NIck I never said Coakley was better… what I said was nice job getting Brown elected as he is now voting the Democrat way anyways. Dan is right… Kennedy was the choice.. he was the conservative.. not Brown. In Brown the man you helped get elected will cut nothing.
No it is not a jobs bill… why do you really think it is… of course you do!! because Brown voted for it and it leaves egg all over your face…..
“Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) effectively became the 60th vote to cut off debate on Wall Street reform Thursday – a far cry from when Republicans were hailing him as the 41st GOPer who was going to stand up to the Democrats’ agenda. Brown also voted “yes” on final passage.”
Now that the kids are finally asleep , I get to add that it’s a really horrible piece of legislation that gives the Fed even more power (as if arsonists need gasoline). Then again, Scott Brown also voted against an audit of the Fed…
Forget any one person who backed this guy for a minute… a whole lot of people really screwed it up, in spades, by backing this guy – just because he was a Republican and Coakley was a Democrat.
I’d go so far as to say (and I do considering that this bill is worse than the healthcare one, by far) that every Republican candidate telling us to back this guy in CT or thinking Brown’s victory was the best thing since sliced bread should immediately back away from that conclusion.
On top of allowing the fraud to continue, the May 4th draft included language that “strongly presumed” (yes, that was in the bill, as if it’s “strongly presumed” we stop at red lights – a good old fashioned “shall” would’ve been perfect, but Dodd rode this horse into town) that shareholders would eat the losses in a liquidation. It took about 12 hours in the aggregate to research this and compare the changes, but other gems included a bailout mechanism where the president “may” inform Congress of what occured.
Even Russ Feingold (as in McCain-Feingold) figured out that this wasn’t worth supporting.
I emphasize this catastrophic mistake for an important reason. We will sink the ship of state if we make this mistake again, but across the board, in November.
It is strangely fortunate that Brown’s was one special election. It’s a test run on just what happens if we automatically run to the GOP like it’s owed a 23rd chance. This preview should serve as a warning – both to CT voters in November and at today’s convention.
The reality of the situation was, AND IS, that with Brown you might get 40-50% of his votes going your way. With Coakley you would get NONE. To say it was a mistake to support Brown when faced with THE REALITY that no-one else was electable and the two choices were crystal clear is ludicrous. It’s Mass. people, not Indiana.
There’s was never a “might” in the Brown equation. A cursory examination of his record in the state legislature would have indicated that.
It’s just that some people see Romneycare or cap and tax from a Democrat, and they run in the opposite direction, which is a smart thing to do. What’s troubling is that some of those same people see Romneycare and cap and tax on steroids, but a Republican’s doing it, so they run toward it.
What actually happened is that people saw “Republican”, and they were so dead set on “Republican” saving the day that the facts were thrown out the window. When that happens, you send a guy to Washington who believes in government run healthcare to stop it.
But even if there was a “might” in this situation, this bill rendered it a moot point.
All I’m saying is that people shouldn’t ask for small government within the Constitution if they keep working in the opposite direction.
Let’s think very carefully about what just happened here – there’s no justifying this as a wise decision. And again, it’s strangely fortunate because it’s just one guy. But making the same mistake in hundreds of races will be disasterous.
With either, you’re not going to get squat going your way at all – except by rare accident. It’s the same mess as when they arrived – plus a few more agencies, regulations and tax code manipulations. Pretending that this is different and voting Republican anyway won’t change that.
Those who believed Brown would reverse this nonsense have enabled him to do serious economic damage, and in fact he has – so much so that it would make Coakley supporters blush.
Dan: There were only two viable candidates. So DO TELL US how things would have been better with Coakley occupying that seat in the future. I EAGERLY AWAIT YOUR INFORMATIVE Dissertation. Don’t mince words now, just explain how the future would be better. *(Saying Coakley was a UNION HACK and would have made things better for Scott AT ALL OF OUR EXPENSE does not count).
“viable” means not making things worse, in which case there was only one viable candidate.
Coakley would NOT be better because she’d be the SAME thing. Both would be busy expanding government and not even trying to repeal a thing. Normally, that’s very easy to prove. But with Brown, I’m truly amazed at the lengths he’s gone through to do all that work for me. And you can forget any other thing they might want government to do if they make us all broke – it’s all moot at that point.
I think you and I agree that we’re really close to the financial point of no return. If you actually think we can’t give any more ground on this, then you should stop giving ground.
What you’re doing here is like saying, “Thank God Hitler won that election – that Stalin guy is really scary.”
Look, you complain about socialism quite a bit, and you should. But I find it very strange that you’re trying to justify a candidate doing the exact things you give Democrats a lot of heat for (which, by the way, you should).
And you do this while opposing a takeover of the economy, but both “viable” candidates as you call them supported taking over the economy.
Be honest and consistent about what you’re doing here for a minute – don’t complain about a takeover of the economy while insisting that we have to choose between a takeover of the economy or a takeover of the economy.
You’ve strongly indicated in no uncertain terms that government takeover of the economy is a bad thing. So stop supporting it. You seem like a pull yourself up by the boot straps kind of guy – so if I’m correct in that assumption, maybe it’s time you stopped giving in to a takeover of the economy in the name of stopping one.
I think you’ll find NY’s 23rd very instructive on how you can suddenly give a candidate the support required to win once you figure out what the deal is with the GOP.
Or you can make a fear based decision because it seems less painful, while of course being so afraid that you forget the the current pain will only worsen if you do… your call. But if you’re going to make the fear based choice, stop picking on people who vote for socialists if you insist on living in the same glass house.
It’s your call. Just don’t complain about what you get when you ask for it.
As for me, I’m not going to negotiate with one guy who wants to steal my property on Tuesday and another who wants to do it on Thursday under the argument that one or the other may appear more likely – all while people like you are arguing that Thursday is more convenient. That’s just stupid.
I’m going to vote to keep my property – and I don’t care if I’m the only guy on the block doing it.
Friendly Reminder to all: This is a Scott Brown thread.
1Going forward, if it’s not Scott Brown related, I’m going to have to delete it.
2NIck I never said Coakley was better… what I said was nice job getting Brown elected as he is now voting the Democrat way anyways. Dan is right… Kennedy was the choice.. he was the conservative.. not Brown. In Brown the man you helped get elected will cut nothing.
No it is not a jobs bill… why do you really think it is… of course you do!! because Brown voted for it and it leaves egg all over your face…..
3Just an update to my RINO thesis –
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37590.html
“Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) effectively became the 60th vote to cut off debate on Wall Street reform Thursday – a far cry from when Republicans were hailing him as the 41st GOPer who was going to stand up to the Democrats’ agenda. Brown also voted “yes” on final passage.”
4Hey but Nick says he helped put him there
5Now that the kids are finally asleep
, I get to add that it’s a really horrible piece of legislation that gives the Fed even more power (as if arsonists need gasoline). Then again, Scott Brown also voted against an audit of the Fed…
Forget any one person who backed this guy for a minute… a whole lot of people really screwed it up, in spades, by backing this guy – just because he was a Republican and Coakley was a Democrat.
I’d go so far as to say (and I do considering that this bill is worse than the healthcare one, by far) that every Republican candidate telling us to back this guy in CT or thinking Brown’s victory was the best thing since sliced bread should immediately back away from that conclusion.
On top of allowing the fraud to continue, the May 4th draft included language that “strongly presumed” (yes, that was in the bill, as if it’s “strongly presumed” we stop at red lights – a good old fashioned “shall” would’ve been perfect, but Dodd rode this horse into town) that shareholders would eat the losses in a liquidation. It took about 12 hours in the aggregate to research this and compare the changes, but other gems included a bailout mechanism where the president “may” inform Congress of what occured.
Even Russ Feingold (as in McCain-Feingold) figured out that this wasn’t worth supporting.
I emphasize this catastrophic mistake for an important reason. We will sink the ship of state if we make this mistake again, but across the board, in November.
It is strangely fortunate that Brown’s was one special election. It’s a test run on just what happens if we automatically run to the GOP like it’s owed a 23rd chance. This preview should serve as a warning – both to CT voters in November and at today’s convention.
6The reality of the situation was, AND IS, that with Brown you might get 40-50% of his votes going your way. With Coakley you would get NONE. To say it was a mistake to support Brown when faced with THE REALITY that no-one else was electable and the two choices were crystal clear is ludicrous. It’s Mass. people, not Indiana.
7In other words the GOP failed to put up a viable candidate to do the job that is at hand.
8There’s was never a “might” in the Brown equation. A cursory examination of his record in the state legislature would have indicated that.
It’s just that some people see Romneycare or cap and tax from a Democrat, and they run in the opposite direction, which is a smart thing to do. What’s troubling is that some of those same people see Romneycare and cap and tax on steroids, but a Republican’s doing it, so they run toward it.
What actually happened is that people saw “Republican”, and they were so dead set on “Republican” saving the day that the facts were thrown out the window. When that happens, you send a guy to Washington who believes in government run healthcare to stop it.
But even if there was a “might” in this situation, this bill rendered it a moot point.
All I’m saying is that people shouldn’t ask for small government within the Constitution if they keep working in the opposite direction.
Let’s think very carefully about what just happened here – there’s no justifying this as a wise decision. And again, it’s strangely fortunate because it’s just one guy. But making the same mistake in hundreds of races will be disasterous.
9Let’s shorten this somewhat –
With either, you’re not going to get squat going your way at all – except by rare accident. It’s the same mess as when they arrived – plus a few more agencies, regulations and tax code manipulations. Pretending that this is different and voting Republican anyway won’t change that.
Those who believed Brown would reverse this nonsense have enabled him to do serious economic damage, and in fact he has – so much so that it would make Coakley supporters blush.
10Dan: There were only two viable candidates. So DO TELL US how things would have been better with Coakley occupying that seat in the future. I EAGERLY AWAIT YOUR INFORMATIVE Dissertation. Don’t mince words now, just explain how the future would be better. *(Saying Coakley was a UNION HACK and would have made things better for Scott AT ALL OF OUR EXPENSE does not count).
11Nick,
“viable” means not making things worse, in which case there was only one viable candidate.
Coakley would NOT be better because she’d be the SAME thing. Both would be busy expanding government and not even trying to repeal a thing. Normally, that’s very easy to prove. But with Brown, I’m truly amazed at the lengths he’s gone through to do all that work for me. And you can forget any other thing they might want government to do if they make us all broke – it’s all moot at that point.
I think you and I agree that we’re really close to the financial point of no return. If you actually think we can’t give any more ground on this, then you should stop giving ground.
What you’re doing here is like saying, “Thank God Hitler won that election – that Stalin guy is really scary.”
Look, you complain about socialism quite a bit, and you should. But I find it very strange that you’re trying to justify a candidate doing the exact things you give Democrats a lot of heat for (which, by the way, you should).
And you do this while opposing a takeover of the economy, but both “viable” candidates as you call them supported taking over the economy.
Be honest and consistent about what you’re doing here for a minute – don’t complain about a takeover of the economy while insisting that we have to choose between a takeover of the economy or a takeover of the economy.
You’ve strongly indicated in no uncertain terms that government takeover of the economy is a bad thing. So stop supporting it. You seem like a pull yourself up by the boot straps kind of guy – so if I’m correct in that assumption, maybe it’s time you stopped giving in to a takeover of the economy in the name of stopping one.
I think you’ll find NY’s 23rd very instructive on how you can suddenly give a candidate the support required to win once you figure out what the deal is with the GOP.
Or you can make a fear based decision because it seems less painful, while of course being so afraid that you forget the the current pain will only worsen if you do… your call. But if you’re going to make the fear based choice, stop picking on people who vote for socialists if you insist on living in the same glass house.
It’s your call. Just don’t complain about what you get when you ask for it.
As for me, I’m not going to negotiate with one guy who wants to steal my property on Tuesday and another who wants to do it on Thursday under the argument that one or the other may appear more likely – all while people like you are arguing that Thursday is more convenient. That’s just stupid.
I’m going to vote to keep my property – and I don’t care if I’m the only guy on the block doing it.
12