The Freedom Bulletin

I just wanted to share with everyone that I had a letter to the editor published in the Boston Globe yesterday, about the MA Senate election. Check it out: “Imagine how non-Democrats have felt all these years.”

Hell just froze over. Massachusetts just elected a Republican senator, Scott Brown, to the seat that was held for 47 years by Ted Kennedy.

As long as I can remember, Massachusetts has had only Democratic representatives in Congress. No general election has been anything more than a formality. It has been considered a fact of life that a Republican running in Massachusetts cannot win and is just running to get his/her message out, like a third-party candidate would in a normal state. Putting (D-MA) after a Senator’s or Congressman’s name is considered redundant.

This is how African-Americans and Democrats felt when Obama got elected.

A caveat: I do not think that Brown is a great candidate, in terms of his views on the issues. He supported the Massachusetts law requiring everyone to have health insurance and opposed Question 1, the 2008 ballot initiative to repeal the state income tax.

But for a Republican to take Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat and vow to defeat the health bill that Kennedy championed? That’s just awesome.

Some blogs and websites with interesting opinions, both pro and con:

• The Humble Libertarian
• Uncouth Ruminations
• Center for Small Government
• Libertarian Republican
• Jeffrey Miron
• Poli-Tea

Today (Sunday, January 17) I attended a demonstration by Scott Brown supporters at President Obama’s speech endorsing Martha Coakley at Northeastern University in Boston. It was totally awesome. There were about 100 (or maybe more) Scott Brown supporters holding sings and chanting “Make Obama frown, vote Scott Brown” and “Don’t do coke” (as in Coakley ). We definitely outnumbered the Coakley supporters. We spread out all along Huntington Ave and then marched across the street to the massive line of (mostly pro-Coakley) people waiting to get in to see Obama’s speech. At least 3 cars covered in Scott Brown signs passed by, and we got lots of honks and thumbs up from passing cars, including a fire truck. We even got free hot chocolate from people who I think worked in the Northeastern cafeteria. Many of the Boston cops who were keeping order at the protest indicated that they supported Scott, too!

When we crossed to the side where the Coakley supporters were, one guy kept going on and on about how Scott Brown supporters are defending sex offenders and want them walking around on the streets. Apparently he was referring to the case of Gerald Amirault, who was falsely convicted of child molestation but was kept in prison due to Coakley’s lobbying, even though there was no evidence supporting the charges. A couple of Scott supporters and I pointed out that actually, opposing the jailing of innocent people is not the same as wanting sex offenders out on the streets, and that putting innocent people behind bars is not so great. He replied, “She was a prosecutor; that’s her job.” Oh, yeah. Putting innocent people in jail, that’s a prosecutor’s job, all right!

Here are some photos I took at the rally. Enjoy!

I also made some videos of the Scott Brown rally, which I have uploaded to Youtube and which you can see here.

For some mainstream media coverage of Obama’s appearance and the protests, check out:

• Boston Globe
• Boston Herald

Image credits: Kennedy, Brown

In the U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts, there are many good reasons to vote for Scott Brown and many good reasons to vote for Joe Kennedy.

I like Kennedy’s positions on the issues better. He is stronger in his opposition to excessive taxes and spending than Brown is. According to the Center for Small Government, Brown expressed opposition to Question 1, the 2008 ballot initiative which would have abolished the Massachusetts income tax. Even more disturbingly, he supports the state law that requires all people to have health insurance. I completely believe everything in the Center for Small Government’s statement about Brown’s failure to support tax cuts and spending cuts, and I strongly dislike those things about Brown…

But I will still be voting for Brown. Why? Because unfortunately, Kennedy has no chance of winning. It would be totally awesome if Kennedy won, but it would still be pretty awesome if Brown won. Although Brown is not a great candidate, to have a Republican Senator from Massachusetts would be great. It’s something that I used to believe could never happen, or even come close to happening. Additionally, and most importantly, Brown would be the 41st vote against the health “reform” bill. He would not vote the bill down because of philosophical objections to the individual mandate, but he would vote it down nonetheless. So although I don’t agree with Brown on all – or even most – of the issues, this bill needs to be voted down, and electing Brown would do that. For a Republican to win Ted Kennedy’s old seat and vote down the Democratic health bill would rock.

Don’t get me wrong – I really, really wish Kennedy had a chance of winning. It is unjust that he doesn’t. But I would rather vote in support of something awesome that has a chance of happening than something really, really awesome that has no chance of happening. My heart is torn about this. The Center for Small Government makes great points, and I have absolutely no ill will toward them or toward Kennedy, who is a great man and whom I fully support. Also, in most elections I would simply vote for the candidate I like best. But in most elections in Massachusetts, the choice is between a Libertarian or Independent who has no chance of winning and a Republican who has no chance of winning. A Republican candidate in Massachusetts who has a chance of winning is something special, and I want to do everything I can to help him win.

I like Joe Kennedy better, but I am going to vote for Scott Brown, and I encourage people to do the same.

Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate in the MA Senate special election, might not debate her rival, Republican Scott Brown, unless the Libertarian candidate, Joe Kennedy, is included as well.

I have mixed feelings about this. I agree with Coakley that voters should hear the ideas of all the candidates, and I am no fan of the two-party system, which severely limits voters’ choices. However, I don’t think that’s what Coakley actually thinks. It’s pretty obvious that she just wants Brown and Kennedy to split the conservative/libertarian vote.

If you know anything about my politics, you’d know that I like both Brown and Kennedy much better than Coakley. But right now I’m undecided which to vote for. When it comes to their political views, I think I like Kennedy better. He thinks that the welfare system should be abolished, that the government shouldn’t license marriages, and lots of other great libertarian things.

Brown is a good candidate, too. He is (mostly) pro-choice and anti-gay-marriage, like me, but he supports the Massachusetts law requiring everyone to have health insurance, and I am extremely reluctant to vote for anyone who supports that.

But since Kennedy is a third-party candidate, Brown almost definitely has a better chance of winning. I am torn between voting for the candidate I like best and the one I like best out of those who have a chance to win. Massachusetts (and all of the USA) should adopt instant-runoff voting. Then no one would have this dilemma, and people would have a wide range of viable candidates to choose from, instead of having to choose from the unintuitively thrown-together collections of views of the two major parties.

Check out this verbal goof-up by Steve Pagliuca, who is running for Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat. During a radio debate yesterday, he said…

“I would support a military draft because I think it talks about equality, so I’d support a draft.”

He then issued a statement clarifying his stance:

“I incorrectly interpreted the question to be asking if I would support a mandatory draft in the event we needed additional troops and my answer was yes. I now realize that was not the question posed to me, and I want to be clear that I do not support reinstating the military draft at this time.”

This mess-up is worse than anything George W. Bush has said. From Pagliuca’s answer to the question, it seems he didn’t even know what a draft is. It looks like he thought it was some sort of report or publication. Bush often got his words confused, but at least everyone knew what he meant, and what he meant made sense, although his words didn’t always capture it perfectly.

Another reason to vote for Scott Brown for Senate!