Filibuster reform bill headed for Senate floor by Democrats


Well it just never stops does it. Now that the Democrats don’t have a filibuster proof Senate, they want to change the rules. Reminds me of what they did with Teddy Kennedy’s seat. Remember  in 2004 Teddy had the Massachusetts law changed so that it required a special election if a seat was vacated within 145 days, so that the then Republican governor wouldn’t be able to appoint a temporary Republican in a seat that was Democratic at the time. Then in 2009 just before his death Kennedy sent a letter to Massachusetts lawmakers and asked them to change back the law to provide for a temporary gubernatorial appointment until the special election occurs. It ends up the later didn’t happen, but my point is the Democrats are doing the same thing now with health care, cap & trade or anything else this administration comes up with to make it easier for them to pass whatever the bill is. I believe the Democrats are just continuing to shoot themselves in the foot with these type things. Don’t they ever learn?

Filibuster reform bill headed for Senate floor, faces uphill battle

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) intends in the next few weeks to introduce legislation that would take away the minoritys power to filibuster legislation.

Harkin has wanted to change the filibuster for years, but his move would come in the wake of Republican Scott Browns dramatic victory in Massachusetts. Browns victory cost Democrats their 60th vote in the Senate, and may have dealt a death blow to their hopes to move a massive healthcare overhaul. It could also limit President Barack Obamas ability to move other pieces of his agenda forward.

Harkin believes senators in recent years have abused the procedural move.

Harkins bill would still allow senators to delay legislation, but ultimately would give the majority the power to move past a filibuster with a simple majority vote.

His staff said the bill would be introduced sometime before the Senates current work period ends on Feb. 13.

Harkin argues the filibuster is being used too commonly in today’s Congress.

In a Jan. 4 letter to his colleagues, Harkin noted that filibusters were used just once per Congress in the 1950s, compared to 139 times in the last Congress.

“At issue is a fundamental principle basic to our democracy — rule of the majority as a legislative body,” Harkin wrote. “Elections should have consequences. Yet the Senate’s current rules allow for a minority as small as one to make elections meaningless.”

Speaking to The Hill, Harkin said use of the filibuster has ground the legislative process to a halt.

“While there are reasons to slow bills down and get the public aware of what’s happening, there’s no excuse for having a few people just stop everything with a filibuster,” he said.

Several liberal activists as well as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) this week have called for filibuster reform to make it easier for legislation to pass.

In the House, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) this week introduced a resolution urging the Senate to lower the filibuster threshold, adding in a statement that the legislative tactic “has begun to erode the integrity of our Democratic process.”

Under Harkin’s bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), 60 votes would still be necessary to cut off debate on an initial procedural motion. If senators failed to reach 60 votes, a second vote would be possible two days later that would require only 57 votes to cut off debate. If that also failed, a third vote two days after that would require 54 votes to end debate. A fourth vote after two more days would require just 51 votes.

Reid shot down the option in his 2008 book The Good Fight. Recalling the nuclear option debate in 2005, Reid compared lowering the filibuster threshold to opening Pandoras Box.

It was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who couldnt get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business, Reid wrote. And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate A filibuster is the minoritys way of not allowing the majority to shut off debate, and without robust debate, the Senate is crippled.


New Poll, Scott Brown Pulls Ahead in Massachusetts


Well here we go down to the stretch in Massachusetts with Republican Scott Brown having a good chance to win. Who would have ever thought it in such a liberal state. The difference here is that in Massachusetts the Independents are 51% of the voters and are turning 3 to 1 for Scott Brown.

New Poll, Scott Brown Pulls Ahead in Massachusetts

Tea Parties vs. the SEIU, Freedom vs. Socialism

Another new poll is out showing Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Scott Brown, ahead in the Special Election race for Senator of Massachusetts.

The highly respected American Research Group poll shows Brown ahead by 3% over his Democrat rival, the far-Left Martha Coakley (48%-45%).

The Special Election is now just 3 days away. Democrats and liberal special interest groups have dumped over $1 million into the race this week alone. Bill Clinton just campaigned for Democrat Martha Coakley, and Barack Obama is set to do the same on Sunday.

Groups like the Tea Party Express are continuing their fundraising for Scott Brown, and the SEIU has mobilized their union power to thwart the Tea Parties and other conservative groups.

The campaign of Scott Brown for U.S. Senate released a new web video today entitled “Coakley’s Closing Argument.” The video highlights Martha Coakley’s support of the latest tax hike proposal from Washington Democrats as her closing argument to Massachusetts voters.

“In the closing days of this campaign, Martha Coakley is enthusiastically endorsing the Democrats’ latest tax proposal before she even understands its potential impact on Massachusetts families,” said Beth Lindstrom, campaign manager for Brown for Senate. “Martha has never met a tax increase she didn’t like, and if she goes to Washington, she will eagerly rubber-stamp the big-spending, tax-raising schemes that will kill jobs and hurt our economy. Bay State voters know there is only one tax-cutter in this race, and it’s not Martha Coakley.” “COAKLEY’S CLOSING ARGUMENT”

See the advertisement here:

January 15, 2010 – Massachusetts US Senate

Massachusetts US Senate
1/14/2010 Brown Coakley Kennedy Undecided
Likely voters 48% 45% 2% 5%
Democrats (44%) 20% 71% 1% 8%
Republicans (20%) 94% 1% 5%
Other (36%)
58% 37% 4% 1%
Men (47%) 54% 39% 2% 5%
Women (53%) 44% 50% 2% 4%
18-49 (43%) 52% 42% 2% 4%
50 plus (57%) 46% 47% 1% 6%

UPDATE:In Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown steps up campaign for Kennedy’s Senate seat

Comments Off on UPDATE:In Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown steps up campaign for Kennedy’s Senate seat

Well it appears the polls are getting closer for Scott Brown in the race for Ted Kennedy’s seat. Since this is in such a liberal Democratic state as Massachusetts, it shows how put out people are with what this current Democratic administration is doing. Who would ever have thought a Republican could come so close in Massachusetts. Now we are seeing why Harry Reid,Nancy Pelosi and President Obama wanted this passed in August before their recess.

In Massachusetts, Republican Brown steps up campaign for Kennedy’s Senate seat

Fueled by the energy of conservative activists, a solid debate performance and a 24-hour, $1.3 million Internet fundraising haul, Massachusetts state Sen. Scott Brown (R) has thrown a major scare into the Democratic establishment in his bid to win next Tuesday’s special Senate election over once heavily favored Attorney General Martha Coakley.

The intensified activity around the campaign to fill the seat of the late senator Edward M. Kennedy (D) highlights the degree to which the race has taken on national significance. A victory, or even a narrow loss, by Brown in the competition for the symbolically important seat would be interpreted as another sign that voters have turned away from the Democrats at the start of the midterm election year.

More urgently, a Brown win would give Republicans 41 seats in the Senate and the ability to block President Obama‘s health-care initiative and much of the Democrats’ 2010 congressional agenda. Strategists on both sides concede that a Brown victory would drastically reshape the calculus of the health-care debate, which is now in its final stages.

Brown still has some distance to go to pull off an upset, but Democrats now recognize they were wrong not to have taken his challenge more seriously from the start and are vowing not to let the race slip away out of neglect and a lack of aggressiveness.

“We believe at the end of the day the attorney general is going to win the race, but we’re not going to take our foot off the gas,” said Eric Schultz, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a top adviser to Brown, said: “I think it’s a tight race, but Scott Brown still has to be considered the underdog. But clearly there’s panic setting in on the other side, and they’re jumping in with both feet.”

Democrats have buttressed Coakley’s campaign this week, adding fresh money and personnel to her operation and vowing to go after the Republican far more aggressively than they have to date.

The DSCC bought $500,000 in advertising time for the contest, and national Democrats sent a pair of experienced strategists — Michael Meehan and Hari Sevugan — to Massachusetts to help lead the attack on Brown and oversee the final days of Coakley’s campaign. Democrats also have sent fundraising e-mails from Obama and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.).

Brown countered by announcing he had raised $1.3 million in the previous 24 hours through an Internet appeal. A sizable portion of that money will pay for television ads that combat the Democrats’ stepped-up attacks.

Polls have offered a muddled picture of the race. On Sunday, the Boston Globe put Coakley’s lead at 15 percentage points. But that came after two automated polls, whose methodology is not always as reliable, showed a far closer contest — one gave Coakley a nine-point advantage, the other showed a virtual dead heat.

On Monday, national Democrats released the results of an internal survey showing Coakley’s lead at 14 points, but their actions since have belied the idea that she is comfortably ahead. A pair of internal polls taken for the parties showed the gap between the candidates in the mid-single digits.

Democratic strategists in Massachusetts and Washington said they remain confident that Coakley will prevail, given the huge Democratic registration advantage in the state and the attorney general’s appeal to female voters. But they blamed Coakley and her campaign for letting up over the holidays and allowing Brown to change the dynamic of the race.

Coakley and Brown held their last debate Monday night, and while no clear winner emerged, Brown most often appeared to be taking a more aggressive posture. The two traded accusations on taxes, health-care reform and economic policy, with Coakley charging that Brown would take the country back to the economic policies of the George W. Bush administration.

Brown challenged Coakley, who opposes Obama’s plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, on national security and terrorism, arguing that she was wrong to support the administration’s decision to try self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian court. After the debate, he also criticized Coakley for declaring that terrorists “are gone” from Afghanistan in explaining her support for an exit strategy.

Hoping to appeal to Massachusetts’s long Democratic tradition, the Coakley camp began running a negative ad Monday attacking Brown as someone who would march “in lockstep with Washington Republicans.” He responded Tuesday with his own ad in which he said she had decided “that the best way to stop me is to tear me down” and called on voters to reject her tactics.

Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform

Comments Off on Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform

Well here you are Steve. If the Republicans should win in Massachusetts replacing Ted Kennedy’s seat they say they’ll stall the swearing in ceremony until Obamacare is voted on.

Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform

It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.

At a business forum in Boston Friday, interim Sen. Paul Kirk predicted that Congress would pass a health-care reform bill this month.

“We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.

“Absolutely,” Kirk said, when asked if he’d vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. “It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy’s agenda. . . . I think you’re asking me a hypothetical question but I’d be pleased to vote for the bill.”

Few have considered the Jan. 19 election as key to the fate of national health-care reform because both Kirk and front-runner state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, have vowed to uphold Kennedy’s legacy and support health-care reform.

But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.

Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.(But if this guy was a Democrat, then that would be a different story, they would make sure a Democrat was fast tracked and swore in fast enough to vote for health care and they wouldn’t be so worried about the absentee or military votes then.I guarantee you that!)

Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said Friday a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Friday, Brown, who has been closing the gap with Coakley in polls and fund raising, blasted the political double standard.

“This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.”

A spokeswoman for Coakley’s campaign declined to comment Friday.




Well this just goes to show who we’re dealing with in our career representatives. They’re elites so we change the law to suit our wants. Arrogance at it’s height. Kennedy, who smells a socialist victory in the air, knows winning or losing the fight for socialized medicine in the Senate could be decided by one vote. Kennedy does not want to die one vote short of his socialist dream even though his dream will become a socialist nightmare for the people of Massachusetts.


There is absolutely nothing that will cause a dead liberal politician to roll over in his grave faster than having the voters replace him with a conservative. In 2004 when anti-war leftwing Sen. John Kerry was running for President, the legislators in that State realized that if he prevailed in the general election, under State law at the time, moderate Republican governor Mitt Romney would be allowed to appoint Kerry’s replacement for the remaining four years of Kerry’s 4th term as a US Senator.

The Massachusetts legislature hurriedly changed the law, requiring a special election to be held within 5 months of any vacancy to replace the legislator whose seat was now vacated. In point of fact, Kennedy wants the State legislation to change the allow, again, to benefit the Democratic Party and, in this instance Vicki Kennedy, the Senator’s wife. Kennedy wants her appointed to replace him, giving her a three year head start on those interested in the seat in 2012 when she would come up for reelection as the incumbent junior senator from Massachusetts (even though she told the Boston Globe that she has no interest in replacing her husband either temporarily or permanently.) Yeah, I’ll believe that one—when pigs fly.

When the legislators changed Massachusetts law to prevent Romney from being able to appoint a Republican to replace Kerry, Kennedy argued this was the only equitable way to replace incumbents who die in office, retire, or run for, and win, some other position in government. Allowing governors to arbitrarily appoint replacements deprived the citizens of the right to choose their own legislators. That is, until you have a Democrat governor and the political climate so electrically-charged against Democrats that the likelihood of a Democrat being elected in liberal Massachusetts to replace a liberal incumbent with an inoperable brain tumor who is expected to die at any time is almost nil. If the election was held next Tuesday, the Republicans would have a super majority the US House of Representatives, and the GOP would have a 55 to 45 majority in the Senate. Ted Kennedy, one of the most socialist members of the US Senate, knows that only too well.

Kennedy, who knew full well that as a part of the ruling class of America he would never have to submit to the healthcare system he wanted to force on America, devoted most of his Senate career trying to destroy the private healthcare industry because no form of taxation known to man will generate more revenue into the coffers of big government than the taxes they can charge the people of the United States disguised as healthcare “premiums” when the government successfully steal the private health insurance industry and replace it with a mediocre healthcare system controlled by a bureaucracy whose idea of healthcare is spending endless millions of dollars to create brochures on eating healthy foods and washing your hands a cazillion times a day.

Kennedy has apparently now written what the Associated Press called a “…poignant letter” to State leaders (i.e., Democratic mucky-mucks) telling them that with so much at stake in Congress, he felt it was imperative that State law be changed to allow for the speedy replacement of him in the US Senate. The fact that Kennedy did not attend the funeral of his sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver last week fueled speculation that Kennedy was close to the end. His letter to State leaders via the Boston Globe stirred up even more speculation about his imminent fate. Massachusetts State Senate Leader Therese Murray was adamant that since they just changed the law five years ago to accommodate Kennedy, it isn’t likely they will be changing it again. House Speaker Robert DeLeo told the Globe that it is not likely that they will back another change, either. There are just so many times you feel justified playing musical chairs.

Stop for a moment and think about this. Wasn’t Kennedy the guy bemoaning the fact that, in 2004, the people of the State were being denied their constitutional right to elect their representatives in both the House and Senate? Who does he think he’s kidding? Not even the people in Massachusetts who apparently are dumb enough to elect people to Congress who are trying very hard to destroy this nation, are that stupid. But, like every other liberal in Congress, Kennedy wants to have his cake and eat it, too

But then Kennedy, who smells a socialist victory in the air, knows winning or losing the fight for socialized medicine in the Senate could be decided by one vote. Kennedy does not want to die one vote short of his socialist dream even though his dream will become a socialist nightmare for the people of Massachusetts.