In blast to tea party activists,Carla Howell goes nuclear:"Don't Even Think About Voting for Brown"

Got that one too (5.00 / 1)

I must admit I was puzzled.   I've been on their mailling list since before the question 1 days, and have supported many of their initiatives.  Carla's group is right out of the libertarian mainstream.  As Kennedy pointed out it can't just be about tax cuts, it has to be about spending cuts, but neither political side wants to talk about that because it costs votes.  Howes group is dedicated small government and is strongly aligned with the Tea Party.

My take is it's just a stance on principle, and my guess is that stance will be to vote for Kennedy.  While I applaud their principles over party attitude, I think it is somewhat misguided.  Pragmatically speaking they have to know Kennedy is going to lucky to pull more than 5%.  I think they would be better served by assuming the posture of the Globe and sitting this dance out.

p.s.  On paper, I agree with Kennedy more than any candidate, but cannot cast a ballot in a tight election for him...it's effectively a vote for Coakley.  In the presidential I voted for Balwin because it did not matter at that point whether I voted or not.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 12:07:51 PM UTC

GL You are on the money: (5.00 / 1)

A vote for Kennedy at this point is a vote for Martha. Joe K should be given a lot of credit for practicing civic virtue for getting out there and doing something about the issues that he cares about. However, the informed voter has a one-in-a lifetime choice to alter the downward path toward big government. In a perfect world Joe K would be the solution. But we live in a real world with a federal government that's heading off the cliff.  

"Work is the essence of Man."

---

by: Karl Marx @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 12:18:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ditto .. (0.00 / 0)

Carla is dead wrong on this one.
We are not voting Tuesday for either candidate A or B. We are voting for or against number 41; we are voting YES or No to the stampeding of the Obama agenda.
Carla can stand blindly on principle if she chooses to but she does so knowing that when asked, she has abstained from casting the vote that mattered.

---

by: nomad943 @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 12:52:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are we? (0.00 / 0)

If Brown gets elected what prevents some other Senator from saving the healthcare bill by switching their vote?

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 00:23:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing really (0.00 / 0)

Collins or Snowe could flip....it's been discussed many times.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 01:03:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So instead of the 41st vote for health care... (0.00 / 0)

What do we get?

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 01:10:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Much better odds (5.00 / 1)

Than we have now

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 01:14:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sacrificing deeply held beliefs for better odds. (0.00 / 0)

I might take a pass on that one.

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 01:17:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the outcome (0.00 / 0)

If you don't vote, or vote for Kennedy (a vote for Coakley)...is what exactly?.....the same odds you have now?

Reminds me of a conversation I had sometime ago when contemplating finishing school....I was whining because "I'll be almost 40 when I graduate", to which someone asked "And how old will you be then if you don't go back?"

Rumor has it the famed Ogo/Tsongas debacle was determined by less than 4000 votes...that's astounding if the quote I heard was correct.

I am often faced with picking the lesser of two perceived evils when voting...the only way to make it worse is to feel powerless in the outcome because the choice was not made.  

But as always one must make their own choices.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 01:29:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Look At It Another Way .. (0.00 / 0)

We have sat here all summer watching the healthcare "debate" while wishing we could do something. We sent emails and rang phones. Some of us marched in the streets and others went to the town halls but it was all ignored by the political machine and they drafted their solution anyhow.
If only we could do something .... umm. Well switching the balance of the senate is something isnt it?
Its something worth doing isnt it? Better odds, yeah ... better than the odds we get with a few more e mails to Kerry or Martha.
And we know what other fine legislation is coming around, dont we?
Do something! Vote Brown!

---

by: nomad943 @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:03:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Each time we were told it would fail. (0.00 / 0)

We were told it wouldn't pass the House.
Then we were told it wouldn't pass the Senate.
Now we are told to focus on the 41st Senator because it matters.

Does it matter?  Does it really?

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:20:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes It Matters!!!!! (0.00 / 0)

They pushed for that vote in July. They wanted it done before the August recess. But because we fought. Because we educated the masses, shook the foundations and raised hell, they paused. They thought they had to show due dilligence for the constituents. They got worried. Obama wasted a prime time speech in September to get it done.

Its 01.12.10. And there is still no bill.

We drained their political capital. They have lost their good will. They shelved Cap and Trade because moderate Democrats dont have the stomach for another fight. Amnesty is sitting in some committee, unable to see the light of day because the House is stuck on health care. Card Check is all but dead.

There is no fall session because of the campaign. We are running out the clock. And they still have the budget and some nuts and bolts governing to do that will eat more time off the clock.

Our fight shook them. The town halls delayed that bill for months. A Scott Brown victory, regardless of what he does, could rattle a couple endgangered Democrats in the House or the Senate. Everyone is looking at the Senate. But progressives in the House hate this bill. And many skeptical Blue Dogs are still on the fence.

This is the punch in the gut. Most likely it will send them down. If not, they will be too hurt to fight again this session. On to 2010.

If not for health care. Fight to keep amnesty on the ropes. Cap and trade on the ropes.

---

by: swamp_yankee @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 07:21:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's more than one issue. (0.00 / 0)

I don't looked forward to a pro-abortion Republican Senator.  Is a vote against the health care bill worth a later vote to confirm some SCOTUS nominee who would affirm Roe vs Wade thereby making it an unquestionable legal precedent?

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:18:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well .. (0.00 / 0)

Your other choice is Coakley and I doubt you would look forward to that either.
There is a reason that Ron Paul wanted us to set up shop here in the GOP. Lasthorseman said it best, The Roman empire wasnt unbuilt in a day.
If you see the rock moving in the right direction, even a little, than YES it is worth it. I have seen that movement.

---

by: nomad943 @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:35:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But Coakley's a Democrat. (0.00 / 0)

The Democrats are already the party of abortion.  I'd not like to see the Republican party not move in that direction.

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:37:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And .. (0.00 / 0)

The democrats are already the party of abortion .. and they are already the super majority in control of all three branches of government. I cant do a thing about one of these items but my stupid little vote next week actualy could effect the other.
As far as your concerns about the GOP moving in the pro abortion direction .... I doubt you are going to see the elction of one guy change the composition of the electorate much. Thats where we come in, every day fighting for the core principles from inside, not outside.
To be honest, I dont have a clue what Scott Brown realy is capable of but I see actual potential. Now he is one of 5 guys in the tiny minority of the entire state senate. My guess is he says and does whatever it takes to get through the day in Boston and still feel that he makes a difference. In Washington he will have a chance to find himself, and if what he finds is so disagreeable than we can boot him out in a couple of years (he has to run again in 2012).
The other option ... makes me think I wont want to see 2012.  

---

by: nomad943 @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 12:54:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again (0.00 / 0)

As opposed to doing nothing?  Letting Coakley win is the same result (granted by omission instead of omission).

In the end, the one you have answer to is the guy in the mirror.

I see that vote for healthcare as much more critical.  Roe v Wade is not going away...I doubt it ever will....I think it may challenged, but SCOTUS very rarely overturns momental previous decisions.  They show extreme deference to previous rulings even when they may not agree personally.  And the simple truth is once something is granted, it is nearly impossible to overturn...it would be akin to trying to overturn voting rights for women...it would be that big a deal (in size and scope).

Healthcare is not only a budget buster, it represents an unprecedented and unwarranted intrusion into the lives of citizens, overrides states rights, and is the jumping off point to single-payor and rationed care by the gov't....and by the way it won't accomplish the intended goal (at least if it looks anything like it does now).  We already did the test run here in MA...which to me explains a part of Brown's support (heard that more than once working the phone bank).

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:37:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Take an issue like war. (0.00 / 0)

Brown would vote to get us involved in another war.  Coakley probably not.  She doesn't even support the president from her party on Afghanistan!  Is that not a big difference?

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:39:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As I said (0.00 / 0)

It is your call.  It really sounds as though you opinion is no longer malleable.  You don't answer to me or anyone else here, so just do whatever you think best.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:46:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Patrick - once again - the perfect is the enemy of the good. (5.00 / 1)

I don't want to pay excise tax on my health insurance.

I don't want to go back to the marriage penalty.

I don't want the bush tax cuts to expire.

I don't want Ed Markey's corrupt cap-and-trade
Ponzi scheme.

And so on.

A failure to vote is a vote for INCREASED AND INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 04:24:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm another email recipient and Brown voter. (0.00 / 0)

I agree with Kennedy, but I do not share his certainty that Scott will not cut spending.  I think he WILL work to cut spending as well as taxes.

Example - next year, the Bush tax cuts need reauthorization.  Without a vote, the Marriage Penalty will rise from the dead.  I want Scott Brown there to vote to extend the cuts, not Martha to 'get revenues up where we need them'.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 18:20:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: JoeTS @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 14:01:25 PM UTC

Carla Howell. Her father was Thurston Howell 3rd. (0.00 / 0)

Sincerely,
Customercentricity and Resource Allocations Coordinator
Chief Aggravation Officer
Redmassgroup.com

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 14:24:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I actually googled that (0.00 / 0)

Rather than repeating the "who".  

Lollerskates.

---

by: JoeTS @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 14:51:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rome wasn't unbuilt in a day (5.00 / 1)

The larger picture is putting an R in a dominant blue state which takes alot of steam out of traditional D agendas.  A Brown win here will change the entire landscape for 2010.

---

by: Lasthorseman @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 16:17:15 PM UTC

I am with Scott Brown 100% (5.00 / 3)

I think that Carla Howell does not appreciate the gravity of this election.  Joe Kennedy cannot win.  If Scott Brown wins, Obama's entire agenda stops.  No Government takeover of health care.  No tax hikes.  Upon watching "Ted Kennedy's seat" in liberal Massachusetts go to a little known Republican State Senator will cause the entire Democratic party to run for cover and abandon their entire agenda.  He will also be the 41st Republican Senator giving the GOP the ability to stop legislation on our own.

In Carla Howell's defense, Scott Brown is not a libertarian.  He is not a "Big L" Libertarian, he is not a "small l" libertarian, he is not a libertarian leaning Republican.  He did vote for Romneycare and opposed question 1 last year.  I disagree with Scott Brown on both points.  Right now we need to put all that aside.

The cause and effect of electing Scott Brown will be huge on limiting the size and scope of government.  Carla talks about shrinking government.  Right now we don't have that ability.  Right now we need to stop the bleeding.  Obama, Pelosi and Reid are running the show up there and a Senator Scott Brown is the only thing that can stand in their way.  Time for libertarians to suck it up and realize that the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

Bob Hedlund for Minority Leader.

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 19:32:40 PM UTC

Really, it stops cold? (0.00 / 0)

Cause what Scott has said in debate doesn't inspire confidence.  He's not the most resolute voice I've heard.

We can go back to the drawing board on the health care bill.  As the 41st Senator I can tell them to do better and try again and get something like we have in Massachusetts.

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 02:51:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking realistically it does (0.00 / 0)

Do you really think the senate, assuming Brown won, the majority unable to break a filibuster would venture down this path headed into a midterm where it is likely they'll lose ground?

Pursue a bill that took them 6 months plus to even get on paper?  Choices were made knowing they'd be able to ram them through...different if they have to work for it.

Nope, they'll move onto some feel-good legislation.  They have to get this over the goal line soon if they expect to get anything resembling it over at all.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 03:17:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As predicted? (0.00 / 0)

For the next ten days, the most effective thing the Left will do is to demoralize Scott Brown's supporters to convince them to sit their butts home on election day.  It is a time-proven and successful tactic of the Left.  Frankly, it's the best tool in their arsenal.  We call this Eeyore-breeding and concern-trolling.

http://hillbuzz.org/2010/01/09...

And it is not going to work  

---

by: 1stRichard @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 19:47:50 PM UTC

Well that (0.00 / 0)

And invade the forum here.  I don't know who's vote they believe they can sway.  Huge waste of energy in my view.

I suppose we should be thankful...their increased presence helps to further cement their place as the second most read political blog in the state.

Follow me on twitter @garyrlake

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 19:52:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Carla (0.00 / 0)

should stick to ballot initiatives.

Alex S.
Chairman of the Springfield RCC
Mandate to Lead!!! lol

---

by: SpringfieldGOPSec @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 19:50:29 PM UTC

"Carla What's Her Name" Must Be Rebuked. (5.00 / 1)

I dont think Scott Brown supporters should be tepid in their rebuke of Carla. She's being a fool. Anyone who has such a poor grasp on reality has no business leading any liberty movement. I dont know if she has an agenda. Perhaps she's mad because Scott didnt return her phone calls or something. This makes me sick.

Quite simply, stopping ObamaCare should be the #1 priority of anybody who professes to defend liberty and small government. The stakes are too high for other agendas.

That big "L" libertarians would exploit this environment to build their party, at the expense of the nation and the freedom and financial solvency of all Americans exposes them as either clueless or phonies. ObamaCare must not pass. Period. Get in the game or shut your trap.

---

by: swamp_yankee @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 20:10:00 PM UTC

Please think about voting for Brown! (5.00 / 5)

As Chip Ford said in response to this nuclear blast: "I'd have to ask Carla and Michael, in this critical point in U.S. history:  'Despite your best and absolutely honorable intentions, what have you accomplished for Bay State taxpayers -- not lately but ever?' Chip Ford --

Good question, Chip. I'd add a response to the alleged Fact List: Scott Brown is usually the legislator who files CLT's tax cuts.  Haven't added them up to see what percentage of revenues his bills cut, but then who knows what Carla considers "revenues" at any given moment?

I disagree with Scott on several issues, but at the moment that's a big "so what?" We have a country to save here. I'm a libertarian myself, but don't equate me with the libertarians who live in lalaland.
 

---

by: Barbara Anderson @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 20:20:27 PM UTC

Howell (0.00 / 0)

Who is she to "Mihos" Brown? She shall be shuned from Republican circles. I will make sure of it. How dare she trample on our hard work.  

---

by: RFlynn @ Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 21:59:42 PM UTC

Howell is a fraud. (4.00 / 1)

I recall she attacked Sen Bob Hedlund on national TV after one of the Tea Parties, with a total cheap shot.   She is about herself and the cult of personality she ATTEMPTS to cultivate. And pulling in "consulting fees" from her ballot initiatives.
I like Joe Kennedy. I would hold signs for him, and contribute. Run for State Rep!
Go Joe K (for Rep!)  Go Bob Hedlund! Go Scott!
Carla for nuthin!

---

by: epistle @ Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 05:03:59 AM UTC