Did Democrats outsmart themselves in Massachusetts?
posted at 10:55 am on January 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
When Ted Kennedy died on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts law required the state to hold a special election to fill the opening he left in the US Senate. That law was put in place by the state legislature in 2004 when John Kerry ran for President, and it was championed by Ted Kennedy himself. Why? The governor at the time, Mitt Romney, was a Republican — and Kennedy didn’t want Romney appointing an interim replacement that wasn’t a Democrat.
Fast forward five years, to when Kennedy was days away from death. The Kennedy family released a letter written by the Senator demanding that the law he pushed in 2004 get repealed in 2009 in order to allow Governor Deval Patrick to appoint his successor. Why? Patrick is a Democrat and a reliable liberal who would select someone in Kennedy’s mold. The state legislature responded by acceding to Kennedy’s dying wish and Patrick appointed Paul Kirk to fill Kennedy’s seat temporarily, until the special election could be held.
This all seemed to go by plan for the Democrats. They had ensured ideological continuity of the seat, and more importantly gave Harry Reid back his 60th vote for cloture, which allowed Reid and Obama to press forward with their plans to overhaul the American health-care system. All they would need is to keep Kirk in place until Massachusetts sent another Kennedy protege to the Senate.
But did they outsmart themselves? The special election date was the earliest possible date, as I recall, but the continued focus on ObamaCare came directly from the Democrats’ insistence on changing the Massachusetts law so that Patrick could appoint Kirk to the seat. Without that, the seat would have remained vacant — and Reid and Obama would have been forced to put ObamaCare aside and start working on the economy, especially in November, after the House finally passed its version. It would have given Reid and Obama an excuse to suspend the effort, and make the special election a referendum on health-care reform as a concept, rather than the specifics of the proposal that came out of the Senate.
Most of all, it would have eliminated the back-room dealings and dishonesty that has become so apparent over the last four weeks — which could have saved Ben Nelson’s bacon, for one.
The decision to press the Massachusetts state legislature for that blatantly self-serving change may have ironically enabled the Democrats to badly overreach — creating the impulse that is lifting Scott Brown over Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, and Republicans over Democrats nationwide. And Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for it.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together…?
Seven Percent Solution on January 15, 2010 at 11:51 AM
caution
We don’t need to be our own “Chicago Tribune”!
I’m guardedly optimistic. Go Brown!!
donh525 on January 15, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Obama’s unicorns have come home to roost.
ConservativeTony on January 15, 2010 at 11:53 AM
It’s like the game is 3-dimensional chess and the Democrats are playing with themselves.
Kasper Hauser on January 15, 2010 at 11:54 AM
All this plays to the faults of having a one party state just as much as Horowitz points out in his book One Party Classroom.
People say nothing can be done if a health care bill passes and that is not so.
Sure it might be hard to repeal but with control you can simply defund the parts that you can to neuter it.
Even in the press they are already laying the groundwork for a Coakley loss.
But not to worry we will find that the winning single vote margin was cast by Obama’s Auntie.
CommentGuy on January 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM
3 reasons for disagreement:
1) The US is not Europe. National healthcare didn’t make Europe what it is, what Europe is made national healthcare. On that we can disagree if you do, it’s not terribly important.
2) Even accepting Americans will be like Europeans and happily suckle at the governments teet en masse, this bill is a lot of pain for 4 long years and no suckling. We won’t be repealing “free” health care, we’ll be repealing taxes and mandates.
3) Even accepting we can’t repeal it, there is no long-term dem supermajority where everything stays roughly the same but politics moves left. We simply do not have the means to afford Obama’s bill. Developing the means to do so would require a massive reordering of the American economy at a particularly weak period and would come with the requisite Euro style national enervation. Literally, the world as we know will become completely different in all areas (including those in power).
jarodea on January 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Ooooooooh! eeeeeeeeewwwwwwww!! ICK!!!
No wonder they have no transparency, and everything is done behind closed door! LOL
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
capejasmine on January 15, 2010 at 11:58 AM
Link didn’t work.
Go Brown!
donh525 on January 15, 2010 at 11:58 AM
This is an uncorrect statement. As both substantial changes have been made to the tax structure of the bill, and changes have been made to the body of the bill, it will and must be debated in the Senate, where it will take 60 votes for Cloture.
Or, in other words, the Bill will never leave Debate… as long as the Repubs are willing to fillibuster.
Problem with this strategy is that the Dems can then shut down the Senate from ALL other business if they wish…
This could in the end be Reid’s strategy… a scorched Earth strategy where the Senate Repubs will get blamed for not “helping the econony”…
Remember, Rahm is someone who does not believe in letting a crises go to waste…
Romeo13 on January 15, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Well, it’s for sure that karma’s not a beach in Hawaii. ;-)
Yoop on January 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM
But….but….but…..
It’s the Kennedy seat!
N. O'Brain on January 15, 2010 at 12:00 PM
I don’t get it, why is Martha Coakley a Roman Catholic, going out of her way to alienate Catholics?
Does Coakley understand that a Cafeteria Catholic is a horse of a different color?
I don’t vote for people by their religious affiliation I vote substance. Still it can’t help when she snubs an entire religious population…. Wow Massachusetts comes in number 2 after Rhode Island for population of Roman Catholics by state.
Dr Evil on January 15, 2010 at 12:03 PM
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
bill30097 on January 15, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Well…. Judging by the intellect on display in DC, Dems are the only people that Dems can ‘outsmart’
phreshone on January 15, 2010 at 12:06 PM
Well, finally the Law of Unintended Consequences comes back to bite the Unintended Consequences Lawgivers in the a$$-hard.
Good.
Amendment X on January 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM
I really would like to agree with you but that is not how it works…
From: http://law.jrank.org/pages/5562/Congress-United-States-HOW-BILL-BECOMES-LAW.html
“Conference committee If the House and Senate versions of a bill differ, the two chambers form a conference committee to resolve the discrepancies. Roughly 10 to 15 percent of all bills—usually the most controversial ones—passed by Congress end up in a conference committee. Members of the conference committee are typically drawn from the committees that reported the bill. During the 1980s and 1990s, conference committees sometimes became quite large, involving as many as two hundred conferees when debating large budget measures. Party ratios on these committees reflect the ratios in Congress itself. Since 1975 conference meetings have been open to the public.
When the conference committee is done, a majority of conferees from each house sign the compromise bill and report it to Congress. The House and Senate then vote to approve the common bill. No amendments are allowed at this point. Because members have invested much time and effort in the bill by the time it has left a conference committee, it is nearly always approved.
Read more: Congress of the United States – How A Bill Becomes A Law http://law.jrank.org/pages/5562/Congress-United-States-HOW-BILL-BECOMES-LAW.html#ixzz0chap2LZ6“
Dasher on January 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM
don’t let the catholic tag fool you. As a catholic in predominantly catholic county I’m still dumbfounded at how blue it votes! i.e. Sadly, catholic does not equal conservative.
Goody2Shoes on January 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Dasher: Nothing you cite there shows a lack of need to gain cloture votes in the Senate. IIRC, ‘reporting it’ to the Senate (IOW, bringing the new bill to the floor of the Senate) requires a cloture vote.
This is only waived when a bill originates in the Senate, goes through the entire process, and the House _votes yes or no on the Senate bill_.
This is, manifestly, not what happened in this case.
Scott H on January 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM
As I understand it, the law Kennedy pushed in 2004 was not repealed, as Kennedy requested, but that either a new law was added or the existing law amended that allowed the governor to appoint a replacement until such time as a special election could be held. The above statment implies that the law was repealed, which I do not believe is correct.
mwdiver on January 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM
Over the last four weeks??? I know this makes your point, but we have seen backroom dealings and dishonesty from this Democrat Congress since 2006. It is just reaching its peak now.
Christian Conservative on January 15, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Will the bill be structured in such a way that it would be possible for a future congress to repeal enough parts of it to undo it? To return to insurance companies the right to task risk into account in assessing rates, to the market to decide what a policy should cover? Just focusing on two little (but very big) pieces of the legislation that Senate passed.
I’m very aware that the passage of Obamacare would result, within a decade or two, in a shift in the balance of world power. In fact, much more Obama spending is going to do that, because he’s running a weakened economy further into the ground. The next president may very well be the one who has to deal with a bankrupt country. And that wouldn’t be at all good for the balance of power.
ProfessorMiao on January 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM
I hope you are right, but I think we can only agree to disagree on what will happen.
Dasher on January 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM
If it’s imposed it should be able to be repealed. I don’t see why insurance companies couldn’t be allowed to set their own policies again for instance. It may take time and be somewhat painful since they may have to rehire or train the people to do it of course. Aren’t most of the really drastic changes set for 2013 (or perhaps more accurately, do we even know what will be set for when until they pass the final bill)?
I think you’re being a little bit generous with a 10-20 year time frame and just a reordering of world power. Assuming this does cement perma-dem control I’d be surprised if the global system could last until the end of Obama’s 2nd term. After all, as you noted, this isn’t the only thing Obama is doing to muck things up.
jarodea on January 15, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Perhaps Ted Kennedy’s greatest patriotic act was passing on to his eternal reward, enabling Brown a shot at creating an earthquake.
The Rock on January 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM
I don’t really see the problem.
Why don’t the entrenched Democrats in Massachusetts just cancel the election and change the law to allow Patrick to appoint some Kennedy for life?
applebutter on January 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM
The Pope is sending out messages that agree with the Progressives.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/299420,pope-issues-green-tinged-world-day-of-peace-message.html
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal_mccarrick_brings_immigration_reform_message_to_senate/
Dr Evil on January 15, 2010 at 12:48 PM
No matter what happens with cloture: READ OUT THE BILL.
See if there is anyone in the House with intestinal fortitude to get that done, too.
As the bill has been changed, then the entire thing needs to be re-read as it is different from the original. At the rate the Senate went what was the estimate for a read-out? 36 hours? More than a day, once you include all the annexes and such. So no one might get seated on the 29th… time to start getting everything read-out in full. Everything that is procedural, get all the procedures properly done. Just reading the stuff out will take days, and if Reid tries to do it all in one day, well, too bad for him. We really do need an Immodium-D representative, too. Stop up the flow. It only takes a couple of brave Congresscritters looking to save their skins to do this. It is amazing how much time you can spend on procedure…
ajacksonian on January 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM
If Brown wins this election the Democrat party is going to look like a little Haiti. Only a fool could fail to see the implications of their nefarious behavior.
LarryG on January 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM
The problem I have with the messages coming out of Rome is that our Sovereignty isn’t being respected – The United States is a Republic and a Sovereign Country.
Some how the Progressives have managed to line themselves up with the Catholic’s message. Look at Father Flager in Chicago, and his antic making fun of Hillary in the Democrat Primary. Or Notre Dame, having a Pro Abortion President speaking at the Catholic University.
Dr Evil on January 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM
I’m not sure it will last to the end of his current term!
ProfessorMiao on January 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM
Regarding cloture, see this link:
http://www.thecapitol.net/Research/images/CRS-RL30360.pdf
In brief, cloture can be invoked twice: Once before a vote to introduce a bill, and once before a vote to pass a bill. For a conference report, the first vote is not required. Therefore, some people have mistakenly concluded that there is no cloture vote for a conference report. But there must be a cloture vote (or unanimous consent) to end debate before final passage.
SwampYankee on January 15, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Thank you for clarifying that. If Mr. Brown wins this will be about the 5th or 6th time I will be able to be proud to say I’m from Masschusetts. (Red Sox World Series, Patriots Super Bowl Champs)
Duncan Khuver on January 15, 2010 at 1:28 PM
The whole episode is a perfect example of the dims’ complete inability to think long-range.
Ted’s death causes his life’s cause to die with him. Oh the Irony!
Lou Budvis on January 15, 2010 at 1:41 PM
The Catholic system is political to its core. That’s what the Vatican is, a a political capitol using Christ as its mascot. The Bible itself needs no ‘capitol’ or man-appointed representative. The Popes have historically inserted themselves into world wars and high intrigue. I don’t trust that man nor his institution, as they have made many corrupt alliances over the years.
As for bring “Christ’s representative” in this world, I’ll just reads His words for myself, thank you.
leftnomore on January 15, 2010 at 1:43 PM
I suggest the wording should read “outmaneuver themselves.”
This doesn’t appear very smart which is something that liberals are seldom of accused of.
jgdp on January 15, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Announced on Fox: Obama going to
Mass. ;-)
Yoop on January 15, 2010 at 2:05 PM
You’re right; Dasher is wrong; Romeo 13 is essentially right
The Conference Committee bill is subject to ‘filibustering’ and a cloture vote in the Senate.
Janos Hunyadi on January 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM
How could he go to Mass — He hasn’t gone to any church since being sworn in. Obama = CINO Christian in Name Only
Dasher on January 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM
By the author of
Dreams of My Father
The Audacity of Hope
COMING SOON:
The world just wan’t ready for ME or worthy of ME!
IlikedAUH2O on January 15, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Karma, baby. KARMA!
GarandFan on January 15, 2010 at 2:24 PM
re cloture vote or not…….and that is why Brown calls himself ‘the 41st vote’
alwyr on January 15, 2010 at 2:51 PM
Why couldn’t any future Congress merely pass legislation to the effect participation in the National Health Care Insurance Plan is NOT mandatory. THAT alone would 100% guarantee the plan would go belly-up.
alwyr on January 15, 2010 at 2:55 PM
I stand corrected, and pleased to know that cloture must be voted on the “motion to proceed”. Go Scott Brown !!!
Dasher on January 15, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Actually if you want to talk about timing they were kind of locked into that. The law they passed in 2004 said the election had to happen between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy so they basically have a 2 week window to set it. (And really given how the numbers work out I think their only options were 1/19 or 1/26.) So the timing has nothing to do with it.
Anyway like I wrote on another article here the smart thing to have done would to first wait to see if Kerry won in 2004. If he doesn’t they would do nothing. If he did then Kerry holds off on resigning his seat. (Since he wouldn’t take office until 1/20/2005) Then since he’s still technically a senator Romney couldn’t replace him. Then have the state house ram through the “people elect” bill. The only gotcha would be they’d have to get it through within about 2 months. Given how fast they passed that emergency bill to let Governor Patrick select a temp until the election yes I think they could. (Darn, don’t I wish Governor Patrick was the character from Sponge Bob. He’d probably be more competent than the guy we’ve got.)
Dave_d on January 15, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Actually, there is no Conference Committee. They decided to not do one in favor of an “informal” process. So I’m not sure how this would work.
uknowmorethanme on January 15, 2010 at 4:32 PM
–So why couldn’t the Senate vote on Monday that there will be no more than X time for debate over whatever comes back from the Conference Committee?
Jimbo3 on January 15, 2010 at 4:40 PM
–It also looks like they don’t need 60 votes if they are willing to wait out a filibuster and delay voting on all other matters.
Jimbo3 on January 15, 2010 at 4:47 PM
The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator’s point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, “Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?” This is referred to as “appealing from the Chair.” An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer’s ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.
–FYI on how else the bill could get passed in the Senate.
Jimbo3 on January 15, 2010 at 5:13 PM
Prediction: on Tuesday, Mary Jo Kopechne will still be unavailable for comment.
pdigaudio on January 15, 2010 at 6:44 PM
Is anyone using that Kennedy special dealing in talking about Coakley’s campaign? As reinforcement for the “it’s the people’s seat” meme?
I know voters already have Kennedy fatigue but bringing this up would drive it home even more.
YehuditTX on January 15, 2010 at 7:04 PM
See http://repealit.org/
They’ve got pledges from 50 candidates already.
YehuditTX on January 15, 2010 at 7:11 PM
It’s a real bitch when your karma runs over your dogma. Massachusetts may be slow but not stupid. Vote Brown!
Gandalf on January 15, 2010 at 7:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2