Would you rather hold off Democrats for a year or send a message to the neo-cons?

[Elwar]

Ok, I'm sorta torn on this vote on Tuesday.

On the one hand, voting for Kennedy would send a message to the neo-cons that they shouldn't nominate neo-con candidates if they want to win in November.

On the other hand, if Brown wins the Republicans will be able to block the Democrats for the rest of the year (including Cap and Tax).

Where do you stand?

[ItsTime]

Vote for anyone you want. But a Brown win will make people "not scared to vote Republican" and that will help our chances in with our Liberty candidates.

I think people are missing that point the most. Ron Paul told us to work within the GOP. Many of us have and have gotten Liberty candidates up and running as Republicans. All we need now is for people to stop being scared to vote Republican.

[erowe1]

Ron Paul told us to work within the GOP.

I don't think he meant to work FOR the GOP, as though we should advance it as a party for its own sake without condition. I think he meant to work toward the agenda we stand for within the GOP, and to work to change the rest of the GOP in the process. Supporting Brown is the opposite of that.

[rp08orbust]

Not only would I like to send neocons a message, but I'm toying with the idea that Obamacare might be for the best if it forces states to open the can of worms known as nullification.

[Dieseler]

Not my State to vote in but if it was I would be seeking to block the Democrats in any way I could just to slow the whole thing down until more people come to grips with what is going on.

[Kludge]

Not a poll.

(seriously)

[Chaohinon]

Is it still too early to shoot the bastards?

[Dieseler]

Is it still the bastards?

Good question but one that lends itself to scrutiny by the bastards protection services.

[nobody's_hero]

If I'm going to not be represented either way (whether it's because my favorite candidate is likely going to get blown out of the water, or because a "sure win" neocon would keep the democrats in check but still be detrimental to liberty), I might as well vote on principle.

[Dieseler]

Our team didn't make the playoffs this year.

It's really just a matter of time now and I guess you could just decide to stall them or give them the go ahead.
I don't think they will go 60 +1 myself so if it were my decision, I would think and hope that I could make them punt.
They could go for it though, never know.
It would anger the fans greatly if they did though.

[nobody's_hero]

Besides, you all know that this bill WILL pass. The democrats have the majority. They can change the rules (they'll try ignoring them first, but if that doesn't work, they'll change them). There really is no 60/40 magic number.

[Dieseler]

Wait a minute, I mis spoke, it's really 50 +1 isn't it?
Same thing either way.
I think they will punt before they resort to that.

[Elwar]

Besides, you all know that this bill WILL pass. The democrats have the majority. They can change the rules (they'll try ignoring them first, but if that doesn't work, they'll change them). There really is no 60/40 magic number.

Yes, but the question is...do we stop them for the rest of the year?

Personally, if I was in the voting booth I'd vote for the one closest to my ideals. So I'd vote for Kennedy.

But I'm not sure what to root for on Tuesday. The best outcome would be for Kennedy to win, but either Brown losing by a margin smaller than Kennedy's total or Brown winning would be something good too.

[ItsTime]

Yes, but the question is...do we stop them for the rest of the year?

Personally, if I was in the voting booth I'd vote for the one closest to my ideals. So I'd vote for Kennedy.

But I'm not sure what to root for on Tuesday. The best outcome would be for Kennedy to win, but either Brown losing by a margin smaller than Kennedy's total or Brown winning would be something good too.

For the records I would not vote for Brown, ever. I would vote for Kennedy (who admits he has no shot). But with that said I am rooting for Brown.

There is going to be a message sent either way. A message to the neo-cons or a message to the dems.

[payme_rick]

If I were at the booth right now I'd vote for Kennedy...

but a quick thought to ponder for those (including me) that say "just vote on principle":

Is voting for a canidate (Brown in this case) because he gives you the best chance of stopping legislation you feel would be very harmful to this country "voting on principle"?

devil's advocate...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If I were at the booth right now I'd vote for Kennedy...

but a quick thought to ponder for those (including me) that say "just vote on principle":

Is voting for a canidate (Brown in this case) because he gives you the best chance of stopping legislation you feel would be very harmful to this country "voting on principle"?

devil's advocate...

A vote for tyranny, is a vote for tyranny.

[jmdrake]

Not my State to vote in but if it was I would be seeking to block the Democrats in any way I could just to slow the whole thing down until more people come to grips with what is going on.

Not my state to vote in either. But I wish this poll hat option 3. "Spend my money and energy on other liberty candidates that stood a chance to win." Moneybomb and phonebank Kokesh, Harris, Rand, Schiff, Whatshisname running against Pelosi. I'm certain the GOP is pulling out all stops for a Brown win at this point. Nothing we do will make a difference.

[Stary Hickory]

I have exhausted my need for revenge. With the agenda Obama has in mind I am opposing it at all costs. What good does letting radical leftists control the government unhindered do for freedom? I am missing this.

The left uses bribes and government dependency as it's main tools, why let it strengthen them via higher taxation and social giveaways?

[payme_rick]

A vote for tyranny, is a vote for tyranny.

yah, that'd be the easiest way to put it...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I have exhausted my need for revenge. With the agenda Obama has in mind I am opposing it at all costs. What good does letting radical leftists control the government unhindered do for freedom? I am missing this.

The left uses bribes and government dependency as it's main tools, why let it strengthen them via higher taxation and social giveaways?

You are still under the spell of the duopoly and the left-right falsity. Brown is mere indistinguishable from Coakley. Moreso, the GOP is indistinguishable from the Democrats. Maybe if we (libertarians) win some more elections the GOP will start to turn around, but at this point the Democrats and the Republicans are the same. We don't call them Republocrats for nothing.

If by left you mean Pro-Statist, and by right you mean Anti-Statist, then Brown is as left, or more leftist than Coakley. You are so blinded by Obama. If McCain would have won you'd probably be voting for the Democrat in the race. Ad infinitum. They play the fools like a fiddle.

[TCE]

Wait a minute, I mis spoke, it's really 50 +1 isn't it?
Same thing either way.
I think they will punt before they resort to that.

It is if they use Reconciliation, but they don't want to use it. So, if Brown wins, they'll have to pass it another way, which will require more time.

[Pants]

I would vote for Brown. I had the attitude last year at this time to go ahead and give it to the Dems.. Let them screw up so bad and let the Republicans regroup and become wise. But I have seen enough.. I can't let the dems damage this country any further for the sake of my children.

If the Dems lose bad or in a landslide.. They know the Socialist agenda, Cap and Trade, and Health Care reform isn't going to wash. They will back down. Otherwise they KNOW very well November is going to be a very ugly month. (if it isn't going to be already)

[TCE]

I would vote for Brown. I had the attitude last year at this time to go ahead and give it to the Dems.. Let them screw up so bad and let the Republicans regroup and become wise. But I have seen enough.. I can't let the dems damage this country any further for the sake of my children.

If the Dems lose bad or in a landslide.. They know the Socialist agenda, Cap and Trade, and Health Care reform isn't going to wash. They will back down. Otherwise they KNOW very well November is going to be a very ugly month. (if it isn't going to be already)

+1.

[Agorism]

Congressmen and senators get little say over the military. The president has 100% control.

That's why I really don't have too much of a problem voting for hawkish republicans...within reason, but at the same time, I didn't like the idea of John McCain with control of the military.

[Dieseler]

It is if they use Reconciliation, but they don't want to use it. So, if Brown wins, they'll have to pass it another way, which will require more time.

This is what I am hoping for, simply more time for this thing to stew... More scrutiny and more outrage over it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I would vote for Brown. I had the attitude last year at this time to go ahead and give it to the Dems.. Let them screw up so bad and let the Republicans regroup and become wise. But I have seen enough.. I can't let the dems damage this country any further for the sake of my children.

If the Dems lose bad or in a landslide.. They know the Socialist agenda, Cap and Trade, and Health Care reform isn't going to wash. They will back down. Otherwise they KNOW very well November is going to be a very ugly month. (if it isn't going to be already)

Meh. Healthcare is all ready socialist. The supposed free-marketeer GOP didn't do anything to return healthcare to the free-market, I have no faith they will do so if they return to power. Besides, if you are legitimately concerned about the growth of government you must be against both GOP and Democrats because neither has decreased the size of Government in the last 100+ years.

I thought we might have become smarter since 2006 :(

[low preference guy]

I think we need a third option: Don't vote for Kennedy to send a message to the liberty activists: It's time to infiltrate the GOP.

I would've liked to vote for Kennedy in the GOP primary. It's fine to run as an independent when you have a chance, if you can pull a Ross Perot. But not if you can't break 5%. Your time would be spent better if you became a precinct leader and helped take the GOP from the bottom up.

[low preference guy]

It is if they use Reconciliation, but they don't want to use it. So, if Brown wins, they'll have to pass it another way, which will require more time.

I think if they pass it through reconciliation the law is valid only for five years. They'll have to vote again before it expires to make it permanent.

[TCE]

I think if they pass it through reconciliation the law is valid only for five years. They'll have to vote again before it expires to make it permanent.

Which they won't do, because we know the Republicans will have control in 5 years. Even if it does last forever, it will be substantially weaker and eat up a ton of time.

[Dieseler]

They could get our money and never make a payment in benefits if that happens.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think if they pass it through reconciliation the law is valid only for five years. They'll have to vote again before it expires to make it permanent.

I'm positive it is at least 10 years, because the Bush Tax cuts last only 10 years and they were passed by reconciliation. However, I am not sure if reconciliation per se, has any time limit. You can thank the Republicans for setting precedent with reconciliation that it can be used now for any bills that effect the budget, instead of its traditional use on only budget bills.

YAY GOP!! GO BROWN!!! :rolleyes:

[low preference guy]

They could get our money and never make a payment in benefits if that happens.

...which will provoke a bigger voter backlash than I can imagine.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

...which will provoke a bigger voter backlash than I can imagine.

What was the backlash to the Patriot Act....has it gone away yet? Nope. What about the Income Tax? What about the 1934 Firearm Act? What about the 1994 Firearm Act? What about the WWII subsidies? What about employer mandated health insurance from WWII? What about Presidential power after Nixon?

I could go on and on. Once something gets passed in DC it if ever goes away. Lip service and no action, wait, they act, just in the opposite fashion.

[low preference guy]

Austrian Econ, none of the examples you mentioned involved taking money for something specific and then don't deliver, in a way that could be perceived easily by the average voter. This would especially provoke a backlash because the majority of the people was strongly against it.

The income tax for example doesn't serve a general purpose, but it's to fund government expenditures in general.

Just think carefully and you'll see that taking money for health care without providing health care will produce a huge backlash.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Not only would I like to send neocons a message, but I'm toying with the idea that Obamacare might be for the best if it forces states to open the can of worms known as nullification.

OK, the second part of that is the first good reason I've seen to vote for Kennedy.


Besides, you all know that this bill WILL pass. The democrats have the majority. They can change the rules (they'll try ignoring them first, but if that doesn't work, they'll change them). There really is no 60/40 magic number.

And if they do, whey will have just dug their own graves deeper.


Yes, but the question is...do we stop them for the rest of the year?

Personally, if I was in the voting booth I'd vote for the one closest to my ideals. So I'd vote for Kennedy.

But I'm not sure what to root for on Tuesday. The best outcome would be for Kennedy to win, but either Brown losing by a margin smaller than Kennedy's total or Brown winning would be something good too.

If Kennedy gets 4% of the vote and Brown looses by 2% that sends a very, very clear message to the entire country: NEVER, EVER VOTE THIRD PARTY OR INDEPENDENT! If Brown looses, this is the most likely scenario. Worse, Kennedy will be remembered as the spoiler that gave us health care and cap and trade. His political career will effectively be over.

Voting on principle and trying to send a message to the GOP about the kind of candidates to nominate vs not breaking the Dem majority and in so doing imposing permanent taxes and regulations on our children, grandchildren, great grand children... yeah - “sending a message” that they are too thick headed to hear in the short term (months) is sssoooooo worth that! - NOT!

If the Dems win, that sends a diff message – that they still have power in their strongholds. A Dem loss will turn over a lot more seats across the country – some of which we can get into. People like to vote for winners.

-t

[Dieseler]

...which will provoke a bigger voter backlash than I can imagine.

yeah but that's five years, what shape will we be in by then? These dudes have put the mothership into overdrive, we gotta throw a wrench in it now somehow.

[angelatc]

They could get our money and never make a payment in benefits if that happens.

I would settle for that.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Austrian Econ, none of the examples you mentioned involved taking money for something specific and then don't deliver, in a way that could be perceived easily by the average voter. This would especially provoke a backlash because the majority of the people was strongly against it.

The income tax for example doesn't serve a general purpose, but it's to fund government expenditures in general.

Just think carefully and you'll see that taking money for health care without providing health care will produce a huge backlash.

The Income Tax was sold as a 1% tax on the extremely wealthy. It turned into this behemoth and not a peep was heard. Backlash means nothing if the things they backlash against aren't repealed. For example the 1994 Firearms act. Still here, even though the GOP took back Congress. Look at the facts and details please.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Austrian Econ, none of the examples you mentioned involved taking money for something specific and then don't deliver, in a way that could be perceived easily by the average voter. This would especially provoke a backlash because the majority of the people was strongly against it.

The income tax for example doesn't serve a general purpose, but it's to fund government expenditures in general.

Just think carefully and you'll see that taking money for health care without providing health care will produce a huge backlash.

Remember, one of the "selling points" of the health care bill is that it will pay down the deficit. Wait a minute...

Paying down the DEBT would be a good thing.

The DEFICIT is Congress spending money it doesn't have - so we are going to get health care taxed in order to support their irresponsible spending. It also means these taxes collected for health care will go into the treasury where Congress can issue IOU's on them, just like they spent the social security trust fund and defaulted on repaying it. That's reason enough to block health care by any means necessary.

-t

[Dieseler]

Remember, one of the "selling points" of the health care bill is that it will pay down the deficit. Wait a minute...

Paying down the DEBT would be a good thing.

The DEFICIT is Congress spending money it doesn't have - so we are going to get health care taxed in order to support their irresponsible spending. It also means these taxes collected for health care will go into the treasury where Congress can issue IOU's on them, just like they spent the social security trust fund and defaulted on repaying it. That's reason enough to block health care by any means necessary.

-t

Exactly.
This is a scam.

How much does time cost lol.
How much time are you trying to buy Senator?

That question not posed at you T.

[Old Ducker]

America, freedom to fascism (Aaron Russo's last film)

THX1138 (George Lucas's first film, partly based on the Ayn Rand novel, We the Living)

I am a fugitive of a chain gang (1930's classic)

[low preference guy]

The Income Tax was sold as a 1% tax on the extremely wealthy. It turned into this behemoth and not a peep was heard. Backlash means nothing if the things they backlash against aren't repealed. For example the 1994 Firearms act. Still here, even though the GOP took back Congress. Look at the facts and details please.

I look at the fact and details. Did the income tax become what it is now within 5 years after it passed?

[koob]

At this point, I just want to stop Obamacare! Even if you hate Democrats and Republicans you must be able to see that the Democrats having all this power is very dangerous. They need to be restrained! lol!

[parocks]

Parts of the media are calling Kennedy the Liberty Party candidate. Not Libertarian Party, or Independent Party, but Liberty Party.

If Kennedy gets more votes than the margin between Brown and Coakley, either the Democrats or the Republicans would be plenty pissed at the "Liberty Party".

And that's what the "Liberty Party" wants, members of a major party pissed off at them.



OK, the second part of that is the first good reason I've seen to vote for Kennedy.



And if they do, whey will have just dug their own graves deeper.



If Kennedy gets 4% of the vote and Brown looses by 2% that sends a very, very clear message to the entire country: NEVER, EVER VOTE THIRD PARTY OR INDEPENDENT! If Brown looses, this is the most likely scenario. Worse, Kennedy will be remembered as the spoiler that gave us health care and cap and trade. His political career will effectively be over.

Voting on principle and trying to send a message to the GOP about the kind of candidates to nominate vs not breaking the Dem majority and in so doing imposing permanent taxes and regulations on our children, grandchildren, great grand children... yeah - “sending a message” that they are too thick headed to hear in the short term (months) is sssoooooo worth that! - NOT!

If the Dems win, that sends a diff message – that they still have power in their strongholds. A Dem loss will turn over a lot more seats across the country – some of which we can get into. People like to vote for winners.

-t

[revolutionisnow]

Vote for checks and balances and to block the Democrats.

[revolutionary8]

parocks and T4,

The arugments that you are both making are nothing new. They "threatened" the same about RP, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Aaron Russo, Bob Barr (gag), Steve Forbes, etc etc etc, about being branded "the spoiler"....
It's always the same argument, but with different characters inserted in to the leading roles. The scripts may be different, but the plots are the same. And The Beat Goes On.

[Liberty Star]

It won't mean much for all those "anti Obama" Brown supporters if this AIPAC firster is elected. Obama himself got funding from AIPAC , Brown supports Obama on key issues and would probably be first in line for pork to sell his vote. It would be better if such vocal supporter of torture, abortion, foreign occupations is kicked out at first chance but he won't do much for conservatives even if he's elected. This is more symbolic than substantial.

[parocks]

Right, every time you behave like a spoiler, act like a spoiler, etc etc you'll be called a spoiler. Different characters inserted, etc etc. Right. Beat goes on, check.

Ron Paul was the Libertarian Nominee in 1988. In 2008, he was a Republican candidate.

But what's the "threatened" part?

I'm not saying I'm making a novel argument. What is slightly new is the fact that some elements of the media are making up an entirely new party. Almost no voters are going to see the "Liberty Party" in heroic terms, and the slightly smaller voting bloc will be pissed at the "Liberty Party".

I will again say that it might not be a good strategy to year in and year out get
huge groups of voters pissed at you for no clear benefit.

Hopefully Brown wins by substantially more than the amount of votes Kennedy gets so that neither party is too pissed about any effects that Kennedy might have had.



parocks and T4,

The arugments that you are both making are nothing new. They "threatened" the same about RP, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Aaron Russo, Bob Barr (gag), Steve Forbes, etc etc etc, about being branded "the spoiler"....
It's always the same argument, but with different characters inserted in to the leading rolls. And The Beat Goes On.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Right, every time you behave like a spoiler, act like a spoiler, etc etc you'll be called a spoiler. Different characters inserted, etc etc. Right. Beat goes on, check.

Ron Paul was the Libertarian Nominee in 1988. In 2008, he was a Republican candidate.

But what's the "threatened" part?

I'm not saying I'm making a novel argument. What is slightly new is the fact that some elements of the media are making up an entirely new party. Almost no voters are going to see the "Liberty Party" in heroic terms, and the slightly smaller voting bloc will be pissed at the "Liberty Party".

I will again say that it might not be a good strategy to year in and year out get
huge groups of voters pissed at you for no clear benefit.

Hopefully Brown wins by substantially more than the amount of votes Kennedy gets so that neither party is too pissed about any effects that Kennedy might have had.

Now we are getting our actions dictated to by the Media...

We have pro-Brown all over the board. Now we have anti-Kennedy. Am I in the twilight zone?

[revolutionary8]

Right, every time you behave like a spoiler, act like a spoiler, etc etc you'll be called a spoiler. Different characters inserted, etc etc. Right. Beat goes on, check.

Ron Paul was the Libertarian Nominee in 1988. In 2008, he was a Republican candidate.

But what's the "threatened" part?

I'm not saying I'm making a novel argument. What is slightly new is the fact that some elements of the media are making up an entirely new party. Almost no voters are going to see the "Liberty Party" in heroic terms, and the slightly smaller voting bloc will be pissed at the "Liberty Party".

I will again say that it might not be a good strategy to year in and year out get
huge groups of voters pissed at you for no clear benefit.

Hopefully Brown wins by substantially more than the amount of votes Kennedy gets so that neither party is too pissed about any effects that Kennedy might have had.

I am not sure why you tried to minimize my argument in the first sentence of your reply, I would have rather you addressed the issue.
That is my whole point. As you wrote, "this is slightly new", (whatever that means :rolleyes:) and as I said- "the script maybe be different but the plot is the same."

Try going on ebay and selling "slightly new"underwear.
wtf is "slightly new"?

[ChaosControl]

Vote FOR someone, even if it is yourself as a write in. If you actually favor Brown then vote for him, but don't vote for him just to hold Coakley off.

[tangent4ronpaul]

We have pro-Brown all over the board. Now we have anti-Kennedy. Am I in the twilight zone?

I don't think anyone here is pro-Brown, but rather anti Dem super-majority, anti-health care and cap and trade, anti-Obama's radical agenda.

I also don't think anyone here is anti-Kennedy. He's clearly the superior candidate and will make an outstanding candidate NEXT ELECTION!

Next November, the Dems are going to get slaughtered and I'd be willing to vote for ANYONE that can stop their radical agenda in it's tracks between now and then. A Brown win should halt Obama and co fast tracking us into socialism, UN control and bankruptcy.

-t

[LibForestPaul]

Keep the Democrats from having a 60 vote majority for the year by supporting Brown.

Keep the Republicrats from having a 60 vote majority for the year by supporting Brown?

Seriously, do you think it matters to the Republicrats who has been bought and paid. There is one party, and the elites control them.


As I said before, we are going to hell, why slow the ride down. The quicker people feel pain, the quicker Libertarians hopefully can move the sheeple to a new paradigm. ( or the country goes the way of every other empire)

[Dianne]

Hold Demo's off for a year !!!! Country might not be here in a year at the rate they are going... not to say that Bush didn't give them the "rape the country" playing field. Hold them off....give us time to dump the neo's and return the country to the people.

[YumYum]

We better make sure we can get Ron Paul re-elected, because if we can't, we're not going to hold off anybody, nor get rid of anybody. The GOP wants to get rid of Ron Paul, and according to the email he sent out he has a tough fight ahead.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

We better make sure we can get Ron Paul re-elected, because if we can't, we're not going to hold off anybody, nor get rid of anybody. The GOP wants to get rid of Ron Paul, and according to the email he sent out he has a tough fight ahead.

Ron Paul isn't going anywhere. He is a staunchly limited-Government representative in a pretty big anti-state sentiment year which favors both the opposing party, but also people with anti-state ideology. He is also a long-time incumbent (Which, is a plus since he is anti-state, and has actually voted that way). Moreover, all his opponents have less than 5,000$ in the coffers.

[parocks]

Well, you said it happens all the time. Is the media forcing 3rd party candidates into the race?

And what's anti-Kennedy?

I'm just saying that a good way to get people not to vote for your guy is to do things to piss them off over and over and over.


Now we are getting our actions dictated to by the Media...

We have pro-Brown all over the board. Now we have anti-Kennedy. Am I in the twilight zone?

[parocks]

Vote FOR someone, even if it is yourself as a write in. If you actually favor Brown then vote for him, but don't vote for him just to hold Coakley off.

Why not? If the goal is to hold Coakley off, the way to do that is to elect Brown.

Sometimes I agree with your sentiment. Not this time.

[tremendoustie]

Ok, I'm sorta torn on this vote on Tuesday.

On the one hand, voting for Kennedy would send a message to the neo-cons that they shouldn't nominate neo-con candidates if they want to win in November.

On the other hand, if Brown wins the Republicans will be able to block the Democrats for the rest of the year (including Cap and Tax).

Where do you stand?

I'd prefer that Brown win, but I certainly wouldn't give him a wooden nickel.

It's not about preferring neocons to socialists, it's about preferring a split government to one party rule. I'd root for a socialist if we were talking about stopping an all neocon government.

[revolutionary8]

...

[silverhandorder]

I would vote libertarian if he supported my principles while hoping out of the two assholes that win it is not a dem.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I'd prefer that Brown win, but I certainly wouldn't give him a wooden nickel.

It's not about preferring neocons to socialists, it's about preferring a split government to one party rule. I'd root for a socialist if we were talking about stopping an all neocon government.

+1

A split government is a safe government. One party controlling the House, Senate and Presidency is DANGEROUS!

-t

[Elwar]

Valid arguments on either side. We all want the same thing, just differing ideas on the approach.

Either way, I think that the election has turned out in our favor already. Had it been business as usual and Coakley been in the lead with a landslide, we wouldn't even be giving that election a second thought.

[rp08orbust]

A split government is a safe government. One party controlling the House, Senate and Presidency is DANGEROUS!

Riiiiiight. So I take it you were supporting Democratic Congressional candidates from 2000 to 2006?

Like I said in another thread, you Brown nosers are among the biggest hypocrites I've seen on this message board.

[ChaosControl]

Why not? If the goal is to hold Coakley off, the way to do that is to elect Brown.

Sometimes I agree with your sentiment. Not this time.

Because selling out principles no matter the reason is selling out principles.
Whether you vote for the "lesser evil" to simply prevent the "greater evil" from winning in general or for a certain cause, it makes no real difference.

I don't know Kennedy's positions, so I don't know if I'd vote him or write someone in. I am not overly fond of the LP either so...

Sticking to my principles though means I cannot vote in general elections because my stupid state has a top two primary. So the real election is in the primaries, anything else is just between one of the two crappy major parties.

The mentality displayed here is exactly the same as the mentality of those who voted for McCain.

[Southron]

A lot of the logic here would have meant voting for McCain in the last election.

Realize that all of the outrage probably wouldn't have happened if McCain had been elected. Many right leaning people are pacified as long as there is a Republican ruling them.

Also, imagine when Brown turns out to be another big spending, gubmint worshiping politician. Then everyone there will be able to say "you Republicans preach limited government but don't practice it".

That being said I hate Massachusetts anyway and don't hold out much hope for it.

[rp08orbust]

A lot of the logic here would have meant voting for McCain in the last election.

Realize that all of the outrage probably wouldn't have happened if McCain had been elected. Many right leaning people are pacified as long as there is a Republican ruling them.

Also, imagine when Brown turns out to be another big spending, gubmint worshiping politician. Then everyone there will be able to say "you Republicans preach limited government but don't practice it".

Exactly. Brown nosers will rightly be dismissed as hypocrites if they attempt to support Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in 2012 when there will inevitably be far stronger Republican candidates to oppose Obama's reelection.

But the Brown nosers, if any of them ever really were Ron Paul supporters, seem like just the types to jump on the Sarah Palin bandwagon in 2012.

[YumYum]

Ron Paul isn't going anywhere. He is a staunchly limited-Government representative in a pretty big anti-state sentiment year which favors both the opposing party, but also people with anti-state ideology. He is also a long-time incumbent (Which, is a plus since he is anti-state, and has actually voted that way). Moreover, all his opponents have less than 5,000$ in the coffers.

That is not what he is saying. He doesn't sound like it is a slam dunk, unless he is just making all this up. He voted against "Hurricane Relief", and it could hurt him getting re-elected.


Congressman Ron Paul

January 11, 2010

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Believe it or not, it is election time again. The Texas Republican Primary is only seven short weeks away and already both parties have turned their attack dogs loose on me . . . doing everything they can to make sure I am defeated.

Never mind all the good I have been able to accomplish for freedom and the American taxpayer in Congress, the enemies of freedom and the elites in Washington want me gone.

Together, we have brought to Congress a voice for Liberty, limited government and a sensible foreign policy. I am deeply grateful for all of your support.

Just look at a few of the things we have accomplished!

We have drawn 317 cosponsors and passed through the House Financial Services Committee a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. We have led the fight against bailouts, Obamacare and Cap and Trade. And, thanks to the national attention our efforts have generated, we have broadened the debate on foreign policy and are challenging the status quo idea that America must be the World's policeman.

It is my desire to return to Congress for another term and have filed for re-election. I am hopeful that I can win, but I urgently need your help.

Seven candidates have filed to run against me. These candidates include three Republicans in my own primary on March 2, and they will stop at nothing to tear down and destroy all we have worked for.

Please read some of the quotes my opponents have been throwing at me:

"(Ron Paul) wants to cut spending on our military industrial complex because he believes in a weaker foreign policy."

"Ron Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball."

"Ron Paul is out of touch with this district and it is time for him to move on...Dr. No Must Go!"

These quotes come directly from my opponents' campaign literature and websites. We cannot let these attacks stand.

I plan to fight back and will mount an aggressive campaign. Carol, my family and my staff are already working very hard, but I need your immediate support.< p>

Please consider making a contribution of $50, $100, $500, $1,000 or even the maximum legal gift of $2,400 to my campaign. Your generous support will allow me to mobilize and ensure we are victorious.

Please logon NOW to my website www.RonPaulforCongress.com and donate as much as you can to help me overcome my opponents and win reelection.

There is a tremendous anti-incumbent, anti-Washington sentiment in America. Politicians across the country face a sea change as outraged Americans threaten to vote them out. While I think this development is a good thing, I am going to have to work hard to ensure I am not caught up in the same wave and swept out of office before our job is done.

If I thought that it would help America, I would gladly step aside and return home to Texas. But the people who want my seat will not work for Liberty. They will instead vote for big spending, eroding our Liberties and policing the world, while ignoring our crooked monetary system.

We stand at a crucial crossroads. Our effort to Audit the Fed and expose the crooked banksters stands tantalizingly close to passage. It is my sincere desire to stay in Congress and press this fight.

But, the road to re-election will be bumpy. My opponents are digging up any and all ammunition they can muster to fire at me.

As many of you know, I represent Galveston, which was hit hard by Hurricane Ike last fall. My office has worked hard to help our constituents, and I am proud of the work we have done.

After the Hurricane, Congress rushed to pass a "relief" bill. Unfortunately, the bill was anything but that. It was loaded with over $6 billion dollars in pork and special interest money that had nothing to do with helping people in need. And, any actual benefits for the people hurt by the natural disaster were run, or should I say hijacked, by the Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA.) We all remember how well FEMA did helping out in New Orleans.

I knew that voting against this supposed "hurricane relief" would be one of the most difficult political votes I ever cast. But, my vote was never in question. I stood by our principles and stood up for Taxpayers in Texas and across our country and voted against this monstrosity.

You and I may know this vote is a strength, but my opponents see it as an opportunity to attack, and they have been vicious. Forget the billions in pork spending, or the unmanageable big government bureaucracy contained in the legislation. Since I voted against the bill, they scream I must not care about poor people.

They will continue to beat this drum, and if we do not fight back, they may be successful. Think then how few politicians will be willing to take principled votes against big government in the future if they see me defeated because of my stand.

For thirty years, I have run on the belief that Liberty and free markets are the source of American prosperity. I will continue to fight for these principles regardless of the attacks and personal smears. But, I need your help to return to Washington.

Again, I hope you will consider contributing to my re-election campaign. Together, we can restore our freedoms and protect the American Dream.

In Liberty,

Ron Paul

P.S. Early voting in my primary begins on February 15th. Time is of the essence and I have already begun campaigning hard. Your timely support is truly needed. Please contribute to my campaign TODAY at www.RonPaulforCongress.com