Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Last nights debate on PBS

With the usual disdain the media and the party loyalist have for third party candidates, it was good to see that all candidates were asked the same questions. But as usual, the media choose not to put out much of what Mr. Kennedy had said in reply to the questions.

Brown was on the attack and Coakley on her heels as the usual party line differences took over the answers. From the far left in Brown, to the far right in Coakley, one can see easily, how dysfunctional either candidate will be in the house that breeds indifference in Washington. Heath Care reform, terrorism, tax cuts, spending, are hot button items to talk about, but when either of the two parties try to reach a reasonable conclusion, to anything lately, nothing gets done for the people at the bottom.

Mr. Kennedy showed real poise and class, every ready with real answers that most independent thinkers would somewhat agree with. Calling out Brown's fiscal conservativeness must have been a shock to Brown, but Kennedy was right in doing so. Voting for Mr. Kennedy would not be a protest vote, nor a wasted vote like the party loyalists contend. Voting your conscience, or for a candidate that speaks to you, especially a candidate who wants smaller government, less war, reasonable tax cuts with decreased spending at the Federal level is something that crosses both party lines.

Those who pay attention to what government is doing, would have to admit, that the two party system is and has failed us. There's no room for compromise, common sense, but plenty of room for the 600 million dollars paid to lobbyists last year, plenty of room for illegal and unethcial behavior, plenty of space for closed door negotiations and secrecy. The ONLY way to slow down and stop this abusive system, that we call democracy, is to vote for people who represent us and not the parties that have caused most of our problems in the past 30 years. Kennedy is the only candidate that would break the cycle of business as usual in Washington.

11 Comments:

At January 13, 2010 at 12:16 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kennedy can only break that cycle if he gets elected, and you would have to have your head buried in the sand to think that is even a remote possibility. Voting for him is a wasted vote as there is no way he is going to win. Brown has a chance, and Coakley probably will get the senate seat. Chose which of those 2 you think will best represent you. Otherwise you are wasting your vote.

 
At January 13, 2010 at 12:54 PM , Blogger Joker said...

Only caused the problems for the last 30 years? Who was causing the problem before that? Coakley has this wrapped up but you are right that all votes count so encourage voters to get out and use their vote and not waste it. It is the most important right our constitution gives us, a say in our representation in government, and not using that right is something that we should not take litely. Use it or lose it as the saying goes. A vote is a terrible thing to waste

 
At January 13, 2010 at 1:10 PM , Blogger Jim Pillsbury said...

We have.... Joker, in allowing our government to dictate democracy from the top down, rather than from the bottom up from the people.

Neither party will do anything to end the cycle of money peddling influence, corruption and unethical behavior.

 
At January 13, 2010 at 1:20 PM , Blogger Tim W. said...

Corruption is the norm in MA politics. It is going to take more than Beacon Hill watching to make any change. The feds need to come in and clean up the state house. Having the people at the state house clean up the mess they made and continue to make is like having the fox watch the hen house. It will only cover up the unethical behavior not fix it. Most MA residents do not comprehend just how bad it is here in this state because they do not have anything to compare it to. Spend some time in another state watching the doings of their state government and you realize just how corrupt we are in MA. There is no hope of that changing if we do not change the people in power. MA is a state of uneducated voters. Not uneducated people, but uneducated voters none the less. As long as the MA voters continue to believe that if they cast a vote for the party platform that is closest to their belief system they will get what they expect nothing in MA will change. MA politicians count on that lack of interest and lack of knowledge so prevalent in our voters and that is how they continue to get elected. Other voters in other states are far more informed about what is going on at the state level in their state and so make far more educated judgments about who to cast a vote for. MA needs to join the rest of the country in holding their elected officials responsible and accountable for their actions. I don’t see much chance of that happening here in MA in my life time, probably not even in my kids life time.

 
At January 13, 2010 at 1:39 PM , Blogger Framingham resident said...

Nice to see this blog back Jim. Wondering if you have decided about running for selectman in Framingham?

 
At January 13, 2010 at 2:25 PM , Blogger John said...

Thought you had given this up since I could not get on the blog the last few days. Glad you are back. I think Kennedy did well also but I don’t see him having any real place in this race and he is going to hurt Brown more than Coakley. Not sure that is really a good thing. Depends on which of those 2 you think is the lesser of 2 evils I guess.

 
At January 13, 2010 at 3:05 PM , Blogger blog addict said...

Blogs are my hobby and I just happened across this one recently. Two thoughts to share. First is that it is not always easy to get to this blog but I have had the issue with other blogspot blogs so I think it is not specific to your site but more an issue for the hosting unit. Second you seem to cover a wide range of topics and I am curious what your background is? Interesting points of view here but can not seem to find a string of consistency that would lead me to be sure of what your political affiliation is.

 
At January 13, 2010 at 3:48 PM , Blogger Jim Pillsbury said...

BA... thanks for the heads up on Blogspot... I knew it couldn't just be our site.

A free thinking Independent old growth tree hugger who is a Libertarian by heart with a social conscious, fiscally conservative, seeking the truth and a better way of life.

 
At January 13, 2010 at 3:49 PM , Blogger Jim Pillsbury said...

FR.. I'm waiting to see if Tom runs or not.

 
At January 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM , Blogger Rich said...

Blogs are the new way to communicate and this is 1 that is doing a good job of serving that purpose. Interesting ideas and concepts here. Keep the information coming.

 
At January 13, 2010 at 4:11 PM , Blogger Brian V. said...

I would agree the 2 party system has failed, but I don't think making it a 3 party system is the way to go either. People should just run on their platforms, and then the 2 highest vote getters after a preliminary election run for the seat. The more choices you give people, the less likely it is for a good candidate who has not party affiliation to win. There needs to be a system in place that gives the unconnected an equal opportunity to run. Not sure exactly how that should work, but I do think that having more than 2 candidates in a final election plays in to the stronger of the 2 partys hand. Hence Martha Coakley inviting Kennedy to participate in the debates. He takes voters who may have gone for Brown and that gives her a stronger chance to win. She is not a highly knowledgable woman on national issues, but she does know how to win a race. She invited Kennedy in because she knew it would take voters who would otherwise have voted from Brown to vote for Kennedy, and that means her opposition is split between 2 candidtes instead of 1. You could see an election like the last one here in Framingham for RIchardson's seat. More people actually voted for someone other than her than voted for her, but because all those people voting "against" her were split up over a few candidates, she one. It is all about numbers. If there had only been 2 options for people in RIchardson's case, if they HAD to chose betweeen Richardson or John Dow, she would have lost. Coakley may have lost if Brown were the only other candidate people could chose. These 3rd party/independent candidates strengthen the percentages for the Democrats and that is how they continue to have such a strong hold on the political offices in this state.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home