On the eve of the Massachusetts special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy, polls and pundits alike are bracing for what seemed an impossible outcome just a few weeks ago: a Republican win. With state legislator Scott Brown up against the Democrat candidate, state Attorney General Martha Coakley, and looking like he might just pull off the victory, the kings and princes of the national Democrat party are circling the wagons. They are blaming Coakley for running a poor campaign, not being out in public more often, and the standard liberal excuse of not getting the message out clearly enough. As usual, they are not assigning the blame where it really belongs: Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Max Baucus.
This election is not about Ted Kennedy's legacy in Massachusetts, nor is it about holding on to a Democrat seat in a state that hasn't elected a Republican to federal office since 1972. This election is about buyer's remorse and a terrible distaste for the current Washington agenda. Those who deny the health care debate has any material weight in this campaign obviously don't pay attention to Massachusetts or are too proud to admit the truth, but the fact remains, the federal health care overhaul bill is nearly identical in principle with the Massachusetts health care law enacted in 2006. The Bay State is now on the verge of bankruptcy due in large part to their health care overhaul, and the citizens of Massachusetts want no part of seeing it go national.
So if Brown wins tomorrow, what happens to the health care bill? Is it dead in the water?
Conventional wisdom says it is, but let's be frank about this: we're not dealing with your grandfather's Democrat party. Already there are rumors swirling around that the state of Massachusetts will delay certification of the election in order to allow Congress to put together a final bill that will pass. Republican lawyers contend that Massachusetts state law strips interim Sen. Paul Kirk of his office once the race concludes, regardless of whether or not it's been certified, but good luck getting that case heard by a state court.
Another possibility the Dems are working on is trying to twist enough arms in the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill without any changes, thus negating the need for a new vote in the Senate chamber. This seems unlikely due to the fact that the Senate bill has no real equivalent to the House's Stupak amendment and the fact that most house members oppose the "Cadillac" Tax. But truth be told, Washington politics is about as predictable these days as the Dallas Cowboys. One week they seem invincible while the next they look like they forgot how to win.
Getting back to the Coakley/Brown race and the possibility of delaying certification of a Brown win, the right thing to do is to complete certification as quickly as legally allowed while delaying a final health care vote until after Brown is sworn in. But since when are the health care fan-boys interested in doing what's right? When health care poster child Ted Kennedy himself knew he was on his last legs, he wrote a letter to the Massachusetts state legislature urging them to enact a change in the law which would allow Democrat Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint his replacement. This same body changed the law just a few years earlier to prevent then Republican governor Mitt Romney from appointing a successor to John Kerry, had Mr. Kerry won the White House. Clearly, doing the right thing is foreign to liberal Democrats whose sole objective is to gain and then never surrender power.
As long as we're talking about doing the right thing, how about the very idea of health care reform to begin with? The federal government has no Constitutional authority to enact such a sweeping piece of legislation, particularly with a mandate requiring nearly every U.S. citizen to obtain "government approved" health insurance. I've detailed this Constitutional issue in several other blogs, so I won't go through it here; suffice it to say that the whole idea is the "wrong thing" for America.
What is most disturbing about the health care debate is the fact that so very few of our citizens, and our elected officials too by the way, have even a fundamental understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Around the country last summer we saw Senators and Representatives being asked to define the Constitutional authority for health care reform. Not a single proponent could answer the question. Yet it appears "we the people" are so ignorant of the issue ourselves we are willing to give our leaders a pass on this. Instead, our opposition to health care reform is based on the higher taxes, potential loss of jobs, economic fallout, etc., etc. All these arguments are good, and they're correct as well, but even if none of them existed the Constitutional question is still in play.
At some point we as a free society must demand a return to our Constitutional government. That means we must read and study the founding documents for ourselves; we must force the education system to once again diligently teach the truth of our nation; we must rise up and clean house in Washington. Only then will we be able to stop the runaway train that is our current federal and state governments.
The state of Massachusetts, liberal as it might be, finally understands the consequences of unbridled liberalism. At least for now, they are standing up and saying they have had enough. Will the rest of the United States join them? Only time will tell.
This election is not about Ted Kennedy's legacy in Massachusetts, nor is it about holding on to a Democrat seat in a state that hasn't elected a Republican to federal office since 1972. This election is about buyer's remorse and a terrible distaste for the current Washington agenda. Those who deny the health care debate has any material weight in this campaign obviously don't pay attention to Massachusetts or are too proud to admit the truth, but the fact remains, the federal health care overhaul bill is nearly identical in principle with the Massachusetts health care law enacted in 2006. The Bay State is now on the verge of bankruptcy due in large part to their health care overhaul, and the citizens of Massachusetts want no part of seeing it go national.
So if Brown wins tomorrow, what happens to the health care bill? Is it dead in the water?
Conventional wisdom says it is, but let's be frank about this: we're not dealing with your grandfather's Democrat party. Already there are rumors swirling around that the state of Massachusetts will delay certification of the election in order to allow Congress to put together a final bill that will pass. Republican lawyers contend that Massachusetts state law strips interim Sen. Paul Kirk of his office once the race concludes, regardless of whether or not it's been certified, but good luck getting that case heard by a state court.
Another possibility the Dems are working on is trying to twist enough arms in the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill without any changes, thus negating the need for a new vote in the Senate chamber. This seems unlikely due to the fact that the Senate bill has no real equivalent to the House's Stupak amendment and the fact that most house members oppose the "Cadillac" Tax. But truth be told, Washington politics is about as predictable these days as the Dallas Cowboys. One week they seem invincible while the next they look like they forgot how to win.
Getting back to the Coakley/Brown race and the possibility of delaying certification of a Brown win, the right thing to do is to complete certification as quickly as legally allowed while delaying a final health care vote until after Brown is sworn in. But since when are the health care fan-boys interested in doing what's right? When health care poster child Ted Kennedy himself knew he was on his last legs, he wrote a letter to the Massachusetts state legislature urging them to enact a change in the law which would allow Democrat Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint his replacement. This same body changed the law just a few years earlier to prevent then Republican governor Mitt Romney from appointing a successor to John Kerry, had Mr. Kerry won the White House. Clearly, doing the right thing is foreign to liberal Democrats whose sole objective is to gain and then never surrender power.
As long as we're talking about doing the right thing, how about the very idea of health care reform to begin with? The federal government has no Constitutional authority to enact such a sweeping piece of legislation, particularly with a mandate requiring nearly every U.S. citizen to obtain "government approved" health insurance. I've detailed this Constitutional issue in several other blogs, so I won't go through it here; suffice it to say that the whole idea is the "wrong thing" for America.
What is most disturbing about the health care debate is the fact that so very few of our citizens, and our elected officials too by the way, have even a fundamental understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Around the country last summer we saw Senators and Representatives being asked to define the Constitutional authority for health care reform. Not a single proponent could answer the question. Yet it appears "we the people" are so ignorant of the issue ourselves we are willing to give our leaders a pass on this. Instead, our opposition to health care reform is based on the higher taxes, potential loss of jobs, economic fallout, etc., etc. All these arguments are good, and they're correct as well, but even if none of them existed the Constitutional question is still in play.
At some point we as a free society must demand a return to our Constitutional government. That means we must read and study the founding documents for ourselves; we must force the education system to once again diligently teach the truth of our nation; we must rise up and clean house in Washington. Only then will we be able to stop the runaway train that is our current federal and state governments.
The state of Massachusetts, liberal as it might be, finally understands the consequences of unbridled liberalism. At least for now, they are standing up and saying they have had enough. Will the rest of the United States join them? Only time will tell.
0 comments:
Post a Comment