But wouldn't that shock the American public? If Brown is elected, a key factor will have been the healthcare bill. As the campaign comes to a rolling boil in the coming week, there will be plenty of talk about how the bill is at stake. If the people of Massachusetts elect Brown, it will and should be read as stark antagonism toward the bill. And Massachusetts antagonism should hurt a lot, since Massachusetts is very liberal, and the Massachusetts opinion is informed by real-world experience with healthcare reform at the state level.
Will the Democrats have the nerve to go through with the plan to exclude Brown? Probably! For one thing, Brown only has his opening because Teddy Kennedy happened to pick an inconvenient time to die. Everyone knows Teddy wanted the bill. Gotta do it for Teddy. For another thing, the Democrats have come so far and risked so much. How can they accept failure now? No matter how much it hurts, they will figure out how to deal with that later. Opponents of the healthcare bill may implore them not to make such a terrible, suicidal mistake, but why listen to advice from your enemies?
If they don't do healthcare now, how will they ever get it together to do healthcare reform again?
ADDED: Neo Neocon says:
But I wonder why the Democrats have seen fit to let out this information now. Even if they are planning such an action, why announce it at this point? Scott Brown hasn’t won, and chances are he won’t. So why let the people of Massachusetts (and the United States) know in what contempt the Democrats hold them? Why make it so clear that the will of the people does not matter, if that will happens to run counter to the plans of those in power?
Posts
106 comments:
I think it's great they are threatening it now--gives Brown lots of time to campaign on the dirty tricks of the Dems.
Procedurally, the Democrats could pass it if Brown is elected.
But all the members of Congress are still human beings. They can read polls, and they can read elections. If Brown somehow wins, it will be because of the health care bill.
At that point, the writing is on the wall about what happens to members of Congress who vote for it. In that climate, I can't see how it would pass. I think Democrats want to pass it, but I also think they want to get reelected.
I guess this explains the sudden rush to retire we're seeing among the Senior Dems. They're 100% committed on passing the bill, but don't want to be within the public's reach when it takes effect.
If Brown wins, which I still consider highly unlikely.
The fix is still in on health care.
Unfortunately the whole fiasco has cost Obama his reputation. Transparency indeed.
If they don't do healthcare now, how will they ever get it together to do healthcare reform again?
They won't get it together anytime soon, which is why despite all the back-and-forth between progressives and moderates in the Democratic Party, I suspect it will pass and be signed in the next month or so, after the congressional recess. Maybe it will risk the majority in the House, or maybe it won't. If it does, so be it, sometimes you need to make some sacrifices for a bigger goal, in this case, universal health care.
Let's put it this way - we've had lots of GOP Congresses and Presidents since Social Security, Medicare and other similar programs were enacted. None of them have been repealed by the GOP, despite their initial opposition to such things and their later criticisms. Go big or go home.
If Brown wins, Massachusetts will succeed from the union for a few months.
What the hell do they care? They already have their bankrupt healthcare system. Bankrupt. Right.
But wouldn't that shock the American public?
Good lord if we're not already teetering on the brink of electrical annihilation, what's one more little jolt going to do?
wv: surly. No kidding.
Do it for Teddy? Yeah, he picked an inconvenient time to die- about forty years too late.
As to the bill, since it will not take effect for a while there will be time to gut it to the point of repeal later. That is if the Republicans ever win enough seats and if they have the courage to do so.
Courage is in short supply in this country.
I thought Brown's chances are not great in Massachusetts but nonsense like this will improve them.
I think the Democrats are being very smart by announcing this strategy.
They know that the only (very slim) chance that Brown has would be if the Massachusetts voters decide that they want to stop health care. So the Democrats have defused this possibility by announcing that even if he wins, it still won't stop health care.
And now Brown's chances will go from slim to none. And the Democrats won't even have to follow through on their anti-democratic threats.
It seems like most of the commenters on any MSM site that has a story on the MA Senate race express incredible hostility to the runaway liberal agenda that is currently being enacted on a national level. The masses sound roiled and on the verge of rioting with pitchforks.
WV reali
If Brown wins and the Democrats still ram this through, it would represent a complete repudiation of the democratic process. I am increasingly concerned that elected officials are making political violence a reasonable alternative at this point.
Remember the Alamo is not a Democrat slogan. They are the Army of the new King and his new aristocracy bought and paid for with the Fed's continually issued debt we have to pay for with mega inflation next year. "Remember the slaughter of capitalism and freedom" is the only motto of the Democrats. You do want everyone else's property redistributed in hopes of snagging a free ride for yourself, don't you? Ask the moderate democrats like Ben Nelson how that can be done as a righteous act.
Suicide bomber logic from the Dems.
Somefeller, Nixon not only didn't try to end Medicare, he expanded it greatly. But he's the Great Evil One, so he gets no credit...
Nothing short of a new American Revolution will stop the health care bill.
Regular elections will not do it. That much has been made clear.
The political class (which now averages $71,000 a year in pay) is stealing our economy for themselves and their friends.
And there's not a goddamned thing we can do about it.
Oh ... and Scott Brown will not get elected anyway.
You have to at least give the Democrats of Mass. some credit. They are being transparent. They'll do whatever they want, and they could care less about what anybody thinks.
It wouldn't have to a desperate now or never approach to healthcare reform if the Democrats would simply stop trying to "transform" the entire freaking economy.
They could do so much good with some modest, market-based reforms that really wouldn't harm anyone's current arrangements whilst also finding a way to help out the relative few Americans who need insurance, desire it (important!) and can't get it right now.
But, alas, rather than actually try to do something effective, all they can do is salivate over the prospect of forcing America to become Switzerland somewhere down the line.
And we shall all suffer for their hubris.
"I am increasingly concerned that elected officials are making political violence a reasonable alternative at this point."
Didn't Thomas Jefferson and George Washington already do that?
Didn't Paul Revere make political violence a reasonable option?
Abraham Lincoln, unable to convince the states that his political vision of the United States was the way to go, unleashed the entire US military on its own citizens.
Didn't Abraham Lincoln make political violence a reasonable option when convincing your fellow American by the better argument isn't sufficient to get what you want?
When, in American history, has political violence not been a reasonable option?
Why do you think they don't want to teach American history any more?
Left out of all this analysis is a simple question: is either bill -- the House version or the Senate version -- good for the country?
What I think I see is legislation that will result in reduced access to healthcare for myself after I retire in six or seven years, and quite likely before then, with higher costs certainly through increased taxes and probably increased insurance fees. Looking at the Massachusetts senatorial polls, apparently I'm not alone.
So far the only responses to these questions falls into two categories: "if we don't do it now then we'll never get it done" or "trust us, we're the Democrats"!
As regards the "if we don't do it now," if it's bad for the country, then maybe we shouldn't do it now or ever. And as for trusting Democrats ...
"Brown only has his opening because Teddy Kennedy happened to pick an inconvenient time to die."
Only half the story. The more important half is that he has this chance because this bill is so hated.
This is simply: Congress versus their constituents.
We'll see now who really has the power. Are we a democracy or is congress just a job like the modern teaching profession, where you get to stay regardless of performance and results.
And bear in mind that for Brown to win, he would have to win by at least a full percent -- anything within 1% ends up going to the Democrat 90% of the time. They find enough misplaced ballots, and misplace enough Republicans' ballots, to turn the tide.
If the small minority of conservatives in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts are demotivated by knowing that their vote won't affect the health care bill one bit, and they don't have near-100% turnout, then Brown has no chance at all.
"They could do so much good with some modest, market-based reforms that really wouldn't harm anyone's current arrangements whilst also finding a way to help out the relative few Americans who need insurance, desire it (important!) and can't get it right now."
That's a laugh. These people have the same face and DNA as tyrants and despots throughout history. They are driven by hubris and an overarching thirst for raw power. They are the ones the framers warned us against.
Somefeller, Nixon not only didn't try to end Medicare, he expanded it greatly. But he's the Great Evil One, so he gets no credit...
Actually, Nixon gets credit for that from me. Watergate notwithstanding, he wasn't a bad President. ("Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?") And while 60s-era liberals hated him (and still do, when they're feeling nostalgic), over the years it seems like he gets harsher criticism from conservative critics of his Administration than liberal ones, especially after he sort of remade himself as a foreign-policy guru in later years.
@t-man, with Coakley's polls at 50% with 9% - 10% undecided, Scott Brown is going to lose.
@everybody else, let's cool it a bit, shall we? I'm no fan of Democrats, and having grown up near Chicago and having lived in Maryland for a while, I have plenty of good solid reasons for my antipathy. But if I thought any of you were serious about using violence against the government of the United States I'd shoot you down myself.
This is after the MA legislature changed the law at the last minute so Deval Patrick could appoint the interim Senator. A law they had altered previously so Mitt Romney couldn't appoint a Senator.
They delayed an election once, and they will delay the results of it again, by golly.
Shameless.
"They know that the only (very slim) chance that Brown has would be if the Massachusetts voters decide that they want to stop health care."
Actually, that's not a very nuanced view of things.
You see, in Massachusetts, we are already required to purchase health insurance by the state government. Mitt Romney signed that law.
Mitt Romney is a Republican - just like Scott Brown.
We pay the highest premiums in the nation mind you - averaging $13,000 a year in premiums. Thanks Republican Mitt Romney!
The rest of the nation is not required to purchase health insurance (yet).
So, in that sense, Massachusetts residents are paying the freight for all you deadbeats in the other 49 states, thanks to Republican Mitt Romney, who signed the legislation into law.
It's in our self interest to do everything possible to make sure that all the rest of you have to join the pool of insurance payers and get to see how wonderful forced "RomneyCare" is. This would slow the growth rate of our premiums.
And so we want health care to pass at the federal level for purely selfish reasons. For us, it evens the playing field. It relieves us of the burden our politicians (namely Republican Mitt Romney) have laid on the citizenry in Massachusetts.
Scott Brown's election would cost us significantly in higher insurance premiums (assuming he was able to stop RomneyCare ... er, ObamaCare). And if not for the Republican Governor who signed this piece of shit legislation, we wouldn't be here in the first place.
So all the rest of you Republicans can now eat it. Now you'll get to understand how us Republicans in Massachusetts feel when Republican Governors like Mitt Romney screw us over.
RomneyCare ... coming to a state near you soon!
What the Democrats here in Mass are contemplating is way worse than just rushing to pass the bill. They are planning to stall certification of the election if Brown wins.
This would be after the Dems had changed the law specifically to allow Deval Patrick to appoint the unelected Kirk in the interim, and right after Paul Tsongas's widow was just certified two days after a special congressional election.
I agree with Fred4. This outrage, along with Coakley's pilgrimage to DC this week for support, should help fire-up Brown’s support.
Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform
It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform - and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill...
“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.”
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 on 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, 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.
Yesterday, Brown, who has been closing the gap with Coakley in polls and fund raising, blasted the political double standard.
“This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.”
A spokeswoman for Coakley’s campaign declined to comment today.
The Revolution of 1776 started because the, until then loyal to the King, locals did decide to resist being forceably disarmed by the King's Armed forces sent here to enforce their being taxed to death in the Parlement's Nationalised economic system planned for the King's colonies. Hence the Second Amendment was high up on the list of basic freedoms enacted once the colonies got the British Army to surrender to them. They were not going to let that happen to them again from a King in DC like it had happened from King in London. Things sure do repeat themselves.
"But if I thought any of you were serious about using violence against the government of the United States I'd shoot you down myself."
You're not much of a patriot, are you Big Mike?
I'd suggest you go read the Declaration of Independence again, sir. You seem to have forgotten why your country was founded.
Your country was founded by patriots who believed that it was better to kill their own government than to have that government take control over free men.
And so George Washington joined Thomas Jefferson in attacking and killing their government and its army and declaring this country the land of free men. The Revolutionary War resulted.
I agree with you that casual discussions of this nature don't do a lot of good.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.
And accordingly, all experience has shown that men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
You have a duty sir.
I'd suggest you go read the whole thing.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html
The people of MA deserve just what they are getting, they, like the good people of IL where I live, have voted the D's in forever. The people of MA obviously want one party rule and the D's accurately reflect the people's will. In IL the R's are a joke and have been for some time. I don't know if that is the case in MA as far as the R party in concerned. But through vote fraud, media complicity and subtle intimidation Mr. Brown will be laid waste in a few days and all will be well in DC and MA.
Florida, that's an interesting point, and one I hadn't considered.
And I had no idea you were from Taxachusetts -- I would have guessed you were from America's Wang.
So you're saying that Brown never really had a chance, then, right? Since only 30% or so of MA's voters would vote for a Republican purely out of principle.
Big Mike, I hate to write a comment that seems to dovetail so neatly with my profile pic; but I guess I’m going to have to say something that could have come from the “Militia Fail” guy:
I'm not arguing for armed insurrection...yet. But at some point, if current trends continue, you must admit that there might come a time when that would be an appropriate response.
When your vote has been rendered irrelevant by the votes of convicted felons and illegal immigrants and dead people registered by ACORN, voting the bums out will no longer be an option. And when the new majority decides to tax 90% of your income and seize any weapons you might own, at that point, it will be too late for revolt.
So there must be some point between those two events where revolution would be the appropriate response, right? Or have I lost my mind?
This can't be surprising to anyone. The Democrat party would overcome any scruple to get its way.
No matter how much it hurts, they will figure out how to deal with that later.
Uhh, you give the Democrats way too much credit. Don't rule anything out when it comes to them finding new ways to be epic failures.
That being said, I hope they pull it off and actually accomplish something, for once. Then, if it sucks, all you wingnuts can criticize them for something they've ACTUALLY DONE rather than just their proposals.
"But if I thought any of you were serious about using violence against the government of the United States I'd shoot you down myself."
I agree Mike,... so far.
But, when lawmakers start making laws that prevent us from peacefully changing our government, then we must do what is required. Till then the threat of it is what will keep them honest.
I know a sense of decency and ethics sure won't. Is there any doubt that many in there would vote for lifelong terms if they thought the place would not be burnt down. I'm not saying all, but I think it would pass. That's where we are today.
Another thing - I find it hard to believe that Brown will win. Even if he has more votes than Coakley there is no way that Massachusetts will declare him the winner. No way.
Yeah, the party that rammed through Medicare, Part D can be trusted to act with fiscal restraint, clean politics, and transparency.
For what it's worth, I don't like the current health care reform proposal. I'd like to see it stopped, but Republicans need to realize that if they stop it, that probably won't translate into a long-term electoral advantage.
"Even if he has more votes than Coakley there is no way that Massachusetts will declare him the winner. No way."
He won't win ... let's just get that out front. I've ben Ann any amount of money she's willing to lose that he won't get more than 35% of the vote.
In Massachusetts, the most active voters work for the government. They're very well organized and they will turn out and Coakley will win. Their jobs depend on it ... so of course they're going to vote.
But in Massachusetts, as I have pointed out, it doesn't matter if a Republican is in charge. They still vote like Democrats. They still act like Democrats.
Mitt Romney came all the way from Utah to run for Governor here and pave the way for ObamaCare by enacting RomneyCare in Massachusetts first. Then he ske-daddled.
So ... no matter whether Republicans are in charge, or whether Democrats are in charge, big government gets bigger. Government workers are stealing the economy from the rest of us because we're letting them.
Comes here Big Mike from Chicago, threatening to shoot down anyone who tries to stop it.
Is it any wonder that free men are loathe to provide new guards for their security?
I'm sure that calculation has been run many times lately: Voter anger with versus without this bill passing. The difference calculated is not enough to overcome the congressional culture of corruption and I think they are figuring that wrong.
The bill that passes will be played as an ineffective one that does little to change the things people like about their health care, and that will be a lie.
Remember the Alamo is not a Democratic slogan.
Somebody should have mentioned that to James K Polk.
Shock the US public? Some but not most. Many will cheer the abuse if Brown wins and the Democrats block him from voting on health care reform.
There are a huge number of US citizens who have little or no understanding of how the US government is supposed to function, let alone any clue about the underlying principles of representative democracy. This urge to eliminate the mess of democracy is how people are moved to voluntarily support authoritarianism. In these times liberal fascism.
@Florida, you're not Sam Adams, you're not his cousin John, and you're for sure not George Washington. Take a deep breath. The United States has come through periods of corruption much more extraordinary than we are seeing today, and we'll come through this one as well.
Without resorting to violence.
Let's ditch the violent fantasies.
Violence will not reform the system. Violence will make it worse. Either it becomes more oppressive because of violence, or the violence succeeds and brings about a worse system. That's the lesson of history.
It's retarded to want violence in a democratic system. If you can't win elections, it's because not enough people agree with you. So, convince them or deal.
Every time people think that anything would be better than their terrible, corrupt, democratic system, they turn out to be wrong. Ask the Germans, ask the Spanish, ask the Russians.
What is "health reform?"
I still haven't got a clue.
Although, I do have the feeling that "health reform" means the Democrats have their hands all over our health care.
The details? Who knows?
John Lynch and Big Mike: You're both assuming that we'll continue to have a functioning democratic system. I don't think that the commenters here are violent fantasists and trigger-happy nuts who would propose toppling a democracy. They're suggesting that democracy is being undermined.
Consider two hypotheticals:
Scenario A: President Obama declares himself Supreme Emperor For Life, and imposes martial law.
Scenario B: President Obama and the Democrats manage to create an impervious and permanent majority of support, consisting of newly re-enfranchised convicted felons and prison inmates; illegal aliens; and net tax receivers (those who receive more from the government than those who pay into it). With this 60% majority, they're able to tax you mercilessly to redistribute those taxes to their supporters, and confiscate your wealth and weapons.
John and Mike -- would either of these two scenarios justify revolt?
If only scenario A would justify it, how is B so different than A?
And if we wait to be disarmed, and robbed of our wealth (which we could use to re-arm ourselves), won't it be too late?
If Brown is elected....if Brown is elected.
We better also make plans for when hell freezes over!
Big Mike:
"But if I thought any of you were serious about using violence against the government of the United States I'd shoot you down myself. "
And if I thought any of you were serious about using violence against anyone who was serious about using violence against the government of the United States I'd shoot you down myself.
So NO MORE TALK ABOUT VIOLENCE OR I'M GOING TO GET VIOLENT!1!
Or something.
(See how stupid this gets?)
The Demos are still very scared. EDH's post about swearing in says it all. At 10 days out, there's also talk of SEIU, a wholly owned subsidiary of ACORN, pulling a Franken. All of this says the Demos aren't as confident as one would expect - and 50% is borderline in terms of safe.
Henry said...
If Brown wins, Massachusetts will succeed from the union for a few months.
First time the People's Republic will have succeeded at anything since Appomattox.
OTOH, it will be the second time they tried to secede :)
Big Mike said...
...
@everybody else, let's cool it a bit, shall we? I'm no fan of Democrats, and having grown up near Chicago and having lived in Maryland for a while, I have plenty of good solid reasons for my antipathy. But if I thought any of you were serious about using violence against the government of the United States I'd shoot you down myself.
Understand your point. The system we have is flawed, but better than a leap into nothing. This assumes we're not going to be under attack the way the Isrraelis were 40 years ago and the U-6 doesn't stay at Depression levels. If things get worse, a lot of opinions may change.
Remember, the officer commanding the Marines at Harper's Ferry who captured John Brown was former West Point Superintendent and Mexican War hero, Col Robert E. Lee, a man who didn't believe in slavery or secession.
Even though the Democrats have successfully enacted their socialist programs like SocSec, Medicare, there has been rollback in many other areas like:
free trade
right-to-work states
welfare reform
rebuilding the military
Florida,
"Abraham Lincoln, unable to convince the states that his political vision of the United States was the way to go, unleashed the entire US military on its own citizens.
Didn't Abraham Lincoln make political violence a reasonable option when convincing your fellow American by the better argument isn't sufficient to get what you want?"
is a misleading statement considering the first shots fired in the Civil War were by South Carolina at Fort Sumter.
Just saying.
Pastafarian - spare us your wingnut fantasies of revolt.
Past-
Sounds like what people were saying about Bush the Tyrant. Gee, he left on January 20, 2009, just like he was supposed to. So will Obama, no later than January 20, 2017.
I'll get upset by an undemocratic system when I see an undemocratic system. I'll consider violence only if there is no other, repeat no other, possible remedy (even then political violence is something that is rarely worthwhile). That doesn't mean taking up arms because I don't like how elections turn out.
So, scenario A is a reason to overthrow the government (peacefully if possible). Scenario B is not. If you can't win elections, that's the breaks. I doubt any 60% majority can last for any length of time in the US, especially if the results are bad, which in your scenario they would become very quickly.
Democracy has worked pretty well for us. I'm not going to through in the towel after one year of Democrats in power. That's not rational.
FFS - if we survived FDR's 3 terms and his New Deal, we can survive anything.
By all the metrics, America is a less socialist country in 2010 then 1970. Remember Nixon's price controls? The airline & trucking industries were totally regulated? Unions were still dominant! Think how much progress fiscal cons have made in 40 years!
edutcher wrote: First time the People's Republic will have succeeded at anything since Appomattox.
That was a dumb typo. But yes, I was thinking of the Hartford convention.
John Lynch said: "So, scenario A is a reason to overthrow the government (peacefully if possible). Scenario B is not. If you can't win elections, that's the breaks..."
Agreed, John. What I think most people here are saying is this: If things keep going as they are, where Democrats seem to be using their power just to acquire more power, and to solidify their grip on it, then, at some point, there will be an uprising. Uprisings are rarely peaceful.
And no, Alex, it's not something that I fantasize about. That's a somewhat asshole-ish thing to say.
But I don't see much of a difference between one side openly declaring a dictatorship, versus one side quietly assembling what will, in effect, be the same thing.
Just the other day, the number of government employees came to outnumber, for the first time, the number of people actually employed in making things -- farmers, miners, loggers, and manufacturers.
When the Democrats hold a permanent 60% majority that consists entirely of government employees, illegal aliens, felons, dead voters resurrected by ACORN, and they decide to levy a 100% tax on your income and property if you don't belong to one of those groups, it will feel an awful lot like a dictatorship, even with its facade of democracy.
As far as outrage goes, I'd rate this at the level of reapportionment and gerrymandering. Appalling! And completely normal.
Whenever a politician dies in office the cuttlefish of local politics boil to the surface for a day. This is one of the things that tempers my federalist instincts -- most states are more corrupt and mismanaged than the feds.
Tempers, but not defeats. There are 50 states. Not all of them need be appalling at the same time.
If Brown wins, for the Dem leadership to try to pass the bill through procedural chicanery would be nothing less than a coup attempt, and the American people would see it as such.
WRT "somefeller" and others above, both Social Security and Medicare were truly bipartisan bills and passed with substantial numbers of Republican votes. They were not purely partisan cram-downs like this would be.
Rather than thinking about violent actions, my first preference would be to "starve the beast".
Small businesses owners would cease to file quarterly taxes. Employees would claim 99 exemptions and therefore would be subject to minimal withholding. Dry up the financial pipe to Washington.
I'll bet the Chinese (our largest creditor) would sit up and take notice.
"We better also make plans for when hell freezes over!"
Yes, Brown won't win. At best 54-45, 53-46.
The House won't pass anything if he does win (or lose by 1% or so) because it would be a thunderclap that would make everyone but the true believers run for cover.
But wouldn't that shock the American public?
If the public isn't already shocked by the way the Democrats have been behaving, then no, it won't be shocked.
"... is a misleading statement considering the first shots fired in the Civil War were by South Carolina at Fort Sumter."
By whom exactly (I ask rhetorically)?
The victors, it is said, write the history books.
I'm not convinced your point at any rate makes much of a difference, since we have Lincoln's own words to draw from, justifying the political violence he inflicted on his fellow Americans with the US military.
He felt (rightly or wrongly) that the Union could not stand to be divided; and that he was willing to kill his own citizens to prevent the Union from splitting. You can justify it any way you like, but that was his political philosophy, inflicted on the States at the barrel of a gun.
Lincoln could not convince a majority of the citizens of many of the States of the rightness of his position.
So he set about killing them with the US military. Enforcing his will upon free men who disagreed with his political stance. By using violence. You may believe he was right to do so. Many Americans do believe he was right to do so. Including myself.
This political philosophy of Lincolns - which was to use the US military to kill those Americans who he could not convince of his political views with his speech - won him a rather large monument on the Washington Mall and a place on Mt. Rushmore.
He's a hero.
@Florida: Sorry, the passage of Obamacare and the vast new numbers of Americans forced to buy insurance won't do jack to help the folks in Massachusetts.
Since insurers can't pool their policyholders across state lines, your pool won't grow at all. Your premiums will still have to price in the exorbitant costs of providing health care in the Bay State. Heating oil, higher wages, mandated coverage above and beyond the federal minimums, state and local taxes, real estate, unions, your share of the fund to cover the poor and uninsured, malpractice settlements, lawsuit abuse, insurance frauds, and the surcharges off the top for sensitivity training, outreach programs, community organizing, diversity special needs, administrators for all the above and political kickbacks.
The insured in Texas will probably see better coverage and lower premiums thanks to the enlarged Lone Star pool. You'll see bupkiss.
Hey, I hate to say it, but if Brown wins he does not get a vote in the Senate until he is sworn in. If the dems use their majority in the Senate to delay or refuse his seating after he wins and election, then I will get upset. But they have every right to use Kirk's vote while he's still a member of the Senate.
Politics ain't beanbag, as Mr. Dooley used to say.
And remember the Norm Coleman/Al Franken saga. Unfortunately, delaying the swearing in of senators has become an accepted tactic.
No one is seriously considering violence. We are very very very far from that in either necessity or personal outrage.
But I believe that as soon as it becomes impossible in the minds of our elected, appointed and hired leaders, it will become necessary. That is human nature and history. Therefore, I don't mind it being discussed. It reminds us of our real power as free people and prevents the fatal sicknesses of despair, helplessness and resignation which will lead to violence.
We need to keep in mind that it is an option both terrible and necessary for freedom. Remember that history shows powerful corrupt government to be far more violent than those who overthrow it.
If, like me, you fear the horrors of violence, then keep it close at hand. History shows that when the people get weak, they get slaughtered. Not just threatened with it. Despotic government is always a minority with superior fire power. This is the beauty of the 2nd amendment. Not that we use it, but that we can.
Tax-Payer Funded Health Care "reform" is the Democrat's sacred precious golden ring. They will dive off a cliff into hot molten lava in order to get what they want.
They will destroy themselves to pass it.
Let's hope Samwise ..er.. Scott Brown has a chance to save us.
I bet there is even more energy being spent on the D's cheat-to-win strategy. If it's close, expect a repeat of Coleman/Franken.
Ballot machines and empty ballots will mysteriously appear in the trunks of Demo-operative cars.
Obama should mandate that ACORN representatives live in every one of our houses, and that they can play doctor with us whenever they want. He won the election. He can do whatever he wants.
Revolting is for dummies, which is why you find so many of the tea partiers promoting it. Those who have the "cult gene" end up in cults; those who have the "gambling gene" end up in Vegas. And, those who have mental and emotional problems of a political nature end up as libertarians and/or "partiers".
If you're smart and sane and you want to do things that are effective and will raise the level of debate in the U.S. above the abysmal level it's at now, here's the plan. I see people posting that to Facebook and sending it in emails occasionally, but it was only briefly promoted by one r/w guest blogger and other than that I've gotten no help with it.
Please don't listen to the low-wattage, apocalyptic drama queens but instead help promote that highly effective plan.
somefeller said...
Somefeller, Nixon not only didn't try to end Medicare, he expanded it greatly. But he's the Great Evil One, so he gets no credit...
Actually, Nixon gets credit for that from me. Watergate notwithstanding, he wasn't a bad President.
Years back, Teddy said his biggest legislative regret was knowing Nixon deeply wanted universal heathcare coverage..(one of his brothers died because the Nixons were too poor to afford a doctor and get proper treatments). That Nixon offered him a healthcare compromise on a platter - and Teddy and others in the liberal wing declined because they just-hated-Nixon.
Then after Nixon was gone, the window to compromise closed for 35 years. All Teddy got was the Goldwaterite-Reagan spin that US healthcare was the Best in the World...people without were a small price to pay for being a Free Market nation of Freedom-lovers...and free markets and wizbang high technology would soon make healthcare affordable for everyone as we built all the exciting high tech stuff the world needed..
After Nixon, any discussion of doing substantive things with the coming healthcare crisis was anethema to doctrinaire Republicans.
Scott Brown is still a big IF. He trails Coakely by 8-9 points though the gap has dramatically narrowed from the 30 point margin.
Watergate - more the pity about it. Nixon was the last President not owned by the moneyed elites that finally surfaced in the open as they lined up for their Bush-Obama bailouts. Nixon had two last "great things" he had planned that were derailed by Watergate. One was universal health coverage, the other was a national energy Plan that envisioned green power, tons of new nuke plants, and a concerted effort to get America off ME oil.
Somefeller - And while 60s-era liberals hated him (and still do, when they're feeling nostalgic), over the years it seems like he gets harsher criticism from conservative critics of his Administration than liberal ones.
That is true. To the reactionary Palinista conservatives that call all other Republicans to the left of Goldwater or Saint Ronald "RINOs" - Nixon, Eisenhower, and Bush I are seen as great apostates.
I don't like Nixon for two big reasons.
1. Watergate and the other dirty tricks.
2. Losing the war. He was a terrible commander in chief.
Both of these led to consequences that we are still dealing with to this day.
great site.
please visit for ebooks
http://www.ebooktub.com/
LonewackoDotCom said...
Revolting is for dummies, which is why you find so many of the tea partiers promoting it. Those who have the "cult gene" end up in cults; those who have the "gambling gene" end up in Vegas. And, those who have mental and emotional problems of a political nature end up as libertarians and/or "partiers".
Tell that to Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin, also Stephen Austin.
Nobody's "promoting" it, but we are looking at some serious problems - a U- or L-shaped recession (depression, really), if not one more like a stair-step (U with the second vertical going down instead of up), young adult unemployment over 50%, a U-6 of nearly 18%, the reality we have a government so corrupt and so inept that it cannot and will not protect us from terror attacks on our own soil, as well as one which has given up on the principle of governing with the consent of the governed (the word, "ruling", was one of the Demos' favorites in '08) and you have the type of situation that can end in some sort of confrontation.
In theory, we're a long way from the point where Germany was when people started saying, "Ya know, that guy Hitler may have something going, after all", but, if 52% unemployment among young adults doesn't concern you or outrage at a federal program the majority of Americans don't want but is about to be rammed (as Pelosi Galore said this time last year) down their throats is OK in your book, then all this nonsense about cult genes really is the height of your intellect and you shouldn't go around calling anybody else a dummy.
Thanks Ann, for covering this one.
Thanks to everyone who is covering
and following this story.
Some important FYI links quite relevant to this very story:
An Open Letter to Brown Supporters Regarding Eeyorism and Concern Trolls: GREAT advice from unlikely allies
Call Dems Bluff On Refusing To Seat Scott Brown: Political EXPLOSION!
Washington, Austin, et al were revolting against masters they did not have the chance to vote against. Parliament, George III and Santa Ana gave them no alternative.
Obama and the Dems won fair and square. It's not taxation without representation when the people voted for the taxes.
There's no comparison at all.
John Lynch said...
Washington, Austin, et al were revolting against masters they did not have the chance to vote against. Parliament, George III and Santa Ana gave them no alternative.
Obama and the Dems won fair and square. It's not taxation without representation when the people voted for the taxes.
There's no comparison at all.
Of course not.
That whole "consent of the governed" has nothing to do with anything.
Nor does a government which appears so corrupt and/or inept it can't or won't protect its citizenry which, BTW, is what started the Texas War of Independence. The GTTs didn't think starting "ranging companies" to protect them from the Comanches was something they should be required to do when Mexico City had an army in being.
Washington et al. wanted their rights as Englishmen - they demanded the right to vote.
If oppressive taxes are required to pay for a health care monstosity that the majority of people don't want and the legislature intends to use for other purposes anyway, then that comes perilously close to the sort of grievance that drove the Colonies to rebel.
The feasances, mal-, mis-, and non- do play a role in these things.
As Massachusetts goes, so goes the nation?
As far as I know the Constitution requires only 50%+1 Senators to pass a bill. So Republican Scott Brown's view will not make or break health care.
Six Republican Senators announced they would not run again upon Obama's inauguration. Have any backtracked since?
All this is pointless. There's no way Brown wins that election.
The normal Democratic Party corruption, augmented by ACORN and SEIU involvement, will ensure that Coakley wins.
And it's all for a lie:
The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient."
Read the rest, all ye who think we stink. (BTW -- it took the French 110 minutes of delay for Princess Diana to die before getting to a hospital while they did in-ambulance "stabilization." Line up now for your trauma care, children.)
And we have leadership who spit on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers' graves because they didn't go "far enough."
former law student said...
As Massachusetts goes, so goes the nation?
As far as I know the Constitution requires only 50%+1 Senators to pass a bill. So Republican Scott Brown's view will not make or break health care.
Senate rules are more important here. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster and that's where Brown's vote can count. A few others, like Blanche Lincoln, may feel Brown gives them political cover and make a filibuster more a reality.
mariner said...
All this is pointless. There's no way Brown wins that election.
That, of course, is what the Lefties want everyone to think. Resistance is futile,...
The normal Democratic Party corruption, augmented by ACORN and SEIU involvement, will ensure that Coakley wins.
There's an item on Instapundit that may put the lie to that. One woman working a phone bank for Brown had only 2 callers tell her they were voting for Maatha and 96 said Brown, out of a hundred.
I don't discount the evil minions of Georgi Schwartz trying to pull a Franken; I just think this ain't over yet.
Somefeller?
Republicans in Congress voted for the 1935 Social Security Act by wide majorities (81-15 and 16-5). Medicare (the 1965 Social Security Act) was narrowly opposed by Republicans in the Senate (13-17) and narrowly supported in the House (70-68).
So, one cannot actually make an honest claim that the bills were opposed by Republicans; one can at best merely say that they were opposed by some Republicans.
The health care bill is quite, quite different in terms of support. False analogies to past programs that actually passed with substantial support from both congressional Republican and the public do not provide evidence of its likelihood of enduring.
Fair points, Steven. I should have used the word "conservatives" rather than "Republicans", as both parties in those days had liberal and conservative factions and FDR certainly had to worry about conservative Democrats as much as he did Republicans. Nowadays, the parties have aligned themselves more neatly on ideological lines, so one can generally use the two words I mention above largely interchangeably. But that hasn't always been the case, so I should have been more careful with language. However, it should be noted that it wasn't uncommon in those days for people on the losing side of a bill to vote for it, out of some sense of comity or a desire to be in on the final planning of the bill.
That having been said, conservatives did oppose the programs I mentioned, but weren't able to get rid of them once enacted. Conservatives today are smart enough to see that, and that's why they are fighting against this health care bill tooth-and-nail. And I don't blame them for that. Frankly, they show more judgment than "progressives" (and yes, those are sneer quotes) who want to kill the bill and start over because it didn't go all the way with a public option, because they know what the stakes are. And that's why I want them to lose.
Now, as far as the likelihood of repeal goes, maybe it could happen (assuming a bill does pass in the end and get signed by Obama), but it would take at least a GOP President working with a GOP Senate working majority of 60 (you don't think Democrats would filibuster something like that?) for such a repeal to pass. In other words, there's a lot of good reasons for Democrats to get this in now, regardless of whatever imperfections the bill or process may have today, because once in, it's in.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a conference bill get passed by a simple majority in the House and the Senate?
And if that's the case - isn't this whole discussion kind of, er, pointless?
(Word Verification: stoner)
What John Lynch said in the second comment.
wv: comic!! LOL. Yes, it would be very funny if Scott Brown won.
If they're doing undercover in the dark without any Republicans, does it count as a "conference" bill?
edutcher, you really don't get it, do you?
It doesn't matter how many people pull the lever / mark the paper / highlight the screen for Brown.
Enough votes for Brown will be "lost" and enough votes for Coakley will be "found" that she will be declared the winner.
Democrats have been doing this in broad daylight for several election cycles, and NO ONE ever goes to jail for it.
BREAKING: Ace has a link to PPP saying that Brown currently leads Coakley by one. I may faint. This would be tectonic in politics.
And that's why I am not pinning my hopes to Brown winning, because that's what Republicans always do with these kinds of races. I grant you that the Repubs screwed up NY-23 big time, and one can't compare that race to this special Senate one. But I don't want to be disappointed like that again.
wv: Placessi. Sounds like a great Italian-American politico's name.
For the gals and gays of Althouse.
And yes, it's totally sexist of me. Yay.
mariner, they only get away with that if the margin is small enough. And, as vb has told us (I saw the same poll, too), Brown may have just taken the lead.
And this is 10 days out.
In any case, this is another one of those things that can lead to trouble - if people think their votes will be stolen on a regular basis.
You wouldn't be one of those Lefty trolls trying to spread FUD, would you?
Got an email from the Borwn campaign a little earlier:
"The far left wing attack machine is stepping up to try and defeat our movement to win the Special Election for the United States Senate on January 19th.
The radical MoveOn.org has decided to MoveIn to Massachusetts to try and help the lethargic Martha Coakley campaign gain some traction.
The SEIU, the nation's largest public employee union is also pouring thousands of dollars into this race to defeat our movement."
Should we be surprised?
but doesn't a conference bill get passed by a simple majority in the House and the Senate?
The Senate allows filibusters on bills out of conference committee.
The Senate rules since 2007 also allow stripping provisions out of conference committee bills that were not in either the House or Senate version with a mere 41 votes.
Somefeller —
The filibuster is easy enough to avoid on a de facto repeal. You just delete the tax and subsidy portions of the system, and you've gutted it. And modifying taxes and federal outlays is a budget matter, which avoids the filibuster. (Senate rules specifically block this bypass on measures involving the Social Security system.)
Since we'll have already collected several years of the taxes by then (on the 10 years of taxes, 6 years of benefits setup used to game the CBO numbers for passage), the CBO scoring of a plan-gutting vote will be that it reduces the deficit over the ten years from the date of gutting, and that avoids the Senate 60-vote hurdle on budget matters.
As a matter of public politics, since the subsides don't come in until after the next Presidential term starts, there will be nobody receiving the benefits of the bill as entrenched supported, but plenty being taxed to pay for it.
And as a matter of Congressional politics, repealing it won't involve repudiating the votes of any Republican members of Congress (except the one district in New Orleans which the Republicans will probably lose this year anyway).
As a result, analogies to the entrenchment of Social Security and Medicare do not apply. Health care will be much, much more vulnerable than Social Security or Medicare ever were.
edutcher,
Yep. That's me. A lefty troll.
You really ARE clueless.
(This is the first time I have EVER, anywhere on these wonderful tubes, been called a "lefty troll".)
Good points on how some of the procedural gamesmanship may go. However, I suspect there would also be some gamesmanship on the other side as well to prevent such a result from happening. Also, while the current health care bill may be suffering in the polls now (but remember - a lot of that weakness comes from liberals who think the bill doesn't go far enough and is too much of a giveaway to the insurance companies), once it's enacted and people start seeing the benefits of it, the popularity of repeal may weaken.
Of course, there's a lot of ifs, mays and assumptions in all this, starting with whether people will like it well enough once it's up and running. That's the way it goes with predictions. However, the history of large-scale US domestic policy changes would lead one to think that trying to repeal health care reform after the fact (assuming it passes, which I think it will) is something that's unlikely to succeed. Some small-scale tinkering, sure. But total/practical repeal? Not likely, if history is any guide. And that is actually one of the main points conservatives are trying to make in this fight.
If the GOP can stop this thing, but doesn't immediately come forward with (essentially a restatement of their earlier) proposal(s), so as to emphasize (while the spotlight's on) their ownership of a certain set of perhaps more palatable moves to reform health care delivery/insurance in this country, they will be in the crapper again come '12 at the earliest (Obama can run against the "do-nothings").
If they don't immediately and loudly reclaim ownership of what they've already proposed (and was ignored), they'll hand it to Barry and he'll run it as his own victory.
See Clinton, Bill, for comparable pwning of the GOP's legislative agenda. They'll be giving the dude a second term, for better or worse.
They're not very smart, any of them, so it's all pretty much a crapshoot anyway.
wv: "shiessee" -- a factory worker translating a German description of the situation in DC.
t-man said, "I am increasingly concerned that elected officials are making political violence a reasonable alternative at this point."
Florida replied, "Didn't Thomas Jefferson and George Washington already do that?"
No, Florida, George III did that. He is the analogue to the Democrats right now.
The Democrats in Congress have created this monster and they are all invested into it. If it does get passed, it will likely create significant unforeseen problems; and if it doesn't get passed, the Democrats are politically destroyed. They've bought off every one they could buy off-- like that Nelson dude-- in order to obtain the absolute minimum number of votes needed while ensuring virulent resistance from the rest of the Congress. They've cajoled the insurance companies into joining them with promises of future profit backed up by the full faith and credit of the United States.
In essence, they've created a bill that is Too Large to Not Pass. The Democrats have backed themselves into a situation where they must now do everything possible to pass it even if it could be disastrous.
Meanwhile, on a completely separate note, Congress' Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission will start to hold hearings on how large financial firms became Too Big to Fail.
I wonder how many of these predictive comments will be deleted in the near future.
The spirit of 1775-1776 came about only because true British Patriots were not recognized as such by the Brit. government. So, we became Yanks.
The only question after Brown wins in Mass, is when we become then? What will the streets of Boston look like, will they be any different? Will civic fair play and honest civic efforts have a meaning after that? If this country becomes a tyranny, as denying Brown would show, will we be sheep or sheepdogs? I don't know and doubt if anyone has the real answer either.
What Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the Dems fail to understand is that we've been accepting of many different political views only because there's always a chance to do something else at the next election. Yet, once we see that that chance is gone, I doubt we'll sit back and snore.
The Dems are playing a terribly bad hand in a dangerous way, losing sight of what this country is. Obama, with his statements on "negative rights," along with Gavin's, Kirk's, and Deval's proposed action, have come close to fully disclosing Democrat Party intentions. The Democrats do not really understand that they are working to change this from a form of fair play into a rough tough game; it won't become Tiddly Winks, or parlor games! The Democrats truly are playing with fire.
In breaking news:
Hawaii Democrats have announced they're not going to hold elections.
Democrats say elections cost the state too much money.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34782085/ns/us_news/
AP: "Cash-strapped Hawaii can't afford to pay for an election to replace a congressman who is planning to step down next month to run for governor, potentially leaving 600,000 urban Honolulu residents without representation in Washington."
It's time for a revolution.
You know, they warned me that the Democrats would subvert America, turn it into a socialist haven, and do away with pesky elections.
And they were right!
"Never waste a good crisis."
Post a Comment