Massachusetts Senate Race (1/19/2010)

[Pangloss]

On Tuesday Massachusetts is holding a special election to replace Ted Kennedy's spot in the Senate, and it's starting to look like something almost unthinkable is going to happen -- Kennedy's replacement may be a Republican. Scott Brown is either tied or leading in most polls over the Democrat candidate Martha Coakley. The election has national interest because if Brown wins Democrats will lose their 60-seat majority. Many were already predicting the loss of that mark in November, but that would have left them with a whole year of legislative possibilities and opportunities to win back waning supporters. (Democrats will retain the majority, and will likely retain it in November as well.)

 

Although considered a moderate conservative, Brown is opposed to the current Democrat bills for health care reform. He's far from the social right, focused mainly on fiscal reform. But even so, this turn of events in what Neal Boortz often refers to as "The People's Republic of Massachusetts" is a political bombshell. What I think this means is that people no longer care about Democrats or Republicans -- maybe we're finally turning the corner on the two-party monopoly. I haven't heard the "throw the rascals out" rallying cry in a while, but that does seem to be the overriding mentality -- politicians are being given very little time to do what they said they were going to do, and they'd better figure out how to work together, ignore the ideologues and partisans, and bring a little common sense back to governance, or we'll put someone in there who can.

 

Here are some interesting quotes from the New York Times today:

 

States do not get much more Democratic than Massachusetts. Democrats hold every statewide office and control both houses of the legislature with lopsided majorities. The state’s entire Congressional delegation is Democratic.

 

The lingering economic downturn and unease about the Democrats’ muscular return to government power have left many voters here in a sour mood.

 

“It’s just tax, tax, tax, and I think the people are just getting sick of it,” said Richard Gasparoni, 57, an independent who was holding up a Brown sign at another intersection here along Main Street. Mr. Gasparoni, who has lived here all his life and works as a tax manager for a medical device company, said that he had never campaigned for anyone before, but was moved to act because he was upset that the state had raised its sales tax, leery of the health bill in Congress, and fed up with the scandals that have engulfed several Democratic state lawmakers.

 

“I think people have had enough,” he said.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/us/politics/18massachusetts.html

 

Here's an interesting op/ed piece from earlier in the week, from the Boston Globe, comparing the situation with the Leno-O'Brien late-night wars and talking about how there's no such thing as candidate entitlement in American politics:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/16/in_public_battles_entitlement_buys_nothing/

 

Also, a link to the Wikipedia article on the race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010

 

What do you all think?

[jackson33]

Brown, has made this election a 'referendum' on the 'Obama Health Care Plan' which plays to his advantage. Yes he is, by all measurements, a very moderate Republican and by no means conservative, but electable in New England.

 

If you want to watch something interesting 'Joseph Kennedy' is the third candidate in this election. I'm sure you have heard the phrase 'Obama Voter'. Joseph Kennedy, is NOT related to the Teddy Kennedy bunch, but is a Kennedy and ironically the patriarch of that clan, husband of Rose Kennedy and Father to Ted, John, Bobby and the rest, name was Joseph. This Joseph Kennedy (used and on the ballot, not Joe), has gone from less to 1% point to near 5% now and I'd bet clears 5% in an election, he would receive 1%, or less, without that name.

 

On the Health Care Plan, if Brown wins, the Democrats have figured out, the Bill already that has passed the Senate, if accepted by the House in conference, will not require any additional votes. This would be political suicide for many democrats, but then I feel many already realize they are toast and I honestly think Obama (probably being told) thinks in his case, he can overcome this by 2012, I feel incorrectly being advised.

 

I'll predict a too close to call, possibly contested result at worst and at best IMO a 'Projected Winner', Mr. Brown, when the poles close.

 

Your comments...

[npts2020]

I still fail to see how electing Mr. Brown is "throwing the bums out". He is still part of the same Business Party that runs the country so long as democrats and republicans are elected. IMO if it wasn't the democrats proposing the current brand of health care "reform" the republicans would be doing the same thing for their corporate sponsors. Basically the democrats allowed the republicans to water down the bill to the benefit of corporate interests, then didn't even get their support. It is no wonder people dislike and distrust their elected representatives in congress.

[jackson33]

I still fail to see how electing Mr. Brown is "throwing the bums out". He is still part of the same Business Party that runs the country so long as democrats and republicans are elected. [/Quote]

 

As far as the Nation/Parties are concerned, this election is about Obama Policy, which Coakley has said she would support, health care being one issue. Obama in 2008, won Massachusetts by nearly two to one margin, 62% to 36%, ironically the same as in Illinois, his home State. It's then not so much throwing out the "bums out", rather to stop the excessive spending, by Congress and the Administration. As I understand it, in 'absentee' voting, it was heavy with Brown taking a 16% lead.

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

 

IMO if it wasn't the democrats proposing the current brand of health care "reform" the republicans would be doing the same thing for their corporate sponsors. [/Quote]

 

No one denies, access and cost need to be reformed. IMO, the Republicans wish to set out regulations for all States to follow, but that it REMAINS a States Right to control health care. Tort reform, has already been enacted by several States and being addressed in most, State Legislatures, along with allowing all Insuring Companies to compete with in their State. Keep in mind, States have always paid a percentage of Medicare Cost (near 50%) and most of any new Federal System, will fall under welfare.

 

You do understand, that the Obama/Polosi/Reid, programs do NOT address either of the above issues, in fact to comply with two of their biggest backers, Trial Lawyers and other than the Insurers in the Medical field.

 

Basically the democrats allowed the republicans to water down the bill to the benefit of corporate interests, then didn't even get their support. It is no wonder people dislike and distrust their elected representatives in congress.[/Quote]

 

Absolutely NOT true; Republicans have for the most part NOT been allowed into any of the Negotiations. Any opposition to the major plans, has come from Moderate Democrats, generally from Conservative areas, in both chambers, for any watering down (Single Payer), by more than a few Democrats.

 

The electorate, generally does like and trust, their OWN elected officials, bringing on the majority of distrust to others (from outside their State) currently being noticed. Keep in mind Ted Kennedy himself, spent his 46 years in the Senate, always backing any addition to the Federal, for providing Health Care, including Federal Single Payer.

[Mokele]

Absolutely NOT true; Republicans have for the most part NOT been allowed into any of the Negotiations.

 

Why would you bring someone into negotiations when they're demonstrated time and again that they have no intention of negotiating in good faith?

[Pangloss]

In my opinion you're both wrong -- Republicans have not been excluded from the process, nor would that be an appropriate thing for the government to do.

[jackson33]

The level of corruption, deceit, and shady politics going on regarding health care should be a HUGE WARNING SIGN to all Americans! This is "elected" "leadership" shoving something down your throat, and you don't even know what it is. How can you be for that???! You'll get what you deserve if you let the two clowns shown in the photos below decide your personal health care choices.

 

Democratic aides said the final compromise talks would essentially be a three-way negotiation involving top Democrats in the House and Senate and the White House, a structure that gives unusual latitude to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. [/Quote]

 

http://norfolk.craigslist.org/pol/1540083628.html

 

In my opinion you're both wrong -- Republicans have not been excluded from the process, nor would that be an appropriate thing for the government to do. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; I said "for the most part", now adding the important part. Any way you look at it, the Republicans, for that matter the general public, has been shut out of all major negotiation. Any amendment offered, that I know of, allowed a vote, was voted down, during preparations.

 

 

Why would you bring someone into negotiations when they're demonstrated time and again that they have no intention of negotiating in good faith? [/Quote]

 

Mokele; If we were talking a simple matter, probably nothing. We're talking about a bill, that involves every State, at least 25 of which have 1 or 2 Republican Senators, involves every citizen in some manner, approximately 308 Million, possibly taking over 1/6th of the economy, if left unchecked will bankrupt every State (they pay 50% of Medicare). Please list any other major Federal Policy change, that was not passed bi-partisan or as this should be, through the Amendment process.

 

If 'tort reform' is not a constructive, State retention of certain rights, are classified "in poor faith", then I've spent too many years arguing the Constitution. I am beginning to think, if this bill IS passed and signed, it could very well be the end of our "Constitutional Republic", setting precedence for either party, or any new one, to do no less. The only way it will ever be implemented in it's total (even the Senate version), will be after at least a dozen legal test, each defeat leading to 'Single Payer' and total Government

control over any aspect of life for what has traditionally meant to be American.

[Mokele]

You are aware that national polls show 70%+ public support not only for the bill, but for a public option, right?

 

So why should we give 30% of the public 50% of the say?

[Pangloss]

Pangloss; I said "for the most part", now adding the important part. Any way you look at it, the Republicans, for that matter the general public, has been shut out of all major negotiation. Any amendment offered, that I know of, allowed a vote, was voted down, during preparations.

 

A minority party simply cannot act as absolute obstructionists AND claim that they've been excluded from government. That's like screaming for deregulation and then screaming about lack of regulation. Or screaming for more spending and then screaming about overspending. It's exactly this kind of violation of common sense that has Americans so outraged at both parties right now.

 

I don't want to belabor the point and I recognize that this is a matter of opinion, and I also agree with your implication that it's a grey area ("for the most part"). But since there are no official functions of government that Republicans have been shut out of, I really have to question the value and relevance of this position. I think it's more the kind of thing that talk radio leverages, rather than a pertinent and significant happening.

 

It's not appropriate for the minority party to behave as Republicans have. There model for behavior shouldn't be "well this is how Democrats behaved" -- who thinks like that?! How can that possibly be considered a productive and logical way to run a government? That's not how you run government, that's how you get power back. And the American people are simply no longer transparent to this fact. They don't care which party is doing it, they simply want it to stop.

 

And I've got dozens of conservative friends, consistent Republican voters, who agree with me on this point -- it's only the hardcore progressive-bashers who feel otherwise. Only. This is not how Republicans behaved when they were the minority party for decades prior to the 1992 change, and often during those times they DID have an influence on the outcomes of decisions, such as with the Civil Rights acts in the early 1960s, which were opposed mainly by Southern Democrats, and could not have passed without Republican support.

 

As for the amendments, they have to be analyzed individually. Many of them were obstructionist in nature, but if some were voted down in retaliation I would not be surprised. I'm not, by a long shot, claiming that Democrats are saints in this matter. What I'm saying is that it takes two to tango.

 

Now let me ask you a question, jackson33, straight up: Do you believe Republicans should, as I put it above, tango -- that they should accept their minority role and get the best adjustments to progressive legislation that they can? Or do you believe they should immediately, and in every possible way, obstruct all policies from the government while it is controlled by Democrats? If you say the former, then you are criticizing current Republican behavior. If you say the latter, then you are saying that you feel that partisanship is a good policy and a reasonable way to run a government. Which is it?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You are aware that national polls show 70%+ public support not only for the bill, but for a public option, right?

 

So why should we give 30% of the public 50% of the say?

 

I don't think that's correct, by the way. I haven't seen a lot about polling data recently and it would be good to see some hard numbers. This is something that I think probably fluctuates a lot, since the questions tap into such a gray area of perception. (Edit: See next section below for some numbers I found.)

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I found a couple of recent articles on this:

 

This article cites a Gallup poll from last year saying that 49% were in favor of the bills, with 46% opposed. Basically a toss-up.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100117/NEWS07/1170634/1318/

 

This CNN poll from last week suggests that most people don't feel strongly either way. It also says that 61% favor the House bill over the Senate bill (given that choice). The House bill contains the public option; the Senate bill does not.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/14/health.care.poll/

Edited January 19, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[toastywombel]

Since were talking health care, we really need a single payer system, but I guess that's politics section.

 

But in response to the OP, I think that Coakley will win. By 10-15% points.

[jackson33]

A minority party simply cannot act as absolute obstructionists AND claim that they've been excluded from government. That's like screaming for deregulation and then screaming about lack of regulation. Or screaming for more spending and then screaming about overspending. It's exactly this kind of violation of common sense that has Americans so outraged at both parties right now. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; Again we're not talking about a simple program. There are probably 500 different issues, in whatever the final bill has in pages. I doubt any one Senator or Congress person, would agree on more than 75% of the total, no doubt most republicans and many 'Blue Dog' Democrats less than 50%. Just as you feel one party is acting as 'obstructionist', the other party has voted against their own principles and more important, not as their constituents would wish. Said another way, it has become a 'party line' vote, think Washington warned about that exact thing (Farewell Address) and yes both major parties are guilty. Fact however, Republicans have no power to either input or stop the current process....

 

Now let me ask you a question, jackson33, straight up: Do you believe Republicans should, as I put it above, tango -- that they should accept their minority role and get the best adjustments to progressive legislation that they can? [/Quote]

 

Without going back over the possible 30 amendments offered by republican, only a few were allowed a vote, one of which was 'TORT' reform, which was voted down. If your partner refuses to get up off their seat, it's hard to tango.

 

As to agreeing with any 'Progressive' legislation, neither D or R in probably 40 States, could go home, give a speech on the subject (any issue) and win the next election. I've noticed Obama is now using that slogan, IMO hurting ANY change for re-election. McCain, early on said he was a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive, and paid the price. During the primaries, I actually backed Ms. Clinton. Obama and Palin, changed that.....

 

You are aware that national polls show 70%+ public support not only for the bill, but for a public option, right? [/Quote]

 

Mokele; Oh my...not worth a response, but lets discuss this after the Massachusetts Election results. Maybe, and I mean maybe 70% would like to see the Health Care Cost, come down, but I'd bet they would not even want this, if quality was the price paid. If 70% agree on anything, it would be the Patient/Doctor, relationship in medical decision being maintained.

 

Since were talking health care, we really need a single payer system, but I guess that's politics section.[/Quote]

 

Toasty; If the single payer is provided by Government (no other choice), whatever the end cost of any service will be provided by the taxpayer. Are you willing to pay whatever that price is?

 

But in response to the OP, I think that Coakley will win. By 10-15% points.[/Quote]

 

I'm not sure your going to make the top 100 Political Annalist, in the US, but I think your slightly off. I'll stick to my prediction, and if your correct, will make it a point to apologize, in the morning.

 

I'll predict a too close to call, possibly contested result at worst and at best IMO a 'Projected Winner', Mr. Brown, when the poles close.[/Quote]

 

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage. [/Quote]

 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

 

 

One question to Pan/Mok; If there are 267 million insured in some manner (40M and questionable said, are not), would you give some credence to who and how the questions are posed?

 

Only 27% of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. That’s down five points from August [/Quote]

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/november_2009/62_oppose_single_payer_health_care_system

[Pangloss]

Brown won the race tonight, apparently. Independent voters were the tale of the tape. This quote from the Wall Street Journal seems particularly important:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704561004575013411330904680.html?mod=WSJ-hpp-LEADNewsCollection

 

Polls show independent voters aren't enamored of the GOP either, and could be lured back to the Democrats again if the economy improves. Only about one-fourth of independents feel positively toward either party, according to the survey.

 

And that's the conservative Wall Street Journal talking.

 

---------

 

Pangloss; Again we're not talking about a simple program. There are probably 500 different issues, in whatever the final bill has in pages. I doubt any one Senator or Congress person, would agree on more than 75% of the total, no doubt most republicans and many 'Blue Dog' Democrats less than 50%. Just as you feel one party is acting as 'obstructionist', the other party has voted against their own principles and more important, not as their constituents would wish. Said another way, it has become a 'party line' vote, think Washington warned about that exact thing (Farewell Address) and yes both major parties are guilty. Fact however, Republicans have no power to either input or stop the current process....

 

I agree with every bit of that except for the last sentence.

 

But you haven't answered my question: Do you believe Republicans should, as I put it above, tango -- that they should accept their minority role and get the best adjustments to progressive legislation that they can? Or do you believe they should immediately, and in every possible way, obstruct all policies from the government while it is controlled by Democrats? If you say the former, then you are criticizing current Republican behavior. If you say the latter, then you are saying that you feel that partisanship is a good policy and a reasonable way to run a government.

 

Which is it?

[jackson33]

But you haven't answered my question: Do you believe Republicans should, as I put it above, tango -- that they should accept their minority role and get the best adjustments to progressive legislation that they can? Or do you believe they should immediately, and in every possible way, obstruct all policies from the government while it is controlled by Democrats? If you say the former, then you are criticizing current Republican behavior. If you say the latter, then you are saying that you feel that partisanship is a good policy and a reasonable way to run a government. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss, I believe I have, but will try rewording what was said....

All members of Congress, have one duty, to represent their district, not the President or not their party or even their personal viewpoints. With a bill, having 1-2-3-400 different issues, each of those issues will be acceptable to a different number of (in this case) Senators. It's my contention those representing Republican and/or conservative areas, felt over half, what ever they actually understood, would not be acceptable in their district.

 

Now, as for negotiations, your arguing with Republican Leaders in the Senate, even most pundits, since I'm reflecting their words...that they have been left out of the process that formed the actual bill, used to vote on and was passed. Behind closed doors, midnight and Christmas Eve sessions and so on. That is there was no attempt to negotiated with republicans, the bill formed and presented to hold only the 60 (needed) member that caucus with the Democrats. To show this, several democrats accepted special consideration in the Senate bill, to keep there vote, while no Republican was so treated or refused special consideration for their vote. Collins and Snow, both moderate Republicans, representing Maine, tried very hard, to be involved and were turned down.

 

At the point the any Republican was deemed of no importance, all they could do was obstruct by any means they could, allowing the growing anger from all across the US to build and YES, they should have, especially knowing anything they could do under procedure, could have never stopped the end result.

 

Even the election of Brown, was meaningless to the out come, if Reid/Polosi/Obama play games, and some how Polosi can get the required votes to pass the Senate version, which would send the Senate version directly to the Executive, no doubt being signed. Any changes made in Conference, would require another House and Senate Vote, where the interim Senator filling the Kennedy (Paul Kirk D) seat has said he has ceased his duties.

 

As I see it today, even with my prediction, the outcome of that election has shaken the roots of the Democratic Party, I don't think Polosi could buy enough votes to clear the House and the Senate could no longer get 60, under any condition.

 

Briefly on HC; It's my opinion, Health Care should be a State Issue and is being addressed in most States today, tort reform/access to insurance (competition) and some reform may be achieved that way. Personally I'd like to see SS/Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIPS be privatized, as was Fanny/Freddy, with Congressional over site. But that's really off topic.

[Pangloss]

Partisan Spin Doctoring 101: Never Answer a Question Without a Framework

"Did you hit the child?"

"The child did not eat all of its food."

"Did you hit the child?"

"As I said, the child did not eat all of its food."

"Yes, but did you hit the child?"

"I thought I answered that question already. The child poked at its meal. It pushed its food around the plate a bit. Then it pouted for a while and stuck out its tongue. Under those circumstances a certain degree of corporal force is warranted. I don't understand how I could be any more clear about this."

 

So that's "the latter" -- a justification for obstructionism. You feel it's warranted based on the behavior of others -- two wrongs making a right. And you just ignore the example I gave about earlier Republican minority successes that did not use obstructionism.

 

I always been fascinating to me that partisans don't want people to know that they are partisans. They obviously know that it's wrong and that it undermines their credibility -- so why do it? The only reason I can think of is that they think it's a necessary evil -- brought on by the behavior of other partisans and the presumption that everyone else is either ignorant or not paying attention ("I know this is stupid, but you made me say it and if I don't the other side won't be heard").

 

But of course this just feeds the problem, pushing the nation even farther in a descending spiral of bad perceptions and abbreviated reasoning. Jackson, I respect your opinion on health care reform. Your stubborn defense of bad behavior that harms the country, not so much.

[jackson33]

Pangloss; One final thought, primarily to let you know, I've read your reply;

 

Partisan and obstruction, are not equals. Your arguments have been the latter and yes, the Republicans did what ever they could through procedure, to hold off what seemingly was inevitable. I really don't think they were thinking the Massachusetts Election, but what was accomplished, allowing the Christmas recess for members to hear what the home folks had to say. The announced retirements (Dodd/Dorgan) indicated to me, results from the recess and the surprise package of Brown's victory, a little topping on the cake. Obstruction was never denied often admitted by Mitch McConnell, but keep in mind the Administration set several dead lines (opposite of obstruction) for Congress to complete this bill, none of which were met.

 

One primary cause for concern both sides, has been the rush, for a bill that for the most part took effect in 2013/2014. The items/regulation to eliminate 'pre-existing conditions', additions to Medicare (which States pay 50%) or anything incremental, probably could have been passed last year. As for bad behavior, it's the system and both parties have and will used what ever means they can (IMO should) since the first day's of this country. Stubborn, maybe, but I've read a good share of the House Bill (3000 pages), know a little about how things seemingly harmless measures, can become other than what was intended. Then in the end, maybe if Congress (Not the President) insist on reforming HC, they can NOW come up with something acceptable and understandable to more of the electorate, than what was...say in 50 pages. How can any of this "harm the country"?