Could Kennedy’s seat go to a Republican? And what the Dems are planning to do to keep the 60th vote for health care if it does

(Update: a hard-hitting article on the same subject has been posted at Politico, under the headline, “Stunner: Scared Mass. Dems Plot to Delay GOP Victory In Teddy Seat Until ObamaCare Passes.” It’s also the top Must Read at Lucianne.com.)

In recent weeks I’ve occasionally seen half-excited speculation by conservatives that Republican Scott Brown has a chance of coming from way behind and overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley in the contest for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, but the last time I saw a conservatives columnist indulging in such speculation, it was based on a poll showing Brown nine points behind—way too thin a thread to put any hopes on. However, something is happening. Democrats themselves, such as Jonathan Cohn writing at The New Republic (a magazine I haven’t looked at or thought about in years), are now expressing real concern about the possibility that Coakley may be defeated. Not only that, but the Dems are so bent out of shape at the prospect of losing their precious 60th seat in the Senate that they are even toying with the scenario of delaying a victorious Brown’s certification and swearing-in so that the temporary senator, Paul Kirk, a Kennedy family loyalist, could provide the 60th vote to pass whatever health care compromise emerges from the Reid-Pelosi negotiations. Such a corrupt maneuver would be right in keeping with the remorseless revolutionary greed of the Obama-era Democrats.

The image of the soulless, defeminized
female professional of feminist America

I remind readers that Martha Coakley as district attorney played a decisive role in keeping an innocent man, Gerald Amirault, who had been wrongfully convicted in the Amirault child abuse witch hunt in the 1980s, in prison for several more years after a parole board had voted unanimously to pardon him. For Coakley to be rewarded with a U.S. Senate seat after being an accomplice in one of the most evil events in modern American history would be desolating; which was one reason I have been reluctant to get my hopes up that Brown might stop her, only to see them dashed. Now, on the basis of the liberal Jonathan Cohn’s anxious article, I am allowing myself to have a glimmer of hope—but no more than that.

- end of initial entry -

Rick U. writes:

It would be the sweetest irony imaginable if Brown won and cast the decisive vote to kill the health care monstrosity from Ted’s old seat. I’d have a smile on my face for a week—maybe more.

LA replies:

That’s why I don’t want to get any hopes up on something that is still a long shot. The disappointment if it didn’t pan out (and the embarrassment at having believed in something that was so unlikely—a Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts!) would be too great.

LA continues:

However, there have been several Republican governors in Massachusetts over the last 20 years, most recently, Romney. Why then should it be impossible that Massachusetts would elect a Republican as U.S. Senator?

Rick U. replies:

I hear you on the long shot: I suppose my contempt for the late Sen. Kennedy fuels a sort of fantasy. Also, I just wondered if a Republican from Massachusetts would vote against the health care monster? I made an assumption that I shouldn’t have, and that could lead to and even bigger disappointment …

Rick U. continues:

I just read this over at American Thinker and it looks like Brown is solid no on health care reform! My fantasy of delicious irony continues…

John Dempsey writes:

“remorseless revolutionary greed”

That is a superbly fitting description.

Clark Coleman writes

Has the Amirault case been raised in the campaign? Are Massachusetts voters being given the chance to react to it?

LA replies:

Good question. I don’t know. I doubt it, other than by writers like the one I linked who I suppose are not connected with the Brown campaign.

If anyone reading this knows anyone connected with the Brown campaign, I certainly think they should be advised to bring forward Coakely’s record.

January 10

MG writes:

Under the photo of Martha Coakley you wrote:

The image of the soulless, defeminized female professional of feminist America

Here is a Republican candidate ready and willing but unfortunately totally unable to beat horrible Barbara Boxer. Are they identical twins?

Fiorina, a failed business executive and a strong open borders proponent, will lose to Boxer by 20 points in this year of the Republicans.

LA replies:

This is funny because I had the same thought as you: the photo of Coakley made me think of Fiorina. However, Fiorina is not as scary looking as Coakley. With that grim mouth and fleshless face, I could see Coakley as the prosecutor in a witch trial in late 17th century Massachusetts. Whoops, Coakley was the prosecutor in a witch trial (or at least the successor and accessory to the prosecutor in a witch trial), in late 20th century America.

Thanks for sending.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 09, 2010 10:26 AM | Send