The Man Who Can Stop Obamacare

Discussion in 'Politics' started by PoliticalChic, Jan 8, 2010.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,763
    Thanks Received:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,922
    "The Democrats have gotten to the precipice — to borrow President Obama’s word — of victory on health-care reform for one reason above all others: 60 votes.

    Their supermajority in the Senate empowered them to muscle through a sprawling mess of a bill by partisan fiat. If the ball had bounced the other way in a close race or two (or if Arlen Specter had felt more loyalty to his party of decades), the Democrats wouldn’t have gotten to 60. Once there, they were willing to resort to any expedient to stay at the magic number. After Ted Kennedy’s death last summer, the Massachusetts legislature rushed to change state election law to allow for an interim replacement in advance of a special election, explicitly to keep the Democrats at 60.

    Now, the special election for the seat is less than two weeks away. It represents the only electoral threat to 60 that Democrats will face until November. Republican Scott Brown is mounting a surprisingly strong bid, trailing Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley by only 9 points in the latest Rasmussen poll. A state senator, Brown is running an anti-spending, anti-Washington campaign perfectly suited to the political moment. Should he win, it could make it all but impossible for Harry Reid to get 60 votes for the current version of Obamacare — and he’ll almost certainly need to meet that threshold at least one more time. In short, Scott Brown is the man who could pull the brake on this train right before it gets fully out of the station."

    Read full article at this link.

    The Man Who Can Stop Obamacare by The Editors on National Review Online
     
  2. Claudette
    Offline

    Claudette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,596
    Thanks Received:
    3,019
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,662
    Yes it would be nice if could happen but I really doubt that a Rep can win in MA. They always vote Dem and have for decades.

    One other thing that could happen is that some of those who voted Yea on this clusterfuck of a bill, vote nay on final passage. I'm sure there are many who got an earfull from their constituants over the Christmas break so it is a possibility.
     
  3. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,726
    Thanks Received:
    4,486
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,048
    If I still lived in MA, I'd vote for him
     
  4. ba1614
    Offline

    ba1614 Silver Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    3,812
    Thanks Received:
    875
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Deep in the Northern Woods
    Ratings:
    +876
    But do they care what their constituents have to say?
     
  5. Claudette
    Offline

    Claudette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    19,596
    Thanks Received:
    3,019
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,662

    Thats the 64,000 dollar question. Here's hoping that self preservation is a strong motivator.
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,763
    Thanks Received:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,922
    "Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat."
    Wow. Rasmussen: Scott Brown within 2 Points of Coakley Among Voters “Very Likely” to Turn Out. « TD Blog

    And here is the wild card:

    "From the USA Today, here are the wait times to see a doctor in the following cities:

    •Boston: 49.6
    •Philadelphia: 27
    •Los Angeles: 24.2
    •Houston: 23.4
    •Washington, D.C.: 22.6
    •San Diego 20.2
    •Minneapolis: 19.8
    •Dallas: 19.2
    •New York: 19.2
    •Denver: 15.4 days
    •Miami: 15.4 days
    The first thing that jumps out from these numbers is that Boston has by far the longest wait to see a doctor. "
    Healthcare Economist · 50 days to see a doctor in Boston…Is Massachusetts’ universal coverage laws the cause?
     
  7. LibocalypseNow
    Offline

    LibocalypseNow Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    12,337
    Thanks Received:
    1,356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,357
    Hey it would be great if it happens but don't count on it. We're talking about an area of the country that routinely re-elected a murderous drunkard for several decades. Hey i'll root for Mr. Brown but i'm not counting on him winning. This IS Massachusetts for God's sake.
     
  8. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42,004
    Thanks Received:
    6,108
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +19,911
    Weird stuff going on out east these days. I heard this morning that the New Jersey Senate rejected a gay marriage bill. What irony if Ted Kennedy's position is the stopper.
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,763
    Thanks Received:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,922
    This is Martha Coakley, the Democrat in the lead for the Kennedy Senatorial seat:

    "During the daycare/child molestation hysteria of the '80s, Gerald Amirault, his mother, Violet, and sister, Cheryl, were accused of raping children at the family's preschool in Malden, Mass., in what came to be known as the second-most notorious witch trial in Massachusetts history.

    The allegations against the Amiraults were preposterous on their face. Children made claims of robots abusing them, a "bad clown" who took the children to a "magic room" for sex play, rape with a 2-foot butcher knife, other acts of sodomy with a "magic wand," naked children tied to trees within view of a highway, and -- standard fare in the child abuse hysteria era -- animal sacrifices.

    There was not one shred of physical evidence to support the allegations -- no mutilated animals, no magic rooms, no butcher knives, no photographs, no physical signs of any abuse on the children.

    Enter Martha Coakley, Middlesex district attorney. Gerald Amirault had already spent 15 years in prison for crimes he no more committed than anyone reading this column did. But Coakley put on a full court press to keep Amirault in prison simply to further her political ambitions.

    By then, every sentient person knew that Amirault was innocent. But instead of saying nothing, Coakley frantically lobbied Gov. Jane Swift to keep him in prison to show that she was a take-no-prisoners prosecutor, who stood up for "the children." As a result of Coakley's efforts -- and her contagious ambition -- Gov. Swift denied Amirault's clemency.

    Thanks to Martha Coakley, Gerald Amirault sat in prison for another three years."

    AnnCoulter.com - Archived Article: MARTHA COAKLEY: TOO IMMORAL FOR TEDDY KENNEDY'S SEAT
     
  10. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42,004
    Thanks Received:
    6,108
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +19,911
    I stand corrected, even MORE weird than I first thought.
     

Share This Page