Story from the Attleboro Sun on "D'Amico and the Dissidents"
SEEKONK - State Rep. Steve D'Amico has joined a small House rebellion calling for more transparency and less concentration of power in the hands of Speaker Robert Deleo.
D'Amico, D-Seekonk, has clashed with House leadership in the past, but now he has signed on with seven other dissidents in seeking formal changes in the way the Legislature operates.
The revolt broke out into the open at the end of last year, when it was revealed that almost $400,000 was being spent from the House operating budget for legal expenses related to the indictment of former Speaker Sal DiMasi.
The money was being spent without the knowledge of most House members.
Four of the members started shutting down informal sessions of the House in protest, demanding an accounting of the money. Now four more have joined the ranks and written to their colleagues demanding reforms.
They want detailed budgeting of House expenses, more authority for committees to bring legislation to the floor for a vote, and more say by rank and file members in who chairs committees.
They also propose to make the House subject to the state Open Meeting Law.
D'Amico said making the House more transparent has always been a priority for him and he has sponsored legislation to try to accomplish that.
For example, he said money left over from the House operation budget at the end of the year does not revert back to the general fund as it does with other departments.
Instead, he said, it goes into a "slush fund" that is spent at the speaker's discretion.
He has filed a bill to stop the practice.
D'Amico said he initially was reluctant to join the original rebels because they were accused of acting out of "sour grapes" because DeLeo had laid off some of their staffers.
At least two of the dissidents are leaving the House and running for other positions.
But the revelation that money was being spent on the DiMasi case without House members knowing about it was a turning point, he said. D'Amico has fought with leadership in the past over making public information about tax breaks for the film industry and economic development projects. He also agreed to sign on to "Fix Beacon Hill" legislation sought by reform groups.
Other House members joining the effort are: Reps. Lida Harkin, D-Needham; Matthew C. Patrick, D-Barnstable; Thomas M. Stanley, D-Waltham; William Greene, D-Billerica; Will Brownsberger, D-Belmont; Joseph R. Driscoll, D-Braintree; and John F. Quinn, D-Dartmouth.
Brownsberger recently resigned his position as vice chairman of the committee on global warming in protest.
DeLeo issued a statement saying he has already taken steps to make the House a more transparent chamber, and said he has an open-door policy for members.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
D'Amico making more friends on Beacon Hill
From the news wire....
Steven D'Amico has made a few disenfranchised friends on Beacon Hill...because of his merits, Seekonk can bet that it will not be recieving any help from the leadership. Maybe a Republican can do better?
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 21, 2010…..Eight disenfranchised House members, feeling the branch has become undemocratic and the committee process “irrelevant,” are asking colleagues to join them in efforts to reel in House Speaker Robert DeLeo, arguing the House Speaker “determines everything.”
Saying bills no longer reach the floor because of their merits as judged by committees and instead are debated only if permitted by DeLeo, the representatives say they’ll push for greater transparency in House operations and procedural changes they say will take away from the “consolidation of power” in DeLeo’s office.
“A representative form of government is supposed to give us all a voice at the table so the interests of our constituents are adequately represented, but when all power is put in the hands of one person, it corrupts that process and opens the door to abuse,” the representatives wrote in an email circulated Thursday.
The email, entitled “The Larger Problem in the House,” was presented by Reps. Matthew Patrick, Thomas Stanley, Lida Harkins, William Greene Jr., Will Brownsberger, Steven D’Amico, Joseph Driscoll and John Quinn. The rank-and-file Democrats are not part of DeLeo’s leadership team.
Some of the legislators seeking reforms served in leadership posts under House Speakers Salvatore DiMasi and Thomas Finneran, House chieftains who also faced criticism for exercising too much control over legislating.
The legislators describe a House where the committee process is “irrelevant,” where details of the House’s $47 million budget are kept secret, where members are apprehensive about voting against leadership’s wishes, where floor debate is often “meaningless,” and where lobbyists have “more power because they know that if they get the Speaker behind a bill, it will pass.”
“A Speaker now determines everything in the Massachusetts House,” the representatives wrote. “He determines which bills come to the floor for a debate, and he appoints his paid and unpaid leadership team that constitutes a majority when the Republicans take themselves out of the picture. When in his favor, he may give members good office space, additional staff or, more importantly, allow budget amendments to pass.”
The eight lawmakers say they’ve developed specific proposals and hope to advance them over the next year.
The proposals include: ensuring that home rule petitions can be discharged from the Rules Committee in a timely fashion; making the state budget process in the House more transparent, and making the House operating budget specifics accessible to all members; provide a leadership election and committee appointment process that distributes more power to the members and less power to the Speaker; providing legislators with greater control of the operating budgets for their offices; and eliminating or narrowing legislative exemptions to the open meeting law, public records law, and purchasing standards.
In response to the letter, DeLeo spokesman Seth Gitell said in an emailed statement: "From the start of the Speakership, Speaker DeLeo has worked to make the House a more open and transparent place. He has, among other actions, set a term limit on the Speakership, required the Clerk to make all bills introduced and admitted for consideration to the House available to members electronically, and required notice of committee hearings to be posted on the internet.
"He has kept an open door policy with members, meeting with them in groups and individually on a myriad of issues.” Gitell added, "Speaker DeLeo remains focused on growing jobs and improving the state economy."
In his own email, House Minority Leader Brad Jones thanked the authors of the email for their observations, before pointing out that House Democrats have often stood united against similar reforms proposed by Republicans.
“I appreciate the observations and ideas in light of Scott Brown’s resounding victory on Tuesday,” Jones wrote. “I look forward to evaluating the ideas you have put forth along with similar and companion ideas the Republican Caucus has offered numerous times over the years which have been traditionally and almost exclusively defeated on party line votes.
“These votes would indicate that “THE LARGER PROBLEM IN THE MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE” is the one-party domination in the legislature the cure for which lies at the ballot box.”
Steven D'Amico has made a few disenfranchised friends on Beacon Hill...because of his merits, Seekonk can bet that it will not be recieving any help from the leadership. Maybe a Republican can do better?
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 21, 2010…..Eight disenfranchised House members, feeling the branch has become undemocratic and the committee process “irrelevant,” are asking colleagues to join them in efforts to reel in House Speaker Robert DeLeo, arguing the House Speaker “determines everything.”
Saying bills no longer reach the floor because of their merits as judged by committees and instead are debated only if permitted by DeLeo, the representatives say they’ll push for greater transparency in House operations and procedural changes they say will take away from the “consolidation of power” in DeLeo’s office.
“A representative form of government is supposed to give us all a voice at the table so the interests of our constituents are adequately represented, but when all power is put in the hands of one person, it corrupts that process and opens the door to abuse,” the representatives wrote in an email circulated Thursday.
The email, entitled “The Larger Problem in the House,” was presented by Reps. Matthew Patrick, Thomas Stanley, Lida Harkins, William Greene Jr., Will Brownsberger, Steven D’Amico, Joseph Driscoll and John Quinn. The rank-and-file Democrats are not part of DeLeo’s leadership team.
Some of the legislators seeking reforms served in leadership posts under House Speakers Salvatore DiMasi and Thomas Finneran, House chieftains who also faced criticism for exercising too much control over legislating.
The legislators describe a House where the committee process is “irrelevant,” where details of the House’s $47 million budget are kept secret, where members are apprehensive about voting against leadership’s wishes, where floor debate is often “meaningless,” and where lobbyists have “more power because they know that if they get the Speaker behind a bill, it will pass.”
“A Speaker now determines everything in the Massachusetts House,” the representatives wrote. “He determines which bills come to the floor for a debate, and he appoints his paid and unpaid leadership team that constitutes a majority when the Republicans take themselves out of the picture. When in his favor, he may give members good office space, additional staff or, more importantly, allow budget amendments to pass.”
The eight lawmakers say they’ve developed specific proposals and hope to advance them over the next year.
The proposals include: ensuring that home rule petitions can be discharged from the Rules Committee in a timely fashion; making the state budget process in the House more transparent, and making the House operating budget specifics accessible to all members; provide a leadership election and committee appointment process that distributes more power to the members and less power to the Speaker; providing legislators with greater control of the operating budgets for their offices; and eliminating or narrowing legislative exemptions to the open meeting law, public records law, and purchasing standards.
In response to the letter, DeLeo spokesman Seth Gitell said in an emailed statement: "From the start of the Speakership, Speaker DeLeo has worked to make the House a more open and transparent place. He has, among other actions, set a term limit on the Speakership, required the Clerk to make all bills introduced and admitted for consideration to the House available to members electronically, and required notice of committee hearings to be posted on the internet.
"He has kept an open door policy with members, meeting with them in groups and individually on a myriad of issues.” Gitell added, "Speaker DeLeo remains focused on growing jobs and improving the state economy."
In his own email, House Minority Leader Brad Jones thanked the authors of the email for their observations, before pointing out that House Democrats have often stood united against similar reforms proposed by Republicans.
“I appreciate the observations and ideas in light of Scott Brown’s resounding victory on Tuesday,” Jones wrote. “I look forward to evaluating the ideas you have put forth along with similar and companion ideas the Republican Caucus has offered numerous times over the years which have been traditionally and almost exclusively defeated on party line votes.
“These votes would indicate that “THE LARGER PROBLEM IN THE MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE” is the one-party domination in the legislature the cure for which lies at the ballot box.”
Friday, January 15, 2010
Unions Threaten, Obama Concedes; Scott Brown Takes the Lead!
The New Suffolk University Poll out today shows Scott Brown with a 4 point lead. Interestingly, and comically I suppose is 64% of the people polled still think Coakley will win! It would seem we poor Massachusetts residents don't think that anyone else is voting for Scott Brown even though 5o% of those polled will be!
Two days ago the heads of the major labor unions, who were already stating their dislike of the extra tax on Cadillac health care plans, put Obama on notice. They warned him that if union health care plans were included in the Cadillac tax that has been proposed in the health care bill, the democrat members of congress would experience defeat 1994 style.
Obama conceded. All collective bargaining units will be exempt from the Cadillac Tax until 2018. That will save the unions about 60 billion dollars.
For those of you who do not know what a Cadillac plan is, you should probably look at yours, because you probably have one. A Cadillac plan is a health care plan that has a total annual cost (premiums only) of 8,000 dollars for a single payer, and 23,000 dollars for a family plan. The total includes not just what you contribute, but your employer as well and the cost of your Dental and vision plans are added in as well...unless of course you work for a Union where even after their sweet little deal expires in 2018, they get a little extension that exempts the costs of their Dental, vision, and flex plans.
Depending on what part of the country you live in, you may be looking at the amounts and asking what the big deal is. Well depending on what part of the country you live in, means that your costs may be far lower than others. Massachusetts, for example has incredibly high health care costs compared to the rest of the nation, where Idaho has some of the lowest.
You also have to look at other factors. Companies with thousands of employees have much more bargaining power with the insurance companies to help keep costs down. The companies that have only a few hundred or less typically pay much higher prices per employee per plan.
Regardless, this is just another bribe, in the long list of bribes, that Obama has given to get this legislation that no one wants passed.
GET OUT AND VOTE ON TUESDAY!
Now for other news and more motivation to elect Scott Brown.
Obama conceded. All collective bargaining units will be exempt from the Cadillac Tax until 2018. That will save the unions about 60 billion dollars.
For those of you who do not know what a Cadillac plan is, you should probably look at yours, because you probably have one. A Cadillac plan is a health care plan that has a total annual cost (premiums only) of 8,000 dollars for a single payer, and 23,000 dollars for a family plan. The total includes not just what you contribute, but your employer as well and the cost of your Dental and vision plans are added in as well...unless of course you work for a Union where even after their sweet little deal expires in 2018, they get a little extension that exempts the costs of their Dental, vision, and flex plans.
Depending on what part of the country you live in, you may be looking at the amounts and asking what the big deal is. Well depending on what part of the country you live in, means that your costs may be far lower than others. Massachusetts, for example has incredibly high health care costs compared to the rest of the nation, where Idaho has some of the lowest.
You also have to look at other factors. Companies with thousands of employees have much more bargaining power with the insurance companies to help keep costs down. The companies that have only a few hundred or less typically pay much higher prices per employee per plan.
Regardless, this is just another bribe, in the long list of bribes, that Obama has given to get this legislation that no one wants passed.
1,101 days left.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Why I support Scott Brown
With just a few weeks left in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, it is imperative that the voters of Seekonk realize the enormity of what is at stake. January 19, 2010 will be one of the most important votes to come to our community and state. This office, held by the late Senator Edward Kennedy for over 40 years, now has a real chance of being represented by someone who will bring our fight to Washington against wasteful government spending and higher taxes. This candidate, who like me, believes it is wrong to pass down to our children and grandchildren the insurmountable amount of debt the Democratic controlled legislature has pushed through this past year.
Scott Brown is that person. As a Republican representing us on Beacon Hill, Scott started his public career as a 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 while also serving our country and state as an JAG officer in the Massachusetts National Guard. Currently in his third Senate term, Senator Brown has fought hard to restore people’s faith in government by introducing transparency, accountability and reform. With the ongoing economic crisis and several recent scandals that have shaken the foundation of our state government, Senator Brown has filed bills that have focused specifically on good government reforms, improving business competitiveness, and holding the line on taxes and spending, as well as continually working to strengthen public safety and education. In 2007, Senator Brown wrote the first-in the-nation law that sets up a check off box on State income tax forms to indicate if the filer is a veteran of the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts. This information is necessary to locate returning veterans so that they can be notified of the benefits and services to which they are entitled. Scott Brown is the person we need in Washington to represent us!
Clear distinctions separate Scott Brown and Democrat candidate Martha Coakley. For example, she is in favor of over $2 trillion in higher taxes over the next five years, from her support of cap-and-trade ($233 billion) to her refusal to renew the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 ($928 billion). Scott believes that taxes are high enough! A vote for Coakley will help to ensure the continuing out-of-control spending that follow the likes of Reid and Pelosi. She will be a rubber stamp vote for the passage of any of their proposed legislation that will ultimately hurt Massachusetts residents in their pockets.
Please take the time to compare the differences between these two candidates. Do you really want more of the same representation that for over the last forty years has brought us big government, wasteful spending, state cutbacks, high cost of health insurance, and of course, higher taxes? The choice is very clear to me. We need change on Capitol Hill and Scott Brown is that change.
Scott Brown is that person. As a Republican representing us on Beacon Hill, Scott started his public career as a 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 while also serving our country and state as an JAG officer in the Massachusetts National Guard. Currently in his third Senate term, Senator Brown has fought hard to restore people’s faith in government by introducing transparency, accountability and reform. With the ongoing economic crisis and several recent scandals that have shaken the foundation of our state government, Senator Brown has filed bills that have focused specifically on good government reforms, improving business competitiveness, and holding the line on taxes and spending, as well as continually working to strengthen public safety and education. In 2007, Senator Brown wrote the first-in the-nation law that sets up a check off box on State income tax forms to indicate if the filer is a veteran of the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts. This information is necessary to locate returning veterans so that they can be notified of the benefits and services to which they are entitled. Scott Brown is the person we need in Washington to represent us!
Clear distinctions separate Scott Brown and Democrat candidate Martha Coakley. For example, she is in favor of over $2 trillion in higher taxes over the next five years, from her support of cap-and-trade ($233 billion) to her refusal to renew the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 ($928 billion). Scott believes that taxes are high enough! A vote for Coakley will help to ensure the continuing out-of-control spending that follow the likes of Reid and Pelosi. She will be a rubber stamp vote for the passage of any of their proposed legislation that will ultimately hurt Massachusetts residents in their pockets.
Please take the time to compare the differences between these two candidates. Do you really want more of the same representation that for over the last forty years has brought us big government, wasteful spending, state cutbacks, high cost of health insurance, and of course, higher taxes? The choice is very clear to me. We need change on Capitol Hill and Scott Brown is that change.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Democrats Not Excited About Coakley
January 7, 2010
HEADLINE: Sluggish Coakley effort irks Dems
BYLINE: Jim Hand, Sun Chronicle Staff
Dennis Naughton was standing out in the cold at 7:15 Wednesday morning waving to passing motorists in Foxboro and holding a sign for U.S. Senate candidate Martha Coakley.
So when he hears reports that Democrats are not excited about supporting Coakley, he wonders who they are talking about.
"I think people are pretty motivated," he said of his party's faithful.
But, a poll out Tuesday and interviews with local Democrats tell another story.
The Democrats said Coakley has been too passive, and a Rasmussen poll found that state Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, had closed Coakley's once commanding lead to a mere 9 points.
"I'm not happy with the level of campaign effort I've seen," state Rep. Bill Bowles, D-Attleboro, said of Coakley. "I think the campaign needs to step it up a notch."
Furthermore, the Rasmussen poll said Republicans supporting Brown were much more motivated to vote in a special election Jan. 19 than Democrats because of their dislike of health care reform.
"Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote, and it is clear from the data that Brown's supporters are more enthusiastic," the poll said.
"In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat."
Coakley supporters have expressed fears that her sleepy campaign style and aversion to confronting Brown will drag down Democratic turnout in the election to fill the seat once held by the late Edward Kennedy.
One local Democratic activist who asked not to be named said there is a great deal of frustration with Coakley's inactivity.
The activist wants to rev up the local effort for Coakley, but the campaign keeps saying there is nothing to worry about because Coakley is going to win.
"This is the worst campaign I've ever seen in my life. I don't get it. I just don't get it," the activist said.
Naughton, a member of the Democratic State Committee, said if there truly was a lack of motivation among his party, the poll might be just the shot in the arm Coakley's backers need.
Nothing gets Democrats worked up like the prospect of another Republican going to Washington to obstruct work on important problems, he said.
"Actually, I was glad to see that poll. I think it will motivate people. Some people were worried voters would stay home" because they thought Coakley will win easily, he said.
Naughton said he intends to cite the poll in the telephone calls he makes for Coakley's campaign.
The poll is also a boon to Brown. National Republican groups have been slow to come to his aid, not wanting to spend money on a race if the GOP is unlikely to win.
Now Brown has an independent poll on his side to show the race could be winnable.
Even before the evidence was in, Brown had repeatedly said his campaign was surging because it had energy on its side.
He contrasts his frenetic campaign pace with what he calls Coakley's "bunker mentality" a reference to her rare public appearances.
HEADLINE: Sluggish Coakley effort irks Dems
BYLINE: Jim Hand, Sun Chronicle Staff
Dennis Naughton was standing out in the cold at 7:15 Wednesday morning waving to passing motorists in Foxboro and holding a sign for U.S. Senate candidate Martha Coakley.
So when he hears reports that Democrats are not excited about supporting Coakley, he wonders who they are talking about.
"I think people are pretty motivated," he said of his party's faithful.
But, a poll out Tuesday and interviews with local Democrats tell another story.
The Democrats said Coakley has been too passive, and a Rasmussen poll found that state Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, had closed Coakley's once commanding lead to a mere 9 points.
"I'm not happy with the level of campaign effort I've seen," state Rep. Bill Bowles, D-Attleboro, said of Coakley. "I think the campaign needs to step it up a notch."
Furthermore, the Rasmussen poll said Republicans supporting Brown were much more motivated to vote in a special election Jan. 19 than Democrats because of their dislike of health care reform.
"Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote, and it is clear from the data that Brown's supporters are more enthusiastic," the poll said.
"In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat."
Coakley supporters have expressed fears that her sleepy campaign style and aversion to confronting Brown will drag down Democratic turnout in the election to fill the seat once held by the late Edward Kennedy.
One local Democratic activist who asked not to be named said there is a great deal of frustration with Coakley's inactivity.
The activist wants to rev up the local effort for Coakley, but the campaign keeps saying there is nothing to worry about because Coakley is going to win.
"This is the worst campaign I've ever seen in my life. I don't get it. I just don't get it," the activist said.
Naughton, a member of the Democratic State Committee, said if there truly was a lack of motivation among his party, the poll might be just the shot in the arm Coakley's backers need.
Nothing gets Democrats worked up like the prospect of another Republican going to Washington to obstruct work on important problems, he said.
"Actually, I was glad to see that poll. I think it will motivate people. Some people were worried voters would stay home" because they thought Coakley will win easily, he said.
Naughton said he intends to cite the poll in the telephone calls he makes for Coakley's campaign.
The poll is also a boon to Brown. National Republican groups have been slow to come to his aid, not wanting to spend money on a race if the GOP is unlikely to win.
Now Brown has an independent poll on his side to show the race could be winnable.
Even before the evidence was in, Brown had repeatedly said his campaign was surging because it had energy on its side.
He contrasts his frenetic campaign pace with what he calls Coakley's "bunker mentality" a reference to her rare public appearances.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Brown, Coakley Final Phase
Now that someone has finally conducted a poll on the Brown Coakley Senate Race, it would seem there could be an upset in the making.
According to a Rasmussen Reports poll Democrat Martha Coakley holds a slim 9 point lead over Republican Candidate Scott Brown.
In most states a 9 point lead would not be considered slim by any means, but this is Massachusetts and by all media accounts Martha Coakley should have a 30 point lead over Brown. At least that is what they want you to believe.
The Poll was a sampling of 500 likely voters, and also showed that 7% of those polled are still undecided. Since we do not have any other polls to go on, there is no way of telling at this point which candidate the undecided voters are trending towards. But if I had to speculate, I would say that at least 2 to 3% of those still undecided will not vote. This is a special election, and a very short one at that, if you have not decided then most likely you have not been paying attention.
What is interesting is the Health Care reform numbers. Health Care is going to be a big issue in this race, because if Scott Brown wins, he will be the 41st vote for the republicans which will eliminate the democrats ability to force Health Care reform through the US Senate on their own. Of the 500 polled (and mind you this is ultra liberal Massachusetts) 53% favored the health care reform bill, with 26% of that group only stating that they "somewhat favored it". While on the other side 45% opposed it with only 9% somewhat opposing it, and 36% strongly opposing it. Of those polled 2% were not sure.
So stay tuned, because this really could be an upset in making. When you look at the voters who have strong opinions on health care reform you have 36% strongly opposing it while only 27% strongly favor it. Those are the people most likely to vote. Furthermore on the national level voters have been trending away from health care reform being presented by the democrats.
The democrats currently stationed in Washington could very well be hurting Martha Coakley as news is hitting the wire today that they intend to hold secret meetings to reconcile the the House bill and the Senate bill.
More importantly, this race is going to come down to turnout. Which candidate do you think has the most energized base at the moment?
While a Scott Brown loss would not likely be considered a referendum on Obama and democrats as a whole, a Scott Brown victory would be a hard-right to the jaw of every democrat in Congress and the White House.
According to a Rasmussen Reports poll Democrat Martha Coakley holds a slim 9 point lead over Republican Candidate Scott Brown.
In most states a 9 point lead would not be considered slim by any means, but this is Massachusetts and by all media accounts Martha Coakley should have a 30 point lead over Brown. At least that is what they want you to believe.
The Poll was a sampling of 500 likely voters, and also showed that 7% of those polled are still undecided. Since we do not have any other polls to go on, there is no way of telling at this point which candidate the undecided voters are trending towards. But if I had to speculate, I would say that at least 2 to 3% of those still undecided will not vote. This is a special election, and a very short one at that, if you have not decided then most likely you have not been paying attention.
What is interesting is the Health Care reform numbers. Health Care is going to be a big issue in this race, because if Scott Brown wins, he will be the 41st vote for the republicans which will eliminate the democrats ability to force Health Care reform through the US Senate on their own. Of the 500 polled (and mind you this is ultra liberal Massachusetts) 53% favored the health care reform bill, with 26% of that group only stating that they "somewhat favored it". While on the other side 45% opposed it with only 9% somewhat opposing it, and 36% strongly opposing it. Of those polled 2% were not sure.
So stay tuned, because this really could be an upset in making. When you look at the voters who have strong opinions on health care reform you have 36% strongly opposing it while only 27% strongly favor it. Those are the people most likely to vote. Furthermore on the national level voters have been trending away from health care reform being presented by the democrats.
The democrats currently stationed in Washington could very well be hurting Martha Coakley as news is hitting the wire today that they intend to hold secret meetings to reconcile the the House bill and the Senate bill.
More importantly, this race is going to come down to turnout. Which candidate do you think has the most energized base at the moment?
While a Scott Brown loss would not likely be considered a referendum on Obama and democrats as a whole, a Scott Brown victory would be a hard-right to the jaw of every democrat in Congress and the White House.
Reposted from Rantrave.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
