Posted on 01/15/2010 9:51:31 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Frum sees him as an antidote to the Tea Party madness:
Strong on defense and school choice, opposed to the Obama administration’s signature initiatives, Brown voted in favor of Mitt Romney’s health plan in Massachusetts. He describes himself as pro-choice (subject to reasonable limitations), accepts gay marriage in Massachusetts as a settled fact, and told the Boston Herald editorial board he would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor.
(Excerpt) Read more at andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com ...
“you vote for the most fiscally conservative candidate with a legitimate chance of winning each time. Regardless of your own personal litmus test. Any other vote will not achieve what you seek - restricted Government.”
See this is what I’ve been telling people, if you vote for the slightly less socialist candidate every time then you get what you want; socialism, you just get there slower.
I too am from Massachusetts. It seems that a lot of this weirdness comes from a very self-righteous attitude. The liberals have a real come-uppence coming to them. The election of Obama was the height of their dream, now they have no place to go but downhill.
The good part of this is that Sullivan and Frum seem to think Brown's going to win. What they're doing is making a pre-emptive strike to change the course of the discussion from "The Tea Partiers got their candidate elected" to "No, no, no, this is actually a victory for the centrist-moderate republican and a rebuke of the tea party."
It's not about truth, it's about changing the perception.
Check my post 163. This is a pretty tough sell for Frum. Probably harder than selling a dead parrot.
I am a Massachusetts voter... so who would you suggest that I vote for—Scott Brown, Martha Coakley or Kennedy the Libertarian?
We went through this whole scenario during the 2008 election. I, like many people, did not like McCain, but in November, 2008, I voted for McCain. What was the alternative? Many conservatives did not vote — look what that got us.
You make the best choices that you can especially during the primaries but sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote for the less than perfect candidate because that is all that there is on the ballot. In addition to voting, we have to support good candidates and citizen groups that support the best candidates. It’s true that there are many problems within the Republican party, which means that we need to change the party from the grassroots.
My goals next Tuesday are, in order, (1) Scare the bejesus out of the Democrat congresscritters, (2) Defeat Witch Coakley, (3) Make the President fail, (4) Piss on Ted Kennedy’s grave, and (5) Send Scott Brown to the Senate. That’s about the best we can hope for from this race. That he’s probably a RINO does not matter, given no viable non-RINO in the race.
Agreed.
Now if Republicans do get power many years from now Brown if he wins will likely cause us headaches. But this one win (or a close loss) may kill democrats entire agenda.
What is stunning about, in a race in which the choices are someone who supports many of our positions and someone who supports everything we're against, supporting the former?
It's stunning to me how some people can get on their soap boxes and decry those of us who are dealing with the reality we're presented with and not folding our arms and letting Obama have another vote...and think THEY are the principled ones.
1. The “gluttony” thing is not my example.
2. Way back in the 18th Century, a group of people got together and wrote a couple of documents, after much thought, consideration, and (dare I say it) lots of prayer, I am certain. A guy named Tom Jefferson pretty much wrote the first one and a Jim Madison played a STRONG role in crafting the second one. The first one said, in part, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness— That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”
Sound familiar?
The second document also says, in part, “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America.”
I KNOW you know about that one.
So what do both of these documents have in common? Since, by your previous comments, it’s readily apparent you haven’t a CLEW, I will explain it to you. In both of these documents it is made abundantly clear that, in this new nation, POWER and CONTROL were to flow from the bottom UP; that is, all power and control rested in We the People and SOME of it was delegated by US, THROUGH THE SEVERAL STATES, to the central government.
Are you with me so far? I’ll type really slowly for you.
Have you ever hired someone to do something for you? Like something around the house or whatever? If so, what’s one thing you always need to keep firmly in mind? Well, alright, I’ll tell you: you cannot, in hiring someone, have him exceed YOUR authority to have the job done. For example, you cannot hire someone to tear down your neighbor’s house, even though, in YOUR opinion, it’s the ugliest place on the block. Why ever not? you ask. Come on, work with me here: BECAUSE IT IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY. You, yourself, are not at liberty to make free with someone else’s property, therefore you cannot legitimately HIRE IT DONE FOR YOU.
Your dependent son (who’s all of 12 years old and living under your roof) is caught (by you or your spouse) smoking a cigarette in the back yard. Can you assert your authority over him and require that he never do it again? Yes, of course; he’s living in your home and under your rules until such time as he moves out on his own.
Your neighbor likes to smoke as well, only HE smokes weed. Can you legitimately prohibit HIM from so doing? The only CORRECT answer is, “HELL, NO.” Why? Well, for openers, he does NOT live in YOUR household and is not dependent on you for his livelihood OR well-being. You have ZERO authority over him in such a case. So, the next question becomes: can you get the county sheriff to do it for you? Again, there’s only one correct answer: HELL, NO. If YOU have no authority to do something, you cannot get someone else to do that thing for you, in your name or on your behalf. Period.
Are you keeping up here? There’s going to be a quiz later on, so pay close attention.
You hear a scream coming from your daughter’s bedroom. When you throw the door open, you see that someone has broken in and is trying to do harm to her. Are you justified in killing that person? You know the answer to this: of COURSE you are. That individual has violated YOUR property rights in breaking in and is trying his hardest to violate your daughter and HER right to be left unmolested. This one’s a two-fer.
You and your neighbors have seen several unsavory types running around your block looking as if they have nefarious intent. Can the group of you hire someone (perhaps someone like me) to patrol the neighborhood and ensure that these unsavory types cause you no harm? Again, because your right of self-defense is absolute, yes, you sure can. In this case you are POOLING your right with your neighbors’ EQUAL right and, while not, in any way, giving UP your right to do it yourself, giving yourself more TIME to do other things that matter to you. Which is one major reason we humans form societies and from there form governments, at least since our Founders did so for us in 1776 and 1789.
So, let’s now address a few of your other snide comments. Abortion, better known as the murder of the pre-born, the MOST helpless amongst us. Because the Founders wisely figured that crime was NOT a proper concern of the central government, with but three exceptions, murder is properly handled by the Several States. Since abortion equates to murder, it is properly a matter for the States to deal with. What I would do, at the federal level, is to define the point at which life starts, that is, at conception, and then deny the federal courts any jurisdiction to hear cases on that topic. THAT can be done properly at that level, but no more. IT does, however, give the pre-born a better shot at staying alive to BE born.
Now I did say (and you sneered at it) that the States could ban “marriage” between same sex couples, between children, between adults and children or between humans and goats (or other critters), but that marriage itself, after that, was NOT a legitimate concern of government, but of society and the churches. It most surely is not something you really WANT government to be involved in, unless you want to get around to some of the other bad habits governments developed in that regard, such as the “custom” of the lord of the manor (the local government) having the authority to spend the couple’s wedding night with the bride. (Or possibly the groom, if the local lord sung that way). Ridiculous? Maybe, but why take the chance. It USED to happen.
Drugs... Now just where does ANY level of government get off trying to criminalize someone’s decision to ingest or inhale anything whatsoever? Answer: It has (and in this society CAN HAVE) NO SUCH AUTHORITY. Because We the People cannot delegate what is not ours to give, as I pointed out above. What LOCAL governments may properly do (and this is the absolute LIMIT to their authority) is regulate PUBLIC BEHAVIORS while under the influence of ANY intoxicant. (Same thing with weapons, by the way: LOCAL governments may properly limit or regulate when and where someone may discharge a weapon in a NON-EMERGENCY situation bot NOTHING MORE.)
Defense spending: Since, as we examined above, pooling our resources to provide for the common defense is legitimate and proper, and since the central government is MANDATED to provide that defense (from external enemies), I’m not sure where you were going with your comment.
Taxes (and the income tax): The income tax (at all levels) and the property tax (at the State/local level) are, in my never to be humble opinion, the most EVIL such things ever devised. Yes, the legitimate functions of government must be paid for, but there are ways that can be devised that will do so without the evils surrounding these two forms of taxation. Maybe hold bake sales or something. But to have amended the Constitution to permit such an abomination as the income tax was on a par with allowing slavery to continue to exist for as long as it did. A contradiction that nearly tore this nation apart and cost us well over six hundred thousand deaths in the process.
The way to shrink government, at this point, is probably going to involve violence and bloodshed. It’s horrible to contemplate, but thanks to “conservatives” who differ from “progressives” only in WHICH behaviors they want government to control, we’re not left with many options if we wish to ensure that government is reduced to its Constitutional size.
And, finally, if we do not have STANDARDS, if we do not have PRINCIPLES (”litmus tests”) which we are willing to DIE to see upheld, how exactly do you propose to be able to tell the government that what it is doing to you is WRONG? If you have NO DEFINED RIGHT OR WRONG, what do you propose to use as a standard? If you have no STANDARDS, how can you be sure that what you make, buy, sell, use, whatever, is fit for what you want to do with it? People without standards are fools, and people who insist that OTHERS must have no standards are WORSE than fools, they are the epitome of EVIL. You put down rabs for having standards he requires people to live up to, people who would assert authority over his life and property. Why? If someone has no standards, no values in common with me, I most assuredly want him or her nowhere NEAR the reins of authority. Why would we? Of what value is that other person to me or mine? None, of course, but he or she DOES present a clear and present DANGER to all that I DO value and cherish.
But, you say, he only attacks REPUBLICANS. Well, a good number of people on this board are members of the Pubbie party; many of them are the sort who put party over principle, as YOU seem to do. What folks like me or rabs do is hold YOUR feet to the fire. We make you look at where YOU stand and where YOUR CANDIDATES stand. We already KNOW where scumbags like Obambi, Reid and PeLOUSY stand (or, in reality, DON’T stand); we need to ensure that their opponents are in the running because they BELIEVE IN SOMETHING, not just because they want the powers and perks that the Rat party has going on for themselves just now. ONLY IN THAT WAY can we have even the ghost of a whisper of a prayer of a chance of making fundamental change for the better without massive bloodshed.
Brown won’t last long in the Senate. This special election is just to fill the remaining term of the Kennedy seat. It is up for re-election in 2012. No way Brown gets re-elected to a MASS Senate seat in a Presidential year.
Article has one purpose only ....suppress Republican turnout.
That could be good for us!
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.