Kn@ppster: Scott Brown is the measure of how far the Tea Party movement’s standards have fallen

Posted by Tom Knapp at Kn@ppster:

Q: What’s the difference between Scott Brown and Dede Scozzafava?

A: Just having an “R” next to his name is enough for the Tea Party “leaders” who told us Scozzafava was the AntiChrist (here, for example, is a typical St. Louis Tea Party GOP sellout whine for Brown).

Somewhere in America, there may be a candidate whose very bones scream “Establishment Squish!” more loudly and shrilly than Scott Brown’s … but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Here’s a summary of Brown’s big-government record from Small Government News (hat tip — Aaron Biterman).

And just for giggles, here’s his latest faux-populist on the one hand, “please, please, please mistake me for Mitt Romney” on the other, ad (hat tip: The Other McCain, who has apparently fallen for the Brown schtick):

Scott Brown is the measure of how far the Tea Party movement’s standards have fallen — or how much tighter the GOP’s stranglehold on it has become — in just a few short months.

The measure of whether a particular Tea Party group is still viable and honest is a simple one: Have they told sad sack GOP hack Brown to go pound sand and thrown every iota of their support to Joe Kennedy? If so, they may be legit. If not, they’re nothing but fraudulent GOP astroturf.


IPR posts about Joe Kennedy

Joe Kennedy For Senate

71 thoughts on “Kn@ppster: Scott Brown is the measure of how far the Tea Party movement’s standards have fallen

  1. Libervention Price Club

    The proper term for tea partiers that fall for Scott Brown’s BS is BrownBaggers. Look that up at urbandictionary.com if you have a strong stomach, are not at work, and don’t have any little kids hanging around.

  2. Hayden

    While I’m a Republican here’s something I’ve never understood… Wouldn’t you rather have a Scott Brown who would vote for Conservative principles 85% of the time or a Martha Coakley who would vote for Conservative princples %15 of the time? All politics is local. You couldn’t run a Jim Douglas in Texas and you couldn’t run a Rick Perry in Vermont.

  3. George Phillies

    Why would a libertarian want someone who votes for conservative ideas? That goes double if by ‘conservative’ you mean the new political theme “Republican conservative”, which occupies the bottom of the Nolan chart and is the opposite of libertarian.

  4. Brian Holtz

    How likely is it that a Brown victory could be the difference for stopping Obamacare? How likely would it have to be to make Tea Party support of him reasonable?

  5. Trent Hill

    For once, I agree with Holtz. Libertarians should be cheering on a Brown victory–not because Brown is any better, but because it will likely have the effect of stopping the healthcare bill (or at least slowing it dramatically).

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    You write:

    “How likely is it that a Brown victory could be the difference for stopping Obamacare?”

    Highly unlikely.

    First of all, if Brown wins there are two procedural levels (certification of the election and seating of new members) at which he can be kept out of the Senate until the vote is cast.

    Secondly, if he is seated and is inclined to vote against the bill that comes out of conference, there are always a couple of “moderate Republicans” looking for a chance to make waves by flirting with the other side. Olympia Snowe has been the big one with this Bill, due to Specter’s party change and Lincoln Chafee’s defeat a few years ago, but there are others awaiting their closeups, Mr. DeMille.

    Third, there’s no particular reason to actually believe Brown when he says that he opposes ObamaCare. He was a prominent backer of its prototype, RomneyCare, as a Massachusetts pol.

  7. Libervention Price Club

    Brian and Trent – please read the links at #7 and then answer the questions Brian posed yourselves.

  8. Ben

    Knap is right, the Dems have already said they wouldn’t certify Brown until they pass healthcare.

    Also, Brown said in the debates that he would go to DC to teach all of the other states how to enact the same socialized healthcare we have in MA. He might vote against the current bill, but I’m sure he’d love to craft a bipartisan bill of his own.

    Then again, his chief problem with Obamacare is that it forces MA to pay for everyone else’s universal care when MA already has it. So if the Dems could work the numbers a bit, I’m guessing…

  9. whatever

    3-, 4-, 5- or more- party government in DC would be ideal.

    But 2-party gridlock is a better result than 1-party rule.

    It’s a n0-brainer for independents to support this guy no matter how big a hack he is. If Mass had a primary/runoff system, a third-party vote in the the first round would make sense; but there is no runoff, so it doesn’t. A vote for the GOP candidate is the way to go, just as a vote for a Dem candidate would have been the way to go in a close election back in, say, 2002.

    Mass LP should work for electoral reform in the state … for a primary/runoff system (or IRV) that would encourage more 3rd-party votes.

  10. Gene Berkman

    I certainly hope that Joe Kennedy gets a big vote, and takes enough liberal votes to cause the Democrat to lose.

    Yes, Tom K., Sen. Brown voted for Romneycare and should be condemned for doing so. But he might still oppose Obamacare. Some politicians are hypocrites.

    You can understand the mathematical definition of “some” when it applies to hypocritical politicians, I am sure. It means more than “some” means in other contexts.

  11. NewFederalist

    Unless Joe Kennedy actually wins (which is extremely unlikely) what difference does it really make? Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. You get what you vote for. Deal with it.

  12. Libervention Price Club

    But he might still oppose Obamacare. Some politicians are hypocrites.

    Brown in the debate: “I will go to Washington and show them how we did it (RomneyCare) here”

    Whether Coakley or Brown is elected, Obama will sign into law requiring individuals to subsidize giant corporations by buying jacked up, low quality insurance under the threat of government guns. Calling this “health care reform” is laughable.

    ObamaCare is just the nationalized version of RomneyCare, and Scott Brown is one of the authors of RomneyCare.
    And still proud of it.

    ObamaCare wil probably already be out of the Senate by the time next Senator from Mass is seated. If it’s not, they can find their 60th vote somehow…Snowe, Collins…or how about Scott Brown? Yeah, I know, he promised he won’t, but he can promise anything he wants before the election, and do anything he wants if he actually gets elected.

    I for one would not be surprised at such a double cross. Would you?

  13. Libervention Price Club

    2-party gridlock is a better result than 1-party rule.

    This would only be true if they were truly two parties. At the top, they are really one and the same.

    They are different at the grass roots; it’s called “divide and conquer.”

    The real war is not between the red and blue teams; it’s between the elite at the top on one side and the grassroots of both teams as well as independents on the other.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gene,

    Right now it’s ObamaCare.

    Go as far back in the history of the duopoly, or as far forward as you want to predict, and it always has been and always will be that there’s some “MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAH!” which duopoly supporters and their useful idiots run up the flagpole to “prove” that we “must vote” for “the lesser evil” … just this one time … every time.

    In this case, that “MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAH!” rings particularly hollow because there’s really not a good case to be made for the prospect that Brown can stop ObamaCare even if he’s actually inclined to do so.

    The Democrats are going for a House/Senate conference reconciliation and a final vote in January.

    The election is on January 19th.

    The SOONEST that a special election can be certified is on the seventh day following the vote (General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 54, Section 116). So we’re already to January 26th, probably the 27th.

    And Massachusetts jurisdictions — cities and towns — have 15 days to certify their tallies before sending them up for certification at the state level.

    So let’s say that Brown wins the election (unlikely), the votes are in Deval Patrick’s office the next morning (unlikely), and he certifies them immediately (unlikely).

    Even if all those things happen, Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution is clear that “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”

    The Senate — the Democratic Senate — held up a Democratic appointee (Roland Burris of Illinois) for 10 days from submission/rejection of his certificate of election to his actual swearing in. Do you think they couldn’t do that to Scott Brown?

    ObamaCare will be passed and signed, if it’s going to be, long before Scott Brown’s ass warms a chair in the Senate chamber.

  15. Libervention Price Club

    Hmmm, he sure sounds clueless…..

    QUESTION: “Scott, what do you think about the Tea Party movement and what they are trying to do?”

    SCOTT BROWN: “I am not quite sure what you are talking about, what are they trying to do?”

    QUESTION: “The anti-smaller government, sort of anti-establishment organization that is trying to take over the country.”

    SCOTT BROWN: “Taking over the country. I think that is a little bit of an exaggeration.”

    QUESTION: “Well, they are all over the place and they are trying to take down moderate Republicans. . .”

    SCOTT BROWN: “All I know is that. . . “

    QUESTION: “Are you completely unaware of that organization?”

    SCOTT BROWN: “I’m not quite sure what you are referring to. But let me just say that this is a big tent campaign. I have people who are Democrats, I have people who are Independents, Republicans, young, old, liberal, conservative, moderate involved in this campaign because people are looking past the letter behind my name and they are looking at my 30 years of military service. They are looking at the fact…

  16. levander

    Bottom feeding article. Pretty pathetic.

    Do you know anything about political issues or do you just entirely deal with images and labels?

  17. Trent Hill

    Knapp,

    Your points not withstanding–it would be better to have a more evenly split Senate, rather than a lopsided one.

  18. Andy

    I have to agree with Knapp here. Any Tea Party group that supports Scott Brown has lost their credibility.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    Trent,

    I agree with you on the desirability of gridlock.

    Hell, if Kennedy can’t win I’m pulling for Brown — just not for the reason that other people are.

    A Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts would instantly change the dynamic of this year’s elections. It would discredit the Tea Party movement as the GOP astro-turf operation it has largely become, and it would signal to the voters that the GOP remains “business as usual.”

    I’d rather the Tea Party had remained true to its libertarian roots, but since the GOP has hijacked and probably destroyed it, I’d love nothing more than to hang a rotten talisman like Scott Brown around its neck and the Republican Party’s neck too.

  20. Andy

    “It would discredit the Tea Party movement as the GOP astro-turf operation it has largely become, and it would signal to the voters that the GOP remains ‘business as usual.’”

    Many people would be too ignorant to realize that Scott Brown is not really a small government guy.

    I don’t think that it is going to make a difference if it is Coakley or Brown. Joe Kennedy would make a big difference but unfortunately he doesn’t have the big money to win.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Yes, Joe is clearly the superior candidate.

    Yes, people should vote for Joe — if you’re pro-freedom, voting for Brown or Coakley is wasting your vote.

    No, Brown will not SAVE US FROM TEH OBAMMAAAAAA.

    Thing is, I don’t think Coakley, if elected, would particularly damage the Democratic Party, while Brown, if elected, will wreak havoc on the GOP’s attempt to re-make itself and ride the Tea Party momentum. So if it’s going to be one of those two, I prefer the one who will most damage one of the Stupid/Evil parties.

  22. BrownChickenBrownCow

    bah.

    They love Sarah Palin, they’ll love Scott Brown, all evidence of reality to be disregarded.

  23. evildoc

    —Libervention Price Club // Jan 14, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    Can you provide some evidence that it was misquoted?
    ——

    Can you provide any evidence it was even… quoted?

  24. Epperson

    I live in Boston and I’m a Libertarian.

    Joe Kennedy’s message is compelling but many Libertarians view his candidacy with suspicion. They see him as an “opportunist”. Secondly, he lacks real workable experience to even be considered.

    He’s parroting the talking points of Ron Paul but what’s absolutely shocking is that he said “FDR” was the most impressive president in the last century during the WBZ Radio Debate.

    Either Kennedy is ignorant of history or he’s sorely out of touch with economic realities. This was a revealing moment. No self-respecting Libertarian would ever endorse the progressive panhandling that characterized FDR’s New Deal.

    I’m voting for Scott Brown. I’m not voting for the national GOP.

    My vote is to break up the progressive super majority and to end the Health Care Reform Bill.

  25. George Phillies

    I am also a Libertarian in Massachusetts, in fact, Treasurer of our State Party and former state chair. Joe Kennedy appears to be being greeted with great enthusiasm by Libertarians around the state. He was vigorously endorsed by the Carla Howell/Michael Cloud Small Government group.

    And he is a libertarian, the opposite of “Republican Conservative” the folks who conquered the bottom of the Nolan Chart.

    Asked which American Presidents had been most noteworthy in the two halves of the last century, he answered FDR and Ronald Reagan.

    How effective is his campaign? The Republicans are screaming and moaning about him, something few other Libertarians have succeeded at doing.

  26. George Phillies

    And from the Massachusetts Libertarian GoldMassGroup.com

    Vote for Scott Brown: Support Torture
    by: AuMass
    That’s right, boys and girls, you can show your support for torturing prisoners and accused criminals. Just vote for Republican Scott Brown, who voiced approval for the hideous water torture as not being torture.

    Just don’t look surprised when those folks who started by torturing prisoners of war in Iraq and Afghanistan show up in your home town, change jobs, find your teenage children in the local jail, and give them a bit of third degree tactics until they confess to crimes they never heard about, let alone committed.

    Readers can be confident that Massachusetts has great numbers of professional, competent policemen and policewomen who would never do anything of the kind, but that won’t do your children a lot of good if the techniques Scott Brown is endorsing get your children first.

    Remember, Scott Brown is a Republican conservative, not a real conservative like the folks at RightMarch. (I may not agree with RightMarch on some topics, but they are honest conservatives, the folks Bill Buckley would have supported if he were still alive). Scott Brown is part of the ‘Republican Conservative’ movement that supports
    unprovoked wars of aggression
    detention without trial
    unlimited wiretaps of all emails and telephone messages
    the ‘patriot’ act
    the biggest expansion of welfare since 1960 (as I type, Obamacare has not passed)
    new Asian land wars, the ones MacArthur said were unwinnable
    huge budget deficits
    vast bailouts of bankers and auto executives with your tax dollars and your grandchildren’s tax dollars
    torture of prisoners of war
    ending abortion
    blocking equality in marriage rights for all

  27. Libervention Price Club

    They love Sarah Palin, they’ll love Scott Brown, all evidence of reality to be disregarded.

    Yes, and they still worship Reagan too, despite his actual record in office. So why would Brown crash the Republican Party?

    Can you provide any evidence it was even… quoted?

    Comment 23, above.

  28. Epperson

    “How effective is his campaign? The Republicans are screaming and moaning about him, something few other Libertarians have succeeded at doing.”

    By his own admission on the Jim Braude show on NECN, Kennedy asserted that his votes are coming directly from the Coakley camp and not the Brown camp. In other words, they’re voting for Kennedy as a protest against the Democratic candidate, not as a ringing endorsement.

    That said, the recent Suffolk Poll shows Brown with a 6 point lead with Kennedy hanging on to 2-3% of likely voters.

    Brown doesn’t need Kennedy but Kennedy needs Brown.

    Here’s why. The Libertarian argument is that Brown would obviously represent the 41st vote in the Senate against the massive Health Care Reform Bill. This is the common short term goal. We have to pick our battles as minorities. Let’s keep some perspective here and realize the real consequences of indirectly supporting Coakley.

    Our eyes should be set on unseating Kerry and other progressives in the State. In the time being, let’s coordinate a more effective campaign moving forward.

    I’m not endorsing the GOP but I realize the situation warrants consideration given what’s at stake nationally.

    No Health Care—great Scott, I’m with you.

    Lower Taxes–where do I sign up?

    We can’t win on every single issue. Sure, I would love for every candidate to be critical and honest about the role of the Federal Reserve and toxic Keynesian policies but it has to happen incrementally by winning one battle after another. You must realize that this is a state which rejected the opportunity to repeal the income tax by a 70-30 margin.

    Kennedy is simply not the ideal Libertarian Candidate. Bob Barr is not the ideal Libertarian Candidate. Ron Paul, the REPUBLICAN is!

  29. Libervention Price Club

    By his own admission on the Jim Braude show on NECN, Kennedy asserted that his votes are coming directly from the Coakley camp and not the Brown camp.

    Incorrect.

    Polls show they are coming 2-1 from people whose second choice in the election is Coakley.

  30. Libervention Price Club

    No Health Care—great Scott, I’m with you.

    http://www.rightcondition.com/2010/01/will-scott-brown-stop-obamacare.html

    Scott Brown pledges to bring RomneyCare to the other 49 states. Scott Brown co-wrote Romney Care and he is proud of it.

    Lower Taxes–where do I sign up?

    Definitely not with Scott Brown. He has campaigned against the income tax rollback, opposes the sales tax rollback, and campaigned for property tax hikes.

    To support lower taxes sign up at

    http://joekennedyforsenate.com/

  31. Libervention Price Club

    You must realize that this is a state which rejected the opportunity to repeal the income tax by a 70-30 margin.

    In part because Scott Brown actively campaigned against it.

  32. Epperson

    Gavin has already acknowledged the uniqueness of the situation in proximity to the Health Care Vote and has pledged to certify the winner in a timely manner. If not, scrutiny will ensue. Big time. The Democrats need all the political capital they can get and this would not bode well.

    The bigger question is, will Kennedy win?

    No. He knows this. You know this. Everyone knows this.

    My vote again is not an endorsement of Scott Brown or the GOP. A diverse range of voters are supporting him because they’re sick to death of the one-party hegemony in Washington.

    The common goal with Blue Dog Dems, Republicans, Paleo Conservatives and a few Libertarians is the break up the progressive super majority.

    You can make a sound argument that the GOP and the Democratic Party are one and the same. Since Mr. Brown ran on the platform of “stopping the Health Care Reform Bill as it is currently written”, voters would hold him to it with the next election being only a few years away. And perhaps Kennedy or others could build enough political capital, exposure and supporters to run a more cohesive campaign.

    What’s more revealing in the same Jim Braude interview is that Joe Kennedy stated that he would support Scott Brown if he were not a candidate for the same reasons I listed.

    On a final note, I was never “converted”. I don’t believe the GOP has the cure-all for our economic ills. Some people vote for their parties. Others base their decisions on the candidate. And then there are voters who evaluate the circumstances and the likely consequences of voting one way or the other in the context of his home state and Washington.

  33. BrownChickenBrownCow

    “Gavin has already acknowledged the uniqueness of the situation in proximity to the Health Care Vote and has pledged to certify the winner in a timely manner.”

    It’s not just up to Gavin. There are many steps in the process including tallying and certifying by cities and towns and the actual seating controlled by Harry Reid.

    “The bigger question is, will Kennedy win?

    No. He knows this. You know this. Everyone knows this. ”

    There are different kinds of “winning.” Carla Howell and Michael Cloud describe what is really at stake at

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/01/carla-howell-and-michael-cloud-endorsement-of-joe-kennedy-warning-to-tea-party-activists-supporting-scott-brown/

    Have you read it yet? Thought what they are saying through?

  34. BrownChickenBrownCow

    “You can make a sound argument that the GOP and the Democratic Party are one and the same.”

    At the top – yes.

    ” Since Mr. Brown ran on the platform of “stopping the Health Care Reform Bill as it is currently written”, voters would hold him to it with the next election being only a few years away.”

    Well, first of all, there’ll be many other issues by then. Secondly, he won’t get to vote on it. Knapp proves that. Thirdly, of course the bill will be revised, so he wouldn’t be voting on it “as currently written.” With attorneys like Brown, you have to parse their words and promises carefully. Fourth, even if he was bounced out in 2012 solely because of one vote – which is highly unlikely – you’ll still have Obamacare, so the whole reason you voted for him was for nothing.
    In the meantime, see the article by Cloud and Howell as to what you will have lost. And as for Brown? He’d probably get kicked upstairs to the Republican VP spot or something.

    ” And perhaps Kennedy or others could build enough political capital, exposure and supporters to run a more cohesive campaign. ”

    Nah, there will be another “crisis” by then.

  35. BrownChickenBrownCow

    “What’s more revealing in the same Jim Braude interview is that Joe Kennedy stated that he would support Scott Brown if he were not a candidate for the same reasons I listed. ”

    Yes, that was stupid, but if you are thinking of the same interview as I am (on NECN I believe) he did say that most of his supporters were coming from Coakley, not Brown (if he was not in the race). Rasmussen has it by about 2-1.

  36. Libervention Price Club

    Gavin has already acknowledged the uniqueness of the situation in proximity to the Health Care Vote and has pledged to certify the winner in a timely manner

    What’s a “timely” manner? You are hanging your hope on a lot of promises from untrustworthy people who will find technicalities to avoid fulfilling the substance of what you hope for in one way or another.

  37. Epperson

    Good points.

    Who do you think is the bigger threat to Libertarianism or our Republic?

    1. Progressive Super Majority

    2. Scott Brown

    This is not a false dichotomy. Kennedy has no shot at even generating more than 5% and even that’s a leap.

  38. Epperson

    “What’s a “timely” manner?”

    I would assume anytime before the Senate vote.

    Anything short of this would result in real ugly rioting, the likes of which has been seen around Boston since the Busing Riots.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    Epperson,

    You write:

    “Gavin has already acknowledged the uniqueness of the situation in proximity to the Health Care Vote and has pledged to certify the winner in a timely manner.”

    Galvin can’t certify the winner until the local clerks certify and deliver their tallies, which they have 15 days to do.

    How many Democratic clerks are there in Massachusetts? How many of them do you think would be willing to risk a local political position in order to save ObamaCare by waiting until the deadline to forward their jurisdictions’ returns?

    If that happens, Galvin’s hands are a) tied, and b) clean.

    Even after certification at the state level, the US Senate remains the sole judge of the election and qualification of its members. Any challenge will delay the seating of the winner, and Senators of both parties are past masters at milking the clock when a delay is in their interests.

    There’s a good chance that the conference committee will wrap up and score the bill before the election next Tuesday and that it will be working its way toward a Senate vote even as Massachusetts is choosing its next Senator.

    The Democrats are already saying they think they can wrap up ObamaCare, put a bow on it and send it to the White House for signature by two weeks from yesterday — or, to put it a different way, within nine days of the Massachusetts election. The local clerks alone can hold up certification of the Senate winner for longer than that.

  40. Epperson

    “you’ll still have Obamacare, so the whole reason you voted for him was for nothing.”

    That’s an assumption which is premised on the notion that Democrats will get their way. And as you brought up, there will be other issues to contend with. I just don’t want the Democrats to do pass whatever they please just because they can with 60 votes.

    Even if we lost on ObamaCare, God knows what else the progressive have in store.

  41. Libervention Price Club

    The bigger threat to Libertarianism or our Republic?

    Scott Brown and other establishment Republicans working hand in hand with establishment Democrats to take away our civil and economic liberties and spread and flame the fans of war around the world to feed the military-industrial establishment and growing domestic surveillance/police/prison-industrial complex.

    As long as good people like you fall for the argument that these two forces are in opposition and don’t vote against them every time, they will continue their joint assault on all our freedoms, all the time.

    Scott Brown voted with the Democrats 91% of the time, with the Teachers Union 94% of the time, and with the Republicans 96% of the time. The vast majority of those votes were in one way or another against our liberty.

    Read the Howell/Cloud piece yet? If so, what do you think?

  42. Epperson

    “The Democrats are already saying they think they can wrap up ObamaCare, put a bow on it and send it to the White House for signature by two weeks from yesterday — or, to put it a different way, within nine days of the Massachusetts election.”

    That’s an optimistic assumption. Given that they promised to deliver the bill by the end of last year and the growing anger with Americans on this, its uncertain. Otherwise, Bubba Clinton and Obama’s cast of unsavory spin doctors wouldn’t be in Boston right now to salvage what’s left of Coakley’s campaign.

  43. Libervention Price Club

    Even if we lost on ObamaCare, God knows what else the progressive have in store.

    The Republicans are no counter-balance.

    Remember what happened with Reagan in the White House and Tip O’Neill in the House?

    The Republicans have their own big government agenda to push: Military-Industrial complex, “war on drugs”, “war on terror”"Moral Majority” and aid for dependent corporations. The Democrats have theirs. When they compromise, it’s always towards big government on all issues.

    That is why we are losing all our freedoms: civil and economic, foreign and domestic.

    The only way to stop it is to vote for all our freedoms all the time.

  44. Libervention Price Club

    Anything short of this would result in real ugly rioting, the likes of which has been seen around Boston since the Busing Riots.

    So, Homeland Security, the National Guard and possibly Northcom will be called in. Great plan. What’s the exit strategy?

  45. Epperson

    “As long as good people like you fall for the argument that these two forces are in opposition and don’t vote against them every time, they will continue their joint assault on all our freedoms, all the time.”

    And boosting Kennedy’s base of 3% to 4% would help defeat the machine?

    The Fabians hijacked both sides by picking their battles and carving out market share until they were able to manipulate the entire system.

    Many Libertarians were former Republicans. I include myself in this category. Ron Paul has a (R) next to his name but that doesn’t mean he acquiesce to every Republican policy. It means he can cast a wider net under such terms.

    Compare how successful Ron Paul was versus LINO candidates of elections past? He converted more people to Austrian Economics in one election than Bob Barr ever will.

    My point, I wouldn’t get so caught in labels if the primary goal at the present is to dismantle Reid’s reckless majority.

  46. Epperson

    “So, Homeland Security, the National Guard and possibly Northcom will be called in. Great plan. What’s the exit strategy?”

    Ask Alex Jones.

  47. Libervention Price Club

    “And boosting Kennedy’s base of 3% to 4% would help defeat the machine?”

    Yes. Increasing the Socialist, Communist and Progressive votes incrementally 100 years ago put enough pressure on the major parties to adopt much of their agenda. They didn’t have to become major parties to do it. The big parties react to outside stimuli. And outside stimuli don’t have to be huge; swinging close elections, challenging otherwise unchallenged incumbents, and participating in debates makes a bigger impact than is readily apparent. Even in this case, Brown would probably be running a very different campaign without Kennedy in the race.

    “Many Libertarians were former Republicans. I include myself in this category. Ron Paul has a (R) next to his name but that doesn’t mean he acquiesce to every Republican policy. It means he can cast a wider net under such terms.”

    Scott Brown is very far from a Ron Paul Republican. Please read that Cloud/Howell article if you have not already.

    “Ask Alex Jones.”

    Unless you can bring him here, I’m asking you.

  48. Brian Holtz

    People know that the Republicans and Democrats have significant differences, so saying that they don’t is self-discrediting. However, there is still a huge overlap in the set of Nanny State policies that they support. The following two videos describe that overlap, and make the point that the LP is the only party that questions whether the government should protect us from our own economic and personal choices.

  49. Epperson

    Carla Howell and Michael Cloud’s article is premised on the assumption that Joe Kennedy is a viable alternative. Carla. Michael. Joe Kennedy is no Ron Paul. He’s not even a Ross Perot or Ralph Nader for that matter.

    When I first hear him speak on the WBZ Radio Debate, I thought to myself “what a fraud!”. I don’t doubt his sincerity for the Libertarian position. I doubt his ability to execute on that knowledge.

    Shouldn’t we hold political candidates to the same rigid standards of evaluation that we do in the private sector?

    What has he done?

    He’s attended a few Tea Parties. Great.

    Who is the most impressive president(s)?

    FDR and Reagan. Progressive and CFR-TLC Puppet. Great.

    If Joe Kennedy wants to run for Alderman in my town, I’ll back him any day of the week.

  50. Libervention Price Club

    Obviously you haven’t read it carefully.

    Nothing in the article is “premised” on viability.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    Epperson,

    You write:

    “And boosting Kennedy’s base of 3% to 4% would help defeat the machine?”

    Maybe, maybe not.

    But if the game is, as so many “libertarian Republicans” keep saying, to change the machine, then yes, every vote Joe Kennedy gets helps with that.

    Every time a libertarian candidate beats the “balance of power” and arguably changes the outcome of the election, the party of the losing candidate has to think about how to win that seat next time.

    The obvious way is to figure out how far its next candidate can move toward this year’s “spoiler’s” positions without losing more “base” and “swing” votes than it gains from the move.

    The polls say that Kennedy’s supporters lean 2-1 toward Coakley rather than Brown as a second choice.

    If Coakley loses, the Democrats will bellyache about how Kennedy “stole their votes” … and next time they’ll run a candidate who’s friendlier toward medical marijuana and less friendly toward foreign military adventurism.

    If Brown loses, polls be damned — the Republicans will blame Kennedy, too, and try to figure out how to steal his thunder next time.

    And on the losing side of the aisle, whichever side that is, voters who liked Kennedy but felt compelled to vote “lesser of the two major evils” will hopefully get the message:

    “Wasted your vote, didn’t you? You COULD have voted for what you wanted instead of against what you feared, but you did the latter and lost anyway. And that’s the way it’s going to be every damn time until you stop playing games and stand up for yourselves.”

  52. Epperson

    I’m with you. I want everything you want–the Federal Reserve, IRS, Patriot Act I, II or III–to die bloody, painful deaths. The reality is, it won’t happen unless we modify our strategy.

    I use the Fabian model because its proven.

    They used candidates to push an agenda regardless of their political flavor. Our current agenda should be ending the progressive super majority before we can focus on other issues.

    If the current trend is for the GOP to tap into (or exploit) the Tea Party Movement, I’m not opposed to it if they base their platform on a few key issues in exchange for support. See: Christian Right, NRA.

    If enough time and legislation passes and we secure more victories, what difference will it make if a politician with (L) or a (R) are behind it? It’s the ideas we want to push.

    Kennedy, IMO, does not possess the qualifications to be a Senator nor can he inspire enough voters to “make a statement”. My guess is, he’ll be forgotten in a week.

    I would assume the losing side would pin the loss on the candidate. Other than that, I can’t speculate much further.

  53. Libervention Price Club

    “I use the Fabian model because its proven.”

    Me too. A key part of Fabian strategy was using smaller left wing parties to put outside pressure on the bigger parties.

    “If the current trend is for the GOP to tap into (or exploit) the Tea Party Movement, I’m not opposed to it if they base their platform on a few key issues in exchange for support. See: Christian Right, NRA.”

    That’s the fatal error of “Reagan Libertarianism”. You want libertarians to support a Reagan-type coalition.

    You support the Christian Right and warmongers, and then they sell the one thing you hope to achieve from the coalition – economic liberty – to Democrats, to compromise to get bigger government on both foreign and domestic issues, and on domestic issues – on both social and economic policy.

    That was the big Reagan-O’Neill bargain.

    “If enough time and legislation passes and we secure more victories, what difference will it make if a politician with (L) or a (R) are behind it? It’s the ideas we want to push.”

    Brown will vote against libertarian ideas. His record proves it.

    “Kennedy, IMO, does not possess the qualifications to be a Senator”

    I think he is more qualified than the people he’s running against.

    “nor can he inspire enough voters to “make a statement”. ”

    He already has.

    “My guess is, he’ll be forgotten in a week.”

    My guess is you are wrong.

    “I would assume the losing side would pin the loss on the candidate.”

    Probably true. And that’s good.

  54. Epperson

    “That’s the fatal error of “Reagan Libertarianism”. You want libertarians to support a Reagan-type coalition.”

    That’s the fatal error of the past. Even the people who voted for Obama have turned against him for various reasons. Reagan got away with it because of the illusion of wealth which easy money produced. The lesson learned from this is that Libertarians should be more strategic.

    “You support the Christian Right and warmongers, and then they sell the one thing you hope to achieve from the coalition – economic liberty – to Democrats, to compromise to get bigger government on both foreign and domestic issues, and on domestic issues – on both social and economic policy.”

    I don’t support the Christian Right. I do support the NRA indirectly through the 2nd Amendment. What these bodies do effectively well is the ability to force candidates or elected officials to a) comply with their demands because of their vast membership and b) follow-through with promises.

    If they Tea Party could organize itself in a cohesive unit and demonstrate that it could “make or break” a candidate, Republicans would have to listen.

    “Brown will vote against libertarian ideas. His record proves it.”

    Again, the priority is on ending the super majority. With Brown, that’s possible.

    “I think he is more qualified than the people he’s running against. ”

    Depends on how define his credentials versus the job requirements.

    “My guess is you are wrong.”

    It doesn’t matter.

  55. BrownChickenBrownCow

    That’s the fatal error of the past.

    Which you want to resurrect. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

    I don’t support the Christian Right.

    You support a coalition with them and imperialists via the Republican Party. Wrong coalition choice.

    Again, the priority is on ending the super majority. With Brown, that’s possible.

    The real goal should be breaking the duopoly (two headed beast).

    Depends on how define his credentials versus the job requirements.

    Being an attorney/politician are not the only qualifications for the job. Being a regular Joe, taxpayer, and anti-tax activist are far better.

  56. shari

    What the he** is all this tea party talk? How about this……middle class America is sick and tired of being ignored and literally laughed at by many of their government representatives. How long do are “leaders” think we will remain quiet? Enough will labeling everyone whom disagrees with government spending as tea partiers or teabaggers (which is a sexual term and quite offensive) The American People will last laugh when we fire these jokers

  57. Epperson

    Read my comments again.

    I repeat. Modify the strategy to push ideas and policies, not parties. See: Fabian Model.

    There are long term goals and there are short term goals. Breaking up the progressive super majority should be our short term goal. Bringing down the Fed Reserve, etc should be our long term goal.

    Joe Kennedy’s gaffes revealed an inexperienced, neophyte who lacks a developed understanding of history and Austrian Economics.

  58. 91%

    “There are long term goals and there are short term goals. Breaking up the progressive super majority should be our short term goal. Bringing down the Fed Reserve, etc should be our long term goal.”

    No, breaking up the duopoly is the short term goal, without which things will only get worse on all fronts. At different speeds on different fronts depending on the intra-duopoly balance, but worse. A vote for either wing of the duopoly helps keep the duopoly in power. A vote against the duopoly helps make other votes against the duopoly more plausible, until we become viable. Without that there will be no change for the better.

    “Joe Kennedy’s gaffes revealed an inexperienced, neophyte who lacks a developed understanding of history and Austrian Economics.”

    I count inexperienced, neophyte as good things in this context, and his understanding of history and economics is vastly better than Broakley’s.

Leave a Reply