Bombshell: Brown leads Coakley in MA Senate race; Update: Globe poll shows Coakley up 15
Scroll for updates…
I noted on Friday that libs were getting “anxious” about the MA Senate race.
The latest numbers from Public Policy Polling should have them hitting the panic button even faster:
The Massachusetts Senate race is now a toss up.
Buoyed by a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in the state, Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47.
Here are the major factors leading to this surprising state of affairs:
-As was the case in the Gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia last year, it looks like the electorate in Massachusetts will be considerably more conservative than the one that showed up in 2008. Obama took the state by 26 points then, but those planning to vote next week only report having voted for him by 16.
-Republicans are considerably more enthusiastic about turning out to vote than Democrats are. 66% of GOP voters say they are ‘very excited’ about casting their votes, while only 48% of Democrats express that sentiment- and that’s among the Democrats who are planning to vote in contrast to the many who are apparently not planning to do so at this point.
-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.
Hey, remember when Biden campaigned for losing Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jon Corzine in New Jersey and when Obama campaigned for losing Democrat gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds in Virginia one week before Election Day?
Please, Mr. Obama, go up to Massachusetts and campaign for your SEIU-backed pal Martha Coakley. Work your reverse-Midas magic again!
***
Culture of Corruption, Bay State-style: The Dems want to keep Ted Kennedy’s seat by any means necessary….
Friday, 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 Friday 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.
Friday, 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.”
Fight Demcare corruption/SEIU/Massachusetts’ political machine: Support Scott Brown for Senate here.
***
William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection blogs from Brown HQ:
My expectations were fairly low. I figured I’d stay an hour or so, talk to some people, get a better “on the ground” sense of things, send out some tweets and do a post.
I arrived at around 11 a.m. The best description of the experience was that it was like one of those movies or commercials where everything is quiet until the actor opens a door, and then there is a blast of noise and light.
From the moment I arrived until I left about 5 hours later, the atmosphere was electric. I had not expected the frenzy of phones ringing, people walking in the door to write checks, dozens of people making calls to voters, and generally ebullient mood.
Those of you who follow this blog know that I am a big supporter of Scott Brown. So I claim no neutrality. And you can believe me or not when I tell you that there is an air of excitement and movement which is beyond belief.
They are out of lawn signs and bumper stickers. Completely. Nothing left, but people kept calling all day wanting to find out where they could get them. I was told it has been this way for days.
***
The Boston Globe shows Coakley up 15 points.
Charlie Foxtrot notes:
Why the difference? Well the Globe poll is a poll of 554 likely-voters, but was conducted from 2-6 January. The PPP poll was made up of 774 likely-voters, and conducted from 7-9 January. Perhaps the PPP poll is more updated due to the very recent phone-bank ops conducted by the Brown campaign.
What is interesting is the political make-up of the Globe Poll. PPP breaks out its respondents as 44% Dem, 39% IND, and 17% GOP. The Globe is 55% Dem, 15% IND, and 28% GOP.
So the Globe immediately has a heavier disposition towards the Dems. Now perhaps their weighting is better than that of PPP, only time will tell.
JWF adds:
OK, so this is a Boston Globe poll and who’s to say they’re more trustworthy than PPP? Well, PPP was way off on the NY-23 race most recently, so consider their recent track record.
I suspect the reality lies somewhere in between, with Coakley probably up by single digits and Brown gaining. Is there enough time for him to make up a single-digit gap? Perhaps. But 15 points? Highly doubtful when you consider this is the bluest of blue states and Democrats will probably be spooked enough to show up come election day. A scare for Democrats, no doubt, and an ominous sign for things nationally come November.
Karl in the Green Room takes a closer look at “What’s Up with the Mass. Polls.” An excerpt:
One point of agreement between the two polls is the role of relative intensity. PPP reports that “66% of GOP voters say they are ‘very excited’ about casting their votes, while only 48% of Democrats express that sentiment.” The Globe reports that “Brown matches Coakley – both were at 47 percent – among the roughly 1 in 4 respondents who said they were ‘extremely interested’’ in the race.” Some might be tempted to frame these numbers as an “enthusiasm gap,” though it is probably more accurate to note that the Right tends to vote more regularly than the Left, and that the key for Coakley will be turning out enough of the state’s much larger pool of Democrats.
Gird your loins, in other words, for more SEIU shenanigans.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
More CPAC speeches in 20 words
February 11, 2012 06:53 PM by Michelle Malkin
29 CommentsOn Capitol Hill today: Union members testify against forced dues racket
February 8, 2012 09:44 AM by Michelle Malkin
36 CommentsRomney gets Rick-rolled: Santorum sweeps Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado in 2/7 trifecta
February 7, 2012 07:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
332 CommentsMiddle Class Payroll Tax Cut Extension Comes Courtesy of Mortgage Fees on Home Buyers
February 6, 2012 01:36 PM by Doug Powers
35 CommentsSantorum’s got game
February 6, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
184 CommentsNevada Caucuses Open Thread; Update: Romney Wins
February 4, 2012 04:30 PM by Doug Powers
139 Comments
BlunderMitt: Let Them Eat Food Stamps; Plus: PPP results point to Santorum
February 1, 2012 09:44 AM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
Florida Primary Open Thread; Update: Romney Wins
January 31, 2012 07:24 PM by Doug Powers
163 Comments
Patterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the NonconformistsJustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New LightGateway Pundit
» Top Leftist Blog: Obama Must Quash Religious Freedom to Save Earth From Global Warming
Call me a pessimist, but I don’t think that there’s any way the Republicans win any key races ever again. I mean, FOR GOD’S SAKE, AL FRANKEN IS A U.S. SENATOR FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. The Dems will keep their majorities by hook or crook (with much emphasis upon crookery). They only way they get unseated is by miliary coup or WE THE PEOPLE marching upon Capital Hill and throwing them out ourselves.
If this is true, then this is a non-issue for those of us who truly want change (i.e. reverting back to a republic from the fascist/Marxist system we’ve had for the past 40 years). If Scott Brown is just another big-spending, big government RINO, then I could care less if he wins or not. I could care less if he’s voted dog catcher.
WSJ recognized PPP a couple of years ago as one of the two most accurate polling firms in the nation; they are very highly regarded in NC. Tom Jenson of PPP compares previous results of newspaper/university polls to IVR (interactive voice response) polls here: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/
TraciB,
PPP’s final poll of NY 23 also had Hoffman winning by 16 points.
Were they really, or was the final result rigged by ACORN? With ACORN and union thugs hauling boxes of “lost votes” out of basements, polls and actual voting are meaningless anyway.
That’s true enough, but if he’s not the best for the job, you shouldn’t participate in his taking office in the first place.
I’ve already said that it’s highly unlikely you’re going to do any better in Massachusetts. The citizens of Massachusetts should know by now what happens when their Senators aren’t “kept in check”. Diligence is going to be required.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
The American Revolution begins. Are you in?
Then you weren’t watching the protests and the Town Hall meetings.
Reinstating the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is what the Tea Party movement is all about. It’s much more than an anti-incumbent splash.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
If you are from Massachusetts (I’m not assuming one way or the other), then it is your duty as a citizen of that state to care.
People not caring is what got us into this mess in the first place.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
And on the Seventh Day John McCain rested. Or so he thinks.
From Re-Elect the RINO as the Illegal Aliens Depend on Him
Now that fool is riding OUR coat tails.
—
John McCain’s Not Airing New Radio Ads on JD Hayworth’s Radio Show … -
—
There are more than just a few of us trying to get JD Hayworth to run against Johnny Mac in the primary. “Hayworth has polled higher than McCain in recent months”
It is time for faith and optimism, you naysayers, frittering over who is conservative and who is a closet RINO, and blah, blah.
If Michelle Malkin likes Scott Brown, and I did read about him, that is good enough for me.
I like Marco Rubio. A lot. Is he a perfect man? No one is. But he will have my vote in August against Charlie Crist, the Orange RINO Obama-hugger of Florida.
It can be done, we can and will take back Congress in 2010 one seat at a time. They are paying attention, and I believe, with all of my heart, that the pendulum is swinging back to conservative values.
Believe, and stop wallowing in looking for the perfect candidate. Hold elective officials collective feet to the fire. There is a climate change, alright, but it is not as Al Gore preaches, the change is in DC.
I fully expect ACORN to swoop in and steal it for Coakley. But the mere fact that the race is this close in the Kennedy state speaks volumes for what will happen in the rest of the country in 2010. Can’t wait.
you’ve never made a mistake? I made a mistake, it was brought to my attention, I admitted my error, now what was your purpose in commenting again on my error?
It does take all kinds.
Don’t get your hopes up. ACORN is still receiving millions (if not billions) of taxpayer money. Those who think liberals are going to be booted out of office by vote, are not paying attention.
Keep on writing your angry emails and making your phone calls to clerks and voicemail if you think anyone is listening, but if you truly want to turn things around, you’re going to have to get off your a$$es and into the streets.
If that’s too much trouble to ask, or if you’re too worried about what your neighbors will think, then you’re the problem.
IT’S TIME TO STAND UP AND DO SOMETHING
I believed in George Bush when he said he was going to reform Social Security, change Clinton’s “bomb the Middle East especially when Monica speaks” foreign policy, and make government smaller.
I’ve been burned by smooth talking power hungry GOP candidates for too many years, and I am not willing to simply “believe” any more.
I don’t want an evangelist. I want a track record.
If rightisright made a mistake then rightisright is really rightismostlyright right, or just mostly right?? This can be complicated.
For Truth, Justice and Miss Kitty
Dearest MarcoPolo, what is your solution without a viable third party?
I won’t argue with you, and agree with your thoughts, but reality is what we have, and I am curious as to what your solution is during this time.
Also, it never hurts to believe, but I am an eternal optimist.
With this close race spring hope and now I understand why “Hope Springs Attourney”!
Oh, you must be referring to the never-ending search for “disruptors” and infiltrators over at the misleadingly named, “Free Republic.” I’d like to toss Jim Robinson and his moronic “Viking Kitties” out of the conservative movement. Then, I think I could live with whoever said he wanted to be a member. I just hate the feeling that someone is looking to stick the shiv in if you disagree with his latest direction. And such a frightening crowd of nitwit followers.
Apparently it is for you.
Coming from John McCain, I’d say if you believe any of his hogwash, I’m still selling that nice oceanfront property in Colorado …
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
This is exactly what the Left wants you to do – let others think for you.
They may not appreciate your choice of thinker, but thinking for oneself is what America is supposed to be about, so scroo them.
Go to Brown’s site yourself and read his “Issues” page. You may not be so enthusiastic once you have.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Oh he pendulum is swinging, all right, but to believe that those in Washington are paying attention? Please.
This movement will succeed in spite of the Republicans and Democrats, not because of them.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I don’t think the Republicans are really all that viable as a third party either. All that really needs happen now is for Federalists (or whatever you want to call us) to stand up and win.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
This is my solution.
Whether a true party grows from it or not, choosing one’s candidate based on this formula will put the liberals in both tired parties out of business.
Spread the word!
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
We are in it….
Ok, I think it is time to stop looking at party affiliations and to start looking at what people stand for not by their words but by their deeds. I don’t care if you label yourself a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent or flaming yellow zonker. You don’t get my vote unless you believe in the following;
1.) Strict construction of the US Constitution and you’d best prove to me you know it and support it.
2.) Full and complete backing of all ten of the Bill of Rights and the other 17 additional amendments.
3.) Track record of supporting smaller Federal government and getting out of the business of everyone except for National Defense and a very limited interpretation structured around the ideas of James Madison of what ‘promote the general welfare means’.
Defense to me means defense of our borders from incursions by individuals or nations. It means maintaining an aggressive posture that identifies seeks out and destroys our enemies pro-actively well before they can attack the US or her interests. A true ‘either you are with us or against us’ stance.
Promoting the general welfare should be limited to only those things of vital and strategic interest. Those being the support of enterprise, commerce, such as education, highways and the promotion of a strong merchant marine and civil air fleet.
ssnark,
You sound like a man who is tired of having to choose the lesser of two weasels.
On January 10th, 2010 at 9:20 pm, Flyoverman said:
Tired of dealing with weasels. I’d really like to find someone to vote for that I can respect and agree with. I didn’t like a lot of what President George W. Bush stood for, but I could respect him. I think the last President that I could respect and generally agree with was the only President never elected to the office and one of the few who never wanted the office he held.
Maybe that’s who we need as President, someone who has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the office. Someone people wouldn’t elect because he’s too much of a ‘Eagle Scout’.
If I had the answers I’d run for office. I am terribly disillusioned with the GOP though, and I refuse to alllow my disgust with Obama be used as a tool by the party.
Thats how the Democrats won. They took the anti-war sentiment and the anti-spending sentiment (positions which have traditionally been associated with the GOP) and turned them into a hate of Bush. Nobody on the left noticed that McCain and Obama were running on virtually identical platforms. They heard what they wanted to hear, and they’re not happy about it now.
If we can’t elect conservatives, what’s the point of electing Republicans?
I sort of forgot about that site. I got kicked out of there during the Bush years for mentioning that I disagreed with Bush’s plan for amnesty. And that was long before I got passionate about my politics – I’d probably last about 5 seconds there now!
The general welfare clause is followed immediately by a list of the ways Congress can promote the general welfare. Never mind your interpretation of “vital and strategic interest” or, for that matter, mine.
I would also support a candidate who advocates the repeal of Amendments 15 and 16 (pretty sure I have the right Amendment numbers – not willing to double check right now). These have aided the progressives in the evil task of repealing our rights and those of the states.
Your method of choosing a candidate for your support is exactly what I have been harshly criticized here for, but it is truly the only right thing to do. If the candidate that most espouses my beliefs cannot win, then my beliefs also cannot win, and compromising my beliefs in support of a candidate on the basis that he can win would be saying that my beliefs aren’t good enough to win.
Here they are. If this belief set cannot win, then this country is doomed anyway.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
So much for free speech, huh?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
rwr,
Have you ever actually seen the Constitution? There is NOTHING in the structure of how Section 8 is written to imply that the general welfare clause is the header and all the other powers are subclauses of it. Each power stands separate and independent.
On January 10th, 2010 at 10:58 pm, rightwingrocker said:
Problem that James Madison and the framers of our Constitution faced that resulted in the wording used is that we can’t really know the future. While what is ‘promoting the general welfare’ had specific meaning in its time. It has been as you seem to say, ‘been twisted’ to include many things that are not in the interest of the general welfare but rather the specific welfare of certain groups of people. A specific list is one way to go. I’d prefer something less specific perhaps that says that the ‘general welfare’ is operationally defined as the national security and interests of the entire nation and not any segment thereof.
I’m not certain I understand this exactly. Amendment 15 is the one that gives any citizen regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude the right to vote and Congress the capacity to assure this. Amendment 16 “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” It’s essentially that things like tobacco, alcohol,gambling income or even income can be taxed based upon some other basis than a head count. Some people would like a per capita (head) tax, some others might call that unfair and disproportionate to ability to pay. On both of these if indeed these are the ones you meant, I’d need more clarification before I’d say yea or nay.
Ah but what of the idea of dragging in someone of character and integrity who doesn’t necessarily want the job but has too much integrity to do it poorly if it is thrust upon them?
Thank you for providing me with a link to your manifesto. There’s a lot you and I agree upon, and some where we don’t. Perhaps there’s really a middle ground that are the ‘important’ things we agree upon and lesser ones we can agree to disagree about. Start from that beginning of where we agree (e.g., interpretation of the US Constitution and the rights of the individual) and work our way from there. What do you think?
Nothing but that pesky little colon …
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
semicolon that is
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
You know you just agreed with me, right, rwr?
Tell me…what does each of the powers in Section 8 end with?
Congress does not have carte blanche to do whatever it can get a majority for. Congress doesn’t have unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. It was never meant that they should raise money for purposes which the article did not place under their jurisdiction. The specification of powers is a LIMITATION of the purposes for which they may raise money, not a wide open opportunity to implement whatever they could sell on the people or each other.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money to “promote the general welfare”, you no longer have limited government with enumerated powers, but instead you have an indefinite government with a few limitations.
Best bet: keep the government at the greatest distance possible.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
A semicolon. They are all part of the same sentence that enumerates the specific powers of Congress. Nothing there says they can just do whatever they feel like.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
You are right. They are limited by the fact that it has to be for the “general welfare”.
That does not, however, change the fact that basic grammatical rules dictate that the general welfare clause is an entirely interdependent clause.
That, or else you think the founding fathers did not know how to properly use a semi colon.
Exactly. And the “general welfare” is defined pretty clearly in the section. It can only be for those things as enumerated.
I would think the things I said in 141 and 142 would make for pretty good clarification.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
And what do semicolons separate?
Let me help you out.
Emphasis mine.
You really don’t know what a semicolon is used for, do you?
oops. Meant INDEPENDENT, per the actual definition.
Chap get off the semicolon and get back to the substance. The semicolons separate the powers that Congress has for their acts. The CANNOT just declare something “general welfare” and just do it. The list is very clear.
Again, my comments at 141 and 142 tell the whole tale pretty accurately.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Look, RWR,
You can totally think that Congress has overstepped its boundaries on the definition of what “general welfare” means.
What you cannot argue, at least not argue without looking ignorant or obtuse, is that, grammatically, the Constitution defines that term by means of subsequent clauses separated by freaking semicolons.
Bull. The substance is that you, clearly erroneously, claim that “general welfare” is somehow defined by clearly independent subsequent clauses.
The substance is that you think (or I hope thought, as in past tense) this facially flawed premise is (was) a substantive argument for your concept of limited government.
The substance is that I hear all the time the same incorrect argument all the time from the right. They flaunt it like it is some sort of silver bullet, when it really does nothing but expose their own ignorance.
Well, do YOU think Congress has? If you don’t, you are a fool. You can’t defend Congress against my posts 141 and 142 because I am right in those statements and Congress is wrong. So are you if you think Congress can just do whatever they want and say it’s for the general welfare.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
The substance is that my position is consistent with original intent.
Can you say that?
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
I think Congress has gone beyond what our founding fathers would have interpreted that term to mean. That does not mean they have gone beyond the definition because there is no definition for an inherently amorphous and ambiguous term such as “general welfare.”
If the founding fathers wanted to limit this definition, they were free to specifically do so. Unfortunately for your side, they did not. They used a pesky semicolon instead of a colon.
So now, it is up to Congress and the Supreme Court. If you don’t like it, I suggest you call upon your representatives to offer up a Constitutional amendment.
Sorry.
Plain meaning trumps any concept of intent you may think is applicable.
And the plain meaning of a semicolon is independent clauses.
Actually, they did. That’s what the enumeration of powers was all about. Semicolon or not. A Constitutional amendment will not be necessary.
I’m not the one who says so.
I’ll let the cat out of the bag now. Posts 141 and 142 were paraphrased from Jefferson and Madison. Here are their actual words.
Here’s some more Madison for you, addressing my point directly:
Being that Madison was pretty much the writer of the Constitution (and for that matter, the Bill of Rights), I think I’ll go along with what he had to say about it.
So so much for ignorance on the right.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Intent is clear as day, and the Founders trump everyone, particularly Madison, who wrote the thing.
Rocker out.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
You really don’t know anything about Constitutional, or contractual, interpretation, do you?
What Madison said is IRRELEVANT if what was in the written word is, on its face, unambiguous.
A semicolon unambiguously separates INDEPENDENT clauses.
If Madison was such a clever fellow, one would think he would have realized what he was doing.
And, as I am sure a Constitutional scholar as you knows, Madison’s interpretation of that power was hardly consistent. Many founding fathers, including some pretty big ones like our first President, felt just the opposite of Madison. Curious you didn’t mention them.
But again, the conflicting interpretations by contemporaries is irrelevant because the document is clear on its face. Semicolon means INDEPENDENT clauses. Keep repeating that till it sinks in.
I do, however, think it is cute that you think this was some sort of “gotcha” moment.
“Gotcha” for someone ignorant of the history of that clause and Constitutional interpretation, perhaps.
Don’t have to.
I’ve seen what the opposite interpretation has gotten us, and our first President wouldn’t have approved of that, either.
Just shows who was right all along. Madison wrote it and clarified it. I’ll stick with that. So will anyone who really wishes to respect what the man did.
RWR
ww.rightwingrocker.com
Does any kind of significant redistributionism (systemically and over time seizing the product of the labor of some of the people of the nation by the force of the federal government to distribute to the unearned benefit of others) ever “provide for … the General Welfare of the United States?”
More specifically and to the point, are nations with nationalized health care made stronger by it?
I am sure there are nutty leftist whackos who will say they are, but I cannot see how sane people could really think nationalizing health care would make us stronger as a nation. It might or might not make us feel better or make us think we are ‘nicer’ people, but that has nothing to do with providing for the general welfare of the country.
The Constitution says nothing about making us feel good about ourselves or about the importance of being a nice country. That clause does not say anything about providing for the general welfare of Americans. It is about providing for the common defence and the general welfare of the country.
In the liberal mind, by providing for others, it takes the place of a god they do not believe in, the One from whom all blessings flow, our provider.
No, but the government functionaries are the stronger for it-they have their people by the short hair. Power-it is all about power. We say money but that is just a means to the power they crave.
Want to work, buy or sell? “Your National Health Card Please.” I do fear that if they do pass this fascist monstrosity the election process we now have will become moot.
http://www.redinvadesblue.com/Moneybomb/Donate.html
Went from $48k to $62k in last hour. People, make it top $1mil today.
This Race Reminds Me Of New York 23, except that Michelle got behind the Conservative in that race.
Thanks for the reminder, mdt A couple days ago I pledged $17.75 Today I contributed $59.41
Someone will get the numerical significance
On January 11th, 2010 at 7:47 am, stevevvs said:
This Race Reminds Me Of New York 23, except that Michelle got behind the Conservative in that race.
Pretty sure she did it again this time.
Perhaps you forgot your /sarc tag?
Ends with less money in my pocket, when interpreted by Democrats, that’s all I know.
Roland, as I said before, I have no issue with someone arguing that such and such law does not fit the definition of “general welfare” as used in that clause.
What I do have a problem with is the argument that the Constitution clearly makes that clause subordinate to the others that proceed it. Structurally, it does not at all. This is obvious to anyone who actually looks at the document and knows a few simple grammatical rules.
In ANY document, you do not seek out some concept of intent when you can glean plain meaning from the text itself, even if this plain meaning is contradictory to what one claims was the intent. This is a basic rule. Now, this does often give the aggrieved party right to go back and amend the original document to reflect the intent of the parties, but you actually have to…you know…AMEND THE DOCUMENT. You can’t just claim that the semicolon should really be a colon and bada bing, it is so.
Agreed.
FIFY.
Exactly.
Money, sex, and power are merely different manifestations of the same thing – especially to socialists / fascists.
I think this (the meaning of ‘general welfare’ in that clause) is where Madison’s comment
was intended to apply.
It seems to me his intention was that when Congress wants to use that clause to justify spending, it should have to be able to prove (it should be apparent) the general welfare of the United States would be advanced by the proposed spending. Otherwise, the clause would mean anything Congress wanted it to mean when they wanted to spend money, and so the whole concept of limited government would be overthrown, and that was clearly not the intent of any of those who wrote and signed the Constitution.
If you recognize the Constitutional abomination currently slithering its way through Congress is grossly unconstitutional, then I have no argument with you. You certainly appear to have the semicolon argument on your side.
If “promote the general welfare” can be twisted one way, then it could just as easily be twisted the other. If that phrase is viewed as a mandate for action the benefits the majority of citizens, then one could successfully argue that the extermination of anyone testing positive for HIV is mandated because it promotes the general welfare. This is why a strict constructionist view is required.
Errah not to worry, the Dems have a photo of him having his way with a unicorn! It’ll come out in the 11th hour.
Well they certainly didn’t know how to ‘properly use’ a semicolon in the 21st century because they did not live in it.
‘Independent’ of what exactly? If what you state was true then WTH does the clause “or abridging the freedom of speech” actually mean in the 1st Amendment?
Concerning semicolons in the First, I think that there actually is a comma after the word ‘press’ not a semicolon. It makes much more sense as a comma – “Congress shall make no law / abridging the right of the people…”
Take a look at the original document and I think there is a good argument to say the dot in what most think is a semicolon after ‘press’ is actually just an attribute of the parchment. Has anyone ever tested that little dot to see if it is really ink?
Then why include the words at all?
I think they recognized there are unpredictable situations popping up all the time, and although they wanted limited government, they did not want to put it in a straightjacket.
If something not covered elsewhere is self-evidently beneficial to the country for the government to spend money to do, then it can spend the money.
But the Constitutional burden of proof the country would benefit is directly on the people promoting the spending.
So does nationalizing health care benefit the country? It’s not a ‘subjective’ question. You have to prove it is, or it’s unconstitutional.
BTW, that does not mean the government can exterminate ‘undesirables.’ That would violate other parts of the Constitution. The clause only has to do with what the government can spend money on.
The foundational purpose that the founders had was clear enough – TO PRESERVE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY BY LIMITING GOVERNMENT. Such purpose is lost on liberals who do and say everything they can to trample the concept.
The constitution according to odumbo:
“Words, just words.”
What is your point? SO far as I have been able to tell, the semicolon’s use was defined well before 1776 and hasn’t changed since.
Independent of each other, of course. As in each one is a distinct and separate power.
If you are writing an outline, you don’t do this:
A;
—-1;
—-2;
—-3;
I generally agree with you. My point was that by interpreting that clause to allow forcing people to buy insurance opens the door to a variety of interpretations.
I made the same argument regarding QALYs when we were discussing death panels. People see this and think “Cool, free stuff from the government” without ever thinking of what’s at the bottom of the slippery slope.
stevevvs said:
So what do you propose? that conservator voters in MA insist on ideological purity and let that Marxist What’s-Her-Name walk away with the election? Yeah, that’ll help both MA and the country.
Sorry–I meant to say CONSERVATIVE voters.
Y’all, “Reagans” are not suddenly going to start hatching in fields.
Read Kathryn Jean Lopez’s column on Scott Brown today in National Review. She is a pro-lifer (as am I) who also supports Scott Brown. Lopez explains reasons to support Scott Brown much better than I can.
Here are two quote from the article:
and:
I read about you voters who won’t vote for anyone who is not a purist conservative, and you stay home and don’t vote in your own protests. That did a lot of good last November, huh?
I am a conservative, small government, pro-life Republican.I dislike RINO’s with all of you, but this is reality, and you can’t expect to get the whole package in a liberal state like MA. Stay home, but shut up if you allow socialism—the biggest threat to our country since Pearl Harbor—due to being pro-life.
By the way, I voted for McCain becaus of Palin. Believe it or not, McCain would be refreshing these days compared to Obama! At least he would not have communist/socialist czars sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom!
Well said.
This is an instance in which something is better than nothing.
BTW, I donated a bit to Brown today; and had donated a bit last week, too.
I think we should wait until a 100% pure Conservative has a chance to get elected in Massachusetts. Maybe we should wait until Hell freezes over too.
On January 10th, 2010 at 12:38 pm, yohannbiimu said:
Call me a pessimist, but I don’t think that there’s any way the Republicans win any key races ever again. I mean, FOR GOD’S SAKE, AL FRANKEN IS A U.S. SENATOR FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. The Dems will keep their majorities by hook or crook (with much emphasis upon crookery). They only way they get unseated is by miliary coup or WE THE PEOPLE marching upon Capital Hill and throwing them out ourselves.”
I agree.
These are revolutionary times.
The Democommie Party has de facto declared war on the Republic with the ObamaCare socialized medicine bill that they will pass despite We The People being overwhelmingly against this seizure of one-sixth of the economy.
This act of treason will not stand. Those traitors in Washington, D.C. responsible for the Intolerable Act beware The Ides of March – We stalwart Republicans have long memories and long knives.
The gauntlet is thrown. We Patriots pick it up. Decades of treason by the Democommie Party will be addressed by civil war, revolutionary courts, and firing squads.
If only Joe Kennedy wasn’t so doggedly intent on towing the Ron Paul line; scrapping the investment of lives of our soldiers and ignoring the toll on their families fighting on two fronts in the ME – I’d vote for him and not Brown.
But alas Joe, we have a lunatic with nukes in North Korea who would absolutely relish the idea of us abandoning our presence in the western Pacific. We have a soon to be nuke Iran that will obliterate Israel and extort Iraq the minute we pull out of the ME and likely join forces with bin Laden to then attack Europe where you also wish to turn tail and run.
So I wish I could vote for you Joe because yes WE MUST CUT FEDERAL SPENDING as neither of the other two candidates would seem to admit last night. The Dept of Ed should be abolished and we must begin weaning people off federal entitlements in some measured way, (ultimately leaving it to each state alone).
My criticism of Scott Brown is that he’s playing the fence with abortion saying he’s pro Roe v Wade, (“It’s the law of the land Martha don’t you know”..as though Congress is powerless to change that), while standing up for a medical worker’s right to refuse administering the ‘morning after’ pill to rape victims. You could flip it around and it would still sound the same – contradictory.
He’s also playing the fence on global warming correctly saying that cap n’ trade is just an energy tax but he’s a believer in the hoax that is behind it. C’mon Scott, let’s see you heat your comfortably large house with solar panels and a windmill? Do people know how aligned you are with Audubon, Sierra and NWF to carry their man-made global warming banner? Earth to Scott – IT IS A HOAX! More CO2 is the BEST thing possible for little animals and us because it means more food. I envision you piling on even MORE spending to the already $30 BILLION spent on gov research that has been lying to us for 20 years in order to – keep the funding. Perhaps you missed the polling data that came out on “Drill Baby, Drill”, or maybe you’re just a closet radical environmentalist?
I’ll vote for Scott and I hope he wins… even though I know it’s not going to leave a very good after-taste. I’ll endorse the idea of sinking the Senate super-majority but I’ll be going back to the drawing board to look for a real conservative candidate when Scott’s short term is over.
One more thing, (h/t to caller @WRKO just now…), there was one issue that wasn’t touched at all last night that should have been – ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Scott Brown’s stance would have scored him points against Coakley because the majority of MA residents despise the idea of ANY tax money going to illegals. Deval Patrick darn well got that message by now – so why didn’t Scott capitalize on the issue?