Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
ers

Massachusetts Senate Race (Ted Kennedy's old seat)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A republican win for Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special Senate election could be a long shot, but it just may be enough to stop Obama's health care plan. I don't necessarily agree with all of Brown's views, but at this point, I'm rooting for anything and anybody that might stop ObamaCare. I am even considering sending him money today. The fact that a conservative is so close to winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts, of all places, is pretty crazy.

"Non-Biased Mediator" asks Scott Brown if he'll be the one to hold up health care reform while sitting in "Ted Kennedy's seat", brown responds, "It's the people's seat."

Mass. Senate poll shows shift toward GOP candidate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0011500544.html

Poll shocker: Scott Brown surges ahead in Senate race

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/...ticleid=1225720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that even in the best case scenario that Brown is elected, it will be close, and so the Democrats will contest the vote in order to delay seating Brown in time to block any heath care votes. Nonetheless it's been remarkable to see how people from other states have given him so much money for being the "anti health care bill" candidate, and if he is elected (or even if narrowly defeated) it should make Democratic party leaders even more nervous for their prospects in November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've heard that even in the best case scenario that Brown is elected, it will be close

Apparently, it might be a landslide for Brown, if it is true that Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/17/poll...he-final-hours/

But even if he wins, it will only limit the size of the heatlh care reform, not stop it completely, since the Dems can push a lesser version through the Senate with a simple majority (of 51).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But even if he wins, it will only limit the size of the heatlh care reform, not stop it completely, since the Dems can push a lesser version through the Senate with a simple majority (of 51).

There would be positive secondary effects from a Brown win, even if it doesn't entirely kill the health care bill. If a Republican can win a Senate race in Massachusetts, then no Democrat is safe. A Brown upset will be a touchstone we can use to inculcate fear in the other Democrats in the run-up to the midterm elections, and that will help with the opposition to cap-and-trade and with squelching further 'stimulus' and bailout bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does the following fall in line with Objectivist ethics?

If Rand would have put that in the mouth of one of her villains, it would be used as the prime example of how she exaggerates and distorts reality.

I tend to be very weary about context when seeing/hearing clips like this, so I'll look into it a bit more. On the surface though, I'm speechless. It is one for the horror file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to be very weary about context when seeing/hearing clips like this, so I'll look into it a bit more. On the surface though, I'm speechless. It is one for the horror file.

I don't know the context of the clip either, but I have listened to the Ed Schultz Show and he's quite a left-wing agitator. The other day he was ranting and raving about how even if healthcare reform isn't everything "we" (I guess he means leftists) want it to be, it will still represent a huge political victory for Democrats and must be supported because of that fact alone. Who cares about destroying the finest healthcare system in the world, political victory for Obama should be our primary concern. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did end up sending Brown money on Friday.

The way I see it, there are few different scenarios that can go down.

1) Coakley can legitimately win, and ObamaCare passes. Obviously the most palatable option for the Democrats.

2) Coakley can win, but there is some sort of voting misconduct/corruption on the part of ACORN of the SEIU. By the time investigations are underway, ObamaCare will have already passed anyway. In the end, the Democrats will take a publicity hit but their flagship legislation will be completed.

3) Brown will win, but the Democrats will either find some way to delay him being seated in the Senate. This could happen in two ways:

a.) Claim voter misconduct/corruption and demand a recount; Brown still ends up winning but ObamaCare passes before he's seated.

b.) Actually delay him from being seated, which is something Barney Frank has called "a demented right wing conspiracy theory."

Both of these options will upset a lot of people, on both sides of the political spectrum, so I don't think either of them are particularly likely.

4) Brown will win, so Democrats rush through whatever compromise they have ASAP before he can be seated. Again, I think doing something like this will generally be frowned upon and is not likely.

5) The Democrats will coerce House members to pass the already existing Senate legislation and use reconciliation to ram it through with only 51 votes. I think that if Brown does win (still not sure if he will), that this will be the most likely thing that will happen.

6) Brown wins, ObamaCare is halted, and Obama cries himself to sleep. (here's hoping!)

Edited by ers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5) The Democrats will coerce House members to pass the already existing Senate legislation and use reconciliation to ram it through with only 51 votes. I think that if Brown does win (still not sure if he will), that this will be the most likely thing that will happen.

6) Brown wins, ObamaCare is halted, and Obama cries himself to sleep. (here's hoping!)

Politically, #6 is out. So, the "worst case" from the Dem's perspective would be: house passes Senate legislation as-is, and that's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Politically, #6 is out. So, the "worst case" from the Dem's perspective would be: house passes Senate legislation as-is, and that's that.

I wonder if that would actually happen in the event that Brown wins. Remember, each Congressman has to run every two years and a Brown victory in Mass, the bluest of blue states, would send shock waves through both the House and the Senate. Pelosi might have a tough time getting the simple majority she needs to pass the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if that would actually happen in the event that Brown wins. Remember, each Congressman has to run every two years and a Brown victory in Mass, the bluest of blue states, would send shock waves through both the House and the Senate. Pelosi might have a tough time getting the simple majority she needs to pass the bill.
From your lips, to the ears of God. That outcome would be exceedingly cool. Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if that would actually happen in the event that Brown wins. Remember, each Congressman has to run every two years and a Brown victory in Mass, the bluest of blue states, would send shock waves through both the House and the Senate. Pelosi might have a tough time getting the simple majority she needs to pass the bill.

This crossed my mind as well, but I don't know. On one of the the other threads here, someone mentioned that their Senator stated that he would be willing to sacrifice his job in order to get this legislation to pass. That kind of attitude goes beyond pragmatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This crossed my mind as well, but I don't know. On one of the the other threads here, someone mentioned that their Senator stated that he would be willing to sacrifice his job in order to get this legislation to pass. That kind of attitude goes beyond pragmatism.

Well, I think that's where Harry Reid is on healthcare legislation right now. He is very likely to lose in November and he sees this legislation as buying him a place in history. One can only hope the other politicians in the House and Senate are less committed to the cause and thus more likely to want to save their electoral asses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This crossed my mind as well, but I don't know. On one of the the other threads here, someone mentioned that their Senator stated that he would be willing to sacrifice his job in order to get this legislation to pass. That kind of attitude goes beyond pragmatism.

Not in the wider sense of the word. Pragmatism does involve a little bit of self sacrifice. It's a balancing act between reality and altruism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was me, it was Senator Bennett of Colorado (appointed when his predecessor, Salazar, was appointed by the Great One to a job in the administration), and he is probably going to get his ass handed to him this fall. Well, one can hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's around 2:00PM EST right now, so the polls haven't even closed yet in Massachusetts, but apparently the Boston Globe is banking on a Coakley win.

"Boston Globe calls election for Martha Coakley?"

http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitic...ha-coakley.aspx

Obviously they were only testing their map graphic, but oh the irony! If you add up Brown's votes with the Independent Kennedy, Brown would have won by 1 vote! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither candidate is desirable. End o' story
Neither is desirable, but that is not the end of the story. Even if Brown has extremely conservative views on some issues, they are not very relevant in this election. His importance is his vote against Healthcare, if it comes back to the senate. Also important is the ability to filibuster against anything else the Democrats might bring. A vote for Brown today is a vote for a small step toward increasing the likelihood of political gridlock. Everyone who can vote in MA ought to make the effort and vote for Brown. Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wrong to vote in someone who on principle is diametrically opposed to you. I wouldn't want to be the vote that decided if anyone I hate got in. Let us say the popular fervor that has swept up the Right translates to a knockout in November, a real possibility. Obama is voted in 2012, and replaced with a candidate who appeases all the most absurd of tea party positions. This Brown character will then just be another cog in the conservative machine. It's why you wouldn't have voted in a liberal in 2006. It's always a real possibility that the powers will switch; it isn't really up to you. In either scenario, I will be voting in favor of my possible destruction.

Will I be sad if Brown gets elected? No. I'd enjoy to see the smugness wiped off the liberals faces and to have one more vote opposing health care, but I'm not going to put my sanction behind the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's wrong to vote in someone who on principle is diametrically opposed to you. I wouldn't want to be the vote that decided if anyone I hate got in.
I assume you hate both the possible options in this case, and find yourself sufficiently opposite both of them. If this one seat did not matter at this point, and if you really found both candidates really bad, I could understand abstaining. If the GOP had (say) 38 seats or (say) 42 seats, the facts around this election would be significantly different. Since it is the 40th seat, the vote is not merely a vote for the one man. To abstain is to abstain from voting for gridlock. That is an essential part of the current context.

Instead, you mention a future possible context:

Let us say the popular fervor that has swept up the Right translates to a knockout in November, a real possibility. Obama is voted in 2012, and replaced with a candidate who appeases all the most absurd of tea party positions. This Brown character will then just be another cog in the conservative machine.
If you see the pendulum swinging, then that is part of the context within which you will vote (i.e. against the GOP). I'm not familiar with tea-party positions, and which ones are absurd, but it sounds unlikely to me that a resurgent GOP is going to suddenly advocate some crazy positions that are a radical departure from the nonsense they have been advocating in the past. Sure, there may be a few such folk who get in on a wave, but the party as a whole is not going to change. Even if the GOP swings somewhere en masse, with Obama as president, there is a limit to what a rabid GOP can do. Further, not all the Senate is up for election in 2010. Even a huge GOP wave might take just 10 seats away from the Democrats. The chance that the Democrats drop below a filibuster-proof minority are almost nil.

In either scenario, I will be voting in favor of my possible destruction.
Sure, I agree. The way I look at it, the more the grid-lock, the slower the pace of destruction. So, when I don't like either, I vote for gridlock; in doing so, I'm choosing a slower pace of destruction.

Will I be sad if Brown gets elected? No. I'd enjoy to see the smugness wiped off the liberals faces and to have one more vote opposing health care, but I'm not going to put my sanction behind the man.
A vote is not necessarily a sanction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's wrong to vote in someone who on principle is diametrically opposed to you. I wouldn't want to be the vote that decided if anyone I hate got in. Let us say the popular fervor that has swept up the Right translates to a knockout in November, a real possibility. Obama is voted in 2012, and replaced with a candidate who appeases all the most absurd of tea party positions. This Brown character will then just be another cog in the conservative machine. It's why you wouldn't have voted in a liberal in 2006. It's always a real possibility that the powers will switch; it isn't really up to you. In either scenario, I will be voting in favor of my possible destruction.

Will I be sad if Brown gets elected? No. I'd enjoy to see the smugness wiped off the liberals faces and to have one more vote opposing health care, but I'm not going to put my sanction behind the man.

Other than Peter Schiff, is there anyone in national politics who is worthy of your vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. This election is not really about Brown vs Coakley, and their respective ideologies (however flawed or abhorrent either of them might be). This is about stopping, or at the bare minimum, slowing down an extremely socialist agenda.

Sure, I agree. The way I look at it, the more the grid-lock, the slower the pace of destruction. So, when I don't like either, I vote for gridlock; in doing so, I'm choosing a slower pace of destruction.
Edited by ers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm following the election with a live local news feed here:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/22277500/index.html

Currently 29% are reporting with Brown 53% and Coakley 47%

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the dead vote early and often. I am predicting that the Democrats will attempt to steal this elections and if they can't they will tie a close vote up in the courts for months and months. Rember what happened with Franken?

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×