not quite seeming to get that Medicare is a government program to begin with.

And, get this, moderate Republican would finally be able to stand for some actual values and civility. You know what would catch my attention? How about actually calling out the Birthers, acknowledging Barack Obama’s election, and making it a point to call him President Obama. If for nothing else, do it just for class.

I’m not sure it would work nationally, but it certainly would work in certain regions, and much more importantly, it would reclaim a true set of principles that have been so watered down, abused, and tortured as to put the current Republican Party on the same track as the dodo bird.

As encouragement . . . There actually used to be Republicans that I liked and respected, even agreed with. They’re virtually all gone now, and that’s not because I’ve changed — It’s because they’ve simply ‘left the building’. The door’s open, moderate Republicans — Walk back in.

But what’s the best reason? The United States faces serious challenges at the moment . . . and we need every reasonable-minded person we can marshal to help solve them. While we’re better off without a Crazy Republican Party, we would be much better off with a Moderate one.

I actually was in Maine the past few days right before the November 3rd elections, and what shocked me was how absolutely gay . . .

. . . the anti-gay marriage protest signs were.  (They just screamed, “I hate gay people!”  And they were yellow — Very gay!)

. . . and wimpy was the fear-mongering being deployed that gay, married people are somehow going to ‘invade your schools and make [ more . . . ]]]> Talk about a headline, huh!  And — interestingly enough — it about sums the whole thing up when it comes to Gay Marriage, at least in Maine.

I actually was in Maine the past few days right before the November 3rd elections, and what shocked me was how absolutely gay . . .

. . . the anti-gay marriage protest signs were.  (They just screamed, “I hate gay people!”  And they were yellow — Very gay!)

. . . and wimpy was the fear-mongering being deployed that gay, married people are somehow going to ‘invade your schools and make your kids gay’.  (Sorry, gay people already exist, and if you think ‘married’ is the majic ingredient that makes a gay person capable of making your kids gay, then you really are an idiot.)

. . . the guy giving the victory speech looked, sounded, and generally presented himself.  (Compare him to his counterpart, the actual gay man rallying gay marriage supporters to stay with the fight — Seriously, the gay guy looked straight as an arrow in comparison.)

What’s sad about the vote in Maine is that — totally lost in the mix — is that we’re talking about Civil Rights.  There’s absolutely nothing particularly special about Marriage — It’s really just a term that we use to describe something special.  It’s, albeit, something particularly special, but why someone would want to keep something that special from an entire class of citizens, Citizens of these United States, is beyond my comprehension.  Honestly, it cheapens Marriage, and it’s unfortunate that those people who don’t like gay people don’t get that fact.

And just for all the conservative wingnuts out there who think Religion or anything of the sort has a monopoly on Marriage, please be duly informed that marriages where first considered communal and social before they became at all religious.  Religion is not the source of Marriage — Religion actually jumped on the bandwagon when it saw what a great and useful thing Marriage really was.

The United States of America has and always will improve itself through the expansion, not restriction, of Liberty.  Consider this a bit of a pep-talk to anyone out there disappointed by the result.  Afterall, roughly 47% of the voters support Gay Marriage — That’s greatly larger than Maine’s likely gay population, and anyone who’s gay should take pride in the fact a great many voters support your rights, even though they’re not.