I usually take a day off on federal holidays—today is Martin Luther King Day—but I missed a day last week and wanted to make up for it.
And besides, there's a lot of important news to look at on the day before the Massachusetts special election. This race is looking like it could finally be the last chapter in the long, grueling battle over the health care bill. Senate candidate Scott Brown has a records as a moderate "liberal Republican," the kind I would probably campaign against if he were running in Virginia. But he's running in Massachusetts—a much more left-leaning state—and besides, the race really isn't about him any more. By promising to cast the deciding vote against the health care bill in the Senate, Brown made his candidacy into a state-wide referendum on ObamaCare. And since ObamaCare can't win anywhere if it can't win in Massachusetts, the race has become a de facto national referendum on ObamaCare.
And in an extraordinary reversal, a new poll shows the race tilting toward a landslide for Brown, who is winning overwhelmingly among Republican and Independents, and who is even getting the votes of as many as 20% of Massachusetts Democrats.
How is he getting the Democrats? Listen to actor John Ratzenberger—famous as Cliff Claven in the Boston-set TV show "Cheers"—at a rally for Brown talking about about the difference between the old blue-collar Democrats and the new party establishment.
This isn't the Democratic party of our fathers and grandfathers. This is the party of Woodstock hippies. I was at Woodstock—I built the stage. And when everything fell apart, and people were fighting for peanut-butter sandwiches, it was the National Guard who came in and saved the same people who were protesting them. So when Hillary Clinton a few years ago wanted to build a Woodstock memorial, I said it should be a statue of a National Guardsman feeding a crying hippie.
It's worth mentioning in this context—and I'm sure Ratzenberger did so—that Scott Brown has served 20 years in the National Guard.
The reversal in this race has been remarkable. From January 14 to yesterday—a period of just four days—the price of Martha Coakley's shares in the Intrade political futures market collapsed from 85 cents (on a dollar payout) to 45 cents. (They've made a slight rebound this evening, so that now both candidates are standing at 50.)
Another reason for the reversal is that Coakley is an awful campaigner who actually expressed disdain at the idea of going out in the cold to shake hands with Red Sox fans outside the stadium—something that Scott Brown had done. It perfectly expresses the Democrats' contempt for the governed, their reluctance to meet and spend time with any actual constituents.
The more it looks like Brown might actually win, the more nervous we get that the Democrats, in their panic, will try to steal the vote with the kind of dishonest recount that reversed a close vote in 2008's Minnesota Senate race, or at least get it close enough to be able to tie up the election in court. TIA Daily reader Brad Bereznak writes:
Given the unprecedented depths that the Democratic Party has stooped to in their tactics and lies, it doesn't seem far-fetched to envision a scenario whereby the leftist operatives in Democratically controlled voting districts try to steal the election through voter fraud. Growing up in Chicago, I learned just how corrupt the Democratic political machine can be. I imagine it is not that different in Massachusetts. In their myopic political vision, the left just might consider it a win-win situation: If they get away with it, they keep Ted Kennedy's seat in Democratic hands; on the other hand, if they steal the election for Coakley amid public allegations of voter fraud, the election results could get held up in the courts for months (reminiscent of Franken's "victory" in Minnesota) which gives Obama the needed delay to shove his health care plan into law through back-door political deals.
The possibility of voter fraud as a means to achieving their evil agenda seems more likely than the delay tactic of waiting 6-8 weeks to certify the election results. The later tactic is so disgustingly transparent that the American electorate will want to boil the Dems in oil. The former, however, comes with the veneer of a legitimate legal dispute that requires careful, if not protracted, adjudication in a court of law. Force and fraud go hand-in-hand with everything the left embraces, and is fully consistent with their actions.
These fears are founded. Just in the past few days, one leftist commentator declared—on television, mind you—that he would "cheat" and vote more than once to keep a Republican out of office, while MSNBC's Chris Matthews was caught pining for the good old days when the party machine had the apparatus to rig the vote.
Even if Brown is elected by a clear margin, there are still ways for the Democrats to try to push the health care bill through without the consent of the governed. ABC's Jake Tapper surveys the various options. The good news is that the 10-day delay required under Massachusetts law to certify the election result will probably not be long enough to allow Congress to vote on the bill before Brown is seated.
After a final health care deal is struck (and Democrats are hoping that will happen soon), it goes to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for a cost estimate, a process expected to take 10 days. After that, it will take at least seven days to pass the bill in the House and the Senate. Bottom line is, under the current plan, unless either 1) the certification in Massachusetts is delayed, or 2) CBO works much faster than expected, Democrats would be unable to pass a health care bill before losing their 60th vote.
He continues:
One possible contingency plan Democrats are making if Brown wins: have the House pass the Senate bill, so the Senate doesn't have to vote any more on the matter.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has told the White House that she's skeptical the House would pass that legislation, given the stark differences in some areas, but Senate Democrats and White House officials would push hard the notion that the bills are 90 percent similar and not doing so would be allowing the insurance companies to win.
Another idea that the House Democrats are discussing assuming Brown wins: having Senate Democrats force the bill through by bypassing normal Senate rules and passing the legislation through reconciliation—requiring only 50 votes. That would even allow some moderates to peel away.
But I don't think they're going to be able to get away with that. As Tapper points out:
If they manage to lose Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, Democrats…may be too shell-shocked to win, as spooked moderates—who come from places much less Democratic than Massachusetts—become more reluctant to take another tough vote on an unpopular bill.
That's putting it lightly. A win for Brown—especially a strong win—would liquefy moderate Democrats with terror, and it would probably become impossible to get the health care passed again through the House, never mind the Senate.
And that's why we should not relent in our efforts in favor of Brown. A few years back, blogger Hugh Hewitt wrote a book called If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat. I haven't read the book, but there's a lot of great advice in the title alone.
We need, not just a win for Scott Brown in Massachusetts, but a landslide win that makes the result so incontrovertible—the voice of the people so loud and clear—that the Democrats will be forced to admit defeat on the health care bill.—RWT
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist (TIA) and contributor to The Freedom Fighter's Journal
And besides, there's a lot of important news to look at on the day before the Massachusetts special election. This race is looking like it could finally be the last chapter in the long, grueling battle over the health care bill. Senate candidate Scott Brown has a records as a moderate "liberal Republican," the kind I would probably campaign against if he were running in Virginia. But he's running in Massachusetts—a much more left-leaning state—and besides, the race really isn't about him any more. By promising to cast the deciding vote against the health care bill in the Senate, Brown made his candidacy into a state-wide referendum on ObamaCare. And since ObamaCare can't win anywhere if it can't win in Massachusetts, the race has become a de facto national referendum on ObamaCare.
And in an extraordinary reversal, a new poll shows the race tilting toward a landslide for Brown, who is winning overwhelmingly among Republican and Independents, and who is even getting the votes of as many as 20% of Massachusetts Democrats.
How is he getting the Democrats? Listen to actor John Ratzenberger—famous as Cliff Claven in the Boston-set TV show "Cheers"—at a rally for Brown talking about about the difference between the old blue-collar Democrats and the new party establishment.
This isn't the Democratic party of our fathers and grandfathers. This is the party of Woodstock hippies. I was at Woodstock—I built the stage. And when everything fell apart, and people were fighting for peanut-butter sandwiches, it was the National Guard who came in and saved the same people who were protesting them. So when Hillary Clinton a few years ago wanted to build a Woodstock memorial, I said it should be a statue of a National Guardsman feeding a crying hippie.
It's worth mentioning in this context—and I'm sure Ratzenberger did so—that Scott Brown has served 20 years in the National Guard.
The reversal in this race has been remarkable. From January 14 to yesterday—a period of just four days—the price of Martha Coakley's shares in the Intrade political futures market collapsed from 85 cents (on a dollar payout) to 45 cents. (They've made a slight rebound this evening, so that now both candidates are standing at 50.)
Another reason for the reversal is that Coakley is an awful campaigner who actually expressed disdain at the idea of going out in the cold to shake hands with Red Sox fans outside the stadium—something that Scott Brown had done. It perfectly expresses the Democrats' contempt for the governed, their reluctance to meet and spend time with any actual constituents.
The more it looks like Brown might actually win, the more nervous we get that the Democrats, in their panic, will try to steal the vote with the kind of dishonest recount that reversed a close vote in 2008's Minnesota Senate race, or at least get it close enough to be able to tie up the election in court. TIA Daily reader Brad Bereznak writes:
Given the unprecedented depths that the Democratic Party has stooped to in their tactics and lies, it doesn't seem far-fetched to envision a scenario whereby the leftist operatives in Democratically controlled voting districts try to steal the election through voter fraud. Growing up in Chicago, I learned just how corrupt the Democratic political machine can be. I imagine it is not that different in Massachusetts. In their myopic political vision, the left just might consider it a win-win situation: If they get away with it, they keep Ted Kennedy's seat in Democratic hands; on the other hand, if they steal the election for Coakley amid public allegations of voter fraud, the election results could get held up in the courts for months (reminiscent of Franken's "victory" in Minnesota) which gives Obama the needed delay to shove his health care plan into law through back-door political deals.
The possibility of voter fraud as a means to achieving their evil agenda seems more likely than the delay tactic of waiting 6-8 weeks to certify the election results. The later tactic is so disgustingly transparent that the American electorate will want to boil the Dems in oil. The former, however, comes with the veneer of a legitimate legal dispute that requires careful, if not protracted, adjudication in a court of law. Force and fraud go hand-in-hand with everything the left embraces, and is fully consistent with their actions.
These fears are founded. Just in the past few days, one leftist commentator declared—on television, mind you—that he would "cheat" and vote more than once to keep a Republican out of office, while MSNBC's Chris Matthews was caught pining for the good old days when the party machine had the apparatus to rig the vote.
Even if Brown is elected by a clear margin, there are still ways for the Democrats to try to push the health care bill through without the consent of the governed. ABC's Jake Tapper surveys the various options. The good news is that the 10-day delay required under Massachusetts law to certify the election result will probably not be long enough to allow Congress to vote on the bill before Brown is seated.
After a final health care deal is struck (and Democrats are hoping that will happen soon), it goes to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for a cost estimate, a process expected to take 10 days. After that, it will take at least seven days to pass the bill in the House and the Senate. Bottom line is, under the current plan, unless either 1) the certification in Massachusetts is delayed, or 2) CBO works much faster than expected, Democrats would be unable to pass a health care bill before losing their 60th vote.
He continues:
One possible contingency plan Democrats are making if Brown wins: have the House pass the Senate bill, so the Senate doesn't have to vote any more on the matter.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has told the White House that she's skeptical the House would pass that legislation, given the stark differences in some areas, but Senate Democrats and White House officials would push hard the notion that the bills are 90 percent similar and not doing so would be allowing the insurance companies to win.
Another idea that the House Democrats are discussing assuming Brown wins: having Senate Democrats force the bill through by bypassing normal Senate rules and passing the legislation through reconciliation—requiring only 50 votes. That would even allow some moderates to peel away.
But I don't think they're going to be able to get away with that. As Tapper points out:
If they manage to lose Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, Democrats…may be too shell-shocked to win, as spooked moderates—who come from places much less Democratic than Massachusetts—become more reluctant to take another tough vote on an unpopular bill.
That's putting it lightly. A win for Brown—especially a strong win—would liquefy moderate Democrats with terror, and it would probably become impossible to get the health care passed again through the House, never mind the Senate.
And that's why we should not relent in our efforts in favor of Brown. A few years back, blogger Hugh Hewitt wrote a book called If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat. I haven't read the book, but there's a lot of great advice in the title alone.
We need, not just a win for Scott Brown in Massachusetts, but a landslide win that makes the result so incontrovertible—the voice of the people so loud and clear—that the Democrats will be forced to admit defeat on the health care bill.—RWT
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist (TIA) and contributor to The Freedom Fighter's Journal
0 comments:
Post a Comment