College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

America’s sexiest man

Forum Editor

Published: Sunday, January 24, 2010

Updated: Sunday, January 24, 2010 23:01

GOP

Jeff Campbell/O'Collegian

Do a quick Google image search on the name Scott Brown and the results are particularly revealing. Absent descriptive phrases like Senator-elect or savior, Google unveils nearly three full rows of photos featuring Celtic midfielder Scott Brown celebrating some victory or another.


One — only one — image of newly elected Republican Sen. Scott Brown appears and only then halfway through row three. There, staring back at Google users sits the first Republican to occupy a Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat since 1972. Dressed in a nondescript suit and tie, Mr. Brown smiles pleasantly enough, his reputation for GQ looks certainly confirmed.


Include either the word ‘savior’ or ‘cosmo’ in your search, however, and watch the real fun begin as images of Senator-elect Brown, the political superstar of the moment, appear on screen.


Choose your row and the now-familiar image of Scott Brown posing nude for the June 1982 Cosmopolitan centerfold as their first contest winner for “America’s Sexiest Man” — Brown was a Boston College law student at the time — appears en masse, followed by a single image of Brown delivering a speech in full military dress appear.


Leave it to Democrats to pave the golden brick road for Scott Brown to drive his GMC Canyon onward to victory in last Tuesday’s special election.


Should the Democratic Party, led by President Obama, fail to deliver real, substantial health care reform in the next few weeks, they will only have themselves to blame.


For their part, the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party — led by Fox News, Glenn Beck and other irrational folk on the right — has done their damndest to prove to the rest of us that Comrade Obama intends on leading the country down the perilous path of socialism, fascism, death panels, and the like.


Had the Democrats had the courage of their convictions or the audacity to level with increasingly angry and frustrated Americans, they might have used their large majorities in the House and Senate and their control of the White House to explain to the American people the precise definition of socialism and radicalism.


The current Obama agenda is neither.


What, for instance, might have happened last year if Congressional Democrats held a press conference at the start of the health care debate detailing the various options on the table for Americans? What if Democrats had defined a single-payer system as such, explaining its socialist underpinnings and why such a program might be a good fit for Americans?


Then what, just what, would happen if Obama came out and explained precisely why he believed that such a system would not work in the United States, why it was an imperative to our belief in a free market system to create some sort of hybrid system?


Sure, the Republicans would have attacked the initial single-payer idea as socialism, but at least then they’d be telling the truth instead of lying their conservative hearts out with tales of death panels and scaring my 65-year-old mother.


Then, maybe, just maybe, some folk on the political right might have taken the conversation on health care more seriously. Those folk would sit down with progressives to stake out a responsible and respectable center on health care reform, something universal and fiscally sound.


As it stands, the right relied on hysteria and rhetoric — their usual strategy — to convince voters that a watered-down public option was akin to socialism.


And now the sexiest man in America heads to Washington, hoping to undo healthcare reform just as a majority of Massachusetts voters told exit pollsters that they sent Brown to D.C. to work with Obama on real reform, not kill it as the absurd Teabag Movement hopes he will.


Time will tell whether the Democrats’ timidity costs them control of the House in the midterms later this year.


In the interim, Washington D.C. just got a helluva lot sexier.


James is a MA student in screen studies and English. He received his BA in film studies and political science from the University of Oklahoma.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

8 comments

CJ
Wed Jan 27 2010 17:08
Scott Brown, how can America say no to a treasure trail?
Aaron
Wed Jan 27 2010 09:46
Trenton,

Obama said, on a couple of occassions that the heatlh care bill negotiations would be televised:

"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
Source: CQ Transcriptions, Town hall with Barack Obama in Lancaster, Va., Aug. 21, 2008, accessed via Nexis

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process," Obama said at a debate in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

Trenton Sperry
Tue Jan 26 2010 15:19
A couple of points to be made here. First, the Bush tax cuts did not apply to people making under $250k a year. Therefore, allowing them to expire raised taxes on those making more than $250k, and DID NOT raise taxes on those making under $250k.

Second, the job of Congress is to make laws to govern the country. It is the job of the Judiciary to uphold the Constitution by weighing the constitutionality of the laws that Congress makes.

Third, Obama promised that the bill's process would be transparent. This did not imply that he would make sure that television channels would cover committee meetings over it. He was implying that he would allow Congress to draw up the bill itself, instead of his own administration bringing their own bill to Congress to pass (as Clinton's administration did). And that's exactly what he's done. It was not his decision to close committee meetings to the media. It was Pelosi and Reid's decision, a decision made numerous times by both parties...and a rather standard practice.

Fourth, the Democrats have offered innumerable times to work with the Republicans, only to be met with closed fists and disgusting language. The Democrats even came to the bill-making table having watered down the bill, expecting Republicans to call them Socialists.

Fifth, Democrats like to believe that they are the good guys. They like to do things correctly, and not take advantage of the loopholes in the system, such as the process known as Reconciliation (that Republicans used numerous times during the Bush administration to further their agenda). Since Republicans have refused to cooperate with Democrats to develop a bipartisan bill, Democrats have filled the role of the opposition by debating what is the best option for the American people.

Again, I would encourage everyone to get their news from various sources. Don't listen to or watch cable news, and do your best to get information from sources that having nothing or nothing to gain from their stories being sensationalist.

Aaron
Tue Jan 26 2010 10:06
If this health care bill was truly as good as democrats in congress advertised, it would have been passed already. There is literally nothing republicans could have done to stop this bill from going through. The democrats could not get enough support from their own party to pass this bill without bribing their own members. That tells me all I need to know that this health care bill was not worth the expense.
Democrat
Tue Jan 26 2010 03:10
To be honest with you I don't think that there has been much transparency in the last couple decades in Washington, and honestly, haven't seen much of it in this administration. Now, I'm a democrat and supported the President in his election. However, what has this administration fixed thus far? Because, to me it looks like we are in a bigger mess in Afghanistan, and Iraq isn't any better still, even though if you'll notice CNN nor Foxnews either one report much on the wars anymore period. Health Care. Well I'll leave it at just that Health Care, the process to revise that is a huge mess no one wants to work together in Washington, (D) or (R). I would like to sarcastically commend the President for the threats coming out of the White House, towards the Big Bank/Big Business'. Anyone happen to see what the stock market has been doing since those comments where coughed out of Washington. Maybe I need to remove myself from both parties because quite honestly, I'm sick of them both.
darren
Mon Jan 25 2010 17:19
The only reason these bills are 2000+ pages is to hide there real plans. And when asked something about where the constitution states the ability of the gov to mandate the people to buy something (healthcare) the senators say they need lawyers to decifer the constitution for them. THE ONLY JOB OF CONGRESS IS TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. They should be experts.
Most transparent? What country are you living in Trenton? Obama said he would put discussions on tv so there would be no secret deals. He didn't. He said he would work with both parties. He isn't. He said he wouldn't sign a bill until all the earmarks were removed. That didn't happen. He said he wouldn't raise taxes on families making under 250k. Didn't happen. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire=tax increase. Being charged for health care for 3 yrs before being able to use it=tax increase (if it passes). Cap and trade (aka cap and tax): energy prices "necessarily skyrocket" (Obama's words not mine)=tax on energy companies=tax on the people. These are just the taxes off the top of my head.
Trenton Sperry
Mon Jan 25 2010 11:43
Redokie, perhaps you're not actually familiar with the bill-making process. This has, in fact, been one of the most open processes for bills in the past decade. Stop listening to what pundits are telling you to believe, and do a little research for yourself. If you're complaining about what's in the bill(s), then I'm assuming you've read those 2000+ pages?
redokie
Mon Jan 25 2010 09:28
No mention of the backroom deals. No mention of the special favors to union members. No mention of the 2000+ pages. No mention of the non-transparency involved, despite prior assurances by Democrats that things would be out in the open. The content of the bills is bad enough in itself. The process has been even worse. If Mickey Mouse had won the seat in Massachusetts, it would have worth it to stop this monstrosity.






log out