Lt. Col. @ScottBrownMA: SoS Could Stall Certification; Leading 48-47
Saturday, January 9, 2010 Update:
At T-10 days until the special election, Public Policy Polling, a left-leaning polling organization, posted today that Lt. Col. Brown as leading in MA, 48-47.
Best aspect? The indies are speaking out:
-Brown has eye popping numbers with independents, sporting a 70/16 favorability rating with them and holding a 63-31 lead in the horse race with Coakley. Health care may be hurting Democratic fortunes with that group, as only 27% of independents express support for Obama’s plan with 59% opposed. [emphases added]
Check the crosstabs and you’ll find Brown pulling 17 percent of the Democratic vote versus just six percent of the Republican vote for Coakley. Coakley’s net favorable rating? +8. Brown’s? +32. I won’t be surprised to see Biden or even The One himself forced to jet up there next week to try to get the base, especially young voters and minorities, to turn out.
Brown, a low-profile lawyer, thirty-year veteran Lt. Colonel in the Army National Guard, three-term State Senator and State Representative before that, primarily known for his expertise and advocacy for veterans’ affairs, is running on a simple two-pronged platform: Reduce taxes and take out the terrorists.
Brown, the free-enterprise tax-cutter, even cobbled a short video clip channeling a reprise of a 1962 speech of JFK promoting his own tax-cutting agenda to provoke economic growth, cleverly fading into Brown himself calling for tax cuts now. Of course, this suggestive but transparent campaign ad simply torments the Massachusetts Dems. To be reminded that their beloved Camelot was ruled by a king whose tax cuts and athletic national security attitude aligned him more with Ronald Reagan than with his own younger brother has driven the Dems mad. But the independents and hardcore Republicans, in retreat and fending off despair for the last three decades, are now coming out of their gloomy seclusion, pushing Brown’s polling numbers to within single digits.
Brown’s less obvious but more vital message to Massachusetts voters concerns his vote to kill national health care. This would not be just an ideological stance, be it in support of free markets, individual choice, or the size of government. It would be a pragmatic vote, protecting the blossoming biotech industry, extensive teaching hospital network, and some of the finest medical care institutions in the country- — accounting for more than one-third of the Massachusetts economy. All of this would be in jeopardy with ObamaCare.
Is Coakley prepared to flush the Massachusetts economy down the toilet to align herself with the national Democratic Party agenda on health care? Of course she will! That’s her platform. So don’t be surprised when Massachusetts voters, recalling the “shot heard round the world” at Lexington in 1775, realize their self-interest and send Scott Brown to Washington.
Here’s the clip to which AmericanThinker refers, above:
Prof. William Jacobson made a trip over to Lt. Col. Brown’s campaign headquarters today in Needham, Mass. The cert stall (as I detail below the fold) is beginning to resonate:
I made calls. I won’t get into the details of their phone operation, but let me say I was impressed with the computerized sophistication. I can say that the number one concern expressed by voters I spoke with and from what I heard from other callers, was jobs and the economy. The small sample I saw bears striking resemblance to what happened in Virginia and New Jersey; it’s still the economy, stupid.
There also was a lot of animosity surrounding the announcement that the Democrats would delay Brown’s certification if he won. People were calling in about that issue, and it was brought up on phone calls by the voters (the issue was not on the call script).
The attempt to delay certification has the potential to be a defining issue in the campaign because it crystallizes in voters’ minds everything that is wrong with politics.
There are plenty of anecdotes I could tell you, about people who usually vote Democratic who are voting Brown, but I’m not really sure I should be giving out that information. I also can tell you generally that the response from the phone calls (not just mine, but campaign-wide) has been overwhelmingly positive for Brown, and we called only independents. You can believe me or not, your choice.
Brown stopped by the office twice on his way to and from campaign appearances. Note to the Hillbuzz guys: He’s even better in person.
—-
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]
Advertise on this site
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.”
A spokeswoman for Coakley’s campaign declined to comment today.
MA AG Martha Coakley (h/t MichelleMalkin.com)
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.
…[SNIP]…
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.
Prof. Jacobson sums up this practical scandal rather nicely:
If on the day of the health care vote, the duly elected Scott Brown shows up at the Senate to claim his seat for the vote, will Harry Reid instruct the Capitol Police to bar Brown from the chamber and from casting his vote? Will that be the legacy of health care “reform”?
The voters of Massachusetts need to call the Democrats bluff on this.
The Democrats have shown complete contempt for the Massachusetts voters, now it is time for the Massachusetts voters to show contempt for the Democrats who have hatched this scheme.
For the sake of their party, let’s hope that the Democrats don’t try to out-Burris themselves once again. It would be political suicide of the highest (or lowest…) order.
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy ScottBrown.com
Harry Reid says that its really a shame that MA. can’t find a negro without the Negro inflections to send to the senate since Mr. Burris will be going home soon.
Point in fact is the amount of Racisim the party of ‘Negroes’ aka Democrates seem to exhibit even when we talk about two white folks. The fact that even though one is a man and the other a woman rears the double standard that the Dem party thrives on. It is the fear of subjugation promoted by the party that allows them to elect unqualified minorites like Coakley, whoes judgement to keep individuals behind bars even though they have be wrongly convicted thru prosectural miscounduct, that is and will be the major weakness that all Americans have to put up with. Look at their leader and you can find no better example of the risk they pose to all in this country!
Phil says:
January 10, 2010 at 9:08 pm
bystander,
Exactly what baseless claim did I make Phil?
Asked and answered.
-Phil
Phil – I asked two questions, precisely: “Do the fundies also know he posed nude in Cosmo a few years back – didn’t Sarah Palin call nudity pornography recently? What larks!”
How can a question be baseless, and how can it be a claim? I seriously don’t understand what you think I did wrong here. And in terms of your original reply – I couldn’t care less what Brown did – it doesn’t bother or insult me, my question is how would the family values fundies react to this, given their heroine Sarah Palin apparently takes a dim view of anyone posing naked. Is it wrong to hint at a little hypocrisy?
AnotherReader says:
January 10, 2010 at 5:48 pm
” Freep? What kind of accusation is that? Did you just pull that out of your ass for this one?”
You know what I mean by Freeping this election. Like out of staters tried to Freep the NY 23 election.
earl,
I know, you think you’re “all that” by putting out a competing poll. And that’s fine. Many sites, notably HotAir.com, have already been all over the distinctions between the polls.
It’s likely the truth lies somewhere in between. Either way, word out of MA is that Coakley has been, essentially, trying to coast into the election and, apparently, refuses to debate, one-on-one, with the Lt. Col.
We’ll certainly be seeing what happens.
Mind you, however, earl, watch your tone — I certainly am.
-Phil
bystander,
Asked and answered.
-Phil
earl,
You’re beginning to remind me of why I originally banned you.
I’m rather torn — it’s almost entertaining to see you push absolutely baseless opinions on my site.
-Phil
Intrade is the source you are going to hang your hat on? And by “you guys” whom do you mean? Freep? What kind of accusation is that? Did you just pull that out of your ass for this one? Are you suggesting that the polling agents are calling out of state for results? Or maybe that an online poll is somehow credible? You bring up Freeping, it would seem Intrade would be the ultimate example. I’ll depend on legitimate polling of the actual voters involved instead.
Of course, in none of my statements did I predict a winner in this race. The fact that this will be a close race should get attention. And according the reports, it has. Why else would the Dems be talking of how to delay the certification of an election in a race that is a forgone conclusion?
I wondered why on Intrade today Coakley went from 76% chance of winning to 88.9%. Here’s why:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/10/senate_poll_coakley_up_15_points/
Coakley up by 15 points.
Coakley’s lead goes up to 17 points when Independents leaning toward a candidate are included.
2/3 of Brown’s supporters believe Coakley will win.
6 of 10 are unconcerned that Mass. congressional delegation is composed entirely of Democrats.
You guys gotta plan better the next time you decide to Freep a local election.
Plus he wasn’t semi nude – he was completely nude – unless you consider the hand covering his genitals clothes, which would be weird.
Exactly what baseless claim did I make Phil?
Phil says:
January 10, 2010 at 2:07 pm
1. “Pro-Choice ”
Actually it appears pro-choice was his stance until he walked it back the last week of December when he published his positions paper. Funny what you’ll say when you want to get elected. So was he lying about being pro-choice before the end of December when he claimed to be anti-abortion? Do the fundies really care about this issue? Or is it just a political football and anything goes when you want to get anybody but a Democrat elected? I think he’s wish-washing to get some votes. Diminishes him in my view.
2. “Elect a Hunk.”
Glad the right is willing to admit it’s that so shallow. Funny how it’s “hunky” when it’s a guy you want to elect just to eliminate the Democrats’ super-majority but it’s “porn” when it’s the Arctic Queen’s former son-in-law trying to get joint custody of his son.
3.”Leave it to me to put the “fun” back in fundamental.”
Heh! Phil brings the funny.
bystander/earl,
In response:
1. Apparently left-wing site DailyKos shows that Lt. Col. Brown isn’t quite as pro-choice as some make him out to be, especially when the same group that endorsed (here’s a shocker) former Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. John McCain, the Massachusetts Citizens for Life PAC, has also endorsed the Lt. Col.
Wow. Less than 30 seconds of a Google web search turned that up. And some accuse individuals like me of spreading falsehoods. Yikes…
2. Regarding the semi-nude photo of the Lt. Col. back during his law school days, I’ll let AmericanDaughter — a blog sympathetic to eligibility questioners such as myself and certainly not a blog that is friendly to the current Administration — go into the details on that
Incidentally, AmericanDaughter’s posting is entitled, “Elect a Hunk.” That should give you an idea of how some women think concerning the Lt. Col.
And in case you were wondering, the above-referenced Kos link briefly mentions the photo shoot; apparently if this or something like it were any real dirt on the Lt. Col., surely they would not be dismissing it as flippantly as they appear to have done.
Regarding the former Governor’s thoughts on nudity/pornography/[insert-favorite-word-here], you will recall from a Barbara Walters’ interview that Ms. Walters asked her the question regarding the Newsweek cover of the former Governor in running shorts (Hannity’s transcript here). I had run across an American Thinker article (you’ll have to look that one up for yourself; I’m not going to do everyone’s homework for them) wherein a liberal feminist took much issue about the rhetorical raping of the Governor that individuals in the press had undergone as a means of attempting to disqualify a woman — make that, a conservative/libertarian woman — from being capable of holding independent views that might differ from the mainstream.
So, no, sorry on all counts. I guess you’re going to have to do some better research before making such truly baseless claims.
Leave it to me to put the “fun” back in fundamental.
-Phil
Bystander,
I have no idea if they do or not. But I suspect this vote will be more of a referendum on Health Care than anything else. So I don’t think it matters. At least for the time being.
earl says:
January 10, 2010 at 11:11 am
By the way, do the folks from the right diving in to help Scott Brown know that Brown is pro-choice? I thought this was an automatic disqualifier for the right. Are righties willing to compromise their values simply to beat a Democrat? Fascinating.
Do the fundies also know he posed nude in Cosmo a few years back – didn’t Sarah Palin call nudity pornography recently? What larks!
AnotherReader says:
January 10, 2010 at 11:38 am
” The Republicans will be the beneficiary of this unrest temporarily. I believe we on the cusp of big changes. Changes that neither party”
I think that’s what you want the result to be, but it’s too early to say that is certainly the case. Every House seat is up for election in November. All 435. 178 are Republicans. For the Republicans to take the majority of the House, a Republican has to win every existing seat held by Republicans, plus 40 more, a 23% increase. I submit that for that to happen, the overall dissatisfaction with incumbents (which you pointed out) is going to have to shift to a specific dissatisfaction with Democrats by November. I don’t think you can even guess at that until we see what’s going on in June.
Earl,
Did you not read my first post? I specifically stated that this is not the result of a new found confidence the in the Republican party in general.
But what can not be denied is that the current liberal/progressive agenda and the methods which they have employed to push them have clearly soured the electorate. This unrest will devastate the current crop of Dem’s.
I don’t expect you to believe any of this, because I think you still believe this is a Democrat vs Republican battle. I believe there is huge groundswell of unrest with entire Dem vs Rep battle royal. Because the real losers have been the American people. The Republicans will be the beneficiary of this unrest temporarily. I believe we on the cusp of big changes. Changes that neither party will find palatable.
I know that many here will chime in to say that the current two party system will continue unchallenged. But that is par for the course. When real change is afoot, those who are most affected are least willing to see it coming.
By the way, do the folks from the right diving in to help Scott Brown know that Brown is pro-choice? I thought this was an automatic disqualifier for the right. Are righties willing to compromise their values simply to beat a Democrat? Fascinating.
AnotherReader says:
January 9, 2010 at 11:22 pm
” The polls clearly show that nearly all incumbents are in huge trouble.”
This is exactly true. People are dissatisfied with incumbents in general. That’s Republicans too, there are lots of Republican incumbents, especially in the House. Extrapolating that people are dissatisfied with incumbents translates into a huge win in November for Republicans is wishful thinking and pre-mature at best. I don’t think anyone can make any prediction about which way the wind is going to blow before June.
I think the right wing screwed the pooch on this one: they were too loud about their activity and tipped their hand.( the election isn’t for another week) and you’re counting your chickens before they’re hatched. This will be like NY 23 where the huffing and puffing and activity by the far right will induce the locals to come out and vote, where they might have been lethargic and unenthused and inclined to stay home. They should have just kept quiet about what they were up to. That said, Tom Schaller at 538 still thinks Coakley will win comfortably, and Intrade has the chance of Brown winning as 20%. I think if the right wing wants to be successful at influencing local or state elections, they need to turn the volume down and start earlier.
This is yet another example of the groundswell of animosity that the American people have grown to have against the current administration and political power structure. The polls clearly show that nearly all incumbents are in huge trouble. It’s not they suddenly have more confidence in the Republicans, it’s that they see that it is the only way to put a stop the radical agenda of the left. At least for the moment. As new options present themselves they will be taken seriously.
While political pundits and politicians often like to use the phrase “grassroots campaign” when conditions fit their particular agenda, they don’t really know what to do when one actually rises up. I believe that a large number of politicians are about to find out that the public is tired of their lies, arrogance, and overall contempt for the very people who voted them into office.
If Brown wins by more than the military and absentee votes combined, how can the SOS not certify it? A solid win is needed in Massachusetts.
Work on those questionable votes in the House too.
This so called “health care bill” will kill the patient Uncle Sam. Can we sue for malpractice?
If the administration wants to expand Medicaid temporarily to insure 30 million more, why don’t they just do it without all of the bribes and payoffs. The public option is dead. What the current bill will be is 95% big spending for show: “we did it!” and 5% substance.
New Poll just out…..
Scott Brown is in the lead!!!
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/
“Scott Brown has as much chance of winning this seat as the Red Sox had to win the World Series in 2004″….
It seems to me that based on the way ‘bama is trying to ram this “cradle to grave” healthcare down the conservatives throat he must be really disappointed that he didn’t choose to go the medical route instead. I guess what I’m saying is that he wants to be looked at as both a “doctor” and a lawyer from everyone’s perspective. In other words 10 years from now he wants people to believe that he was not only a lawyer, but also a medical doctor who knew exactly how to take care of everybody and thusly makes himself equal to Christ Jesus who can heal the sick and raise the dead. I know what you are up to ‘bama and I am going to expose you to the world little by little even if it is just through the portal known as the internet. All of this equals more chicanery on his part and a willingness to supplant our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Remember ‘bama we named a state after the Father of our Country and it is highly unlikely that hawaii will not be changing it’s name to ‘bama anytime soon. Also there is one other thing that I would like to point out to everybody that is so high on this fella’ still. In 1972 Nixon won every state in the union except one, Massachusettes. That is a true landslide. Point is he did not go around acting self-righteous and conceited like this jack-ass (no pun intended) of a fella’ ‘bama. To all you conservatives out there, ever notice how this phony baloney condescends on the public, makes statements without taking questions because he knows he is lying. Based on these things alone this man is not mentally stable enough to assume the presidency and puts our country in grave danger of being overthrown by outside forces even if he were legitimate.
You are too funny. Doesn’t he need to win the election first?
More Soros influence?
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by trsol: New Post: Lt. Col. @ScottBrownMA: Swearing-in Stalled to Pass Healthcare Reform? http://bit.ly/6yF8lF...
They say the Dem from the NY-23 6 weeks before his “election” was certified…what’s the problem in MA?