Posted on 01/15/2010 10:13:00 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Oliver Willis notices Scott Brown defending the Massachusetts health care plan -- which he supported -- and trying to make the case that it's really quite different from the federal plan with which it shares key features.
"They're two different programs. What we have here is a free-market enterprise where we're providing insurance in various levels to people in Massachusetts. The plans in Washington are a one-size-fits-all plan," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Simply by my opinion that most here on FR and around the nation can't get past the "party" line?
No need to respond as I don't think there would be any purpose, as your entre' to the discourse suggested you had no desire to an honest and unemotional exchange of opinion anyway.
Gee, maybe because you ARE a retard?
You are aware this is not a pro-Slick Willard website, aren’t you ? Jim Robinson has made that plain for you guys to understand.
fieldmarshaldj, what gives you the impression that I am a “pro-Slick Willard” ideologue? Was it the fact that I thought it was a little scary that someone was harboring such a seething, creepy rage against Mitt Romney that they took the time to put in what appeared to be hundreds of keywords at the head of a thread they did not start, and that some of those keywords were pretty disturbing in their nature?
I am not here to pump up Romney or pump him down. I don’t really care about Romney, one way or the other. I certainly don’t think he is evil incarnate the way some do and for all his apparent faults, I would rather have him as my Governor rather than a cup of piss like Deval Patrick. As a Massachusetts resident who has lived under both of them, I am qualified to have an opinion on that. I think it is a bit unbalanced the way some people have a completely unhealthy fixation on Romney, not saying that you do, because I don’t really know you other than seeing your handle around. Nothing personal there, but your “you guys to understand” comment seemed odd to me.
I have a lot of respect for Jim Robinson. I make my donations each cycle, because I believe FR is an important environment, and I am grateful for his continued desire to maintain Free Republic. If Jim Robinson doesn’t want my opinions on Free Republic, and doesn’t want my money, that is his decision. I am not one of those idiots who screams that his freedom of speech is being impinged on because Jim Robinson may disagree. As far as I am concerned, it his HIS web site and he can run it as he sees fit. He is a capitalist, and as a nice byproduct, gives conservatives a place to exchange ideas and bounce arguments off of each other.
I spend a lot of time on FR, almost to the exclusion of any other website. And I read a lot of posts on FR that I disagree vehemently with, diatribes that I view as racist and points of view that I see as dangerous. But if there is one principle of conservatism that I have a heartfelt and steadfast affinity for, it is the concept that words have actual meaning and even if I disagree with a given point of view, that person has a right to speak. I have a right to disagree, and it is also my right to tear down a point of view on the basis of logic rather than knee-jerk emotion and pure ideology.
So, when I see someone who cannot make the distinction between a candidate like Scott Brown and a candidate like Martha Coakley, or a person who draws a equivalence between Barney Frank and George W. Bush, then that isn’t someone I want to associate with on any level, in real life or in virtual life online. In my opinion, if people can’t make that distinction, I think that is pretty sick in and of itself. And I also think the people who are fixated on RINO’s to the detriment of being able to see reality are just as damaging to the fabric of our country as any moonbat who stood outside Walter Reed Hospital with a hateful sign.
Why does it sound that way ? Because it does. For someone who then goes on to say you don’t really care about him, you seem to go out of your way to go after those that recognize the damage and disaster this individual has made, and continues to pose to our party. If you find that “creepy” that we go after a man who is a Democrat agent (and 16 years of closely following him and writing about him has led me to that conclusion - he is not our ally and never has been and never will be), then I do wonder why you are on this website. As I said, Jim Robinson has made it plain the position of FR with respect to this individual. If you or anyone else has a problem with that position, you are free to join another website or create one for yourself where you can attack or criticize those that criticize Slick Willard.
To add, with respect to Scott Brown, I also understand the criticisms and deep concerns people here may have about him, worrying this is yet another Trojan Horse Democrat a la Slick Willard. People are very wary of getting fooled again. This may end up another fluke like the win of the New Orleans seat, where Anh Cao would eventually let us down. I warn folks not to get too excited over such candidates because they may ultimately end up betraying Conservatism.
I don’t expect Brown to vote like the late Sen. Jesse Helms, although it would be nice if he did, but if he ends up voting like the last Republican Senator from Massachusetts, Ed Brooke, who was just as leftist as his seatmate, Ted Kennedy, with little exception, the only thing we will be getting from Brown is a number added to our side only on paper, and that will sadly be even worse than if an openly-declared Democrat won, because it gives them the phony veneer and cover of bipartisanship when it’s nothing but Socialists making common cause to screw America.
For the moment, I will give Brown the benefit of the doubt. If he votes well and properly beyond the DeathCare vote, it will be a pleasant surprise, but if he is the RINO some conclude he is, he’ll be just another Ahn Cao, a fluke who will enjoy a (partial) term before his inevitable defeat by a regular Marxist Democrat, and will scarcely be mourned or lamented afterwards (beyond their failure to live up to the promise they initially showed).
Agreed. You'd be in the booth looking at the ballot for the special senatorial election, turning the paper over and over and over for five minutes until you started shouting, "Hey, where are the other races?!" Then everyone would point at you and laugh.
You "I won't vote, thus proving I'm the REAL Amerrrrrican!" types are the worst. I wouldn't want a one of you in a foxhole with me during a fight. Then again, you'd see the shovel came from China and would refuse to dig while enemy shells landed all around us.
I would vote for Brown if I lived in MA but it’s fact he did vote for Romneycare. We should cover this up? I’d rather see it discussed. Facts are facts.
As to why Myth and McLame are backing him, they are unfortunately prominent Republicans, they will offer support to a Republican in a key special election and if he thinks they can help, that Republican will not refuse their aid.
The only other candidate on the ballot is running as an independent but he’s a libertarian and self proclaimed Tea Party candidate. His name is Joe Kennedy, because of that name he will likely take more votes from Croakly. He seems a typical Libertarian party type meaning he’s probably well to Brown’s right on fiscal issues but holds other views one may find unsavory, for example he says on his website he wants to repeal DOMA. He will get like 2-4% of the vote.
No one knows for certain how conservative Brown would vote. Some people like Rabs will not support anyone with the hint of a wrong view on any key issue. I don’t share that view but I respect it.
My view is there is a middle ground between voting for any piece of liberal trash just because they are an (R) (I DON’T respect that view) and dismissing the large majority of elected Republicans as just as bad as a rat and our enemy. I look at every race on a case by case basis.
I don’t think Brown is a Mark Kirk or Olympia Snowe. I hope I’m not wrong but I’d wager he’s a moderate-to-conservative like most people think. Even if he does suck he’s worth supporting now because of the critical Obamacare issue. If he turns out to be a liberal creep like Snowe or Ed Brooke (eww him and Barbara Walters...eww) then we can give him the kiss off in the future. Hopefully he’s a decent Republican.
Brown has my endorsement, and would get my vote if I lived in MA. If he wins, it will be his turn to prove himself.
Well, if it does, that is your misinterpretation.
I have found that people who view everything through a prism of race see racism everywhere. People who view things through a prism of sex see sexism everywhere.
And people who view everything through hatred of Romney see Romney everywhere.
That’s what I think. And I think the obsession is unhealthy. But that is my opinion.
You had said: "...If you find that “creepy” that we go after a man..."
In the time I have spent on FR, I do think it is a little unusual that keywords would so numerous and virulent that they would nearly overshadow the content of the thread.
I find it unhealthy the way some obsess over certain subject matters, but in this particular case it crossed the line from being unhealthy to "creepy". And it wasn't just the attack on something or someone unrelated to the subject matter at hand in the thread (the fact that it was unrelated just made it seem even more strange) it was the way that it was done.
In a forum like FR, one cannot normally have an issue per se with the negative opinion people harbor about certain politicians, celebrities or even other freepers, because we all have those viewpoints and come here to express some of them.
And I readily admit there is a degree of relativism (as much as I dislike relativism) and that there are some who would say I have an unhealthy animosity for liberalism. I say that because I make it a habit to collect political imagery, cartoons, photoshops, images and such. I am sure that anyone who is non-political or apolitical would be puzzled looking at my collection of images from the Internet, wondering why I have such unflattering and downright derogatory images, cartoons and Photoshops concerning people like Obama, the Clintons, Shumer, Murtha and so on.
But when I went into a thread titled "Schimidt: Palin has trouble with the truth", at some point *someone* went in and spent some time and effort to fill the keywords section with anti-Romney keywords.
The author of the thread didn't put them there and said so, and someone must have contacted an Admin Mod to remove them, because when I went back to get them and paste them in here as an example, they were gone.
An Admin Mod apparently examined them at some point and determined they were inappropriate with respect to either decency or the content of the thread and removed them (I make the assumption Admin Mods are the only ones who have permission to do so, though I could be wrong)
I do not disagree with your interpretation that politicians who present themselves as conservatives to voters in order to get into office and vote liberally have a special hazard associated with them because they not only vote to advance a liberal agenda but also cause additional damage by imparting the veneer of bipartisanship to the actions of legislators. That is an absolute problem faced by conservatives, that they can be co-opted and watered down by people like Romney. I think one can argue that this is true of many legislators on both sides of the aisle on many different issues. Liberals have their DINOS, too. But I do not think that is the most critical and imminent threat to our republic at this time.
For years, I haven't got particularly involved in any Romney threads, either pro or con, because I don't view them as relevant. It is like tilting at windmills for me, since I am not voting for him and he isn't running for any office I am interested in.
However, what is going on with Scott Brown right now DOES affect ME. What I take particular issue with at this point in time is people who tear down a candidate in the process of fighting an uphill battle against an entrenched and corrupt political environment, when this candidate needs every encouragement he can get, verbally, financially and ideologically. Every $20 sent by a freeper who lives in Wisconsin or Texas is a pebble that can turn into an avalanche if not stopped. Due to FR, I have contributed to candidates all over the country, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas and so on, because FR is a place where many of us can see the ramifications of "the bigger picture". I have contributed to guys like Jesse Kelly, Bill Russell and others. Before I became a member on FR, I never sent money to a House or Senate candidate in another state. And it is one of the reasons I appreciate FR so much and am grateful to Jim Robinson for making the continuing effort to keep it going.
That is why I get involved in these threads now, because they directly affect ME and my life. When people are trying to talk up a candidate, get some momentum, hopefully get another freeper who DOESN'T live in my area to take the time to donate $20 to this candidate in my area, and someone inserts themselves into the thread to dampen that momentum and suppress that enthusiasm, it makes me angry because that is $20 less that will never develop into an avalanche. We need all the help we can get up here, because any candidate up here is abandoned by the RNC and any other organization around the country because we are viewed as a black hole where good money is only thrown after bad.
We need this candidate to win for a minimum of two reasons, and we should be throwing our unhesitating support behind him: First, he can be that single vote that may make a crucial difference in the upcoming health care legislation vote. That is the all-overriding priority right now, because once socialized healthcare gets its nose in the tent, it is never, ever going to leave us.
Secondly, in the same way that General Armistead was at the high water tide of the confederacy and pushed back in Pickett's Charge, I hope that is the position Coakley will involve in the liberal movement. (with my sincere apologies to the South for making this analogy) If we are going to turn the tide on Liberalism, this could be the place we can plant the pike in the earth and shout "IT STOPS HERE!"
I will hope against hope that even folks like you can wrap your hands around that pike and help those of us in Massachusetts shove it in the ground. I would like to think there is a possibility that can happen.
Great post! I will be sending a donation this morning.
Thanks. I hope those who are militantly anti-Romney understand the point I am trying to make here.
It isn’t that I agree or disagree with their stands on liberal repubicans, I just think that this is not the battle to fight RIGHT NOW.
They may be correct in their concern that Brown will disappoint them once he gets into office, and I have no way of knowing if that will be the case, so I don’t argue for or against it.
What I will argue for is a chance of a correct vote in electing Brown versus an absolute 100% certainty of a wrong vote with Coakley.
We are on the losing side since 11/2/2009, and it isn’t US who are losing.
It is our country.
And I know I have said this to you before: Thank you for all your threads highlighting Dr. Sowell. That man is a beacon of hope and rationality. One of my true “heroes”.
I understand your point, you made it well and I agree.
If Coakley is elected we know for certain what the outcome will be. With Brown we can’t be certain but I personally believe he’ll benefit Conservatives and like you say, this could turn the tide on Liberalism.
You of all people, as a resident of the Commonwealth, and one who at least claims to be a Conservative, ought to be the angriest against Democrat agents like Slick Willard (or William Weld, for that matter). The reason why MA is in the condition that it is in is not because of openly-serving Democrats, it’s because the Socialist/Elitist element who differed virtually not one iota from the national Democrats infested the MA GOP and obliterated it, giving the Dems the hypermajorities they have now, well and beyond the real demographics. Yup, that’s right, kids. RINOs made these states a bright shade of Socialist Red (forget that media newsspeak color crap).
I may not be a resident there, but having written about the place for years, MA serves as the ultimate warning to the Republican Party and Conservative movement what happens when Socialists hijack a state party and run out Conservatives... it dies. Again, if you cannot comprehend that and why all of us who can see that as plain as day wish to avoid having that cancer spread nationally (as it has already spread to far too many states already beyond the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific Coast), you’re either naive, or you DO understand what’s happening and fully support it.
Other than that, with respect to Scott Brown, my points were well made in my prior post and no need to copy and paste them again.
That is not the issue at stake here. You have an obsession with Romney, that is plain, but that is not the issue I am addressing.
The issue is whether you want a candidate like Brown or a candidate like Coakley.
It sounds to me like you wish to have a candidate like Coakley elected. Naive is probably the best way I could describe your attitude.
The issue is Socialism, sir. You obviously don’t seem terribly bothered with the infiltration of Socialist/Democrat agent trojan horses within the Republican party. Yet you seem highly bothered by people that are concerned and that choose to raise awareness of the problem. That is what is highly disturbing on your end, although perhaps there is no surprise why you won’t address it given what you’ve said so far, since that speaks volumes about yourself and does raise serious questions why you are even on this website.
I won’t dignify your idiotic last two sentences, since if you bothered to read my above posts, you’d already know the answer.
Putting all of your energy into hating Romney and dragging down or attacking anyone who doesn't share your single minded purpose of hating Romney personally WHILE BARACK OBAMA AND HIS ILK ARE CONTROLLING THE GOVERNMENT AND PASSING LEGISLATION EACH DAY THAT WILL BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO REVERSE IF THEY SUCCEED is like standing around on a sinking ship dressing someone down because they didn't chip rust and paint over it instead of putting them to work in a bailing brigade below decks as the ship floods.
ROMNEY DOES NOT EVEN CAST A SINGLE VOTE IN ANYTHING, AND HAS NOT DONE SO FOR YEARS! If people like you even went after Olympia Snowe, John McCain or Chuck Hagel (people whose presence actually DOES mean something) with nearly as much vigor instead of trying at this CRITICAL time to drag down a candidate like Scott Brown by painting him as the second coming of Mitt Romney, it wouldn't be an issue, and I wouldn't even give a rat's ass about. I could simply ignore it if I choose not to participate in the occasional Two Minutes Hate.
The difference between you and I is that I know what the important thing to pay attention to is right now, and you don't.
If you have ever read "The Road to Serfdom" (and maybe you have) as I refer to in my tagline, you would understand that I see socialism, and by its logical extension, non-classical liberalism as the biggest risk we face, not Romney.
While you guys are busying yourselves with Romney, the REAL threats, those in office, holding power and putting pen to paper, are building an edifice that, if built, we won't be able to tear down without bloodshed.
THAT is what I am concerned with.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were some Coakley plants here trying to convince FR that Brown is RINO scum so that they stay home on Tues. It certainly would be the most viable tactic given that "what's her name", DemonRAT Coakley's support has collapsed.
But we do have to be honest with ourselves and not overhype expectations for this guy. Brown is 10X better than Coakley but he's not a solid conservative. I heard one freeper compare him to Senator Kyl (who has a 95% conservative rating), except to say Brown is "much better" on immigration? If you expect Brown to be a more right-wing version of Jon Kyl or Barry Goldwater c. 1964, you're going to be disappointed. But on the other hand we have his voting record in Mass. Senate and he's certainly not a left-wing DIABLO like Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter. I'd venture to guess he'd probably vote similarly to Mike DeWine or Norm Coleman -- right-of-center and with us about 60%-70% of the time. He's probably cast a few important votes that really pi$$ off the conservative base, but he'll do the right thing most of the time. Given that there is no conservative third party candidate and the major alternative on the ballot is an elitist, totally marxist bbbbiatch, I think the question of who to support is a no-brainer.
As for a couple of RINOs endorsing Brown over a RAT in the general election, so what? If Romney smells victory for the GOP and wants to be on the winning side I don't care. It means as much as saying Mark Kirk is a closet conservative due to John Thune endorsing him when he's way ahead in the polls. It's quite different than if Brown had a more conservative primary opponent who was neck-and-neck with him, then Olympia Snowe showed up to help the RINO cause.
This situation isn't compariable to Dede Scozzafava at all. In that case, you had a far-left "Republican" that was funded by ACORN and endorsed by DailyKos, running in a right-of-center district where she been annointed by the state GOP without a primary -- AND there was a viable conservative alternative on the ballot to vote for.
Likewise, Scott Brown may not be a solid conservative but he IS further to the right of at least three (and possibily more) Republican U.S. Senate candidates annointed in more Republican-friendly states -- namely Mark Kirk, Mike Castle, and Rob Simmons. They may come from states that also voted for Obama, but there are pockets of conservative Republican areas in Illinois, which has elected many solid conservative U.S. congressmen in recent years -- compared to Mass. which has elected none.
Someone on Illinois Review noted that a vote for Scott Brown is a vote for liberty, but a vote for Mark Kirk is not, and noted some reasons why:
Scott Brown is a center right candidate. Mark Kirk is a center left candidate. Brown opposes partial birth abortion - Kirk supports it. Brown is attacked by pro-abortion groups, Kirk received a 100% rating from NARAL. Brown is pro-second amendment and received an A rating from the NRA, Kirk received an F from the NRA and an F- from the GOA. Brown supported the interests of the Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government 93% in 2007-2008. Kirk received mediocre ratings from taxpayer watchdog groups, including supporting Taxpayers for Common Sense 33% of the time and supporting Citizens for Tax Justice 17% of the time. Brown recently voted against an increase in the state's sales tax from 5% to 6.25%, and continues to say he supports repealing that increase. Kirk voted YES to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 by July 2009. Kirk also voted YES to help Pelosi Democrats expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)subjecting American working families to a tax increase amounting to tens of billions of dollars. Brown says cap and trade is a mistake and doesn't work and Kirk...well we know Kirk's record on that. Kirk had the opportunity to vote against Cap and Trade - he failed. Instead, he voted with Nancy Pelosi (after a closed door meeting with her) & supported the largest tax increase in American history. Not to mention cap and trade is yet another government power grab and the phoniest scheme ever devised, with the possible exception of papal indulgences. Kirk's vote puts him to the left of over 95% of the Republican delegation in Congress. Scott Brown and Mark Kirk? No comparison.
Now I'm sure the mainstream media and the GOP leadership will all take credit for Brown's victory if he pulls it off on Tuesday, and proclaim it's proof that American wants more "moderate Republicans" But it's up to us to educate the public about the truth -- that although Scott Brown is moderate he's much more conservative than the kind of "Republicans" the media insist we "have to" run to "win" in Obama states. If Scott Brown wins, it will show that a Republican won the most Democrats state in the union -- with NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, and the Sarah & Jim Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence all OPPOSED to his candidacy.
The Mass. Senate race is the opening shot of the 2010 election season. What happens there will resonate with the rest of the country.
And if Scott Brown wins... Well, it will show that Mark Kirk, Mike Castle, and Rob Simmons didn't "have to" get in bed with the left and embrace Obamunism to "win" in states that voted for Obama.
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.