ATLANTA— The Massachusetts Senatorial race for Ted Kennedy’s open seat has suddenly turned into a nail biter. Against all odds, moderate Republican Scott Brown has pulled almost even with front-runner Martha Coakley in some polls. The odds of Mr. Brown winning in a state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans three-to-one and where liberals dominate virtually all levels of state and local government are incredibly long. Nonetheless, this race highlights to very important trends.
The first is noting just how far Barack Obama’s star has fallen in one year. Mr. Brown is mounting a successful, insurgent campaign in a liberal mecca by openly campaigning against Mr. Obama’s agenda, including health care reform. This would have been unthinkable a year ago.
And second, this race highlights a potentially big problem with the new conservative insurgency. To Mr. Brown’s right in this race is a little known libertarian businessman, coincidentally named Joe Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy will not win. But his presence in the race siphons conservative votes away from the one man who could plausibly stop Mr. Obama in his tracks.
With no offense intended to regular readers of this blog, a vote for Mr. Kennedy will do absolutely nothing to stop the Obama agenda today. Nothing. Mr. Kennedy has basically no support state-wide. He will lose this race spectacularly, as all Libertarians who run on independent tickets are doomed to do.
I’m fairly certain that if I read Mr. Brown’s and Mr. Kennedy’s campaign platforms and political philosophies closely, I would intellectually line up closer with Mr. Kennedy then Mr. Brown. I’ve thought this plenty of times with third party candidates. But so what?
What would I gain by voting for Mr. Kennedy? A clear, intellectual conscious? I could get that by writing in the name of the Apostle Paul. The Apostle Paul would have as much chance of winning this election as Mr. Kennedy does.
Unfortunately, politics takes compromise- whether we like it or not. And in cases where you have a shot at getting a guy who is pretty good over and against a fiscally and morally reckless liberal crusader like Mrs. Coakley, take the guy who is pretty good.
My biggest fear in 2010 is that conservatives, having the chance to unseat a significant number of Democrats with a lineup of pretty good to great Republicans, will instead find themselves fighting over whether the Republican candidate is good enough intellectually for them.
Kudos to Mr. Brown for getting as far as he has gotten. While I fear he will ultimately lose by a comfortable margin, it nonetheless heartens me that he has a shot in a state where people like Mr. Brown are not supposed to exist.
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
“With no offense intended to regular readers of this blog, a vote for Mr. Kennedy will do absolutely nothing to stop the Obama agenda today. Nothing. Mr. Kennedy has basically no support state-wide. He will lose this race spectacularly, as all Libertarians who run on independent tickets are doomed to do.”
No offense taken. It is principle just like this blog’s stance on homosexual marriage.
I choose not to vote for the party that is like a stripper with a bad pot habit (Republicans) versus the ones that have a coke habit (Democrats). Either way they will spend us into oblivion. It’s just that somehow you can swallow protecting moneyed interests (i.e. wealthy nations that are our trading partners – Germany, Japan) easier than you can supporting someone from the rank and file.
I am against it either way. If you want to talk about national defense – let’s actually defend the nation versus going all around the globe trying to protect commerce. Business is risky and you have to accept all of those risks.
BTW – I was waiting for this response in my email yesterday! I had flirted with possibly voting for Brown, but the more I heard him in the debate I realized that he wasn’t proposing anything new – merely the Republican status quo.
Matters of principle in this case maintain a different foundation. In this case it appears your principle is basically a hierarchy of beliefs. You believe it is more important to vote for the perfect candidate without regard to win-ability than it is to vote for a candidate that, while not perfect maintains a higher win-ability and will essentially “throw a wrench” in the current dealings of the party in power. A vote for Brown is not simply putting Republicans back in power. It essentially strips power from the super-majority and forces compromise. But this would basically mean going forward Mr. Obama would fulfill his campaign promise of reaching across the aisle. He’d have to in order to pass anything. So vote for the Libertarian. It will help maintain Mr. Obama’s perfect score of out-right, bold faced lies and criminal activity as he pillages the middle class and destroys what little good that is left in this once fine nation.
“It will help maintain Mr. Obama’s perfect score of out-right, bold faced lies and criminal activity as he pillages the middle class and destroys what little good that is left in this once fine nation.”
This comment sounds entirely like someone else that used to frequent this site who I believe was referred to as a liar yesterday. I would love to see the backup for criminal activity – other than perjury under oath with regards to upholding the Constitution – that Obama has engaged in. Granted, if we want to look at that issue – well pretty much every President has violated that sacred national document. Does the shoe somehow fit different on the Republican than the Democratic foot?
May I remind you that these two parties have been in place for a sufficiently long enough time that either one of them could have counteracted their numerous screw-ups. A vote for political expediency to slow-down the pace of the screw-up does not counteract it if you elect the other party that has perpetuated the disaster. Just my opinion.
Again, matter of principle. I guess when it isn’t your principle though – it gets different treatment.
Furthermore, if compromise was the name of the game the Republicans would have done that long ago with regards to healthcare. I am thankful that they haven’t – they finally showed some stones, but otherwise from what I have seen political compromise generally is an abject, pork barreling clusterf$*k.
I view my vote as the one way to communicate my message and that is that neither Democrats or Republicans have bothered to align themselves to the document they choose to swear an oath under. The government should be much smaller – we all know it – or we should go through the established channels – the Amendment process – to account for all of the areas where we have deviated from the structural document of our nation.
“This comment sounds entirely like someone else that used to frequent this site who I believe was referred to as a liar yesterday”
lol. Yes. I know. Thought I’d slip it in there. I get such a kick out of that crap… the entirely off-the-wall-hyper-partisan attacks from either side.
But in honesty said commenter did lie several times on the blog and through communique. That and he consistently changes his name and posts contradictory statements… engaging in activity designed to deceive…
Well all I can say is that one’s behavior on a blog does not mirror personal reality.
I would generally use the words forthright and honest to describe my business dealings and personal relationship with the commentator. He also showed a very real interest when I was sick in the hospital.
As for the blog usernames, I think a lot of those were in jest.
I personally like RushLucifer although JorgeWChavez was definitely dead on at the time Bush was rolling out TARP.
BTW – I prefer my hyper-partisan attacks to all other hyper-partisan attacks. Just my two cents. It is a matter of principle.
Well all I can say is that one’s behavior on a blog does not mirror personal reality.
I would hope not. It would be rather awkward to hang out with a person who consistently changes costumes (names) every time they re-entered the room…. Come to think of it, it would be like hanging out with Cher.
I prefer my hyper-partisan attacks to all other hyper-partisan attacks. Just my two cents. It is a matter of principle
I like to hear them all. There’s always a good nugget in there somewhere. Mr. Kerry’s red-meat-to-the-base comment from 2004 was classic: “…lyin’, you know, crooked…”
I’m with BMM here. I don’t know anything about the candidates but voting for a bad candidate when there is another one at least trying that you agree with to me isn’t right. If the Republican party can’t put a candidate up that is much different than a Democrat what’s the difference in the end. If Brown goes against the Health Bill not based on principle but just to win power for Republicans that’s no good. The only one’s really showing spine in the whole mess is the Blue Dog Democrats that have held firm. And Mr. Lieberman for that matter. Granted I want to see the health care bill defeated. I might if I could vote in this election vote for Brown solely for that purpose understanding that I wouldn’t be voting for him again. Kind of like I almost voted for that McCain guy.
To me it shouldn’t be about party. Democrat vs. Republican. That’s the whole problem when you make it about party they can play games with what a party is. Both parties have moved so close to a lame center that there isn’t a party.
These are the leaders of our country. Leadership should be based on principles which is a famous concept known as “Principle Centered Leadership”. We should vote for politicians based on principles not on party.
As a self-proclaimed conservative, I am almost as disgusted with the Republicans who have sided with progressives as I am with the downright enemies of freedom who slavishly follow the destructive ideology advanced by Pelosi and Reid.
Still, I would prefer to vote for someone whom I could identify with on enough significant points and who is close enough in the polls to stand a chance of winning, than to cast a vote for a candidate who stands no chance of winning.
In far too many elections, I have voted more against someone than specifically for someone more attuned to parts of my personal political philosophy who did not appear to have wide-based public support. Politics, is, after all, the practice of compromise.
This morning I watched Mr. Brown’s Democratic opponent blithely state that there were no Taliban terrorists left in Afghanistan and were I a Mass. resident I would immediately do anything within my power to keep this idiot woman from winning a seat in the U.S. Senate.
Life, unfortunately, avoids perfection. I agree with TP that voters’ first concern should be to blunt the attacks of Obama and his criminal administration against our Constitution and national identity by electing those who would oppose him.
We face a true national emergency with this man and his cohorts in office.
I still like the option of voting “None of the Above” – it goes against my conscience to vote for a Kennedy while living in Massachusetts but I will do it.
As for Coakley, yes she is a blathering idiot. I never have disputed that fact – I just choose a different resolution.
I have nothing against your right to vote for whom ever you chose BMM. Just for clarification.
As to a difference in voting. I like the weighted system. Voters place in order of preference the candidates for the position. The over-all score determines the winner. I think it would result in more independents getting elected.
But these all seem like pipe dreams. Changing the way current elections are done seems like a longer shot than passing any massive bill one could think of.
Sadly yes. I think for the very reason that most people that would not vote for either major party candidate ultimately just make the decision that it is going to be one of them that wins and just goes that way.
Weighted preference could work. Kind of like saying, well this guy is less of a d-bag than the others.
BTW – How are the Dirtbags supposed to do this year? You got any prognostications for the year? I assume you will still support them from the East Coast?
The dirtbags? I still love that team and support them but have not had the time with the recent transition to get up to speed. When I do I will more than likely scribe a blog about it.
I admit I am not very familiar with any of these parties as I have written off the commonwealth a long time ago. So with that disclaimer, I will go ahead any say that I would be Inclined to believe that in this situation, were I voting, I would be inclined to vote against obama rather than for my ideals. I am all for voting concience over pragmatism, however at this moment, I would rather use my vote to try and make the largest statement possible that what is going on now is unacceptable, even more unacceptable than our 2 party system or the current state of the republican party. That is just me though. And normally I would vote 3rd party, as a protest, but I think the loudest protest right now is perhaps more effective than the ideal protest. That is an interesting thought on forcing the hand reaching though. I would not have considered that effect on my own.
Bill Clinton was forced to reach his hand across the aisle and that is one of the things that ultimately salvaged his Presidency from being a one-termer… at least according to the WSJ.
Devil Man, interesting name! I knew a guy in college that had a little devil….anyways.
On this whole conscience vs. pragmatism or a vote against Obama vs. for one’s principles here is a thought – WWJD.
What would Jesus do? Is there any instance when Jesus did what was against his conscience? I can’t think of one. He sure didn’t take the pragmatic route when tempted three times.
What if somebody had a gun to your head and requested you to renounce your beliefs or die. The most pragmatic thing would be to renounce your beliefs (religious, political, etc.) and live then pick them back up on the other side of the threat. Would you renounce your God for pragmatism?
Before you guys say this isn’t a fair comparison. I know it’s not! It carries much more weight and gravity. It’s your life and God. Why would somebody turn their back on their principles for something so small like defeating a health care bill or ousting a political candidate they don’t like?
Would you renounce your God for pragmatism?
You mean like Peter?
But I don’t really think these two are good comparisons. Jesus did say render unto Caesar…. could this be not only a discussion of taxes but of voting habits? =)
I wouldn’t for pragmatism, but for a Krispy Kreme donut. Yes.
Just kidding. But god I do miss the Hot Donuts now sign.
Yes, render unto Caesars what is his….but this also has limits. Today Caesar doesn’t pick and choose your work for you you do through freedom the property you gain is by rights yours. If Caesar has you work to fund the murder of children would God say this is giving to Caesar what is his. At some point Caesar can be directly opposed to God. Also, Caesar wasn’t elected by the people God had more say in Caesar then he does in a President. Today we’ve taken the responsibility to elect leaders based on principles. If we elect leaders contrary to the principles that we believe God laid down in the foundations of this world what are we doing….regardless of whatever party it is that they are members of…
We choose our Caesars so we have no excuse but to render to Caesar what he asks it’s the Caesars that we keep choosing that I wonder what principles we are voting for anymore. Do we vote for principles at all in this country or just a party. Republican, democrat, independent, conservative, liberal – I agree with all of those terms. How can I choose based on that. I have to choose based on what principles that leader stands on. Small government, free enterprise, strong national defense, religious freedom, constitutional integrity, etc. etc….
property you gain is by rights yours
Beginning to see this as an illusion as taxes on said property make it more of rental than ownership. Taxes are “lower” in NC. But they appear on absolutely everything. It’s probably the result of the mix of blue immigrants and red natives. Either way its ramifications are of taking Uncle Sam and turning him into Aunt Samantha… it’s just conic nagging. “You can do that, but there will be a little tax. Not a big one, we aren’t forming a full-blown nanny state here, but we do need you to pay the little tax”
it’s the Caesars that we keep choosing that I wonder what principles we are voting for anymor
Sounds similar to Israel begging for a king under the old covenant. You get what you ask for… or in this case vote for.
But by that same token, is it better to try to stop the current process by throwing a wrench in the gears, or to let it all play out and hope that someday the majority of the country will learn from your voting and begin voting in the appropriate people.
I think it is somewhere in between. Vote for the one guy that can bring an immediate halt to the process in effort to preserve what little is left, then campaign like made to put in the better choices in 2010.
With you on the taxes thing… Your right I think we are and have been evolving away from that property being ours by right…as such it is probably more Caesars then less. But again we can choose the Caesar more readily.
I think BMM and I just see it as a less gray area. This doesn’t say much. My father who is far morally superior to me is a very party line voter. It’s just how he votes. In the end we all vote our conscience whether we vote Democrat or Republican or for Principles or how Handsome a person is it is our conscience….
devil man: Good of you to stop by old man.
Devil Man is that certain friend from college, best I can tell…
I agree with you. The best objection to what is going on right now in Washington is to support a viable candidate who can boot out the incumbent party.
Democrats need to hear loud and clear that they have completely obliterated their mandate, such as it was.\
They were arrogant, short-sited fools for letting Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried become among the most prominent faces of their party. That’s easily worse than Rush Limbaugh being the supposed “face” of the Republican Party. Democrats should have picked moderates, but the libs have overun that party for the worst.
Hurray for the Republican Party! To all of you who thought our two parties were indestinguishable, how do you explain a full year and a half of congressional Republicans rejecting or at least stalling big-government excesses while Democrats push all of it right along.
I like to remind people that it was the House Republicans who almost stopped TARP (before caving in a moment of unfortunate panic).
They are truly heroes in my view. I’ve actually been very pleased with the Republicans, at least since last January. Now, if they win back the House, they need to come back with some plans and govern with a level of seriousness that they failed to show the last time they were in charge…
To all of you who thought our two parties were indestinguishable, how do you explain a full year and a half of congressional Republicans rejecting or at least stalling big-government excesses while Democrats push all of it right along
I assume you are discussing the “party of no”
From Time Magazine:
It is the same exact tactic. But I am glad some one is try to stop this bill. The sad thing is, SS Reform wasn’t terribly popular, Democrats opposed it (more for political gain than principle). Because Democratic opposition was only for political gain they have no qualms about attempting the same exact thing: Pushing through an unpopular bill.
As Larry Elder once said, the difference between a Republican and a Democrat, maybe a dimes worth.
Wow…I didn’t expect that comment from you TP.
I explain it in much the same way, Republican’s are rejecting or trying to stall big-government excesses for political gains. The American people are against Obamacare all Republican’s have to do is be against Obamacare. Their alternatives though are weak, vague and indeterminate…but they can be because they don’t have any real power or leadership. The tide will shift and Republican’s will be back in power, because of their cowardly finagling… We’ll see what they do then! We’ll see if they reverse some of this crap or not. When Republican’s take congress back we’ll see if they reverse some of these spending trends. We’ll see what giant budget cuts they make, what power they take from the fed and treasury. We’ll see what government programs get scalped. I’m not keeping my fingers crossed because I don’t believe it will happen. Why? Because the American people don’t vote for men/women of principle! As such their are few men and women politicians that run on principles. From my understanding this Kennedy is one of the men or women that is running on principles. Unfortunately, supporting him isn’t what American people do. They’d rather support the guy running against Obamacare for political reasons.
Well one need look no further than recent history to see the failures of the two parties once wincing power from the other party.
Contract with America Republican Congress, Dem President – Failure – just ask Newt
Republican led Congress and White House 2001-2006 – Failure
Democrat led Congress, Republican White House – 2006-2008 – Failure – TARP, Social Security Reform Failure, Multiple Stimulus Packages
Democrat Congress and White House – 2009-Present – Failure – Healthcare, Stimulus Package, Double Down on TARP
FT: Why the surprise? I’m the only registered independent on this blog
I see little difference between what the Dems did when Bush was in office and what the Republicans are doing now… and vice-versa. The names change but the actions are still the same.
I support this currently because, like Democrats implied during the SS reform “debate” … “doing nothing is better than the current option”… granted that was entirely for political gain… and I think the gain Republicans could make would be helpful for the over all health of the country. Bringing congress to a stand still is needed before a true change in direction can be made. Hence I’d vote for Brown, hoping he’d get in and stop the mess in its tracks. Then I’d campaign and vote like mad for all the more “ideal” candidates out there in other races. Asking for, or hoping for, a libertarian statesman to be elected in one of the most liberal states in the Union is a bit of a stretch.
Contract with America Republican Congress, Dem President – Failure – just ask Newt
Didn’t this result in the Republicans winning and retaining control of Congress for over a decade? I don’t live inside the beltway, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that those who do saw that as a “success”.
Congratulations, America is worse off for it and the countless other times that political gamesmanship has taken precedent over actually changing the way they represent their constituencies.
It is all about keeping themselves in a job versus doing the job they were hired for.
I mean if the object is to just oppose what the other party wants let’s just elect two separate teams of trained monkies that do the opposite of what the other does. At least then, I wouldn’t have to hear about their healthcare and pension because I don’t think we would give them one and would gladly exterminate them once they were no longer able to serve.
At least then, I wouldn’t have to hear about their healthcare and pension because I don’t think we would give them one and would gladly exterminate them once they were no longer able to serve.
Doubtful. We already have trained monkeys in office and we treat them like royalty.
I don’t think the Contract With America was a total failure- in fact, I think that was a pretty big success in many ways. They didn’t cut all the spending we hoped for nor did they achieve all the goals in the contract.
But Republicans taking Congress in 1994 caused Clinton to reverse course and take a much more budget-minded approach. Clinton was a spend-thrift liberal just like Obama when he took office and by the time he left, he was praising limited government and fiscal responsibility. I don’t think he would have been doing that if conservatives had sat home or split their votes among a variety of third-party candidates while allowing Democrats to actually hold onto Congress.
One of the biggest things they did was pass welfare reform.
Also, by the end of the decade, we were enjoying surpluses. While those surpluses were bolstered by goofy accounting that let them take credit for Social Security spending and and by an over stimulated economy, you can’t refute that the deficits were lower then that at any other time. If you are going to have an over-stimulated economy, you may as well at least pay down debt and balance the budget.
Most people credit Clinton for that, but Republicans as keepers of the purse played a huge role.
My point is that if you think anybody is going to take over government and close down the Departments of Labor and Education in order to save money, then good luck. You’ll never see your candidate elected in any of our life times.
But if you think you can effect incremental change in a positive direction through voting for the candidate who can actually win and who will start putting the country back in the right direction, then by all means- vote. Likely you will find (like me) that that candidate is Republican.
I’d be campaigning for Brown in Mass. right now. I don’t care if Kennedy has better principles. He’s going to lose on Tuesday no matter what. Brown has a shot to be the 41st vote against Obamacare- and that is historic.
By Social Security “spending” I meant surpluses.
Boy are those a relic of the past…
At this point it would seem to me that concentration should be on trying to elect representatives that are conservative in nature, no matter what their political party, and rejecting any election or re-election bid from someone who supports Obama and the corruption that he has blatantly and hypocritically fostered through his Presidency.
Our country needs to focus on here and now – it solves nothing to continue to attach blame to past administrations (all of whom have had a part in creating the corrupt, dysfunctional, odorous political system that currently passes for leadership in America). There are some politicians in Congress who more committed to the public good than others and perhaps should be allowed to remain as part of the power structure, but their alliance to their constituents is easily determined by close attention to their voting records.
The “blame game” in regard to past actions accomplishes nothing. Change can be accomplished only through watching what elected representatives do, not what they say, and by voting out those who actively support bribery, unethical and illegal behavior, and actions harmful to the security of our nation and its inhabitants.
I am not a registered member of any political party and I consider that a qualification as an independent.
main: Yeah I would consider that a qualification as well.
Agreed on the “blame game.” For leaders to preach about moving forward it is counter productive to continue pointing towards the past to assign blame when difficulties (or dislikes) arise.
Unfortunately it is not possible to always gain the incite one would need based on actions of a political candidate that has no back ground of political actions. You’re still left with weighing what the man says and what you think his private life positions will entail as an elected officer.
Sounds like Dems are trying to lay Coakley’s poor polling at the feet of GW Bush again. Have you seen that?
Dems seem to forget that their healthcare plan has the same approval rating as GW did during the 2008 campaign.
What’s hilarious (or sickening) to me is Nancy Pelosi thinks they need to pass healthcare so they can sell it to the public in 2010.
That’s like Republicans saying they wanted GW to hit the road with John McCain in 2008.
They are blinded fools.
Of course, I don’t think Pelosi really believes herself. She doesn’t care about America- she cares about the narrow special interests that support her, and her liberal circles back home in California.
This bill has become a big “screw you” to the American people, the way they are pushing it through.
Ugh.
Anyway – hope Brown wins.
Your right what we need is less politicians and blame and more representatives currently the there has been no increase in the number of representatives since 1910. It was originally intended for their to be about on representative for every 50,000 or so citizens. Currently, the 437 congressional districts is an abomination. How is a congressional district suppose to represent the diverse population of 800,000 citizens; after all that represents a large city and cities generally have many culture groups contained within them. With 300 million citizens there should be something like 6,000 representatives with something of this nature they will answer to a very select group that can hold them accountable instead of large special interests groups that can be contained in giant million person population groups.
Check out Thirty-Thousand.org.
Stephen,
Great post. Sorry for being late to the game. I agree that Mr. Brown is an underdog, but the fact that things are a close as they are in a state like Mass, is very telling.
After watching the Tampa Bay Buccaneers beat the Saints a few weeks ago, I am really starting to have more faith in underdogs.
Interesting how Mr. Brown is silently slipping ahead in the polls as Coakley self-destructs….GO BUCS!
I know, Chuck! Brown has taken the lead in some polls. I’m surprised to learn that Mass has a huge independent population. I read it is 37 Dem, 11 Rep, and 52 independent. I guess the independents are generally liberal, but in this case, they seem to be riled up against Obamacare. Brown has to win the independents to have a prayer. Good news is that Coakley’s base in Mass. aren’t the kind of people who vote in special elections. My guess is that Brown’s base is.
I’m hopeful he can win, but I’m still 60 to 40 against expecting him too. It just seems like such a long-shot up there.
If we could get BMM to actually vote for him, that may help.
“If we could get BMM to actually vote for him, that may help.”
I would rather slide down a razorblade without any clothes on on my posterior and into a pool of alcohol.
As for the view on the ground up here, I drove through my town’s center this weekend and it was all people campaigning for Brown and noone for Coakley.
In fact, I see significantly more Brown signs than I do Coakley signs.
Even Democrats aren’t on fire for Coakley, they are just voting for her as they consider this ultimately a referendum on the healthcare plan and Obama’s Presidency – so they tow the party line.
As for the Independent streak up here, I would say that I have met far more Conservatives (economically, not socially) than I ever dreamed when I moved up.
That’s good news from the ground, BMM. So if Brown loses by 1 vote, will you be proud to be that man?
I’ll pin the blame for ObamaCare on BMM. Anybody asks me and I’ll just say- I know the guy who could have stopped this thing and he didn’t do a darned thing about it.
Amazing.
So if Brown loses by 1 vote
Comical, but if there is even a 100 vote difference, it will be hung up in court long past HCr voting time. I guess you could still blame BMM for not following the mantra “Vote Early, Vote Often.”
I looked at the candidates websites I’m not sure who I would choose. I disagree with Kennedy on his same sex marriage and war policy. His economic policy is a lot better though and he is for legalizing Marijuana too. Brown on the other hand is oddly against federal run insurance but for State run insurance, which I find odd. If the state runs out of money they just take it from the fed so I’m not sure how this is any better…maybe by degrees. This makes it look like Brown is just playing politics to get elected. Rest of his website is pretty much just politics nothing committal or definitive. I can see why BMM would vote for Kennedy as he probably is almost exactly along his lines on the war issue and marriage issue which I disagree with. For me it would be a harder decision I think I’d support Brown though. I’d be thinking there has to be better candidates out their then this though!
Brown on the other hand is oddly against federal run insurance but for State run insurance, which I find odd
Well considering a constitutionalist approach, this make more sense. The state itself can determine if it wishes to offer a “universal health care” system.
As to the Federal Bailout… that is something to take up with electing proper members to Federal Offices. Does Brown say he is for the Federal Gov. Bailing out State Insurance Programs?
I’d be thinking there has to be better candidates out their then this though!
Recall this is in Massachusetts. This is the cream of the crop from a state that has had three straight Democratic leaders brought up on corruption charges.
I considered the constitutionality approach and it makes sense. But Mass. still takes federal funds to pay it’s bills. Brown has to realize that state health care systems can cause cost over runs for the state governments. Because he realizes it on the federal level.
As for this though…
Good point! It’s probably the largest compromise against their principles the Republican party can make in that state! What a bunch of loonies…
Yeah – I hear all of your points on Brown and his support for state-run health insurance. I’d definitely be against that and it wouldn’t fly down here in Georgia- that’s for sure. Such a concept is hugely foreign.
But the choice is simple to me. The immediate impact of a Brown victory is dramatic shift of course by Dems on this national health reform package we all agree is a disaster waiting to happen. His victory does not guarantee it’s demise, but it sure makes passage harder.
His loss make passage much easier.
That’s it. That’s the choice for you in this run-off election b/w Brown and Kennedy. No matter how well-constructed his website, or how solid is stated belief in his principles, Kennedy is going to get aboslutely bludgeoned in this race.
A final point on third-parties. If a third party were ever to come to any national prominence, it would inevitably be forced to draw experience from either or both of the two lead parties. The government is an incredibly complex organization. I actually think it would be a disaster if a third-party swept out of the blue, completely out of the grass-roots, and took significant power. They likely wouldn’t know the first thing about the day-to-day administration of the government. As much as we all think the government is too bloated, etc., it is a necessary evil that we are hugely dependent on experienced Repub and Dem bureaucrats to run the blasted thing.
I guess my point in saying this about third-parties generally, is to draw the point to the individual third-party candidates more specifically. Who is Joe Kennedy? What experience does he really have? If he went to Washington, a lone Libertarian crusader, would he have a network to plug into that would allow him to change the course of legislation. Or would he be relegated to a right-wing Bernie Sanders- spewing forth about an ideal right-leaning agenda without ever having a significant impact on legislation that stands a chance of passing.
Viable third-parties and third party candidates will have to be supported by significant amounts of seasoned defectors from the major parties, in my opinion. I just don’t see that trend happening- at least not yet. Also, I’m not so sure that trend would work- the third party would be easy to attack if it sucked too many experienced veterans of other parties away (e.g. is this truly change?).
Anyway- meandering thoughts. Good discussion.
Tennessee had a a presumed universal care program. Of course it has tanked and been a total disaster.
Her first negative 30-second spot fell flat when she misspelled her home state as “Massachusettes.”
ouch.
Meanwhile, Brown tooled around the state in a pickup truck airbrushing his red past for a blue electorate, less pro-life and more pro-gay, and claiming that he barely knew who the Tea Partiers were, until a picture showed up of him in their company.
ouch.
lol
The more I read about this election the funnier it all gets.
It doesn’t matter to me that much whether the health bill passes or fails. If it passes quicker to the bottom…
If it fails slower to the bottom… because brown isn’t going to change a thing about government spending.
I go back to Western Lit. at college and the theme that you have to hit bottom before you can go up.
We are enduring the worst financial crisis in 6 decades- and are likely headed for a double-dip by the beginning of next year (if Obama’s agenda is not stopped by Brown).
I think we’re at the bottom.
I think this election is about coming up.
Went and voted for Kennedy. Only Brown folks out at the polling locations I have driven by – some large Coakley signs, but it seems Brown had a far greater turnout.
Good for you guys, I suppose. We’ll see.
A Brown win would be good for you, too, BMM. Deep down, you hope Brown wins.
Coakley conceding means jack shit for this state. Trust me, this isn’t over and they will lag in installing Brown as long as possible. Plus, I could totally see them contesting the results somehow… even if she conceded. Maybe I am just jaded though.
Either way, Coakley has the personality of a rock.
Woo hoo! Good for Scott Brown! Now – let’s just hope this means a change of course.
Long-term, Scott Brown will not be one of my favorite GOP senators. But he is an important player, someone you have to compromise with in poltiics in order to get things going in your direction.
Carly Fiorina in California is similar in my opinion- and I’m hoping she is gunning right at Barbara Boxer.
Anyway – this is great news for America.
HA!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2221899520100222
Now you are happy that he is in the Senate I suppose?
Again, no change soldiered along by either of the two parties in our one party system!
He’s a politician. Of course he wasn’t against the health care bill on any ideological basis. It was for votes just as this is for votes. The American people keep swallowing the political nonsense because how could voters be for a jobs bill but against health care. That is illogical.
We’ve got to come out strong for real revolutionary change. Until then we’ll keep getting demagogues.
I’m pulling for Huckabee big time in 2012…
Everything that I have read of Huckabee’s time in Arkansas does not give me much faith that he will get it right either.
“The American people keep swallowing the political nonsense because how could voters be for a jobs bill but against health care”
American people are for jobs and against health insurance companies. I think the polls have born that out completely.
Exactly my point! The American people (as polled) are swallowing up the demagoguery.
A Jobs Bill isnt’ jobs; any more than a Healthcare Bill isn’t health care.
If a Healthcare Bill is a health insurance company gold mine then a Jobs Bill is a corporate America gold mine. Both as long as the taxpayer’s pony up the funds.
Further, if the American people (as polled) are against health insurance companies and for jobs then this is a sad state as “companies” of all shapes and sizes including health insurance create jobs. Or is it that American’s are against health insurance companies because they make a profit and they think that only not-for-profit companies invest in the economy and create jobs.
If this is the case, which I think it is and which the polls as you point out show, we’re in a pretty hot pot of boiling water.
I should remember to put smillies on my jests…
Hmmmm. I was under the impression a vote for Mr. Brown was a vote against Obamacare, and so far that has remained true. But I do wonder is the populous of Mass in favor of the “Jobs Bill”? If so then Mr. Brown is remaining true to his other campaign promise.
Of course, not being in Massachusetts I couldn’t vote for anyone in that race. But I also didn’t expect that state to vote in a true, dyed-in-the-wool conservative libertarian. That just isn’t ever going to happen. The mere fact that the State voted for a guy who campaigned against Obamacare and ran as a Republican to boot is incredible. Hopefully he will maintain is stance on the health care issue. Everything else… well he is from Massachusetts.
[...] the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts the message seemed loud and clear. Health Care reform was dead. Unfortunately Mr. Obama [...]