For those who are unaware, here is some background regarding Massachusetts State Senator and National Guard Lt. Col. Scott Brown, currently running against State Attorney General Martha Coakley for a January 19, 2010 special election bid to fill the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat:
Senator Brown is a proud member of the Massachusetts National Guard, where he has served for nearly three decades and currently holds the rank of Lt. Colonel in the Judge Advocate Generals (JAG) Corps. Brown was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service in homeland security following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. His career in public service began as selectman in Wrentham. He then went on to serve three terms as a State Representative and won his current State Senate seat in a special election in 2004. He is currently in his third Senate term.
In 2004, Senator Brown received the Public Servant of the Year Award from the United Chamber of Commerce for his leadership in reforming the state’s sex offender laws and protecting the rights of victims. He has also been recognized by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) for his work in creating an environment that encourages job growth and expansion in Massachusetts.
Senator Brown is a graduate of Wakefield High School, Tufts University, and Boston College Law School. He lives in Wrentham, MA with his wife Gail and their two daughters, Ayla, a student at Boston College, and Arianna, a student at Syracuse University.
Here’s a YouTube video of Lt. Col. Brown’s interview last night with Sean Hannity on Fox News:
As RedState puts their sentiment in a posting headline for this story, “Gov Deval Patrick (D, MA) just gave the GOP three more House seats.”
What’s the hub-bub? The BostonHerald is reporting today that a “source” told the paper that the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is allegedly not expecting to certify the US Senate special election results until February 20, after the President’s State of the Union and, in theory, after healthcare reform could be sent to the President’s desk (excerpted):
The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of [interim MA Senator Paul] Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.
Today, 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.
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 today 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. [emphasis mine]
LibertarianRepublican, in reporting on this story, remarks:
The possibility of Democrat Martha Coakley being sworn in immediately if she prevails in the election, has been left open.
The Herald goes on to report Lt. Col. Scott Brown’s reaction:
Yesterday, 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.”
Perhaps not so coincidentally, the above news comes on the heels of allegations that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) could be behind negative push pulling going in on the State, as well as suggestions that “hate groups” are behind the Lt. Col.’s bid for the Senate seat.
And apparently Democrat opponent and State Attorney General Coakley’s bait-and-switch on the abortion issue hasn’t quite hit the most positive resonating chord with feminists.
The reaction from the Left regarding the possibility of Ms. Coakley failing the race has caught the attention of the liberal section of the blosophere, including prominent left-wing site, MoveOn.org. As Professor Jacobson opined:
MoveOn.Org wants to help save health care reform by electing Coakley, but MoveOn is against the Senate health care bill which Coakley supports! Oh, the irony.
Maybe the Democrats truly are worried about losing this special election; check out further reaction:
- Democrats playing with dangerous fire: admit to plan to not seat Senator Brown until after Healthcare Rationing vote (HillBuzz.org)
- Scott Brown Is Catching Up…and Coakley has her corruption buried deep in Obama’s pockets…dems are “anxious”. (SnooperReport.com)
- SEIU “pulling out all the stops” for Coakley; Brown calls out her illegal alien advocacy (MichelleMalkin.com)
- SEIU Link? Mass Push Polling Firm Linked To Democrat Bill Richardson (RiehlWorldView.com)
- Brown grassroots vs Coakley machine: “I don’t think they play at all fairly” (Sisu)
Boston Herald editor JulesCrittenden.com ends their informative posting thusly:
In the event that Brown actually were to win, there is of course always the possibility that everyone’s sense of civic duty would kick in, and they’d feel like they needed to do the right thing, reflect the will of the people. But based on 25 years of observing Massachusetts ramrodding and fixes … I mean politics, I wouldn’t count on it. Birthplace of Chicaner … I mean Liberty!
Gateway, Brown to Hannity re health care, “I will stop it!” That must have been before the Herald called with the bad news.
Legal Insurrection: Voters need to call Dems bluff! Nice thought, but Jacobson must not know the voters or the Democratic majority in Massachusetts that well. The last time the voters told them to do something … put gay marriage on the ballot, they ignored them. Then, there was the time the hacks told voters it would be a disaster if they voted to phase out the income tax. It would have been, too. A disaster for the hacks. The hacks rewarded the voters by raising the sales tax, and extending it to booze …
DaTechGuy actually thinks the resulting rage would lead to a 2010 groundswell challenge to Dem supremacy on Beacon Hill. I’ll believe that when I see it.
Ben Smith at Politico notes that even if pigs were to take wing in Massachusetts and they were to expeditiously seat a victorious Brown, the Democratic leadership of the United States House and Senate has another expedient. Squelch all objctions and pass the thing as passed by the U.S. Senate without any additional Senate votes. That, of course, would require a lot of strongarming in the House, and even if accomplished, could well seal the Dems doom in the already bleak-looking 2010 mid-terms.