Posted on 01/08/2010 8:58:46 PM PST by SeekAndFind
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 today, 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.
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.
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.”
A spokeswoman for Coakley’s campaign declined to comment today.
We crave ethical behavior in our government. We crave it because we know it is missing.
It’s time to move beyond craving, to demanding.
That they’re coming out with this now means that healthcare is a winning issue for Brown—and they’re trying to take it away from him.
Doesn’t the senate require 2/3 members present to vote? What if every Republican Senator decided to take a “vacation” out of the country until Brown was sworn in? Not that the Republicans would have the testicular fortitude to ever do it...
Nothing astonishing about that. That's what he was put in there for.
To be completely corrupt and get away with it takes planning.The fix has been in since they changed the law in Mass. back to allow Patrick to name the Swimmers’ successor.
They never envisioned a race being this close and have to have a contingienct plan in place.
To be a successful criminal you need a planB and these criminals are world class.
Being the rational,civil party we are biding our time until we can have a say but at the rate they’re going,it may be too late.I truly fear that they will inadvertently provide the spark that ignites the powderkeg of anger and frustration building over the dismemberment of a once-great nation.
I think it’s called HELLth Care Reform
They always do this. When are we going to make them accountable?
Sooner or later the Dems are bound to encounter a speed bump too high for them to drive over.
If conservatives are lucky enough to gain a majority, I sure hope they have the cajones to pay these a$$holes back with their own medicine.
I agree and it can’t come soon enough.
The quorum of the US Senate is 51 senators.
The ONLY thing I admire about the Dems is that they are willing to fight dirty and nasty when it comes to politics. The GOP, on the other hand, want to play nice and be friends with all.
When will the GOP ever wake up and realize that you have to politics is a dirty game?
https://www.icontribute.us/scottbrown
Send him $9.12
He may be able to sneak his way in.
It’s the basic sociological issue. They believe that there are no limits and we believe that there are limits.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.