Friday, February 19, 2010

Scott Brown on the domestic terrorist

Most of you have probably already heard about Joseph Stack, the man who flew his airplane into an IRS building in Austin, TX.  His letter describing his problems with the government and IRS are posted here.  It seems pretty clear that if the letter above is genuine, this was an act of domestic terrorism.

Enter Scott Brown, my new seantor here in Massachusetts.

He appeared on Cavuto on Fox News, and this is what he had to say about it:

This guy flew a plane into a building, and Brown says "People are frustrated" and "No one likes paying taxes, obviously."  Now I don't think that Sen. Brown approves of this type of behavior, but how oblivious do you have to be to use something like that as an example of what happens when your party is out of power?  That's essentially what Brown did when pushing his agenda in the context of this act. 

The correct answer (for anyone) is "Regardless of your disagreements with the government, an act of terrorism like this is not justified."  You put your own agenda aside for 30 seconds, and you strongly assert you don't support terrorism.  Simple.  Easy to remember.

What I find most interesting is that if you read Stack's letter, he has positive things to say about communism and negative about capitalism.  He also complains about religion (specifically the Catholic Church) and the health care problem in the U.S.  This was not a Republican tea-bagger fed up with the Obama administration (he did also complain about big government, so not a classic liberal either).  But Brown's response suggests he assumed that he was.

I'm not sure why he would make that assumption.  Perhaps he believes that this type of action, though not justified, is apprehensible given the state of our current Democrat-controlled government.  Or perhaps he believes this type of extremist behavior to more likely come from his constituency than others.** 

The whole situation makes Brown looks completely clueless and inept.  Here's looking forward to the 2012 election.

** Note that I'm not sure if either of these ideas are even likely correct, I just can't figure out why he would make the assumption he did without looking into it.  I'm mostly just echoing the first things that came to mind, but I'm sure there could be better explanations.

1 comment: