Brown to Vote Against Reciprocity Bill

[dixidawg]

this. WTF do you guys think will happen if he loses? There will never be an other libertarian or conservative candidate? We have to pay short term to gain long term. No more ****ing RINO's.

Right. And before him, how long was it since we had an R Senator? What makes you think it would be any different if Lizzie wins? How does "paying short term" lead to any kind of longer term gain. Please explain the steps that will lead to this long term gain????

 

[Climbnsink]

The gain is in tossing rinos. MA loses regardless. The fight is for a better senate. MA will have 2 D's doesn't matter as long the rest of the country makes up the difference. What do we win if we keep Brown? A pol that knows he can vote every moonbat way and still get support from conservatives? Self delusion that we don't really live in a blue cesspool?

 

[cekim]

"Good people" to you or I would have NO chance in an election in this state. There are an awful lot of people here that believe Obama is too far right.

The fact that we have so many unopposed elections as well as all the people who aren't insane that I meet every day tells me that the problem is that we aren't even trying.

 

[Martlet]

The fact that we have so many unopposed elections as well as all the people who aren't insane that I meet every day tells me that the problem is that we aren't even trying.

Trying isn't intentionally losing. If you were rapidly filling Congressional seats with great candidates, your plan would have merit. We aren't. Therefore, trading bad for worse is just a retarded strategy.

 

[GM-GUY]

I won't vote for Brown, because of this and a list of other things, but you are right that even by 'blanking' that race we are giving the election to Warren.

I will be able to sleep at night and be okay with it for the following reasons:

1) They both are taking us to the same place - bigger government, less Liberty.
2) Until the GOP (leadership) gets it through their heads that conservatism works - they'll be liberal-lite.
3) If we can't stop the train, I say at least hurry the damn thing up so when we get there we can straighten the mess out when EVERYONE realizes they messed up.

 

[Martlet]

I won't vote for Brown, because of this and a list of other things, but you are right that even by 'blanking' that race we are giving the election to Warren.

I will be able to sleep at night and be okay with it for the following reasons:

1) They both are taking us to the same place - bigger government, less Liberty.
2) Until the GOP (leadership) gets it through their heads that conservatism works - they'll be liberal-lite.
3) If we can't stop the train, I say at least hurry the damn thing up so when we get there we can straighten the mess out when EVERYONE realizes they messed up.

You obviously have no realization what "straightening out this mess" entails.

 

[dixidawg]

Exactly. What is the PLAN for fixing this, other than letting the Dems have their way?

 

[Boghog1]

Well I for one will not be voting for Brown or Warren
Please note my location before you get upset

 

[Rob Boudrie]

As to voting:

Assume that voting Brown out because he is not good enough costs us one "R" on the tally of senators, and that prevents us from having a Republican majority at the conclusion of this, or a future, election. That means all key committee chairs stay in the hands of Democrats.

Is it worth it just to send a message, when you consider that the chances of a pro-gun rights Republican being elected in MA, and surviving re-election, ranks right up there with Waltham and Brookline suddenly becoming green towns without a change in chiefs?

 

[dixidawg]

+10000000

I'll never understand how a strategy of intentionally losing battles will lead to winning the war!

 

[JRyan]

You're delusional if you think handing the seat to Warren is going to result in a Massachusetts Libertarian Senator next election.

I never said next election. Mass will have to be a very long term project, but I can see this strategy paying off more quickly in other states.

I'm still not getting the whole "Oh no! we lost a seat long held by a moonbat to a moonbat from a guy with an R after his name who is functionally a moonbat!" thing.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I never said next election. Mass will have to be a very long term project, but I can see this strategy paying off more quickly in other states.

Yup, the strategy may very well work better in other places.

As to MA - if a "D" gets Brown's senate seat, it will be in the hands of Democrats for a long, long time. The only reason brown won last time was a bad opponent with an arrogant campaign. He would not have been able to even beat Coakley if she had the power of incumbency behind her, and incumbency, plus sucking up to moonbats, is the only thing that gives him a chance against Warren.

 

[dixidawg]

What strategy? Intentionally losing elections will somehow pay off?

Please describe this strategy because I don't get it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What strategy? Intentionally losing elections will somehow pay off?

Please describe this strategy because I don't get it.

This strategy can work in a state where the losing Republican can be credibly told "You may have won that election if you had not alienated the gun owners.". That is NOT the message that will be received if gun owners vote for Warren (not voting for Brown is the same thing for all practical purposes). The message to a MA senate candidate will be "I can afford to be even more extreme on gun control since the gun owners will vote against me unless I take a position that is political suicide in this state".

 

[cekim]

As to voting:

Assume that voting Brown out because he is not good enough costs us one "R" on the tally of senators, and that prevents us from having a Republican majority at the conclusion of this, or a future, election. That means all key committee chairs stay in the hands of Democrats.

Is it worth it just to send a message, when you consider that the chances of a pro-gun rights Republican being elected in MA, and surviving re-election, ranks right up there with Waltham and Brookline suddenly becoming green towns without a change in chiefs?

50% of an R generally and on socialism/fighting Keynesian economics even less.

Is it worth it? It doesn't seem that way until you look at the big picture and realizing we are just slowing the train to the death camps not stopping it.

It is also important to understand that "not voting for Brown" is only half the battle - the other half is getting a good candidate on the ticket in the primaries against him. That's what infuriates me is that people are talking about the election and no one is saying "boo" about the primary - that's where the real work needs to be done.

 

[Billsail]

As to voting:

Assume that voting Brown out because he is not good enough costs us one "R" on the tally of senators, and that prevents us from having a Republican majority at the conclusion of this, or a future, election. That means all key committee chairs stay in the hands of Democrats.

Is it worth it just to send a message, when you consider that the chances of a pro-gun rights Republican being elected in MA, and surviving re-election, ranks right up there with Waltham and Brookline suddenly becoming green towns without a change in chiefs?

This is a very important point that hasn't been brought up till now! Thanks Rob!

 

[rwl1955]

I don't know how that will ever happen. The majority of people in this state believe Brown is too far RIGHT. That is not going to change in my lifetime. There is no way in hell we will get what we consider a TRUE Republican in this state. It is FAR better to have Brown, who gives us some wins (including the SCOTUS vote) than someone like Lizzie where we lose on EVERY front. The phrase "Cutting your nose off to spite your face" comes to mind...

Exactly. Posters on this forum who think voting Brown out because he`s a RINO is a win for us are not being realistic.

 

[GM-GUY]

I do know that straightening this mess out will be VERY painful and potentially fatal for some.....HOWEVER.....the other alternative is not straightening this mess out and, well, it will be worse.

 

[dixidawg]

I still havent't heard what the plan is for "straightening this out" other than let the dems win if you don't like the R.

What happens after that?

 

[Martlet]

I do know that straightening this mess out will be VERY painful and potentially fatal for some.....HOWEVER.....the other alternative is not straightening this mess out and, well, it will be worse.

Really? Your home destroyed and family killed is a better alternative than getting your ass off the couch and trying to win this thing at the polls?

 

[JRyan]

I still havent't heard what the plan is for "straightening this out" other than let the dems win if you don't like the R.

What happens after that?

The idea is the elimination of RINO's from getting past the primaries, so we could have actual R's or god forbid even a libertarian (no Martlet, I don't mean in a special election today) at some point in the future when the R's realize that being a RINO is no longer an acceptable strategy. What we have now is a choice between sucks a lot and sucks a lot, but looks a little better on the surface. Not useful. I know it would be a long time coming in MA, but it's not like MA is in a vacuum politically. Am I sure the benefit long term is worth the cost short term? Not yet, not even sure it would work, but I do know what we have now is not working.

 

[GM-GUY]

Martlet: I didn't say that. I only see too potential outcomes here, neither of which is ideal but the first is definitely preferable to the second. The first is a major upheaval with, in the end, a restoration of Constitutional govt. The second, as I see it, is the great darkness of socialism with no one left to stop it. Also, remember NAZI - National SOCIALIST Party, Socialism never operates or ends well.

As far as the polls, I vote every time since I could with the exception of the first time I could vote (1988) as I was overseas Active USAF, didn't feel it was right as I was not as in touch with all the things I should have been to make an informed decision.

But this lesser of two evils crap gets us further in trouble, it must stop. Maybe a whole bunch of other people in the state/country are going to do this also and we all win. Do I know it to be true, no I don't, but I can hope, and write letters, hang signs, and vote for people - BUT ONLY FOR PEOPLE I BELIEVE IN.

 

[drgrant]

As to voting:

Assume that voting Brown out because he is not good enough costs us one "R" on the tally of senators, and that prevents us from having a Republican majority at the conclusion of this, or a future, election. That means all key committee chairs stay in the hands of Democrats.

Is it worth it just to send a message, when you consider that the chances of a pro-gun rights Republican being elected in MA, and surviving re-election, ranks right up there with Waltham and Brookline suddenly becoming green towns without a change in chiefs?

Good point Rob...

Brown is worthless WRT his own vote 95% of the time, but from a GOP strategic thing with the balance of power, etc, keeping him in office is beneficial in that regard.

Of course it's a sad state of affairs when we start considering the whole "Brown is like a pet rock with an R on his back occupying the seat and he's still better than the dem alternative" but that's a whole other block of cheese.

-Mike

 

[Martlet]

Martlet: I didn't say that. I only see too potential outcomes here, neither of which is ideal but the first is definitely preferable to the second. The first is a major upheaval with, in the end, a restoration of Constitutional govt. The second, as I see it, is the great darkness of socialism with no one left to stop it. Also, remember NAZI - National SOCIALIST Party, Socialism never operates or ends well.

As far as the polls, I vote every time since I could with the exception of the first time I could vote (1988) as I was overseas Active USAF, didn't feel it was right as I was not as in touch with all the things I should have been to make an informed decision.

But this lesser of two evils crap gets us further in trouble, it must stop. Maybe a whole bunch of other people in the state/country are going to do this also and we all win. Do I know it to be true, no I don't, but I can hope, and write letters, hang signs, and vote for people - BUT ONLY FOR PEOPLE I BELIEVE IN.

Then just go start the revolution. You guys cry about it enough and try to "hasten it's oncoming", but none of you have the sack to actually go do it.

 

[Martlet]

duplitron

 

[dixidawg]

The idea is the elimination of RINO's from getting past the primaries, so we could have actual R's or god forbid even a libertarian (no Martlet, I don't mean in a special election today) at some point in the future when the R's realize that being a RINO is no longer an acceptable strategy. What we have now is a choice between sucks a lot and sucks a lot, but looks a little better on the surface. Not useful. I know it would be a long time coming in MA, but it's not like MA is in a vacuum politically. Am I sure the benefit long term is worth the cost short term? Not yet, not even sure it would work, but I do know what we have now is not working.

In Ma, if the RINO's don't get past the primaries, the Dems win. There are still to many that consider "middle of the road" Dems to be too far right let alone a true republican.

Mass will not elect anything close to a Republican in my or my grand daughter's lifetime. We have RINO's because they realize that being an R is not a winning strategy in Ma. Never has been, and never will be. Until people realize that, the Dems will continue to win and keep forwarding their agenda.

 

[joeendris]

The founders told us what they wanted and that the right shall not be infringed so there is no need for the court to interpret anything. That is just an excuse the courts and govt. use to exert more power over we the people.

Term limits for every one of them. Incumbency shouldn't last beyond two sessions. Lifers and the concept of life-long politicians needs to stop. Incumbency keeps them from answering for their actions. Remove them on a regular basis and make them live what they vote on. That would teach them and the rest of society how to treat each other. It removes Congressional ultimate power, Thin Blue Line mentalities, DAs abusing their power...all of this, from the lifer. They would actually have to get a job that serves a purpose beyond screwing the common citizen.

In Ma, if the RINO's don't get past the primaries, the Dems win. There are still to many that consider "middle of the road" Dems to be too far right let alone a true republican. Mass will not elect anything close to a Republican in my or my grand daughter's lifetime. We have RINO's because they realize that being an R is not a winning strategy in Ma. Never has been, and never will be. Until people realize that, the Dems will continue to win and keep forwarding their agenda.

Which is why folks who cherish their life and rights, are moving out. Swampscott self-defense case, anybody?

 

[buketduder]

My personal opinion is pay attention to Local/State Elections....Federal Elections mean nothing...a Ron or Rand Paul might slip in but the Federal Reserve will make sure nothing serious ever changes...Those who print the money decide everything!!

 

[dixidawg]

Move out if you choose. But staying here and not voting because the R doesn't give you everything you want only keeps the Dems in unchecked power.

Brown, as a RINO, was elected because he had near unanimous R support, including million$ in out of state dollars. He sold himself as one who would "compromise" (RINO), and ran against perhaps the worlds worst campaign. Even with that it was not an overwhelming victory. To think that anyone with a further right agenda could possibly have won absent the "perfect storm" of circumstances, is living in fantasy land.

NOT voting now, gives up whatever ground was gained.

 

[GM-GUY]

Martlet - Please,

I do not want a revolution, I do not want to start one. I do not want to see anyone harmed.

What I am saying is that I only see two ways out, which I have spelled out.

I find it interesting when some on this site disagree with a point, it degrades to personal attacks ..... just sad.