The election to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat, formerly held by Senator Kennedy and presently held by a temporary appointment, is Tuesday.
Various polls show the Republican candidate Scott Brown to be leading. He takes a position against the present health care bill. This is in a state
where the number of registered Democrats outnumbers the registered Republicans about three-to-one.
Taking one vote away from the Democrats, and adding one vote to the Republicans, means there will no longer be enough Democrat votes to force through the health care bill. According to Senate rules, 41 votes can block legislation.
If the election is honest, who wins will depend on whose voters turn out in the greatest numbers. It's not the candidate with the most supporters who wins, it's the candidate with the most eligible voters who actually show up and cast their vote. In this respect, the Republicans are at a great disadvantage.
There has been talk among the Democrats of dragging their feet if Brown wins, so that he is not actually in the Senate when the next vote comes up. But, the wording of the law says that the Democrat who was appointed to be Senator until the election only serves until the election. That would still only leave the Democrats with 59 votes--not enough to close debate so that the legislation could be passed.
In this heavily-Democrat state, where Senator Ted Kennedy held his Senate seat for almost half a century, Republican Scott Brown has won the election.
Brown's single most prominent issue was the bad health care bill that the Democrats have been trying to pass--he pledged that he would vote against
it. He is in favor of starting over and crafting a GOOD health care bill. If the Republicans hold firm, the Democrats will not be able to pass a
compromise between the Senate version and the House of Representatives version.
There is only one legal way by which the Democrats can pass a version of their health care legislation, now that they do not have enough votes in the Senate. The House of Representatives could pass the exact legislation that the Senate already passed. That would mean that all of the bribes in the Senate's version would stay in (at the expense of all the other states), while all the bribes that were part of the House version would be eliminated. Would enough Democrats still vote for it? The House version included health insurance run entirely by the government, and liberal Democrats thought that the Senate lost an important feature of the bill when they did not include it. Will they still vote for the bill?
It's worth noting, a number of the Democrats already voted against the Democrat bill in the House. Now, about 65% of the country polls against the health care legislation. Everyone in the House of Representatives must run for re-election this fall. They have just had a demonstration of how an overwhelimingly Democrat state turned against the Democrat candidate when the Republican ran against the health bill the Democrats have been pushing.
But, Obama can still make a lot of bribes in other ways--promising favors, promising to raise money for the candidates re-election, promising bribes in other legislation.
And, Chicago politics is famous for threats.
It's also worth noting that Pelosi said Democrat health legislation would be forced through, "no matter what." She did not say that she would only do it legally, or that it would be done without bribes, or without threats. She just said it would get done.
Here's to politicians like Scott Brown, who listen to what the people want with respect to health legislation.
You must really set yourself up with a sock puppet, at least, that way you can have half "intelligent" conversation about American Politics with someone other than yourself!
Excellent suggestion, Leigh.
I'll second that and if I'd got a sock puppet, he'd third it.
Shall we put it to the vote then? All those for the motion, to the toilet, all those against, to the doctor!
Cue for a spammer to come along and attempt to sell some syrup of figs?
I think those who had a passing interest in American politics have left the building - as the interest has passed.
Republicans are clearly more interesting that I thought...
I'll tell you what, if I was gay I might fancy him, but as you are well aware, I'm NOT ruddy gay.
Very convenient fold in that centre fold.
I wouldn't even vote for him if he was a She! It doesn't take too many brains to take your clothes off! (It does, however, take a few brain cells to make a lot of money at it, sadly, not many do)
If nothing else, the election was an opportunity for "We the people" to express our opinion of what we don't want our Government to be.
Despite what the representatives in Washington want to think is best for us occasions like this let the people tell the politicians to get their heads out the the dark place on their backside and listen to us for a change.
Some times political parties have the power to do great and amazing things and it goes to their head and instead of doing what needs to be done, they do what they want done.
Although the President came into office with much political capital and the administration has espoused much rhetoric for human rights, their actions have fallen short.
What are you doing, Delanti? How dare you try and inject some solemnity into a very serious subject! Get you to the "USA Politics and healthcare Forum"!