Blog @ MoreWhat.com

One report this week suggests the GOP will not oppose President Obama’s next nominee for the US Supreme Court. After confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor and the recent announcement of Justice Steven’s retirement later this year the sad rhetoric from both major parties demonstrates what has become an absurd process.

“You don’t go on to the bench [saying], ‘I’m always going to be against the big guy,’ ” Kyl said, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.

Although the sentiment, taken out of context here, may make some kind of point it certainly misses the mark when describing the judicial nomination process and the people and strategies involved.

Likewise a quote from the other side of the aisle is equally partisan and also misses the mark about the process.

“Let’s be candid about the Supreme Court being an ideological battleground today,” Specter said. “That happens to be a fact. When some decry judicial activism, what could be more judicial activism than reversing the 100-year precedent that corporations may not engage in political advertising, as the Supreme Court did in Citizens United?”

The Citizens United decision allowing ‘political advertising’ from previously banned sources is just one SCOTUS opinion. One can make a reasonable argument that those either in favor or opposed to it drew a conclusion based on how it affects their own agenda. Which is to say that Democrats don’t believe they can win the advertising game while Republicans do.

Why don’t they simply state the truth? Based on political considerations each nominee to SCOTUS or anywhere else is submitted to Congress in support of the current President’s agenda. It has little if anything to do with what may be good for our nation overall. And judges or others who may be nominated for any bench know this too. Over time the process has become dangerously flawed and all the players use it to their political advantage.

While other judicial nominations may not receive the public attention of a SCOTUS nominee they are no less disturbing or flawed. And they serve as the stepping-stone to other political absurdities. Just like Kyl or Specter offering quotes for public consumption on the topic. Lobbyists and campaign war chests drive American politics. And they expect us to believe a philosophical debate has anything to do with the process.

This blog author is certainly not opposed to throwing all the bums out in November. That means Republicans as well as Democrats. Contrary to the fix the party chatter making the rounds these days a couple of election cycles of throwing the bums out would force the necessary repairs. We don’t need a third party. We don’t need the two we have.

Break the cycle of political corruption. Throw them all out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

The following story is the result of an initial look at some of the 2010 elections.

So a young man earns a bachelor’s degree from a university. Sometime thereafter he adds a masters in business administration as well as a law degree. After working in at least one administrative position he becomes the CEO of a firm with annual losses of $50 million. During his tenure at the helm the company realizes profits of $240 million. An impressive accomplishment no matter how you measure it.

This man later enters politics and runs for governor. He narrowly defeats the incumbent. It is said he refuses to enact an income or sales tax in his state. He cuts spending while maintaining ‘essential’ services. He is given credit for expanding access to healthcare, creating jobs, growing the state’s reserve funds as well as economic development and reducing crime.

In subsequent re-election bids this governor dramatically overwhelmed his opponents by margins of 3 to 1 and has enjoyed tremendous approval ratings for some time. In addition this governor’s state is reported to have won awards as the most livable state and the safest.

Does this sound like a conservative to you? On the downside this governor did not veto a bill allowing homosexual marriage even though it is reported he is personally opposed. He also is engaged in a regional global warming agenda and complying with the renewable energy act that may be ill=advised regardless of any good intentions.

If you haven’t guessed already this governor is a Democrat. Needless to say he endorsed Barack Obama for president. The humorous part, if there is one, his wife endorsed Hillary Clinton. And as you might expect as a pediatrician his wife is reported to be active in child obesity causes. So there is plenty of liberal philosophy lurking in the background yet this governor has some history not characteristic of liberals or Democrats, if there is a difference.

So what’s the point of all this? It should be no surprise to anyone that the 2010 elections have been characterized as the potential big comeback for conservatives. The GOP fancies themselves as the big winners given public anger at incumbents and in particular the Democratic party majority. It is not uncommon for the majority party to suffer losses in midterm elections. But what does the GOP offer to the growing trend of conservatism in the US?

Using the story provided here as an example it demonstrates what may be all too common in upcoming elections. In the story presented here, Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire may only be vulnerable this November based on polling data. Rasmussen Reports indicates Lynch has slipped from 50% in March to 47% now. His challengers at this point are in the mid 30’s in voter share. One conservative activist competing against Lynch for governor has a compelling bio and professional history. The others, one Democrat, one Republican are by no means political heavyweights either.

It would not necessarily be going out on a limb to suggest a victory for Lynch at this early stage of the game. The minority party, in many cases around the country including the US Congress, may not present strong conservative candidates in 2010. Like it or not those challenging liberal incumbents need a compelling resume’ to compete. After all, election outcomes are unfortunately driven by politics and that requires more than good intentions.

How many contests will the GOP concede for lack of a competitive conservative candidate or the willingness to spend what’s necessary to win?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you didn’t already have reason to support someone other than Carly Fiorina for the US Senate race to represent California here it is. While Sarah Palin has annoyed some conservatives by supporting John McCain in his re-election bid well beyond any polite assistance to a former running mate, ‘I am no maverick’ McCain once again demonstrates politics matters more to him than anything else.

In the heat of the 2008 presidential race, Carly Fiorina made a splash when she opined that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin — both fellow Republicans — or their Democratic rivals could run a major corporation.

On Tuesday, it was the Arizona senator’s turn to speak about Fiorina’s qualifications. It worked out much better for her.

McCain called Fiorina, who served as a top economic adviser to him during his presidential bid, inspiring and a great American success story.

Number one, does Fiorina believe everyone has forgotten her pathetic performance at HP? Number two, does it matter whether Fiorina dissed McCain in 2008 before or after she became an adviser to his campaign? And three, given all that why is McCain publicly supporting her run for the Senate? Everything asked can be considered rhetorical questions.

If McCain wins re-election you have to ask yourself how that is possible? Easy, a combination of uninformed voters, people who don’t vote and the rest are getting perks with him in office.

The sad fact is Arizona is a border state. And unless people in Arizona are simply giddy about their tax dollars continuing to pay for illegals as well as all the other problems associated with open borders re-electing McCain who supports shamnesty is mindless.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A column by Dana Milbank at WaPo may be representative of the liberal view on healthcare reform and the associated politics in Washington DC. And right out of the gate Milbank is wrong. In the first paragraph he tries to be cute and references a Kenny Rogers song suggesting the GOP should ‘know when to fold’em’. And two more errors are offered in the next paragraph. One, that healthcare reform is a done deal. And two, bad behavior and death threats ‘no doubt’ were caused by actions of Republicans.

On the topic of folding Milbank should be more concerned about the financial strain another huge entitlement will place on our nation. He should also point out that politics, majority party politics is responsible for the selfish choice to place a favorite liberal agenda item, healthcare ‘reform’, ahead of attending to jobs and the economy.

Perhaps Milbank’s real meaning for his ‘folding’ advice was requesting that the loyal opposition simply roll over and play dead. There are those of us who would prefer they did not. Bad enough that GOP errors caused them to lose the majority in 2006 that led to the leadership mess we’re in now. But the best way to fix that is learn from your mistakes, retake the majority and correct what damage the liberals cause.

To suggest that healthcare reform is a done deal is for Milbank to concede his lack of understanding. Beyond the fact that 37 states have initiated legal moves to opt out of Obamacare and talk about repealing the new legislation there is an underlying problem Milbank ignores.

There are no done deals in politics. Obamacare is no exception. Most new legislation alters older legislation and the party battles, wins and losses, perpetuate the process. And if Milbank thinks other liberals are content to stop meddling in healthcare after the bill is signed by the President, he knows nothing.

‘No doubt’ Milbank would prefer you had ‘no doubt’ about who or what is behind threatening behavior directed at politicians. But it is prudent and sensible to withhold judgment until there is something other than guesswork or personal opinions available like evidence. Or we can fan the flames like Milbank and point fingers and hurl accusations. Or just hurl.

For Milbank to jest about viagra for pedophiles misses the point which is government failures in managing programs produce outrageous outcomes. Milbank mentioning Lindsey Graham or John McCain as sensible voices in the GOP confirms they’re RINOs. Thanks for making one point conservatives can agree upon.

There is much about Milbank’s column that is foolish. Not the least of which is getting it wrong on why the GOP won’t fold’em.

The GOP used the majority party’s choice of reconciliation to send Obamacare back to the House allowing liberals one more chance to do what’s right and kill the bill. They also used amendments they knew would be rejected as nearly all have been to date in order to provide a record of many items that are in Obamacare and wrong. And to have those who support Obamacare go on record as promoting and accepting bad legislation.

There may be those who believe the GOP needs to use the record of these proceedings to challenge Democrats in November. It may be necessary to inform those not paying attention. I for one do not require it for opposing those who supported Obamacare. And Milbank does not need it to vote for liberals. No doubt.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In Hypothetical 2012 Matchup, Obama in Statistical Dead Heat Against 2 Republicans: Nobody and Anybody

Given the roll call vote (number 165) for March 21, 2010 with a time stamp of 10:49PM in the US House of Representatives the fat lady may not have sung yet on the outcome of healthcare legislation but the situation looks rather dismal.

What it looks like from here is Obama will sign his Obamacare and the Senate has an opportunity to make fixes or changes. It also looks like Mr Stupak may have been duped. Accepting less than a million dollars in airport funding for his vote in exchange for an executive order from President Obama to protect Stupak’s claimed pro-life interests may be another healthcare scam.

While preparing to publish this post an unproductive search was conducted to determine who the other Congressman were in Mr Stupak’s little alliance. It is almost as if the others have effectively cloaked their names from the media. About all that was found so far was six more names to go with Mr Stupak at Wikipedia. A check of the roll call indicates they all did not vote one way.

But they are not the only ones who may deserve to be politically impaled for this travesty. You can start with the Republicans. Had they not squandered their last Congressional majority with a major fall from grace on conservative principles we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

Add to that the equally disgusting performance of the liberal agenda gone wild and a recurring theme in American politics emerges once again. Politicians are the largest impediment in politics and governing. They are the root of all evil in public affairs. They are what allows lobbyists to exist. For without the pursuit of power, election and re-election by politicians, lobbyists would have no reason to exist.

It’s the ageless battle between greed and corruption versus principle and virtue. So now the next chapter begins. What to do after the mindless tragedy that took place in Congress this past Sunday?

37 states will pursue opting out of Obamacare. Various entities will pursue legal action against Obamacare. And many politicians may have just signed their resignation papers with a vote for Obamacare. And some argue those who voted against it will experience the same fate.

Let the purging begin.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

News reports out today regarding the Dems jobs bill and the vote of newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) raise questions. Brown is being described by some as a sellout. Others suggest he had no choice given circumstances in the state he represents.

You can view the roll call vote by clicking here. The questions about this vote should ask more than why did Senator Scott Brown vote for it. Why did seven other GOP members not vote?

Among those not voting was Senator Jeff Sessions. To this point Senator Sessions has been viewed as a positive force in the US Senate and that will probably continue. But the question remains. Why did he and six others not vote on this bill?

Voinovich and Bond voted ‘yes’ and are retiring. Collins and Snowe voted ‘yes’ and that is no surprise given they are RINOs. That suggests Scott Brown does not plan on being in the Senate long or is a RINO or both. If nothing else the last three statements are humorous. But only because the vote’s outcome is so pathetic.

The previous post on Romney, McCain and Palin is troubling. This post adds to that concern. Again, what the hell are Republicans thinking (or are they)?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

With some troubling news coming out of CPAC 2010 along with similar revelations about various ‘conservative’ philosophies and their proponents more reports suggest 2010 is still wide open.

The recent endorsement of John McCain by former running mate Sarah Palin was analyzed by some as the former Alaska governor being polite. But that argument fails given her unnecessary decision to ’stump’ and raise money for the veteran Senator from Arizona whose conservative values have always been in question. His maverick status being built more by a departure from conservative values than adherence to it.

Now this:

Romney backs McCain in Arizona Senate primary race

It’s like 2008 all over again: Mitt Romney is endorsing John McCain. This time, though, it’s not after a bitter presidential primary between the two GOP rivals.

With too many Republicans appearing more like their liberal counterparts in the Democratic party the wonder is how anyone can suggest a GOP majority after the 2010 elections. This blog features sidebar links for Palin and Romney. And past posts have called for support of both in past elections. For now those links and the supportive posts will remain. But the troubling trends being reported render all that subject to change.

What the hell are these people thinking? Enough noise was made by the public this year that even POLS with hearing impairments should have received the message. A return to basic common sense American values is long overdue and more necessary for survival than previously thought. If those connected to the GOP are as unresponsive as their political opposition from the other major party then one thing remains clear.

They are no better than those they criticize and have apparently improved upon the liberal trend of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Criticism of the Tea Party phenomenon is limited to familiar rants. During last summer’s townhall meetings any attendees raising opposition to the liberal agenda were labeled as paid political thugs or racists or bigots clutching their bibles or guns. Frequently those dismissing the current public outrage over the growth of government, debt, deficits and taxes describe the opposition as mostly white. Yet you can likely compile a list of those opposing the current political climate featuring a significant number of non-white participants.

The race card is becoming quite the irrelevant insult largely adopted by the political left as are other complaints from liberals that characterize their political opposition as somehow inferior. A piece from Real Clear Politics sums up the situation rather well.

Palin and the Tea Party protests are also united by what is united against them: the liberal base. This is not the wave that brought Barack Obama to the White House. But this too is a people’s movement. It might not be liberals’ people. But grassroots activism it is indeed. And it has summed now to this convention, combining the second biggest political rock star with the hottest movement in American politics. That gets mainstream conservative voters, like my 7th grade girlfriend, to pay attention. This Tea Party might only be getting started.

Reference was made to some of the legitimate criticism or concerns about the Tea Party nation and all it represents. It is reasonable to evaluate developments and trends especially when they pose significant threats to established mechanisms within society. And politics is certainly no exception. Entrenched power structures like political parties have the most to gain or lose by success or failure of ‘movements’ like the tea parties.

The most important point to consider on this topic is not whether the tea party movement or its convention are good, bad, left, right or universal. That the message would be ignored by those in public office even when it represents a growing discontent across the nation beyond the movement itself demonstrates the reason for its existence.

To remove those from office who simply don’t get it or refuse to respond to the public they represent.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

you need to read the following….

An inconvenient question about the Mount Vernon Statement (Michelle Malkin)

A billboard getting some attention was erected at the direction of some as yet unknown sponsors. There’s nothing like a little humor for this troubling political climate. And yes, this blogger laments the departure of Bush 43. Certainly not perfect but a preferred option over current conditions. And like most, the author of this brief post is anxiously awaiting November 2010. After that it will be anxiously awaiting November 2012.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Once again the economic media darlings weigh in. Paul Krugman deserves his lefty description. This is a man who would be a natural for NASCAR; circular motion always moving to the left. And like NASCAR races, each lap is a repeat.

In a column of his last week, Fiscal Scare Tactics, Krugman makes his case with something as appealing to liberals as bashing Bush. That is, bashing Bush. When they’re not bashing Bush they’re bashing Bush or something about Bush.

So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

To me — and I’m not alone in this — the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.

‘…even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency’ is exactly the point, Mr. Krugman. For all the disdain elites and political power brokers have for ordinary citizens my fellow ‘commoners’ and I do understand clearly at least one element of this topic.

The following are some things that increase and rarely, if ever, decrease.

-The US national debt
-The US budget deficit
-Taxes
-the size of government
-the pay for those in government including elected representatives
-entitlements
-those receiving entitlements
-legislation that spends taxpayer dollars
-the amount of money borrowed by the government
And did I mention taxes?

Mr Krugman: Continuing to spend money we don’t have is a bad idea. And yes, it is an idea that is not new. That’s the problem. Not like their should be a learning curve on this issue. Spending what you don’t have is what caused much of our current problems. And the agenda(s) being pushed in DC are tantamount to the Madoff ponzi scheme.

Obama-speak, et al (translation): We are taking more of your money (tax dollars) to spend on things we want that will benefit you in the long run.

Like I said, a ponzi scheme to rival Madoff. And where is he currently residing?

And from another media darling comes the following:

This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking “in the plain words of plain folks,” because the people are “suspicious of complexity.” Counseled Blow: “The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, ‘Mr. President, we’re down here.’ “

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are “a nation of dodos” that is “too dumb to thrive.”

The key ‘economic’ word here being ‘agenda.’ And the attitude of those now governing toward those being governed is as much a part of an economic discussion as anything else. Since it is the dollars of those governed that those now governing plan tu use for their agenda. And the problem is, to pay for it, requires borrowing into the next millennium and continuing to pay for it long after that.

This is why liberals bashing the Tea Party citizens is an idea as bankrupt as their agenda. There is a piece at the Boston Herald from a ‘fellow’ at the Heritage Foundation that should make Mr Krugman cringe.

If spending jumps $12,000 per household, taxes must eventually rise. The president would make a large down payment on that with a $2 trillion tax hike on all Americans. Yet that would still leave the government running up $8.5 trillion in deficits over the decade, setting the stage for even larger and more damaging broad-based tax hikes later.

Ominously, economists close to the White House suggest that a value-added tax of 15 percent and 20 percent is eventually possible to finance Obama’s agenda.

By doubling the national debt over pre-recession levels, he’d push America toward a tipping point - where rising debt levels will become too large for global capital markets to absorb. This could trigger a financial crisis, an interest-rate spike and tax hikes.

And it still comes down to that nothing new concept Mr Krugman alluded to in his column. We cannot continue to spend what we don’t have. Everyone can understand that.

And to couple another item with Mr Krauthammers’ commentary comes the following brief item Charles Hurt at the NY Post. In a small amount of space Mr Hurt condenses the sanity of tea party nation those plain words for plain folks like us, down here, near the voting booth.

These people have come from all across the nation for the first National Tea Party Convention to denounce not just President Obama and the Democrats, but Republicans and all of Washington for getting infected with the same voracious and parasitic plague spawned by big-government liberalism.

Read the rest, it won’t take long and anyone can understand it. Even those lowly voters who have the audacity to raise a loud voice in opposition to leaders with a hearing problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Obamanation has once again enlisted the help of yet another person who worked on the 2008 presidential campaign of President Barack Obama. David Plouffe is viewed by the left as some sort of hero based on the props they give him. So what’s his story?

Based on his track record in campaigns found at Wiki, he’s basically battin’ 500. In the list below he’s three out of six without the last three wins. Who can tell if his work was really the prime mover in those contests. C’mon, if it were otherwise you might expect Plouffe to be Obama’s mega adviser not Axelrod. And the MSM being what it is the Messiah could do no wrong since his speech at a convention as a virtual unknown and his run in 2008.

(Last three wins working with or for Axelrod)

How tough would it be to get a Democrat elected in Massachusetts in 2006? How tough to get Harkin re-elected in 1990? Harkin in 1992 or Gephardt in 2000 would have been an impressive accomplishment. And how about the following item?

Plouffe offered a video challenge for the left to buy his book in order to beat one day sales of Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. While the outcome may be unknown this much is certain as of this writing. At Amazon dot com Going Rogue has a sales rank of #59 while Plouffe’s book is at #646.

Apparently his challenge didn’t set the world on fire nor his book sales.

Plouffe’s wife is a principal at Dewey Square Group. In other words, she’s a lobbyist. And as for David Plouffe and David Axelrod they are thick as thieves. For more on them see this piece by Michelle Malkin…

Axelrod’s profits: Uh, who’s on the take from the drug lobby again?!?!

What did candidate Obama say about lobbyists in the 2008 US Presidential campaign? Ya, right. What now President Obama meant by ‘hope and change’ was that the change would be all the broken campaign promises and he hoped you wouldn’t notice.

So if they are enlisting the help of David Plouffe based on the DNC’s dismal prospects for the 2010 midterm elections and beyond (hint, hint, 2012) you should know what that means. Absolutely no hope and change but much, much more of the same.

For liberals and RINOs in 2010 it should be exit stage left.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

note: Much of the information provided here followed a path layed out by the fine folks at Wikipedia. Some info came from your basic internet search.

Coakley will rightly get most of the blame should Brown actually pull off what once seemed to be an impossible victory. Yet much of the responsibility will have to rest with Barack Obama, who has guided his party so poorly that it is having trouble making an appeal to voters in Massachusetts.

To put it bluntly, the Obama White House has been politically inept in the last year. It has made serious miscalculations, and today it is paying a price.

The link above makes a good case for how the Obama administration cultivated the landscape allowing Scott Brown to harvest a strategy for victory in Massachusetts. And since Martha Coakley supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential campaign you have to wonder if Barry from DC allowed that to influence his response to this potentially devastating loss for his agenda.

One year into a four year term and that nasty tendency of liberals snatching defeat from the jaws of victory rears its ugly but welcome head again. Sound bites proliferating since Brown’s victory suggest the Dems will continue their pusuit of defeat in 2010. That may be rewarding for the American public as many incumbents may fall if they don’t retire first. Both major political parties run the risk of not learning lessons from public outrage. And term limits in the form of elections might usher in a new era in US policy and politics.

Good stuff.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

….the anniversary of President Obama’s Inaugural, and it’s worth recalling the extraordinary political opportunity he had a year ago. An anxious country was looking for leadership amid a recession, and Democrats had huge majorities and faced a dispirited, unpopular GOP. With monetary policy stimulus already flowing, Democrats were poised to get the political credit for the inevitable economic recovery.

Twelve months later, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has fallen further and faster than any recent President’s, Congress is despised, the public mood has shifted sharply to the right on the role of government…

A report from WSJ before the results of the Taxachusetts special election to fill the vacancy left by Ted Kennedy is linked above and points to what still rings true after Scott Brown won.

What has been discussed since the ‘little known’ Republican state legislator became the first GOP Senator from MA in decades is what it may mean. Some are concerned he will represent another moderate or RINO from the Northeast like Snowe or Collins. Others say that beyond confirming the voting public is angry at the White House and Congress this election is not a game changer. And this blog suggested in a forum entry on this site that Scott Brown’s victory is less than a two year window for the GOP to hold a typically blue state seat.

What appears to be the most significant lesson of this event may fall on deaf ears within the GOP. Contrary to some reactions this event does not guarantee anything for conservatives and even less for the GOP. For some in the GOP to accept this as a vindication of criticism toward them, think again. The Republican party still has much to do to prove they are worthy of victories in the 2010 midterms.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Turnout could hit as high as 70 percent Tuesday in the high-stakes U.S. Senate battle between Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley and GOP state Sen. Scott Brown, according to some local election officials.

Absentee ballot requests have increased - on par with levels ordinarily seen in a presidential election - some town clerks say. And town and city halls were buzzing last week with people voting and asking questions about registration in advance of the election to fill the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat, said Theodora Eaton, president of the state’s city and town clerk’s association.

Under normal circumstances anticipation of high voter turnout for an election, any election, would be a good thing. It may still be a good thing for the special election in Massachusetts. But in light of the crazy spectacle surrounding last year’s senatorial election in Minnesota between incumbent Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken an uncertain immediate future for the winner of the election to fill Ted Kennedy’s vacant senate seat may arise.

Since a win by Scott Brown would represent the 41st vote against Obamacare there have been rumors that he would not be seated instantly while the Democrats in Washington continue to force their version of healthcare reform on a wary public. That suggestion was met with another related to political suicide for liberals in the 2010 elections. Seems a risky proposition given all the seats that will be contested given retirements and public discontent.

If Coakley wins it seems reasonable that she would swiftly be seated to advance questionable healthcare reform. But then, that is what was expected in the Minnesota fiasco last year. And there’s always the question of vote early and vote often given ACORN, the new black panthers intimidation scandal and SEIU thug tactics at Tea Parties and elsewhere. Fiction, conjecture or actual fact there will be plenty of debate on every aspect of this relatively historic election that may put Camelot to a long overdue rest.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com