Skip to comments.ABC: What Are Democrats Planning for Health Care Reform if They Lose the Massachusetts Senate Race?
Posted on 01/16/2010 3:42:55 PM PST by maggief
Jake Tapper and Jonathan Karl report:
Congressional Democrats and White House officials negotiating health care reform are paying close attention to the Massachusetts Senate race, where Republican candidate Scott Brown has said he will be the 41st vote to block the final vote on the final bill.
Normal Senate rules require 60 votes to proceed to a vote on final passage; with the seat-warming Sen. Paul Kirk, D-Mass., replaced by Brown, Democrats would no longer have those 60 votes.
Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate flailing in her match with Brown to fill the seat of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., has caused much Democratic angst. If she loses -- as polls indicate she might -- Democrats want to be in a position to pass a bill through the Senate before Brown is sworn in.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
...some of them should be planning part time Holiday work at malls next December.
Reconciliation then War.
I don’t know if it will pass if she wins.
The House is being ignored.
Some Dems might want to dump the bill now might find it convenient to use the excuse of a Brown victory.
To the headline: cheat.
If the Democrats would impeach Obama, then I might consider passing (by) on the Health Care Bill.
***What theyre saying over at the Daily Kos: (read below)*****
We need to pass this deeply flawed healthcare health insurance bill, no matter what. We then must deal harshly with the Democrats responsible for making this bill so inadequate.
Make no mistake, this is a huge gift to the insurance industry, and certainly I am deeply troubled that Democrats will own all the gaping shortcomings.
If Martha Coakley loses on Tuesday:
If you havent noticed, if Coakley loses, the media is already writing the obituary for healthcare reform. Funny how all those pundits with their platinum employer-provided healthcare, are so casual (dare I say, even amused) about the possible death of healthcare reform. Well, hey, nothing like a juicy political story, even as Americans die and the nation slips ever deeper into Third World status.
At this very moment, the same brain surgeon Democrats responsible for the healthcare bill, are figuring out their [if Coakley loses] Plan B. Slow walking the certification of the election, reconciliation and other tactics the Democrats can use, to get the bill passed.
I dont know (nor does the elected class, Im sure), how they will handle an electoral defeat. I do know however, that if this happens, we will need to ramp up the pressure like nothing we have ever done.
This bill must pass. No one has explained to me how killing the bill will be good for the Americans like this.
Despite the fact that I believe this legislation will come back to haunt Democrats, it still must pass.
If 2010 turns into the electoral debacle many of us fear, so be it. This will be the consequence of less than ideal governing. If Obama faces a difficult re-election in 2012 because he owns the bill and the American people see no tangible benefits, again, what can you say, live and learnand dont ignore your base.
After the bill passes, we must then hold accountable all those responsible for dropping this turd on the American people.
But first things first, pass the bill (if it can be improved before the vote, that would be ideal)no matter what.
If Coakley loses and the Democrats have to bring Olympia Snowe on board, expect the bill to get even worse.
The movement for healthcare rights will be long, ugly and at times, deeply demoralizing. We wont win this fight overnight, and I keep telling myself not to become despondent.
Yeah, those rats would never try to delay his seating.
WHAT IRONY !!!
The RATs have been claiming a Coakley loss won’t be a referendum on this unconstitutional health care.
Just more proof of how damn dumb democrats are.
In a brief filed with FreeRepublic, Congressman Billybob argued that the Senate seat being contested in Massachusetts becomes vacant on Election Day and remains so until the winning candidate is certified and sworn in.
Since he actually knows what he is talking about in matters of this ilk, I wonder why I’ve not heard any other mention or discussion of such a scenario. Is there any precedent for this, or has the matter never before been challenged since adoption of the 17th Amendment?
I don’t believe all the candidates combined could fill Teddy Kennedy’s seat, not even if they were holding 50 lb bags of cement!
to demonstrate how magnificently STUPID libs are...they are actually thinking Olympia Snowe could be brought around on this bovine feces bill. Mind you, this would be in light of a Democrat in a bluer than blue state, getting tossed over the deck of the ship.
If Coakley loses, expect this entire bill to fall apart, starting with the House Dems.
if that is so, let’s hope he also sent that brief to Scott Brown’s campaign.
In response to my own question, and as further evidence that Congressman Billybob does know what he is talking about, the following excerpt was published by the Conressional Research Service:
Appointment of Interim Senators.
Prevailing practice is for state governors to fill Senate vacancies by appointment, with the appointee serving until a special election has been held, at which time the appointment expires immediately. In the event a seat becomes vacant between the time of a general election and the expiration of the term, however, the appointee usually serves the balance of the term, until the next regularly scheduled general election. This practice originated with the constitutional provision that applied prior to the popular election of senators, under which governors were directed to make temporary appointments when state legislatures were in recess. It was intended to ensure continuity in a states Senate representation during the lengthy intervals between state legislative sessions.
The governors direct authority to make interim appointments is specified in thevarious state laws. Oregon1 and Wisconsin2 do not allow the governor to make interim appointments, requiring, instead, a special election to fill any Senate vacancy. The State of Oklahoma also requires that Senate vacancies be filled by special elections, with an exception. If the vacancy occurs after March 1 of any even-numbered year and the term expires the following year, no special election is held; rather, the governor is required to appoint the candidate elected in the regular general election to fill the unexpired term.3
At least five states restrict the governors power to appoint interim Senators. Alaska, Arizona, and Hawaii require the governor to fill Senate vacancies with a person affiliated with the same political party as the previous incumbent.4 Utah and Wyoming require the governor to select an interim senator from a list of three candidates proposed by the state central committee of the political party with which the previous incumbent was affiliated.5
Many states limit the term of office for interim senators to the date set for the special election. In these cases, the term of the interim senator expires immediately upon the election of the popularly chosen successor, who serves the balance of the Senate term, whether it is a few weeks or several years. Moreover, when an interim appointment is made late in the term, it is often customary for the interim senator to resign his or her seat immediately after the election, and for the governor to appoint the special election winner to serve the balance of the term. It is also customary, for the purposes of determining seniority, for the newly elected replacement senator to be sworn in as soon as possible.
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.