Slowing Brown Down (If He Wins)
Of course, this assumes that Senate Democrats will need a supermajority to push through ObamaCare. House Democrat Chris Van Hollen claims that Senate Democrats only need 51 votes to pass heath care rationing using a procedure known as reconciliation. Such an option is possible but would not likely result in the extensive bill House Democrats had originally envisioned. And a weakened bill could conceivably cost votes in the House if liberal representatives don’t feel that it is radical enough to suit their tastes.
A second option for Democrats is to stop work on the bill they are negotiating for between houses, and to have the House ratify the Senate bill as it is presently written. The bill could then be sent to President Obama to be signed into law. While this approach is possible, it would mean that none of the differences preferred by more radical House Democrats would make their way into law, and enough liberal representatives could stand against the Senate version to stop this approach as well.
Adding to this state of confusion is a claim by GOP lawyers that interim Senator Kirk will lose his seat the day after the election, regardless of who wins or when they are certified.
Kirk, who pledged to vote for ObamaCare, stood to be the 60th vote for Democrats until Massachusetts certifies the special election, but state law seems to indicate that Kirk only remains the interim senator “until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.” As both Coakley and Brown unquestioningly meet the age, citizenship, and residency qualifications to run for the seat, the election would seem to be the end of Kirk’s short senatorial career — meaning that Democrats may lose the vote to break a Senate filibuster in just 48 hours, and not on February 20 as they previously thought.
And if all this isn’t perplexing enough, the possibility of a very tight race brings up the legal hurdles that would surround a recount, which would occur if the margin of victory is less than half of one percent of the vote. If Brown wins the election by a narrow margin, there may be some arguments by Democratic lawyers that Brown isn’t “duly elected” until the victory is certified.
The final polls before the election seem to rule out the possibility of a Coakley victory or even a runoff. Coakley trails Brown by five in the latest from Public Policy Polling, and a Merriman River Group/InsideMedford.com poll has Brown ahead 50.8 percent to 41.2 percent. A Pajamas Media/CrossTarget poll likewise has Brown ahead by 9.6 percent.
While Massachusetts Democrats could try to delay seating Brown if he wins the special election, it would seem that such a delaying tactic would only work if interim Senator Paul Kirk was still able to vote in the Senate until the election was formally certified. If Republican lawyers are correct, however, then Kirk’s standing as a senator is immediately revoked after the election, even while the outcome is unknown. The process of the election itself would invalidate Kirk’s 60th vote for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, leaving Massachusetts with just one voting senator (John Kerry) until the next senator from Massachusetts is seated.
The conclusion? Scott Brown could become an important 41st Republican vote in the Senate because of the special election, but his election is not a guaranteed antidote to liberal dreams of expanding government.
That guaranteed remedy can only come from the 2010 midterms … and it very well may.
When the French royalty returned to France in 1814 after the end of Napoleonic wars, the French foreign minister Talleyrand famously quiped that “They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.” In a very short time, the French people remembered why they beheaded the previous king. The Bourbons did not rule France for long….
So, all in all, I believe it would be better for America if Obama and his liberal allies completely lose their minds, try to steal elections in Massachusetts, and when that fails, they delay the swearing in of senator Brown until they ram through their HealthCare Bill. And then, in November 2010, the DNC suffers the worst defeat ever recorded in world history, and the GOP turns everything around.
All in all, I predicted in November 2008 that liberals will be in deep trouble if Obama is elected, but even I am surprised at how quickly they f*cked up everything they touched. It’s simply amazing.
See my predictions here:
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-can-live-with-obama_02.html
No doubt, Dems will do everything in their power to negate (at least temporarily) the impact of a Scott Brown victory. Nothing in their recent behavior points to anything else.
However successful they might be in employing smarmy tactics in the short-term, however, the long-term outlook for Dems is nevertheless bleak. The reason Brown is competitive in a very Democratic-leaning state, after all, owes to the public’s collective revulsion at the President’s (and his Congressional cohorts’) reprehensible behavior this past year.
Dems have spent like drunken sailors, and they’ve moved to exponentially grow the size of government.
Now, the electorate is beginning to voice its displeasure. So, regardless of whether Brown wins or loses later today (although, given the polling data, a loss would point strongly toward fraud in the voting or in the counting), the political winds are clearly shifting.
And, should the Dems use unethical means to relentlessly push their irresponsible agenda forward, they will face a gale wind of voter opposition later this year — and in 2012.
See: http://bereapundit.com/miracle-in-massachusetts
I have yet to see a limit so sleazy that the Democrats were not willing to cross if it meant holding on to power. Yeah- they’ll do it.
Rational folks would think the Dems would not attempt such a clearly partisan act while the attention of the voters, both in and out of MA, are focused on Brown. However, this is the Party that gave us the Wellstone Memorial, Code Pink, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and the 95% tax bracket. After thinking about this for all of maybe 1 nanosecond one has to conclude “Yes, they really are that stupid and arrogant.”
Oh and start buy stock of funds that trade in commodities. The Obama economy is gearing up for the great fizzle.
I will find out shortly if my prediction of a Brown blowout is correct. Polls open at 7:00; voters and schoolchildren will be vying to occupy the same small space in the universe – the local gymnasium.
People are fired up about this election like I have seldom seen before, certainly not with last year’s presidential election. People’s moods have soured to the direction that the marxists in power have led this country and are eager to throw a monkey wrench into their plans for the moment. There will be more changes in the November elections, too.
Marcia, sorry, Martha Coakley’s disastrous campaign only made Scott Brown’s job easier. Scott was making an affirmative case for his election that was gaining traction long before Martha discovered that there was a baseball team in Boston. Her gaffes and stumbles only made the stark contrast between the two candidates that much more apparent. She ran as the entrenched Democrat machine operative – a Massachusetts political hack destined for the Hack Hall of Fame. Brown ran in the mold of Tip O’Neil – “All politics is local” – he is a retail politician who asked people for their vote in person while shaking their hand.
Make no mistake that this election has a national overtone. We are sending Barack Obama a loud rebuke for the manner in which he has ruled for the last year. He has not lead, he has not represented – he has ruled. There were many fair minded people of all political stripes here in Massachusetts that gave their vote to Obama that now sorely regret having done so.
And it has not gone unnoticed that our Senior Senator has seen fit to insult his employers also. His remarks throughout this campaign are beyond the pale, indeed they are hardly distinguishable from the maniacal rant given by Keith Olberman last night. He should be prepared to be voted out of office next time around.
If the election is even remotely close, the Dems are going to contest the election to tie it up in the courts as long as they can.
I’d love to believe, as Hyphenated does, that the reaction against Democrat chicanery will whip them back to their kennel, but it’s possible that their arrogance is not premature.
What’s certain is that, if they succeed in stealing the Massachusetts senatorial election today, or in ramming a federalized-health-care bill through Congress despite all opposition, our ability to resist them, or displace them from power, will dwindle near to nothing.
“One of those bitter white guys driving a truck!” – this would be a good slogan for beginning to wreck Brown’s career -
Then the Dems can continue using dba Obama’s talking point:
* Brown doesn’t eat aragula -
* Brown can’t get a 360.000 grand job at the hospital, so he has no idea what health care means -
* Brown doesn’t have the clout to get someone like Bill Ayres as his ghost writer -
* Brown can’t get the Olympics to Chicago -
* Brown doesn’t think that police act stupidly -
* Brown doesn’t think that when it comes to race we are a coward nation -
* Brown doesn’t want the terros trial in NYC, he’s clearly bent on weakening this country -
* Oprah said that Brown doesn’t like incests -
* Brown can’t talk Austrian -
* etc. etc ..
… plenty of inspirational launching points in dba Obama’s pronouncements -
Unless Brown wins by a fraud-proof margin, I predict recounts and court challenges similar to Minn.
The Democrat establishment will do little to slow down Scott Brown. Only those politicians residing in very safe blue state districts will even attempt to do so. There is far too much talk concerning the Saul Alinsky type of Democrat. The reality is that such individuals are fairly rare. Most of them live by the rule of the jungle: what’s in it for me? Committing political suicide is not deemed to be part of the deal. Purple and red state legislators are going to subtly pull the rug from under the health care bill. Bob Owens is asking the wrong question. We should instead be worried about Barack Obama exacting revenge on the America people. He is a narcissist and blames the citizenry for betraying his utopian vision.
There is a change coming and niether the Democrats or the Republicans really understand this. The American people have become disgusted with how Washington works, that is the main reason that Obama was elected. Now Obama has proven he is not the agent of change that he promised he would be. What we have instead is the same old game on steroids and deal making more public than ever before. It started with the Stimulous Bill which did not stimulate and now this insane push for Healthcare Reform while we are suffering from 10% un-employment. Obama has proven he does not know how to govern. Obama wants to rule and so do the entrenched Democrats and Republican Congress people who have been in Washington more than 6 years.
The real question is this, will anyone in Washington finally get it? If they do and understand that in order to keep thier jobs they have to do what is best for the country and not themselves. I doubt that anyone in Washington will get it. The whole business in Washington is really just one thing and it is how can we get and keep power. If that mind set continues I really fear for this Republic. If somehow the people we elect really do what is in the Country’s and thier own Constituents best intrest instead of the Party’s best interest then they might be able to do some real good. I am not holding my breath.
marsouin: your post wasn’t up when I posted. Apparently we have the same thoughts. Hope out predictions don’t come true.
Hmm, slow him down . . . perhaps threat to refuse to seat him. Is that duplicitous enough?
No, they wouldn’t. I mean, when was the last time THAT happened?
You guys seem to forget that it’s the Republicans who tend to “massage” elections. I’m now appreciating why Obama seemed in such a rush to get his plans and ideas implemented so quickly — he and his team figured that the current crop of Republicans will do nothing except be as difficult and obstructive as possible strictly for cynical, game playing politics, regardless of the merits involved. The party of “No” indeed….
Just wondering, has Brown published his birth certificate, medical records and academic records?
The health care bill is dead even if Martha Coakley somehow wins today. This contest was simply not supposed to be this competitive. It sends a clear message to the purple and red state Democrats: it’s time to run for the hills! An increasing number will not run for reelection. They will do everything behind the scene to scuttle Obama’s overly ambitious blue state agenda.
Contrary to some, I believe in the American public. If the democrats try chicanery with Obamacare or the seating of Scott Brown, our fury will become incendiary. Our power will not dwindle to nothing. We are still a free people. We will always be a free people. That is our birthright. That is the basis this country was founded on and it’ll take far more than a handful of marxists to take America from us. Anyone who would prefer to turn into noodlespines, please step or slide to the side. Patriots have work to do.
Re #14/BC:
[...] You guys seem to forget that it’s the Republicans who tend to “massage” elections. I’m now appreciating why Obama seemed in such a rush to get his plans and ideas implemented so quickly [...]
Oh, man! Wow – BC is back so now we can have the real story behind everything – Wow!
14 BC-YEah it was the Republicans that have ACORn as their backers, let the CONVICTED New Black Panthers free, use dead people and register the homeless so they can get the Presidency in 2008.
ANd I’m fine with the Republicans being the party of NO when it comes to this monstrosity that the Democrats are trying to push thru, it has NOTHING to do with health care, it is just a power grab, so keep spouting your useless rhetoric and using your playbook, ordinary Americans see thru your lies.
BC stands for bullcrap, the thing you keep pushing!
More bad news for the dba Obama administration -
Obama, Holder and the hopey-dopey gang might well go though a splendid & well-deserved defeat in their attempt to bing the terros to trial in NYC – Commentary/ Cententions/ Jennifer Rubin on Michael Isikoff’s Newsweek [iece -
"Reversing Obama’s Worst Decision Yet?/ Jennifer Rubin -
Michael Isikoff reports:
"Top administration officials are getting nervous that they may not be able to proceed with one of their most controversial national-security moves: trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other accused 9/11 conspirators in federal court in New York City. Last November Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. portrayed the trial as a way to showcase the American justice system to the world — and to accelerate President Obama’s stalled plans to shut down the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay. But because of shifting political winds in Congress, the trial is now “potentially in jeopardy,” a senior official, who did not want to be named talking about a sensitive situation, tells Newsweek. The chief concern: that Republicans will renew attempts to strip funding for the trial and, in the aftermath of the bombing attempt aboard Northwest Flight 253, pick up enough support from moderate Democrats to prevail. [...]
Jennifer Rubin:
[...] It seems that Sen. Lindsay Graham and Rep. Frank Wolf will try to force votes in Congress to cut off funding for the trial. And one additional issue: the more than $200 million price tag for each year of the trial. The kicker: “If Holder’s plans are thwarted, though, one top administration official, who also didn’t want to be named talking about delicate issues, notes there is a Plan B — reviving the case against the alleged 9/11 conspirators before a military tribunal, just as the Bush administration tried to do.”
This would be a stunning turnaround, an admission of Holder’s irresponsibility and of the Justice Department’s loony leftism. But this, of course, was part and parcel of Obama’s personal vision and his “not-Bush” approach to the war against Islamic fascists. Obama spent his campaign and the first year of his presidency eschewing the Bush anti-terror policies — employing enhanced interrogation techniques, maintaining Guantanamo, using military tribunals to prosecute terrorists — and pronouncing that they represented a betrayal of “our values.” [...]
—————–*————
“an admission of Holder’s irresponsibility and of the Justice Department’s loony leftism.”
Talking about “loony leftism”: Paging Jamie Gerelick… paging Jamie Gorelick… anyone who see jamie Gorelick, please report her whereabouts… Jamie Gorelick, paging Jamie Gorelick…
more @
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/218286
A Brown win will send a message to Obama and the mess he has hired and created that we are unhappy with them…maybe… Honestly, if there are no shenagians in this race we should be surprised..
I think the Conservatives/republicans/independents need to develop a louder voice in America!!! this seems easier to say than accomplish…we are too refined? to fight back??? and fight dirty?..
This is supposed to be republic not naziville. As said, we need to develop a louder voice and not be afraid to use it to over run the mass media..
“Just wondering, has Brown published his birth certificate, medical records and academic records?”
Obviously, sir, you are confused. Mr. Brown IS NOT running for President. Yet. Maybe you are also confused about the difference between POTUS and a Senator. Just to keep it simple and within your attention span, requirements for POTUS are part of the U.S. Constitution. Requirements for Senator are mostly by State. That is because America is a Republic. The States elect POTUS and their own Congressional Representatives.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elespec/specidx.htm
{snipped}
United States Senator
* Must be at least 30 years of age.
* Must be a registered voter.
* Must be a U.S. citizen for at least 9 years prior to the date of the election.
* Must be an inhabitant of Massachusetts when elected.
* Requires certified signatures of at least 10,000 voters registered in Massachusetts.
So you can see that your requirements are not the same as the state of Massachusetts.
So until the State of Ignorance joins the Union and produces it’s own requirements ( qualifications ) for Senator, what you want doesn’t matter.
“This time, vote like your whole world depended on it.”
–Nixon, ’68
The writing is on the wall. The question is “are the Donks reading it?” One party rule didn’t work out well under the Bush administration. It is getting worse under the current administration. The voters willl act to restore balance to government by removing the Democrats from Congress.
The next question is “How bad will it be”? If the Donks are wise, they will stop rigging the vote and trying to trick the voters, accept power sharing and work to have a bigger share of that power.
That is a long term or strategic POV, which I’m not sure suits the mindset of most politicians. Thinking strategic in politics requires a statesman, which neither party shows any signs of coughing up. So I suspect the Donks will take a temporary victory, keep filling their off-shore accounts and let the future take care of itself.
RE #15/ NCBob:
[...] Just wondering, has Brown published his birth certificate, medical records and academic records? [...]
NCBob, I’m sure you are an enthusiastic supporter of Burges’ bill in Arizona! Soon we’ll see it in a all 57 – oops, sorry, 50 states as law -
Big insurance companies have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to try to kill off health care reform and stop Americans from having health care. They failed, and one new GOP senator will not change that. Besides, Brown said during the campaign that he supported health care reform.
I am in principle against it. However, given a revival attempt to stop health care reform I would support the obvious path of reconciliation and/or the simple attachment method whereby only a 51 vote majority would carry health care reform through. So it does not matter who wins and a 51 vote majority also allows blue dogs a way out so they can get re-elected this year. Everyone wins. Either way, it will happen this year so those that do not want it will just have to get over it.
Very interesting comment by Glenn Beck today that since the Democrats are no longer a traditional party but are now a progressive revolutionary party they will do anything, anything, to enact their agenda, constitutional restraints be damned. Which means that should Brown win they’ll go to reconciliation to realize their marxist dream.
What’s the big deal? It’s politics. This is nothing compared to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and Ashcroft’s utter trampling of the Constitution and civil rights. At least the Dems aren’t holding political prisoners wihtout charges for years like the Republicans did. The Democrats are trying to give everyone health care, and the Republicans are trying to stop it because their masters on Wall Street and at the insurance companies want them to. There way too many women, children, and minorities that cannot get access to health care, and this must stop.
A hope the people of Massachusetts realize that a vote for Brown is a vote for Bush and his ilk.
First thing Brown has to do is win before you worry about stalling tactics.
There is a big turnout which may make this thing close. Also I find Beck a little over the top, Bush used budget reconciliation for tax cuts, nothing unconstitional about that. Also if this election is a daed heat it could be another Coleman/Franken sitiation.
I grew up in Ma. and still won’t believe they elect will elect a conservative senator until I see it happen.
Another possibility is for the Democrats to use the nuclear option to change the filibuster so cloture will require less than 60 votes.
This would allow them to proceed as planned, it would force Republicans to argue about obscure procedure instead of debating issues, and it would lay the groundwork for more votes. I think they would gladly exchange a parliamentary advantage they might need again for permanent real changes now.
And nobody seems to be expecting it.
Jeremy, it is a Bizarro world, indeed, where a bill designed to let me keep more of the money I rightfully earn (i.e. “tax cuts”) is seen on a par with a bill that imposes punitive damages upon me for not spending my money the way the federal government wants.
Vinny B: Bush is not running,nor are any of his staff. If you think the Dims are trying to “give” everyone health care, your knowledge of this party can be written on the sharp part of a pin.
Understand this…NO GOVERNMENT has a dime that it hasen’t taken from others, thus unable to ‘give” anything. Further, the Constitution clearly defines those duties this government is “supposed” to provide. Another thought…no one going to an emergency ward in a hospital has had to go home without care, there is no lack of access to health care. Take your meds and get an education.
Vinny B. – If I recall, Bush is not running for any office in Mass. Instead of giving us an argument for electing Coakley, you trot out the tired tactic of running against Bush. That speaks volumes to me.
How do you “give” everyone healthcare? That’s the problems with Democrats, everything’s an entitlement. Under Obama’s plan, some will be given at the expense of others. Someone has to pay the bill, something many “progressives” seem to forget. Please explain to me why you have a right to the product of another’s work. I am thrilled Republicans are doing their best to stop this. You may be ok with ceding more of your personal freedoms to an ever expanding federal government, but there’s an increasing number of Americans who are not.
Amphipolis,
Sure, the Donks could eliminate the filibuster. However, they’d be committing political suicide. Indeed, the public anger at this move will be as vicious as it is swift. Donk reelection rallies will probably look like this scene from “The Blues Brothers”:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3026666663113592701#
The problem for Senate Donks is that the GOP has it’s own “nuclear option”: it could just collectively refuse to show up…and slow Senate business down to a crawl. If the Donks are truly stupid enough to screw around with Brown’s election, I wouldn’t be surprised if the GOP really puts the hammer down by boycotting Obama’s SOTU.
And THAT would be very embarrassing for His Obamian Majesty, wouldn’t it?
I am a it confused. Cloture requires 60 votes. So unless the Senate allows Paul Kirk to vote after his terms ends (today!) they don’t have 60 votes. And letting Paul Kirk vote after today would be about as legal as letting Jimmy Carter veto a bill.
*** ELECTION FRAUD ALERT ***
Document any fraud you experience or witness and report to:
Scott Brown campaign
http://www.brownforussenate.com/
MA GOP
http://www.massgop.com/
MA SoS Elections Division
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleidx.htm
Black Box Voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/contact.html
Your elected officials to let them know you will not tolerate this!
+
And post on any and all blogs!!!
Keep the light shining on these crooks and don’t let a single issue slide!
Vinny B @28
Uneducated consumer is obama’s best supporter. Please, read. Read a lot, judging by you comment. You need it.
NCBob, I don’t think he has.
But from his Cosmo pictorial, he looks like a healthy lad, I’m sure he can spell “Massachusetts”, and probably would have a problem with any guy who rapes a toddler with a hot curling iron.
Steal and cheat is the Chicago way but it will be harder than they can imagine.
First, it does not matter if they delay seating Brown, Kirk leaves at the end of today period.
Second,health care is not popular in the countries that have adopted it but is instead used as a club to keep the comon man in line. This is similar to the tactic used to keep the military vets under control in the United States.
Ok, what is a DONK?
Michael — wish it were true that Paul Kirk is done today. What I heard on the radio is that he can vote until the elected senator is sworn in. However, I haven’t verified that fact yet.
Axelrod admires Brown’s campaign – okay, that alone implies they are all becoming privately unglued. They just didn’t figure on millions of Americans rallying, organizing, attending townhalls and not at all intimidated by the race crad, the bullying and the threatening to put us in jail if we don’t buy health insurance – I hate to tell the Dems but these types of tactics are not considered ‘reform’ by the American people – many of us fought to get here and we will not relinquish our freedom.
5. turfmann wrote: He (Obama) has not lead, he has not represented – he has ruled.
Peter writes: While it is true The Won had TRIED to rule, I think it has come as a great surprise to him and many of his cohorts that many of us refuse to be ruled. We fought a revolution 234 years ago for the express purpose of governing ourselves, nit being ruled by others. I for one will remind him at every opportunity that he was elected, not coronated.
15. NCBob wrote: Just wondering, has Brown published his birth certificate, medical records and academic records?
Actually, yes, he has. Along with his military record and record in the state senate. Why do you ask?
18. misanthropicus: Oh, man! Wow – BC is back so now we can have the real story behind everything – Wow!
Peter writes: He was gone? I didn’t even notice.
28. Vinny B.: At least the Dems aren’t holding political prisoners wihtout charges for years like the Republicans did.
Peter requires: Please name a SINGLE ‘political prisoner’ the Republicans have kept locked up?
I dare ya!
Democrats if they are smart will pass the Senate bill in the House, and then ram a medicare expansion through with reconciliation.
The idea that Obama and Congressional Democrats have a “socialist agenda” would be laughable, if it weren’t so persuasive to so many American morons. Which is all you people are.
‘Marcia’ Concedes!
Brown Succeeds!
Can’t wait to see Keith Olbermann’s head explode on live TV.
The last numbers I saw had Brown winning by a little over 100K. Now unless there are more than 100K absentees out and they fall EXTREMELY heavy for Coakly, he wins by a very comfortable margin, I would say even a fraud proof margin. Also apparently Kirk is already closing up shop, at least if I understood Brown in his victory speech. So the Mass. Sec. of State has pretty much had his hand forced on the issue. That doesn’t mean nothing will be tried to keep Brown out until the vote, but the rats are already calling for the healthcare bill to be delayed or even scrapped, so it could all be moot. We’ll have a better feel of what the Dems, at least those that don’t cut themselves, will do after this monumental victory.
(1) Certification eligibility in Massachusetts is accelerated for special elections, from 15 to 7 days:
Chapter 54: Section 116.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/54-116.htm
…which in pertinent part states:
“The governor shall issue certificates of election to such persons as appear to be chosen to the offices of senator in congress…which shall be countersigned and transmitted by the state secretary…provided, however, that such certification may be made…or certificate issued on or after the seventh day following a special state election [unless a recount is requested by another candidate].”
So, Brown won by 5 percentage points or so, well above the 1/2 of 1% (or less) threshold for a recount in Massachusetts. And Coakley has conceeded.
(2) Applied-for but not-yet-received Uniformed Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) ballots:
“Voted ballots for general and special state elections must be …postmarked by Election Day and received by the local election official no later than 10 days after the election for all voters overseas.”
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elemil/milidx.htm
Galvin got in trouble before for failing to count them:
Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Massachusetts Secretary of State for Noncompliance with Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
“… Massachusetts has failed to fulfill this important legal obligation since UOCAVA was enacted in 2002.”
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/October/08-crt-943.html
Since the “the settlement agreement requires the Secretary of State to implement procedures to facilitate the collection and reporting of data regarding absentee ballots transmitted, returned and cast by overseas citizens, including members of the armed forces casting absentee ballots.”, Galvin can find out how many of these weren’t returned by, say, 5 days after the election.
He can call for submission of final results, plus the number of
applied-for-but-not-yet-received absentee overseas ballots that might possibly still come in.
If adding that number (probably a miniscule amount)to Coakley’s total doesn’t get her into the ballgame, there would appear to be no bar for Patrick and Galvin signing off that Brown “appears to be chosen” on Brown’s election certificate at 5PM on January 26th.
The certificate could note that the (immaterialy different)true final totals would be sent later on as an addendum.
Unlike the House, the Senate requires a certificate before a winner can be sworn in.
Patrick and Galvin certainly aren’t compelled to reconcile the conflicting statutes in this fashion, but now they probably want to show what wonderful fellows they are now that the jig is up.
The State of the Union Address is January 27. Will the cameras catch Scott Brown arriving in his truck?
Stay tooned.
“… the will of voters……”,
so, let me get this straight. Because the dems lost 1 senate seat, public opinion is now 100% against health care reform and if the dems force it through it is against the will of the poeple, interesting argument. Suggest reviewing ‘US politics 1.01′ again to understand that 59 senotors still make a majority. Of perhaps mathematics….
lobbey:
“Because the dems lost 1 senate seat, public opinion is now 100% against health care reform and if the dems force it through it is against the will of the poeple, interesting argument. Suggest reviewing ‘US politics 1.01′ again to understand that 59 senotors still make a majority.”
Yes, the dems lost 1 senate seat. A senate seat in arguably the BLUEST state in the Union. No one has suggested that public opinion is 100% against (or for) anything. What IS being suggested is that other Democratic congressman may consider the fact that if a Democrat can lose in MA, Democrats can lose anywhere. ANYWHERE.
And that is making Democrats in districts where they are ALREADY FEELING the heat (which is only likely to get hotter after last night’s MA election) slightly nervous about acting as though Brown’s election is meaningless.
I suggest reviewing ‘Critical Thinking 101′ again to understand that politics is not just about which party currently seats a majority. Or perhaps critical thinking……
Dweezil -
“The idea that Obama and Congressional Democrats have a “socialist agenda” would be laughable, if it weren’t so persuasive to so many American morons. Which is all you people are.”
By all means, keep going down that road. Keep repeating the mantra that those who disagree with the current progressives are simply morons. Keep patronizing the bulk of this country. That’s right – we’re all too stupid to know what’s good for us and we really really NEED the progressive elites to watch over us. In fact, I think you guys need to ratchet it up a notch or so…..go ahead, crank it up to 11. The MA vote just PROVES how stupid we all are. What we all need are even MORE teabag references.
Just don’t be surprised at the reaction come November.
53. lobbey wrote: “… the will of voters……”,
Peter writes: Yes, the WILL of the Voters. Like how in the latest survey, over 50% of the American public is not AGAINST Obamacare while less than 25% are for it.
Just because 59 idiots with a (-D) behind their names are willing to throw their careers down the toilet by voting with their party instead of what their constituents (you know, the people these idiots are supposed to be WORKING FOR, not trying to RULE), doesn’t mean the WILL OF THE PEOPLE can be ignored.
Brown will be attacked by the media..they will dig up everything and if necessary make the rest up to discredit him..the object will be to force him to resign. The fight has just begun!
I just realized the major typo that slipped by in my last post.
The second sentence SHOULD have read…
Like how in the latest survey, over 50% of the American public is AGAINST Obamacare while less than 25% are for it.
Sorry if I caused confusion.
And republicans were so keen to make sure that al franken’s victory was quickly recognized.
Peter the Bubblehead:
“Like how in the latest survey, over 50% of the American public is AGAINST Obamacare while less than 25% are for it.”
Obama made it pretty clear what he wanted to do with healthcare in his campaign, and he won the election on that platform. Prior to that, every credible survey showed majority public support for a public health system – in one survey, even a system “like canada’s”.
I’m sorry, but I actually just don’t believe that the american population has swung that suddenly, or that hard, against something that they’ve apparently been wanting for decades.
Obama is actually trying to do what he was elected to do. The F.U.D. machine has been running at full tilt to try to scare people into thinking that granny’s gonna get fried (no, granny isn’t) but once the bill is passed (which I hope that it will be) then that noise will abate and people will actually get a chance to find out what it is that congress has been up to. If that happens soon enough, then obama should be safe to win the next election.