No Choice But Brown

I have a question for my brothers and sisters in the tea party movement, the ones who refuse to back Scott Brown for the Senate: Is it better to back someone who has maybe voted against your views some of the time, or to vote for someone who will against your views all of the time?

I agree Scott hasn't always put the "tea party" first, but he also never said he would. Yes, the tea party helped get him elected, but he never said (at least as far as I know) that he was a tea party member. Instead he said he would vote for what he believed was in the best interest of the citizens of Massachusetts. That is exactly what he has done.

Getty images

In last week's debate he stressed how he is the most bi-partisan senator. I could bring up the old "this is Massachusetts so he has to be in order to get along" thing, but I won't. Oh wait I just did didn't I? This is still better than Warren who also said at the debate that she will do whatever Barack Obama and the rest of the democrats want her to do. Is this really what is best for the state? What have John Kerry, and the democrats in the US Congress from MA done for the state?

Order your Kindle Fire
here

And then there is the little problem of Warren and her repeated misrepresentations shall we say, of her heritage, her law license and her concern for the victims of asbestos poisoning. None of which seem to exist. Elizabeth Warren is nothing but another elitist who wants to make a career out of living off your money while not representing your interests.

If this is what you want then by all means vote for her, if not then vote for Brown. And for those tea party members out there, unless you have a valid third alternative I don't know about, you should vote for Brown as well.