Posted by Thomas Knapp at Kn@ppster:
“Scott Brown is the only person who can stop ObamaCare by being the 41st vote against cloture.”
That, or some variant of it, is the latest excuse I’m hearing from the usual suspects who come up with a MOST IMPORTANT REASON EVAH! to vote for “the lesser evil” just this one time … every time.
There are three kinds of lies right now: Lies, damn lies, and reasons to vote for Scott Brown in next week’s special election to fill the US Senate vacancy created by Ted Kennedy’s death. This whole “he can stop ObamaCare” schtick fits into all three categories. Here’s why:
– Democrats in Congress are already pushing hard to get the conference/reconciliation process done with and move to a final vote on ObamaCare:
The health care legislation is now expected to move forward quickly, toward a possible vote in the next two weeks. According to a Congress Daily interview (subscription required) with Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, a deal could be pending that would allow the final conference committee-approved legislation to be scored in the next few days.
A Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts would simply make them move faster.
– The election is scheduled for January 19th.
– The earliest the governor of Massachusetts can certify the results of a special election is on the seventh day following the vote, or January 26th (General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 54, section 116).
– Of course, he can’t certify those results until he receives the local certifications of Massachusetts’s cities and towns. Those election authorities have 15 days to certify their own totals and forward them to the Secretary of State (op. cit., Chapter 54, Section 112), who in turn conveys them to him.
– In other words, it could be February 3rd before the certifications even reach Governor Deval Patrick’s desk, and it could be later than that before he acts on them.
But let’s just suppose that every last city and town in Massachusetts has an election clerk who’s dedicated to getting the results in absolutely ASAP, even if the candidate they like lost, even if the candidate they hate won, and even if there’s an important Senate vote riding on the outcome. Let’s suppose that all those results get to the Secretary of State and are forwarded to the governor by the earliest possible certification date, January 26th, and that he acts upon them promptly. That’s a lot to suppose, but let’s suppose it.
Oh, wait … there’s also Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution: “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”
The Democrat-controlled US Senate held up Democratic Senate appointee Roland Burris of Illinois for ten days after receiving certification of his appointment before seating him. Does anyone believe that that same Democrat-controlled US Senate can’t hold up Scott Brown for as long as it damn well pleases?
If the day ever comes when Scott Brown’s ass warms a seat in the US Senate chamber, that day will come after the reconciled ObamaCare bill has been passed and sent to the White House for signature.
Even if he wanted to stop Obamacare (and the evidence that he does is might thin — he was a supporter of its prototype, RomneyCare, and odds are he’s more interested in getting a kickback for his state inserted into the bill a la Nelson or Landrieu than in actually stopping the bill), he couldn’t.
If you’re supporting Scott Brown because you think he’ll stop ObamaCare, you’re supporting Scott Brown for the wrong reason.
And frankly, there is no right reason. The only candidate worthy of your support in this race is Joe Kennedy, a Libertarian running as an independent (due to discrimination against the Libertarian Party written into Massachusetts’s ballot access laws).
“There are three kinds of lies right now: Lies, damn lies, and reasons to vote for” – that amused me
Ooops!! Sorry for being late to this little party. I just wanted to mention a word of general caution. Does everyone remember how Obama wooed the nation… the things he said, the way he said them and the smile on his face? I think that smile my have been the brink of laughter that he was trying to hold back about the American people. Hear his words and then looks at his actual legislation. Do they match? Words are cheap and I would like to see Browns be the truth. However, I am hearing that we have been Obaminated again.
Steve
To answer your question we wont fully know till Novemeber. But with this race and the race in NY-22 it seems that the Freeper clowns are winning which is what the neocons are hoping for. They along with the rest of the statist right are attempting to hijack Ron Paul’s movement.
I feel a bit out of place as an agorist commenting on a Libertarian blog article on a Demoncrat-Repugnican political contest (you are all enemies of liberty, in my book – voting is an act of aggression). I’ll get past that moment presently. The author may be correct that the Demoncrats can delay Brown’s seating until the Obamacare bill is passed. What I am curious about is that no one has commented on how that would play out as a 2010 campaign issue. One would think that Demoncrats are going down in wholesale flames already, and that an overt miscarriage created to reach an unpopular political result would just spray napalm on the fire.
-A
That ain’t just koolaid they are drinking from those brown bags.
Brownbagger…LOL!! a good one indeed.
Actually, no.
He “takes” about TWICE as many votes from Coakley as from Brown. His support is heavily skewed towards younger people. And the reason he “takes” support from Coakley is because he’s for ending the wars, while she is for supporting the president; he is for legalizing marijuana, she’s not; etc.
The number of people **who will actually bother to vote in this election** who think he is Joe For Oil is negligible.
Kennedy takes as many votes from Coakley as he does Brown. Alot of senile elderly Democrats will vote for Kennedy because they think he is the former Congressman and Ted’s nephew.
While each race is unique this is starting to seem a bit akin to the Obama/McCain election. One Democrat (big government from what I have read), one Republican (also big government) and then a libertarian candidate (BTP Charles Jay or LP Bob Barr depending on who you think qualifies).
It all comes down to the fact that many people think that the Democrats are really awful (they are) and how many percent less awful the Republican is – keeping in mind there is a choice that is much much less awful (Kennedy in this case).
There are also BrownBaggers. Some of them are Ron Paul normally, but they have been tricked into becoming Brown-backers because they are under the delusion that Scott Brown will stop ObamaCare.
There are two types of teabagger – Ron Paul teabagger or Free Republic teabagger. One type is tolerant and capable of rational debate, while the other is rude and nasty, only capable of making personal attacks.
With the number of trolls on the boards today, I think the question has been fully answered – will the Republican tea parties usher in a rebirth of liberty and constitutional government or will they go back to feeding at the McCain/Scott Brown partisan trough? Enjoy your Romney/Obama-Care Repbulicans.
Herp derp, if anything Kennedy is taking votes from Coakley.
If Republicans want to win, then they ought to be working hard to make sure Kennedy takes votes from Coakley, not blasting the handful of libertarians here that can even cast a ballot in Massachusetts.
Wow! Tom Knapp a “communist scum bag” !?!?
Now I’ve heard everything!
Fred,
The Massachusetts legislators don’t seat Scott Brown. Harry Reid does.
You never know. The Massachusetts legislators could change the law and seat Scott Brown as soon as two days after the election. They’ve done it before.
That’s enough reason for me to cast a vote for Scott.
Debra,
You write:
“thanks tom!”
You’re welcome!
“you just convinced me to make a last minute donation to the brown campaign”
Outstanding! I heartily approve of Republicans making donations to the Brown campaign. If he loses, it’s Republican money wasted. If he wins, it’s Republican money spent for the purpose of destroying the GOP. Win/win, if you know what I mean.
“lol. you are more than a little transparent.”
Yes, I am. Millions of words transparent.
“tell coakley”
I’ve never met Coakley or any of her staff. I’ve never corresponded with Coakley or any of her staff. Oddly, even though I ‘m on a number of both major parties’ mailing lists, I’ve received several Scott Brown emails and no Coakley emails.
“the democratic party has walked all over the american people, shredding the constitution with each step.”
Yes, they have — hand in hand with their stomp-and-shred partners, the Republicans.
“how ignorant do you think we are?”
Do you have a mouse in your pocket or something? Who’s this “we” you claim to speak for?
While I do not share the opinion of some that the Constitution was divinely inspired, I am at this moment thanking God for the 5th Amendment.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
thanks tom!
you just convinced me to make a last minute donation to the brown campaign, lol. you are more than a little transparent. tell coakley and the rest of those pigs, er..liberals their dirty tricks will not work any longer. the democratic party has walked all over the american people, shredding the constitution with each step. how ignorant do you think we are? obama/pelosi/reid and the rest of the crooks in dc will be sorry they ever dismissed us and guess what? the best part is – the buck stops right in massachusetts!
Dave,
Both statutes mentioned also claim to apply to “senators in congress,” but yes, there is the chance I’m reading or applying them incorrectly. I’m not a lawyer.
I am, however, a political observer and I’ve watched any number of election results put into limbo by either or both party (Bush v. Gore, Gregoire v. Rossi, Franken v. Coleman, etc.).
If Brown wins, the Democrats will, if ObamaCare is at stake, take their time about showing him to his seat.
While I do oppose Brown (and Coakley), and while I’m sure many people have various reasons for voting for one or the other, the argument I’m making here is very narrow, and it is correct: Voting for Brown “to stop ObamaCare” won’t work.
Regards,
Tom
You have your facts wrong. The statute you cite applies to “Senators and representatives of the General Court,” that is, the state legislature, not the US Senate. The results need to be certified by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Bill Galvin who certified the results in the recent special election of Nikki Tsongas in 24 hours. If Coakley wins, he’ll act with the same speed. No question the Democratic machine can delay Brown’s certification of he wins. To that extent, you’re right. Is this what the party of Roosevelt has come to? What happened to “power to the people”?
Dear Mark, George, Don’t, Not, Bham,
You’re out of luck. I just checked my pockets and don’t have a quarter for the troll feed machine.
Knappster you talked me into donating $25 to http://www.brownforussenate.com/
Kennedy should drop out!
Agreed your nothing more than a Coakley heel, go back under your rock scumbag!
If they don’t seat the fairly elected Senator in a timely manner, there will be hell to pay.
I agree. You are a communist scum bag. why dont you move to europe and take obama with you.
Kennedy has no chance – you are obviously a hack for Coakley trying to siphon off votes from Brown. Go back to the hole you crawled out of. You Coakley people are really getting desperate – the American people are waking up to the socialist lie that the Obamination has been trying to sneak past us all. “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Winston Churchill