You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Scared Mass. Dems Plot to Delay GOP Victory In Teddy Seat Until ObamaCare Passes
2010-01-09
As Republican Scott Brown's campaign warms up to take Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts, Frank Quaratiello of the Boston Herald is reporting something shocking: if Brown wins, Massachusetts Democrats may drag out his certification as the victor to enable appointed Sen. Paul Kirk (the former DNC chairman) to put ObamaCare over the top.
"We want to get this resolved before President Obama's State of the Union address in early to mid-February," Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast...

"Absolutely," Kirk said, when asked if he'd vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. "It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy's agenda. . . . I think you're asking me a hypothetical question but I'd be pleased to vote for the bill."
After all the rule-bending shenanigans of the Massachusetts Democrats, leaving a dying Kennedy in office, and then ramrodding Kirk's appointment to the Senate to help ObamaCare, now they're desperate enough to ignore the people's vote?

It's one thing to immediately swear in Democrats, claiming a public mandate, as House Speaker Pelosi did in the Scozzafava and Garamendi special elections last year. It's another scandal entirely to delay a swearing-in -- telling the people that their elected choice shall not be allowed to represent their most current wishes. Will the national media notice? It certainly has national ramifications. The Herald story elaborated:
Few have considered the Jan. 19 election as key to the fate of national health-care reform because both Kirk and front-runner state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, have vowed to uphold Kennedy's legacy and support health-care reform.

But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge of when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk's successor, but not until the state certifies the election.

Today, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor's Council would take a while.

"Because it's a federal election," spokesman Brian McNiff said. "We'd have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in."

Another source told the Herald that Galvin's office has said the election won't be certified until Feb. 20 - well after the president's address.

Since the U.S. Senate doesn't meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin's office said today a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Posted by:Fred

#11  PPP: Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47.
Posted by: Frank G   2010-01-09 19:28  

#10  I think a Republican victory would scare the living sh*t out of the bluedog democrats. And no, I haven't been following the special election either.

Even if they refuse to certify it until after Obamacare is rammed through unread - some bluedogs will be looking to save their own ass. And with Nelson as an example - they may not be all that open to bribes either.

Hopefully it'll put Obamacare on the ropes.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-01-09 19:06  

#9  Interesting post at Instapundit about this very thing:

"UPDATE: Reader Jane Woodworth emails:


I just got back from 3 hours at the Worcester phone bank for Scott Brown.

The place was full – maybe 20 phones, with people waiting to help.

I probably made 100 calls to registered democrats and independents. It was least an hour before anyone said they were voting for Coakley. After 3 hours the total was: 2 for Coakley, 2 undecided, 96 for Brown.

The most pleasant surprise was how enthusiastic people were."
Link

Without looking at a map of Mass. (which I don't have time to do), how does this track for Boston? Or any other large area of votes?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2010-01-09 17:28  

#8  missed you, tu. WB
Posted by: Frank G   2010-01-09 16:08  

#7  Good to read you, tu.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2010-01-09 15:52  

#6  Thanks. I've been lurking but it's been a bad few months. We'll leave it at that. But I'm around.
Posted by: tu3031   2010-01-09 15:42  

#5  tu3031 -- Wecome home!!! You have been missed!
Posted by: Sherry   2010-01-09 15:35  

#4  I think you're wrong, Odysseus. He's either gonna beat her or push her right up against the wall. Democrats are even uninspired by this woman, from the leadership to the average voter on the ground. They think her campaign has been absolute shit, which it has. She's an ineffectual, lazy AG and a career party hack who thought she had this all wrapped up when she won the primary and put it on cruise control while Brown has been working his ass off. The poll last week that she was only 9 up with two weeks left struck like a thunderclap up here. Now the lawn signs and the bumper stickers are showing up and I have literally seen NONE going up for Coakley. This woman inspires NO ONE to go out in a snowstorm to vote for her. Brown's people will if they think he's got a chance. She's gonna have to work for it and the woman is anything but a workaholic. Believe me, she's beatable. VERY beatable. And the opposition smells blood in the water. A REPUBLICAN with a shot at Teddy's seat? If you told me I'd be saying that that was true two months ago, I'd have told you you were out of your mind. But it's true. He's got a chance. And if he does, it'll be like an earthquake. Both here and nationally.
Posted by: tu3031   2010-01-09 15:29  

#3  they do indeed have to wait for the absentee and military ballots.

Only if Coakley is behind and they need to gin up votes. If she's a head by one vote at midnight they'll declare it over and certify the election
Posted by: Frank G   2010-01-09 12:31  

#2  Perhaps. I suppose the smart money is still on Coakley, particularly if ACORN deploys as it usually does.

A Brown victory would scare the bejeebus out of the Dems. That in itself would be worth something.

One good point in the article: they do indeed have to wait for the absentee and military ballots.
Posted by: Steve White   2010-01-09 12:20  

#1  All this speculation is moot. Coakley will beat Brown (and probably by more than 8 percent).
Posted by: Odysseus   2010-01-09 12:07  

00:00