01/16/2010 (1:02 pm)
At the urging of the editor of a locally-produced magazine called Vitality, I hunted down a video showing the one-hour debate between the candidates for US Senator in the up-coming Massachusetts special election. The three participants were Scott Brown (Republican), Martha Coakley (Democrat), and Joe Kennedy (Libertarian). Kennedy is no relation to Sen. Edward Kennedy, whose recent death is the reason for the special election.
I don’t know anything about Joe Kennedy, but if he believes what he’s saying, then he’s one of the White Hats, and he Gets It. I don’t know much about Scott Brown, but if he believes what he’s saying, then he’s a Republican of the Olympia Snowe variety, and he Does Not Get It.
Kennedy does not expect to win. He appears to be in the race to convey a message, and that message is this: the road to fiscal survival requires that we cut government spending, and cut it dramatically. It’s also the road to the survival of liberty. Cutting taxes produces nothing useful unless we also cut spending. Cutting spending requires that we reduce the reach and power of government. If Mr. Kennedy goes to Washington, he intends to propose legislation to undo whatever the Democrats do to health care, and then to eliminate the Department of Education, among other things.
I’m going to vote for Scott Brown just to throw a wrench into Harry Reid’s health care tyranny plans; that’s a short-term, tactical consideration. Voting for Kennedy instead promises to hand a close election to the Democrats, who will use it to impose tyranny.
But let’s state the matter plainly — unless we elect, not one, but a massive plurality of Joe Kennedys to the US Senate and House of Representatives, the nation is finished. We do not need Republican control; what we need is control by representatives who aim at rolling back most of the progressive legislation of the 20th century, and reducing the size and scope of national government to a tiny fraction of its current reach.
Brown favors national health care reform, just not this particular version. He may be a temporary thumb in the Democrats’ eyes, but he’s George Bush and John McCain, and his influence will be to effect a slower slide into full socialism, rather than a faster one.
So, let’s get out there and work for the next three days to give the Tyrant Democrats a blow to the noggin that will make their ears ring for a year. But then, let’s not imagine that we’ve accomplished even the first step toward our goal of restoring the republic, because Scott Brown is not the answer. Joe Kennedy is the answer; and unless we who Get It take control of enough state Republican organizations to make sure that our winning candidates are Joe Kennedys rather than Scott Browns, the end of the nation’s trajectory will be socialism, along with poverty, obscurity, and social chaos.
(PS: Kennedy is flat-out, dead wrong on foreign policy, as most Ron Paulers are.)
4 Comments »
Comment by suek
Michael Medved had a short opinion piece on voting for third party candidates…and it was not friendly! To say the least.
I don’t know if I agree or disagree. I understand his point – and yours – that dividing the vote is likely to give the election to the one person you don’t want to win, which is the result of having a basically two party system with the third party candidate odd man out. Yet, there _was_ a time when the GOP was a third party. Did it succeed through it’s choice of candidate? or was it a time factor? Was it a quirk? or gradual acceptance? I don’t know. I _do_ think that if we are ever to have a third party, it needs time to develop – both organization and candidates, and for that you have to expect failure before you can get to where you need to be. Can we ever have a three party system successfully? I can see both plusses and minusses…
Whichever the case, I’d not want this particular election to be a trial starter…too much rests on it.
Comment by Laurence Schell
As usual, you make a lot of sense as far as what needs to be done to recover our nation.
But I don’t care if Brown is a RINO. I think RINOs are okay running against more liberal candidates in states where only a moderate could win. I am willing to support a moderate Republican in a liberal state, when he is running against a far left loony. It is enough for me that he will vote with the rest of the Republicans in a filibuster on healthcare and take a strong stance against terrorism.
Scott Brown is probably as conservative as he dares be in the bluest state. If the Ron Paul type ever succeed in dominating the Massachusetts Republican Party, it will probably result in an unbroken winning streak for the democrats. The best thing Kennedy could do today is drop out of the race and endorse Scott Brown.
PS–You might want to look at my most recent blog about aid to Haiti, if for no other reason than that there are at least three very good links to other articles and blogs related to the subject.
Comment by John Cooper
I agree with all that, but we must recognize the fact that the American form of government has evolved into a two-party system. The very rules of congress recognize a majority party, and a minority party – one or the other. (Amazingly
enough, I actually recall my 7th grade civics teacher discussing the advantage
of a 2-party system as compared to Italy, where parliament is a big free-for-all
and coalitions have to be formed to accomplish anything at all. (An even greater reductio ad absurdum is the Iraqi parliament.)
Sure, Scott Brown isn’t “pure conservative”, but to quote the ultra-liberal Cape Cod Times, “Voters should consider the whole package when they go to the polls Tuesday”. He opposes the StealthCare bill and Cap ‘n Tax – the two biggest threats to our liberty at the moment. From what I’ve read, he as reasonable positions on many other issues.
Yes, he may turn out to be another Olympia Snow/Susan Collins eventually, but right now we need someone – anyone – with an “R” after his name. If this health care bill passes, nothing else will matter. America as we have known will be dead.
Comment by RM
I’ll add my voice. I’m not excited about another RINO, but
(1) Brown has promised he would be the 41st vote against the Obama plan. Passage of a Democrat plan even close to the current proposal could be the ballgame financially. I never say never or always, but that would be as close as it gets to securing a permanent D majority over the long term. Once it’s law, that’s it, over and out, IMO. It will only get more restrictive and liberal.
(2) A win in any State would knock some sense into the heads of any Democrats with any political desire to remain in office and render them less likely to sacrifice themselves on the altar of the Lightworker. Some will, but blue dogs and others who did not get “heeled” like Landrieu and Nelson may not be quite so eager to dive into the deep water with concrete blocks around their ankles.
(3) A defeat like this in any State would be a huge blow to the Obama mystique. he’s had a few losses, this would be a tough one to shake off.
(4) This is particularly significant since it is a referendum on healthcare, Obama’s centerpiece. Tough for the media to spin this one real convincingly (although they will try)
(5) All this redoubles because of the significance of an R win of Ted Kennedy’s seat in dark ink blue Massachusetts. Obama may be a suicidal ideologue, but he may decide he needs to tack a bit right a la Clinton.
Obamacare is way, way too close for comfort and would be too disastrous. I’ll gladly take the RINO in this case as opposed to the alternative.