The University News (Irving, Tex.), Vol. 35, No. 13, Ed. 1 Tuesday, January 26, 2010 Page: 15 of 16
sixteen pages : ill.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The University News
Commentary
January 26, 2010 — 15
Boston Massacre
Implications of the election of Senator Scott Brown
Kevin Burns
Contributing Writer
Last Tuesday, Scott Brown was
elected to replace Ted Kennedy in
the Senate. His election was a bit
of a surprise to everyone — especially
to his opponent, state Attorney General
Martha Coakley. Massachusetts has not
elected a Republican to the Senate since
1972. Think about it this way: Trie last
Republican senatorfrom Massachusetts
went into office with Richard Nixon.
And Brown didn't just squeak out a
win - he won by five percent, enough
to convince even the worst loser (and
Coakley is a very sore loser) that a
court battle over a recount would be
worthless.
Brown's election sent shock waves
through the political world, for good
reason. Aside from Massachusetts' liberal
leanings, we must remember that Scott
Brown is now the 41 st Senate Republican
— the magic number necessary for a
filibuster.
It appears that the Democratic health
care bill is dead in its tracks. The only
way it could be passed at this point is
if the House passes the Senate version
without alterations.
However, Blue Dog Democrats in
the House oppose abortion funding
in the Senate bill, and House Liberals
oppose taxes on "cadillac" insurance
policies (these taxes would affect many
union members). Tie Democrats' only
alternative is to allow amendments to
the bill and send it back to the Senate.
But in the Senate, the bill will face both
the threat of a Republican filibuster
and the loss of support from moderate
Democrats.
Brown's election is not merely about
health care or about the filibuster — it's
about perception. President Obama
claimed that the Massachusetts Senate
election would be a referendum on his
presidency. Then he decided the election
had nothing to do with his presidency.
But regardless of Obama's politiking
in a high profile race, the fact of the
matter is that the entire Democratic
establishment, headed by a charismatic
young president, could not convince the
citizens of an extremely liberal state to
elect a Democrat.
Eighteen Senate seats currently
held by Democrats are up for grabs in
November, as is every House seat. If
the political climate stays as it is today
(always a risky bet), Democrats stand to
lose massive numbers of senators and
congressmen. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid stands to lose his seat. Vice
President joe Biden's former Senate seat
will likely be won by Republican Mike
Castle — not Biden's son, Beau Biden.
Even Barbara Boxer of California has seen
low showings in early polls. Republicans
could easily win five to seven Senate
seats. In the House, Republicans could
possibly win the 40 seats necessary to
gain a majority.
Hie repercussions? Who knows? If the
political environment remains the same,
Republicans will sweep the electoral
map in November. But I can almost
guarantee that the political environment
will change before November. The only
guarantee I can make is that moderate
Democrats will suddenly start voting like
moderates and begging their constituents
to ignore their past transgressions.
A victory, but not for the babies
Senate election no improvement for the pro-life cause
Daniel Arevalo
Contributing Writer
On Jan. 19, Republican Scott
Brown won a special election
against Democrat Martha
Coakleyforthe Massachusetts U.S. Senate
seat which was left empty following the
death of Sen. Ted Kennedy. Many people
saw this election as a reflection of the
attitudes of many Americans towards
President Obama after one year in
office. The current administration lost
the support of many Americans after
the audacious attempt to overhaul the
health insurance industry with a bill that
resulted in little more than a corrupted
tome of paper, a bill that would help
nobody, which nobody could honestly
accept.
Despite the massive protests on both
sides of the aisle, the House passed its
own bill that included a government-run
insurance plan, but the Senate passed
one that excluded it, which meant that
the House and Senate needed to go
back and re-do the bill so that the same
bill would pass in both the House and
Senate. Time was running out for the
Democratic Party leaders. The election
for the Massachusetts seat approached
quickly, and the lead by Coakley was
beginningto dwindle from the seemingly
insurmountable 30-point lead that she
held over Brown just a month ago.
The Brown campaign capitalized on
the weakness of the Coakley campaign
and succeeded in making the primary
issue of the campaign health insurance
reform. Additionally, in a much
celebrated piece of rhetoric, Brown
delivered that signature phrase which
likely caused his victory, that the Senate
seat did not belong to the Democrats
or even Ted Kennedy, but that it was
rather of the people. Thus, on Jan. 19,
the people spoke, giving Brown a five
percent margin victory in a seat that had
not been held by a Republican in over
30 years.
This astounding victory for Brown is
only a short-term victory for the pro-life
movement. The election of Scott Brown
might stop the health insurance bill from
passing now, which is fantastic news for
the pro-life cause because both bills would
have effectively funneled tax dollars into
abortions. Nevertheless, pro-liters cannot
ever count on Brown to represent their
position again, because the moment any
bill dealingwith abortion orany nominee
for the Supreme Court comes along, you
can bet that Brown will be ardently pro-
choice. Brown has repeatedly stated his
conviction that all women should have a
right to abortions. He is an effective short-
term solution but in the long term he will
be far from good. This was a victory for
the Republican Party and a step closer to
regaining control of Congress, but simply
another step further away from ending the
scourge of abortion.
The University News Commentary Policy:
The University News welcomes students to write commentary
pieces. Submissionsmustincludeyourname, contact number and
e-mail address for verification, and be no more than 500 words
long. All pieces are subject to the editing and approval of the
editors. E-mail questions or pieces to the commentary editor at
nolson@udallas.edu. Please e-mail pieces by Friday at 6 p.m.
for publication in the next week's paper.
The University News Letters Policy:
The University News welcomes letters to the editor. They must
be no more than 300 words and include your printed name,
contact number and e-mail address. Letters are subject to editing
to comply with the newspaper's standards. E-mail letters to
udnews@udallas.edu. Please e-mail pieces by Friday at 6 p.m.
for publication in the next week's paper.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Nelson, Heather. The University News (Irving, Tex.), Vol. 35, No. 13, Ed. 1 Tuesday, January 26, 2010, newspaper, January 26, 2010; Irving, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth201514/m1/15/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting University of Dallas.