1.19.2010

Scott Brown: Any Port in a Storm

To any readers from Massachusetts who haven't yet voted, I urge you to head to the polls and cast a vote for Scott Brown. Why? One reason: all indications are that he will vote against Obamacare, and thus will be the crucial 41st vote that can stop the mudslide into socialism--for now. But that is enough.

Readers may recall that I abstained from voting for president. That was because there was nothing to be gained by voting for either terrible candidate, and although Obama has been a disaster for individual rights and capitalism, McCain easily could have been this bad. Scott Brown, however, has at least one clear positive.

The phrase "any port in a storm" always brings to my mind the idea of a pragmatic, unprincipled, "whatever works" mentality. It seems wishy-washy and weak. However, this morning I thought a bit more about it, and decided to call Brown the "Any Port in a Storm Candidate." If you're out on the sea and a Nor'easter comes, with high winds and 20 ft. seas, you get to land, no matter where it is. It's life or death, and even if it were war time and the only port was held by the enemy, docking there would give you better odds of living to fight another day.

This is the situation we're in right now. A solid win by Brown would not only stall Obamacare, but it would send a shot across the bow of the leftist block of the Legislative and Executive branches, and hopefully derail much of the rights-violating policies in the works.

Blogger Jared Rhoads at The Lucidicus Project, writes--noting the slight positive signs from Brown balanced with his contradictory statements--that
For defenders of individual rights and free markets, the apparent individualism is a promising sign. Maybe Brown could become a voice for capitalism—or at least for common sense. But there are still some very real concerns with Scott Brown. He says that he believes that "all Americans deserve healthcare coverage." What exactly does he mean by that? He says that he supports the health reforms that Massachusetts enacted under former governor Mitt Romney. Why?!?

For now, we need someone—practically anyone—to be the 41st vote. Supporting Scott Brown does not mean that the push toward socialized medicine has been completely thwarted. But it does mean that we live to fight another day. [bold added]
Jared also includes a play on Coakley's oft repeated--and false--claim that Brown voted in favor of denying emergency contraception to rape victims, satirizing the Boston Globe's editorial cartoon that follows her lies in lockstep:

2 comments:

Tom said...

I'm glad I don't live in MA because I'm not sure what I'd do. I read Brown's website and I must say he's not that encouraging. He may even vote FOR health care deformation later this year. He just won't vote on *this* version. He supported Romneycare and I doubt he'd do much to stop some new idea that has a few new wrinkles to make it more sellable.

Then again, maybe he won't. Maybe he'll block any new socialist program Obama comes out with.

On yet another hand, it would almost be better if he lost and Obamacare passed. That would just hasten the collapse of the USSA and we could all secede and run our countries the way we saw fit, like the USSR.

C. August said...

I agree with your disappointed assessment of Brown's positions, which I made sure to make note of in the post. And the fact that he was in favor of Mitt Romney's terrible MA healthcare plan is indeed a bit scary.

Also, I heard similar arguments to "maybe the election of a worse candidate would force the issue quicker and some sort of real move toward freedom would happen" in relation to the McCain/Obama race. People of this mind were split between which candidate would hasten the fall quicker. I'm still not sure; Obama has done a great job of attacking individual rights so far, but he has also galvanized the Right (as unorganized and unprincipled as it is) and even the "middle." McCain likely would have done something similar, but capitalism would get the blame because he is a Republican. So who knows which would be better or worse?

Regardless, I don't think the best plan is to hasten the Endarkenment so we can rebuild from the ashes. Such a fall would be so cataclysmic that the real risk to my life and my kids' lives is too great for me to want that path. (Though many think that it's too late to avoid it no matter what)

A better course is, in the short term, to block the worst of the socialist programs -- and all indications are that Brown will at least help block Obamacare -- and continue to fight for the right ideas through education and activism. To live past the threat of Obamacare and fight another day.

In the presidential election, I didn't think there were any ports to hide in. I just battened down the hatches and am currently still weathering the storm. With this MA election, I think there is one port in the storm of indeterminate hostility. I don't get the sense that Brown is a theocrat, so in that way he is better than most members of Congress.

And now that I write all of this, I'm suddenly depressed and angry that I have to waste this much time and brainpower thinking about which party and which candidate will try to take my money and my life faster. The bastards all need to just get the hell out of our way.