Articles Tagged ‘Ted Kennedy’

« Older Entries

WashPost: Wyden and Rockefeller may vote against Finance bill

Monday, October 5th, 2009

In today’s Washington Post, Ceci Connolly reports that Senate Democrats Ron Wyden and Jay Rockefeller “have refused to pledge support” for the Senate Finance bill expected to come to a vote this week. Should the two liberal Dems vote “no” on the amended America’s Healthy Future Act, health care reform would be dealt a serious blow as Finance chairman Max Baucus would be forced to reopen negotiation on the final bill needed to move the reform debate into the next phase.

“More needs to be done to hold insurance companies accountable, to hold premiums down for the American people,” Wyden said in an interview Sunday. “I want to continue these discussions.” (From Democrats Wyden, Rockefeller Withhold Support of Panel’s Bill in the Washington Post.)

Wyden and Rockefeller’s opposition comes as a result of Finance Committee defeats of public option amendments proposed by Rockefeller and Democrat Chuck Schumer. The Baucus bill is currently the only one of five bills in Congress that does not include some form of a government-run public option health insurance plan.

As things stand, Harry Reid is running out of time and options in the getting a bill through the Senate. He has yet to retract his promise to go nuclear and attempt to pass a health care reform bill via budget reconciliation, but in order to do so he must invoke that process no later than October 15. If the Finance Committee is forced to reopen debate, there is little chance the Congressional Budget Office could score a new bill in time for Finance to hold another vote and give Reid a bill to merge with the late Ted Kennedy’s HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee over the next 10 days.

It was thought that Democrat proponents of the public option would allow the Finance Bill to pass out of committee and lobby Reid to drop the bill’s cooperatives in favor of Kennedy’s public option proposal before a floor vote in the Senate, but Wyden and Rockefeller have seemingly joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her ‘public option or bust’ approach to health care reform.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Finance Committee wraps up reform debate. Vote expected next week.

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

Shortly after 2 a.m. this morning, the Senate Finance Committee wrapped up debate on the America’s Healthy Future Act and sent the bill back to committee staffers to put into final form and to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring in anticipation of a committee vote sometime next week. Notably, the bill does not include the highly controversial government-run public option insurance plan that  has caused rifts between Republicans and Democrats and within the Democrat party. That did not, however, stop the White House from praising Finance for a two week debate in which they considered and voted on hundreds of the 564 amendments filed to the bill.

Thanks to the unyielding commitment of Senator Baucus and members of the Senate Finance Committee, we have reached another milestone in our effort to pass health insurance reform. Over the past two weeks, the Committee has engaged in long hours of thoughtful deliberation and vigorous debate. They have considered hundreds of amendments, and incorporated many of the best ideas from both parties. And they have shown a spirit of civility, a seriousness of purpose, and a willingness to compromise that embodies our democratic process at its very best. (President Barack Obama in a statement released by the White House.)

Barring any unforeseen complications in CBO scoring, the bill should easily make its way out of committee as Democrats hold a 13-10 advantage over Republicans. From there things become a bit more complicated as the Senate Budget Committee, led by Democrat Kent Conrad must merge the Finance bill with that of the late Ted Kennedy’s HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee before a final bill can be debated and voted on by the full Senate.

The Budget Committee promises to be the next major battle ground as liberal Democrats look to force through a bill that is centered on a public option. Interestingly, it is Conrad who will likely lead the fight against the public option in hopes of protecting the cooperatives scheme currently proposed by the Finance bill.

Should the Budget bill include a public option - and make it out of committee by October 15th, look for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to invoke the nuclear option of budget reconciliation as that is seemingly the only way Democrats can limit debate and garner enough votes to pass a public option bill to conference with Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats. Of course, any Senate floor debate will provide Republican Olympia Snowe the opportunity to introduce her trigger amendment which could delay implementation of a public option until private insurance companies have been given an opportunity to “clean up their acts” - something Republicans might be willing to support if forced into a corner.

All in all, it looks like the health care reform debate has only just begun to heat up on Capitol Hill.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | 2 Comments »

Fate of public option rests with Snowe

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

After Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee failed - not once but twice - to pass amendments inserting the controversial government-run public option insurance plan into Finance chairman Max Baucus‘ America’s Healthy Future Act, the fate of the public option - and quite possibly health care reform itself, now rests with Republican Olympia Snowe. Snowe’s trigger amendment now represents the last real chance to insert a public option into a Senate bill that stands any chance of passing on the Senate floor.

Short Title: Provision of Safety Net fallback plan to ensure access to affordable coverage

Description of Amendment: This amendment establishes a non-profit government corporation through which a “safety net” plan would be provided in any state in which affordable coverage was not available in the Exchange to at least 95% of state residents. An individual would be deemed to have affordable access if either of two conditions is met. First, two or more plans are offered with premiums – the cost of which does not exceed a specified percentage of the individual‘s adjusted gross income (AGI), after deducting any available tax credit or employer subsidy from the cost of such premium. The percentage contribution shall range from 3 percent of AGI at 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, to 13 percent at 300 percent and above.
Assessment of affordability shall follow submission of plan premiums filed one year in advance of the first day of each policy year, and should a state be found to not meet the 95% threshold, plans would be permitted to submit of any revised premium filings, after which a second assessment of affordability shall be performed. If, after that second assessment, a state still be deemed as not meeting the affordability standard, the safety net plan shall be offered within that state, and shall be available at the pending open season enrollment.

For weeks now, Snowe’s vote on reform has been the target of speculation and intense lobbying by Democrats including President Obama, but there is now renewed interest as to whether Snowe will decide to offer her trigger amendment as a means of ensuring Americans forced into an individual mandate can in fact afford health insurance. While the threat of a public option amendment loomed, Snowe’s trigger seemed like a potential life-saver for Republicans and a headache for Democrats. Those roles have been reversed in light of yesterday’s public option showdown in the Senate Finance Committee.

The question now is not only if but when Snowe might propose her trigger amendment.

I offered the trigger many months ago as an idea or alternative to the public option and I mentioned that to the President at that time. He didn’t reject it in the ensuing conversations I’ve had with him and with others. They indicated they would be flexible on that point. I think now the question is whether or not or at which to point to address that issue and I think we’ll have to determine whether or not it’s in the committee or on the floor and how we build a consensus at that point in addition to the other issues. (From Olympia Snowe sets the record straight on her health care positions on HealthCareHorseRace.com)

Should Snowe offer her amendment in Committee, it seems likely that she’d get no support from her Republican colleagues but should be able to enlist all of the Democrats who voted for the Schumer public option in addition to Baucus - who has said he favors a public option but will only support one that can get 60 votes on the Senate floor. The only questionable Democrats are Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln - who voted against both public option amendments offered yesterday.

While Snowe could therefore pass an amendment 12-11 in committee, Conrad’s vote is significant. As chairman of the powerful Senate Budget Committee, Conrad will play a central role in merging any bill that comes out of Finance with that already passed out of the late Ted Kennedy’s HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee. Winning Conrad over to the trigger option would go a long way towards ensuring the trigger and not a pure public option is the centerpiece of a bill voted on by the entirety of the Senate.

Of course, should the Baucus bill pass out of committee with its proposed cooperatives fully intact, Conrad and his committee would have to choose between cooperatives - something Republicans would clearly prefer - and Kennedy’s public option. If the Budget Committee bill included the public option, Snowe would have the opportunity to introduce the trigger amendment during a floor debate which would likely garner significant Republican support at the time.

Snowe is clearly in the drivers seat as the health care reform debate moves into its final weeks. The trigger concept has already garnered various degrees of support from key Democrat leaders including Obama, a begrudging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and even former president Bill Clinton. And, despite statements to the contrary, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be hard-pressed to come out swinging at the only public option that has any shot at making its way to Obama’s desk.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Where’s Bingaman? New Mexico’s Senior Senator and His Vote on Obamacare

Saturday, September 26th, 2009

Sen. Jeff Bingaman is a Democrat who has represented the state of New Mexico for nearly 27 years. Roll Call reports that this member of the Senate Committee on Finance could become the deciding vote on health care reform legislation up for debate during the 111th Congress.

“A mild-mannered lawmaker known to aides as “Jeff,” Bingaman shuns the limelight and declined to be interviewed for this article. Despite his liberal voting record, however, he is considered a moderate on many issues, particularly those before the Finance Committee. According to one lobbyist, Bingaman is considered the panel’s “heart and soul” ideologically among Democrats.

In addition to serving as a member of the ever-powerful Senate Committee on Finance, chaired by Montana Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, Sen. Bingaman also chairs the Energy & National Resources Committee and remains a vital player on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, the latter of which was formerly chaired by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), whose “life’s work” was health care reform and whose memory has been evoked to encourage Democrats to pass legislation. Finally, Sen. Bingaman is a senior member of the Joint Economic Committee, a bicameral group that examines the effect of bills on the economy.

Sen. Bingaman’s most recent election in 2006 was a decisive victory, where he beat his Republican challenger by garnering 70.6 percent of the vote, his widest margin to date. The state of New Mexico is trending more and more blue with each electoral cycle. Still, Roll Call believes that Sen. Bingaman is not a solid vote for the Left:

On his ideological left? Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rockefeller. To his right: Baucus and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). And despite his apparent lack of media savvy in this summer’s gang of six negotiations, Bingaman was considered to be an influential participant during the months of talks.

He’s in the middle on the Democratic side,” the lobbyist said. “He’s not a liberal like Schumer, Kerry and Rockefeller — and not [conservative] like Conrad or Baucus.”

Everyone has been quoting everybody except him,” the source added. “Anything that’s decent in that bill was Bingaman and [Sen. Olympia] Snowe [R-Maine] … it wasn’t Baucus or Conrad.”

So, the question is inevitable: where does the senior senator from New Mexico fall on the health care issue?

  • Sen. Bingaman proposed an amendment in the Senate Committee on Finance with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) that would, according to Business Wire, “be replaced by the employer mandate included in health care reform legislation approved this summer by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Under the HELP bill, employers would be required to offer health insurance to their workers and pay at least 60 percent of the cost of premiums. Those who don’t would be required to pay a penalty of $750 for each full-time worker and $375 for each part-time worker.”
  • Recently, Sen. Bingaman vowed that he would support the bill of Sen. Max Baucus, so long as it does not include a public option provision. “As this bill takes clearer shape in the coming weeks and months, it’s my hope that New Mexicans’ support for it grows,” Bingaman said.

Below is a video of Sen. Bingaman discussing health care reform on a New Mexico television show on KRQE, Channel 13:

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

Senator Kirk sworn in. Dems back to 60 votes.

Saturday, September 26th, 2009

On Friday, former Democrat National Committee chairman Paul Kirk was sworn in to the United States Senate seat that Ted Kennedy held for 47 years. Kirk will serve as an interim senator until Massachusetts can hold a special election to permanently replace Kennedy in January. Between now and then, Kirk is charged with acting as a “steward” to Kennedy’s seat and that means voting in favor of sweeping reform of the American health care system.

Kirk’s appointment is significant because it gives Senate Democrats - if they can find a way to stand together - a filibuster-proof majority once health care reform comes to the Senate floor. This means Senate leader Harry Reid may not have to go nuclear and invoke budget reconciliation and potentially gives Senate Finance chairman Max Baucus a little more time to wade through the 564 amendments filed to his America’s Healthy Future Act.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | 1 Comment »

Massachusetts Governor to Appoint Kennedy Replacement Today

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

Massachusetts’ Democratic Governor Deval Patrick will appoint someone to the U.S. Senate today to replace Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) who passed away late last month. Sources indicate that he will select former Democratic National Committee chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr., who, according to the Boston Globe, has garnered the approval of Sen. Kennedy’s family.

This move directly contradicts Massachusetts state law regarding the replacement of members of the U.S. Senate in the middle of a term. According to The Hill:

The Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday granted Gov. Deval Patrick the power to appoint a temporary replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, but with one catch: when the appointment can be made.

Lawmakers declined to allow the law to go into effect immediately, meaning Patrick (D) will either have to declare an emergency situation or wait 90 days to name Kennedy’s (D) successor.

The governor said after press time last night that he would declare an emergency so he can make the pick right away. He has scheduled an 11 a.m. announcement for Thursday.

Republicans have toyed with the idea of challenging Patrick’s legal authority to declare such an emergency, and legal challenges could also come from citizens.

“This is not an emergency,” state Rep. Paul Frost (R) told The Associated Press, noting that it would be difficult for Patrick to declare an emergency after the State Legislature declined to do so.

The Massachusetts Republican Party responded early Thursday with a letter to the secretary of state requesting that he reject Patrick’s emergency declaration and citing detailed legal precedent.

“The (state) Supreme Judicial Court has set forth that the Governor’s letter to the Secretary declaring an emergency law can only be used when a law is subject to a referendum; and further, only when the law could be subject to suspension of its operation under The Referendum, III, Section 3,” state GOP Chairwoman Jennifer Nassour said. “In such an instance, the Governor’s letter declaring an emergency law would have the effect of terminating that suspension. No such suspension of law threat is viable in this case.”

If Patrick were forced to wait 90 days, the appointment wouldn’t come until less than a month before a full-time successor is set to be chosen in a Jan. 19 special election. The bill needed a two-thirds majority in each heavily Democratic chamber in order for the law to go into effect immediately, but a significant number of Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the change.

Patrick’s decision could be tempered by the fact that he has one of the lowest approval ratings of any well-known politician — 19 percent, in one survey — and faces a difficult reelection race next year. 

However, an appointment would give Senate Democrats in Washington a 60th vote, ensuring the party has a filibuster-proof majority as it debates controversial legislation such as healthcare reform.

The Massachusetts GOP has already used a series of procedural maneuvers to delay the appointment bill, and the party has been united in opposition. Republicans say the move is purely partisan and note that Democrats stripped the governor of appointment powers in 2004, when Republican Mitt Romney held the office and could have picked a GOP successor to Democratic presidential nominee and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), if he had won the White House.

Patrick is ready to make the pick in short order, and a Fox News report Wednesday suggested he had settled on former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Paul Kirk, a one-time aide to Kennedy. As of press time, the report was unconfirmed.

Patrick’s office denied that a pick had been made, and a Democratic source said it was premature to start weeding through the candidates.

“It’s blue-smoke and chattering-class time,” the source said. “No one knows anything.”

Kirk and former Gov. Michael Dukakis headline the list of those mentioned as potential appointees, and jockeying began even before the power to appoint one of them was granted. The Boston Globe reported Wednesday that Kennedy’s widow, Vicki, has endorsed Kirk, as have his sons Ted Jr. and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.).

Democratic senators on Wednesday said Kirk or Dukakis would be good additions to the chamber.

Appointed Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), who like Kirk was a longtime aide to the previous incumbent, Joe Biden, suggested Kirk was the man for the job.

“People say it’s great that I got [appointed] because I know this town, but Paul Kirk would be totally, completely brilliant,” Kaufman said. “Gov. Dukakis is great too, but I think Paul just has the edge because he knows the Senate and how the place works.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she knew both Kirk and Dukakis well, and that either choice would provide Senate Democrats with a critical 60th vote.

“They’re both senior figures, they both know this body, neither one is shy and both have a quick learning curve,” Feinstein said. “When we need 60 votes, 59 doesn’t do it. That’s where it’s critical.”

The Boston Globe has endorsed Dukakis for the post.

Other potential appointees mentioned include former Lt. Gov. Evelyn Murphy and Harvard law school Professor Charles Ogletree.

It appears that Governor Devall has caved under pressure from the White House and other Democratic lawmakers to speedily select a replacement for Sen. Kennedy to maintain a substantial margin in the U.S. Senate to secure votes on key legislation, especially health care.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

Forget “+1″: Democrats Only Need 49 Votes to Pass Health Care Reform

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

Many opponents of Obamacare fear that the Democrats will resort to using budget reconciliation to push a bill through during the 111th Congress. Typically, this means that the Senate would only need a “simple majority” of “50-plus-one” out of 100 members. 

With Sen. Ted Kennedy’s passing in August, there are only currently 99 sitting representatives in the U.S. Senate. That means that a budget reconciliation procedure would only require 50 members to cast “yea” votes to pass it. This means that the center-right must ensure that moderate Republicans, such as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), align with moderate Blue Dogs they can pull, like Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), to vote against a government overhaul of the health care industry.

Budget reconciliation has two components: 

  1. It must be deficit-neutral (which doesn’t mean it won’t raise taxes. Simply: it must raise funds for as much as it spends).
  2. It is only implemented for 10 years and is up for renewal after the duration.

These two factors might be deterrents aside from those that already exist contextually, but it is important to note that a move to catalyze a government overhaul of health care could occur with only 49 Senators’ approval, coupled with a “yea” vote from Vice President Biden.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | 1 Comment »

Senate Finance chairman unveils $856b health care bill

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

Exactly a week after President Obama declared “the time for bickering is over” in a special address to Congress, the Senate Finance Committee has unveiled its much anticipated health care reform bill. A bill that took longer than any other on Capitol Hill to make its way to the public currently has no support from Republican members of the “Gang of Six” who have committed most of the summer to debating this bill. As a result, Baucus is expected to stand alone when he formally announces the bill called America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 to the media at noon in Washington, D.C.

According to Baucus, his bill - which runs 223 pages - will cost $856 billion over ten years, will not add “one dime” to the federal deficit, will not require new taxes, and will not include the controversial public option. What the bill will include is an individual mandate, a ban against insurance companies refusing or dropping insurance based on the health of consumers, specific language making illegal immigrants ineligible for insurance benefits, and will be centered around the idea of nonprofit cooperatives to increase competition among private insurers.

The most controversial aspects of the bill - in the early going at least - are the lack of a public option and the idea that middle-class American families will be expected to pay up to 13 percent of family income for health care insurance that meets a minimum standard of care.

Individuals between 300-400 percent of [Federal Poverty Level] would be eligible for a premium credit based on capping an individual‘s share of the premium at a flat 13 percent of income. (From page 24 of the bill.)

Three times the FPL for a family of four is estimated at $66,150 and 13 percent of that translates to approximately $8,600 per yer (or $717 per month) on health insurance. These numbers have already begun to draw ire from Democrats.

I don’t know very many working-class families who you can look in the eyes and say: ‘Do you have that kind of money in your checking account?’ — because they don’t. (Democrat Ron Wyden to The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus.)

The bill still must go through the mark up process which begins September 22 and during which Finance Committee members can offer and debate amendments before the bill is merged with a bill from the late Ted Kennedy’s HELP (Health Education Labor and Pensions) Committee and makes it to the Senate floor for a vote. Once that happens, Senate leaders must determine whether to open the bill to debate on the floor and hold a cloture vote which would require the support of at least one Republican senator. Or, as suggested yesterday by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the Democrats could “go nuclear” by invoking the arcane budget reconciliation process.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Reid ready to go nuclear on health care

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

As the Senate Finance Committee prepares to announce and begin marking up its health care bill, the Senate’s most powerful Democrat unveiled his intent to use what many are calling “the nuclear option” to ensure passage of a Democrat reform bill by the end of the month. By committing Democrats to the Senate-specific budgetary tool known as reconciliation, which declares certain tax and spending bills as privileged legislation that cannot be blocked by filibuster, Senator Reid is acknowledging a failure on the part of Congressional Democrats and the White House to rally a single Republican vote to pass reform under cloture.

We’ve always had a place at the table for Republicans. There’s one there today. We hope it bears fruit. If we can’t get the 60 votes we need, then we’ll have no alternative but to use reconciliation. I strongly favor a bipartisan approach. (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.)

Going nuclear and invoking reconciliation is a significant political move in a number of ways. To better understand (and explain) the political consequences of reconciliation, HealthCareHorseRace.com has spoken to some of the leading conservative groups following the health care reform debate.

First, by only requiring 50 votes (plus that of vice president Biden) to pass the bill means moderate Democrats who have worked to remove the controversial public option could see the government-run plan (and not the co-op experiment anticipated out of Finance) become the preferred health care vehicle in a Senate bill after combining the Finance bill with that of the late Ted Kennedy’s HELP (Health Education Labor and Pensions) Committee.

There is no question that Harry Reid’s invocation of the ‘reconciliation’ process—usually a maneuver reserved for budget bills—to ram the so-called public ‘option’ through the Senate will favor proponents of socialized medicine. The fact is, the votes are not there to invoke cloture on the government-run plan that the Democrat leadership wants, and so Reid may resort to a parliamentary trick to get the plan through with only 51 votes.

It would be the effective end of the filibuster and two-party rule in the Senate. (Robert Romano of Americans for Limited Government.)

Second, reconciliation is a very specific rule which could allow centrist Democrats and Republicans to band together to defeat certain aspects of what will eventually become the Senate bill.

There’s something called the “Byrd rule” which prevents putting non-budget extraneous things on reconciliation bills (which are inherently budgetary). This means that the Senate parliamentarian would likely rule anything not spending or tax related out of order, which would require 60 votes to overcome. Some good examples here are the Medical Advisory Council, the gateway, community rating, guaranteed issue, and self-insurance cutbacks.

If the Democrats were dumb enough to do this (and I don’t think they are), the GOP would immediately start offering “Byrd rule” points of order wherever they could. If the Dems lost the ruling of the parliamentarian, and they didn’t get 60 votes to overcome him, then key chunks of this bill would be stripped out, making it unworkable. (Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform and the Heath Care Freedom Coalition.)

When you look at the big picture, it might appear that Reid’s nuclear threats amount to little more than sabre-rattling. Once the shock and awe of a 50-vote reconciliation maneuver wears off, Democrats still need 60 votes to keep their bill intact. Something which may prove more challenging than Democrat leadership is willing to admit given that the Senate itself held a vote (the DeMint Amendment) on using reconciliation back in the spring in which it promised not to do so despite the House leaving the option on the table in its own budget deliberations.

The biggest problem for Dems going reconciliation is that most of them voted against it, on a 79-14 recorded vote on the DeMint amendment and also on a unanimous voice vote. Reconciliation was not included in the Senate budget, but smuggled in through the House version (even though reconciliation only matters in the Senate) and added in conference. So dozens of Democratic senators would have to explain why they changed their minds about the appropriateness of reconciliation because they lost the public debate over a Washington takeover of health care.

Bottom line is that it’s a desperation tactic and if Democrats go that route they may find 50 much harder to get to than they think. (Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity.)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

From the Major Leagues to the Minority Party?

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

According to a breaking news report from The Associated Press, veteran Major League Baseball pitching giant Curt Schilling is considering a bid for a now-vacant U.S. Senate seat to represent the state of Massachusetts. The position, previously held by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) for nearly 47 years, is now up for grabs in a statewide election to occur in early 2010. Kennedy died Tuesday, August 25, 2009 after a lengthy battle with brain cancer.

Unlike many states who fill unexpected vacant U.S. Senate seats through a gubernatorial appointment, the state of Massachusetts will hold an election through popular vote to select their next lawmaker. This procedure, beloved initially by liberals in efforts to prevent then-Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) from choosing their U.S. Senator if Sen. Kennedy were to pass away during the Republican governor’s term, now renders Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) unable to handpick Sen. Kennedy’s successor.

With Democratic popularity waning in the eyes of the public, it is in their interest to hold onto as many seats as they can in the U.S. Senate to maintain control going into the midterm elections of 2010. Curt Schilling might “throw a curveball” to foil their game plan.

Schilling is a registered Independent, but has maintained consistent support for conservative platforms and Republican candidates. He campaigned for both President George W. Bush in 2004 and and Sen. John McCain in 2008. Currently, Schilling has retired from a successful career and focused instead on his personal life and video gaming company, 38 Studios.

In his personal blog, Curt Schilling asserted that he has “some interest in the possibility” of running for U.S. Senate. He refused to elaborate, explaining that any other comment “would be speculation on top of speculation.”

“My hope is that whatever happens, and whomever it happens to, this state makes the decision and chooses the best person — regardless of sex, race, religion or political affiliation — to help get this state back to the place it deserves to be.”

During the duration of his decades-long career, Schilling won three World Series in both the National and American Leagues. In 2001, he led the National League’s Arizona Diamondbacks to victory and in 2004 and again in 2007 with the American League’s Boston Red Sox. Prior to the the 2004 World Series triumph, Boston Red Sox fans blamed “Bambino’s Curse” for the team’s inability to win a Major League Baseball championship since 1918. According to many fans, the curse was broken thanks to help from players like Schilling. His athletic prowess was praised over and over again, especially during Game 6 of the 2004 American League Championship Series, when Schilling played through a gruesome injury as blood poured out of his socks.

Today, the baseball legend lives in a suburb of Boston, Medfield, and the 42-year-old focuses on his family and business interests. Still, Schilling remains engaged in politics and interested in a career in public service, which seems to delight diehard Red Sox fans.

According to the Associated Press,Red Sox fans were “decidedly jovial” about the prospect of Schilling running for the U.S. Senate seat.

To date, no “major Republicans have taken out nomination papers” to file for candidacy for the January 19, 2010 special election. Other GOP politicians considering the position include former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and state Sen. Scott Brown.

Only one Democrat, Attorney General Martha Coakley, has officially begun campaigning for the seat. Others considering a bid include Congressman Stephen Lynch, Congressman Michael Capuano, Congressman John Tierney and Sen. Ted Kennedy’s nephew, former Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II.

If elected, Curt Schilling would serve as a foil to Massachusetts’ other representative in the U.S. Senate, the haughty John Kerry who, like Sen. Ted Kennedy, represents the upper crust of Massachusetts society. Schilling represents a more “mainstream America,” the kind that would attend the games he pitched.

With the health care reform debate facing an ever-moving deadline, a Republican replacing Sen. Kennedy could alter the outcome of legislation, with each and every vote counting with every passing day.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

« Older Entries