forgottenliberty.com

Today in Massachusetts, voters are going to the polls for a special election for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.  Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states, yet the latest poll shows Republican Scott Brown ahead of Democrat Martha Coakley by 9 percent.  Brown has made this election about Obama and his policies by bringing up health care and the Democrats’ runaway spending at every campaign stop.  He has repeatedly said that if elected, he will be the 41st vote to enable a Republican filibuster of the health care bill.  This has resonated with the people in Mass and he has been consistently rising in the polls.   To be fair, Martha Coakley has run a bad campaign, but the voters are clearly sending a message that the liberal policies of Obama are losing support… in Massachusetts of all places!

The way this race has played out is that a vote for Coakley is a vote for the health care legislation while a vote for Brown is a vote against the health care legislation.  Polls have shown that about 51% of people in Mass are opposed to the current health care bill.  Coincidentally, the latest poll shows Brown has about 52% of the vote.  I think it is safe to say that those who are voting for Brown are probably the same people who are opposed to the health care bill.  The logical conclusion as to why Brown is in the lead is that the people of Mass are fed up with what the Democrat controlled Congress has been doing.  Because of this, they may (if the polls are right) do something they have not done in a long time…  send a Republican to the Senate.

However, Democrats cannot admit this.  It is impossible that the people of Massachusetts are choosing a Republican over a Democrat because they are upset with Obama’s liberal policies.  Impossible!  So it has to be something else.

Republican Scott Brown has a real chance of pulling off an upset victory in Tuesday’s special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy.  If Brown wins, the Democrats will loose their 60 vote super majority in the Senate required to overcome Republican filibusters.  This could be trouble for 2 of Obama’s top legislative priorities, health care and cap and trade.  The health care and cap and trade bills are bad for American businesses, and smart investors know this.  However, if Brown wins, the passage of these two job killing bills could be doomed.  This would be great for our economy and may spark a rally in the stock market.

Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money, a long time Democrat agrees.  In his own words he believes, “… investors who are nervous about the dictatorship of the Pelosi proletariat will feel at ease, and we could have a gigantic rally off a Coakley loss and a Brown win.”

Below is a partial transcript and video clip of Cramer’s show where he commented on the Massachusetts Senate race.  The best line of the clip has got to be, “Pelosi politburo emasculation!”

On January 19th, Massachusetts will hold a special election to fill the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat.  If this seat is won by the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, Obama will no longer have a 60 seat majority in the Senate o do his will.  This could prevent the current health care bill from passing a final cloture vote in the senate and becoming law!

Now I know what most of you are thinking, ” How could a Republican win Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat?  Never in a million years!”  I must admit I was thinking the same thing until I saw a new poll from Public Policy Polling.  It shows that Republican Scott Brown is now 1 point ahead of Democrat Martha Coakley.  This is within the margin of error and makes this race a toss up between the 2 candidates.  This is startling to me and shows how even the people of an extremely liberal state are becoming angry with the Democrat controlled Congress and the White House.  Another shocking fact in this poll is that Republican Scott Brown is winning 17% of Democrats in the state while Democrat Martha Coakley is only winning 6% of the GOP vote.  Independents are also preferring Brown over Coakley, 63% to 31% respectively.  This is a winnable race for the Republican!

If Brown pulls off this election, the repercussions will be huge.  It would most likely cause

In my last post, I expressed my concern that Sen. Ben Nelson was not standing on principle but was holding out for some money to be thrown at him in exchange for his vote on the Senate health care bill.  Well, it seems I was right to be concerned.  Yesterday he announced that he would vote for cloture on the bill after he, according to the Washington Post,

secured full and permanent federal funding for his state to extend Medicaid eligibility to everyone below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill would require all states to do so, but Nebraska alone would not be required to pay a portion of the additional cost after 2016.

If this bill passes, our hard earned tax money will be disproportionately spent on Nebraska’s Medicaid recipients as a way to buy off Sen. Ben Nelson.  This is corruption, plain and simple.  Nelson is just the latest Congressman to have been given a large amount of our tax dollars in exchange for their vote.  This type of behavior needs to stop.  Our Republic was never meant to be governed this way.  This is a disgrace!  The will of the American people is being ignored so Congressmen can stay in power by securing favors for their constituents.

In addition to Nelson, Sen. Sanders (I-VT.) and Sen. Leahy (D-VT.) are receiving 10 billion in new funding for community health centers and more Medicaid funding.  Sen. Levin (D-Mich) is receiving a Medicaid deal similar to Nelson, and Sen. Landrieu (D-LA) is receiving 300 million in Medicaid funding.

Our government is spending billions of dollars that we don’t have to buy votes for a bill that the majority of Americans do not want!  Is this the hope and change we were promised?  Is this the new era of politics that President Obama was supposed to usher in?

Today, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) said he will not vote for cloture on the Senate health care bill.  Without his vote, Reid does not have the 60 votes required to stop a Republican filibuster.  Sen. Nelson has been holding out until abortion restrictions similar to those in the House version of the bill were put in to the Senate bill.  But now he is claiming that even if the abortion language in the bill is changed to his satisfaction, he still will not vote for cloture.

I’m hoping that Sen. Nelson really means what he is saying.  If he stops this bill, he will save the most innovative and technologically advanced health care system in the world.  However, I’m worried that he may not be taking this stand on principle and could be holding out for some kickback and pork barrel spending for his state.  We heard how the blue dogs in the House were not going to vote for the health care bill, but in the end they did.   In the Senate, we heard that Lierberman and Landrieu were not going to vote for the bill, but Landrieu was bought off with the new “Louisiana Purchase” and Lieberman recently said he expects to vote for the health care bill. Every other Democrat that has claimed they would not vote for this bill has eventually succumbed to the pressure of the left wing of the party.  I’m not holding my breath, but I truly hope Sen. Nelson stands strong.

I encourage everyone to contact him and tell him to stay the course and kill this terrible bill.  The phone number for his D.C. office is (202) 224-6551. You can also contact him via email by clicking here.

Here is the audio and transcript of the interview where Sen. Nelson made the claim,

Senate Majority leader Reid (D- Nevada) announced that a deal had been reached between liberal and “conservative” Democrats in regards to the public option in the senate version of the health care bill.  Details are sketchy, but the plan will supposedly replace the government run public insurance option with a non-profit plane that will be overseen by the government.  According to the LA Times,

Under the compromise developed by a group of conservative and liberal Democrats, the Senate legislation would no longer include a new government-run insurance program, or “public option,” for Americans who do not get coverage through their employers.

Instead, the government would essentially contract with a nonprofit insurer to provide a nationwide plan that would serve as the public option, according to officials briefed on the discussions.

———–

The government would oversee the nonprofit plan, ensuring that it met basic standards for quality and affordability. That provision was designed to satisfy demands from many on the left that the government provide consumers with an alternative to coverage offered by for-profit insurers.

The compromise would also create a mechanism for triggering the creation of a more traditional government-run plan like the one now in the bill, if the nonprofit option does not materialize.

Doesn’t this sound like Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac all over again?  Let’s see, a non-profit entity set up by