Many in and out of Massachusetts want to send the politicians a message that "the American people aren’t going to take it any more" but what happened to the tradition of sending a message (even trying to make change) by voting for a third party? One explanation is that TV and the press acts as if any but the top two parties don’t exist, but Joe Kennedy participated fully in all the debates. Martha Coakley wouldn’t debate without him, she believes open debate, and uniquely in the beginning when she seemed a shoe in, the Democratic machine wanted Kennedy’s views known because they thought it uncouth if Joe Kennedy got anywhere close to double digits out of confusing him with the Kennedy clan. For Kennedy’s position, see,
for surprisingly a truly nonpartisan look see Coakley Brown Kennedy all winners,

America is losing in the trade wars due to strikes and threats of strikes over hearth care and if the government pays the insurance for workers in export industry US goods will be cheaper overseas. If Congress start over again, on health care, the government will pay more, to less people.

The Democratic politicians are hearing some unintended messages that would be greatly exasperated by a Scott victory. At all costs don’t look weak on National Security. Scott Brown tore Coakley to pieces for pointing out that the Afghan War is not the way to stand up to al Qaeda, while teasing her for opposing capital punishment, and supporting nonmilitary trials for terrorists. Her defeat would mean, instead of one less, several less politicians willing to oppose capital punishment, and civil trials (Where did we get the insane idea that you could actually punish a suicidal individual by killing him instead of him killing himself.) An overwhelmingly antiwar candidate libertarian Joe Kennedy not doing better than expected, would put off momentum back toward the still shrinking totally antiwar movement. Especially since the excuse that the voters weren’t able to hear, what he had to say, wasn’t there.

If Joe Kennedy surprised the media with a nearly double digit vote, people around the country would get the message that you send a message that we "ain’t going to take it any more" by voting for a third party candidate. The Libertarians have been very supportive of giving other third parties a voice in their blogs, much preferring dreaming of being the second largest party in a country with several parties, then being a replacement for the Republican Party. They could go much further and give Kennedy a boast, by on their sample ballots around the country announce that they will refrain from having a complete ticket to give other parties a chance to also get votes. Such as where I am in Philadelphia where they usually run state wide, running a candidate for Controller and encouraging a Green Party candidate for Sheriff. Locally there must be two minority representatives on Philadelphia City Council. The Libertarian could announce that they will submit a candidate next time and encourage the Greens to run for the other minority city council seat. Creating a real political process locally instead of bland council meetings.

Every vote for Scott, instead of desecrating Edward Kennedy’s grave, would bolster the civil liberty’s part of the Kennedy tradition. If Ron Paul and Jessie Vantura suddenly began to praise Joe Kennedy, we are less likely to have a Republican, like Nixon did, claim to have a secret plan to end the war. Nixon’s secret plan included attacking Laos and Cambodia, the possible next Republicans secret plan will possibly include attacking Iran and praising the heavy infringement of civil liberties, claiming that is what kept us safe after 9/ll.

The Democratic Party is in trouble even if Coakley wins. One way or another voters will be tired of Democrats no matter how much extremists control the Republican Party. At some point the public will have to say enough of Democrats even as the Republican keep getting more and more extreme. Think of a Dick Cheney type elected in 2012 or 20016, bragging with the claim that civil liberties abuses used to keep us safe from terrorism and crime.

The right-wing tea party leadership usually likes to fawn at libertarians even at times pretending to be antiwar, not for Euro-Americana (non-Hispanic) power all over the world. But in Massachusetts they are showing their true colors, calling voters on the phone with a "vote for Kennedy is a vote for Coakley" message. Many in Massachusetts are registered nonpartisan rather than Democrat. If Massachussans vote their true feelings, Kennedy will get the double digit vote he needs to start turning this country around again. All that is needed is for the libertarians already reaching out to other third parties do some real spending in Massachusetts. And for the rest of us to get excited about any third party sending the establishment and the country and ourselves a message. Campaigning on the internet for Kennedy, will take votes away from Coakley and Brown almost equally, and joining in a little third party solidarity could save this country much less grief in the future.

By the way a couple of my Green friends who like Coakley far more than Scott are upset that when in comes to war supplemental votes Coakley will probably go along with the crowd and vote for funding. The Vietnam War actually did end soon after Congress finally stopped voting for war supplemental funding. But North Vietnam didn’t have goals for the whole world. Al Qaeda might not risk suicide bombing, the withdrawing US troop in six or sixteen years, because they would risk them having the Taliban also shooting at them, but they could try to seize equipment and on the internet torture Karzia (or whoever the US backed President of Afghanistan is) when we finally leave to give the US an additional black eye and to finish trying to force the US all the way into bankruptcy. However, by then the American people might be too busy finding real money yens and euros to notice much al Qaeda showing off with a bloodbath in Afghanistan. I think both Martha Coakley and my own Senator, Senator Specter, has a profound understanding of al Qaeda that the rest of us miss.

I disagree with the Libertarian Party on some issues, but their respect for the freedom of ideas and to allow those they differ with to articulate their point is extremely valuable. Besides harping on the need for security national and personal, Scott Brown tries to be on both sides of all issues. He is even for national heath care, that is only is they start out from scratch which could only mean even less fair. A Coakley victory will slow the bleeding a little but only a heading toward a multi party system will prevent a future Dick Cheney claiming to keep us safe by violating out liberties.

Richard Kane
In Philadelphia PA



I'm retired in Philadelphia. Non religious but there seems to be a life force that I see as more personal than is usually expressed.

I was raised a Quaker (common with Christian Jewish intermarriage back them) But my father was a total pacifist and during World War II, at the time that being so was difficult.

Upbringing included father trying not to get physical, yet still defend us kids from my harsh stepmother until she got her citizenship papers, after which they could get divorced. Been involved in peace issues since the anti-fallout shelter protests through Vietnam and Iraq.

I wrote "Greedy Little Squirrels and Lifeboat ethics,” 1977, when the Moonies were coming to America and got heavily harassed by them. I also think bin Laden is extremely dangerous like the leader of a barroom brawl, who has been manipulating this country into using the US to get Muslims angry enough to join his suicidal permanent war group. Before 9/11 young Muslims rebelled by wearing by covering their hair a little less than expected and at least winking at each other, now he changed rebellion into being militancy. The Northern Alliance would have been legitimately in charge long ago had he not baited the US into entering Afghanistan.

Obama is making a mistake in my mind with how to stop bin Laden’s dream of permanent war in a divided world but less of a mistake than most anyone else would. If due to currency collapses from out ever more expensive weapons the US stops fighting al Qaeda, then other counties will. If it ends up being Iran, the Sunni Shiite divide will be enormous. Al Qaeda is already convinced that the atheist China is a serious enemy, and the Russians have fought for brutally and inadvertently convinced far more Muslims than the US did that they considered Islam itself to be the enemy.

I never stopped supporting Jimmy Carter when everyone turned on him and I support Obama as well, but think he will have to use a lot more persuasion and less force if they aren’t going to succeed at bankrupting us. However Obama has tried less force and al Qaeda has started to respond in kind trying to limit the victim’s in the way of their primary attacks.
Back up reference to above link,

Richard Kane (Philadelphia)
(More information if you google RichardKanePA