Meeting Scott Brown

It was my great honor to meet Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown last night at a reception in my town. Sen. Brown is running against Democrat Martha Coakley in the January 19 Massachusetts special election for the seat of the late Teddy Kennedy.

I’m not a good judge of crowds, but the political types at the reception told me the turnout was very good. What was more remarkable, though, was how many of the attendees were not political types. About three-quarters of the people I talked to said they had never been to any sort of campaign event before, but thought it was important to come to this one and do something about what’s going on in Washington. Clearly, Scott has a lot of grassroots support.

When Sen. Brown came in he made a few remarks outlining the themes of the campaign:

- If you like the direction that the country is going, vote for Martha Coakley. If, on the other hand, you’re worried about the trillions in new spending that the Democrats are pushing through Congress, and the enormous debts and high taxes that will be needed to pay for it, vote for Scott Brown.
- If Martha Coakley goes to Washington, the first thing she will do is get her marching orders from Harry Reid and Barack Obama and then proceed in lock step with them. If Scott Brown goes to Washington he will be an independent thinker who will vote for what’s best for Massachusetts, regardless of what the GOP leadership wants.
- The Republicans in the U.S. Senate need one more vote to shut down the Democrats’ big government agenda. We in Massachusetts have the opportunity to give them that 41st vote by electing Scott Brown.

Mr. Brown went on to make some suggestions how we could help. Coming to the reception and donating at the door was a good start, but we could also volunteer to man phone banks, tell our friends and neighbors about the Brown campaign, and most important, vote on January 19 (see http://www.nexusofpower.com/how_to_help.htm for my own thoughts on how to help Scott win).

After completing his stump speech, Scott went around the room and shook everybody’s hand (Some of you know my story about the time I met the CEO of Raytheon. In case you’re wondering, no, I did not pick up a greasy hors d’oevre just before Scott got to me!) I had the opportunity to exchange a few words with Scott, wish him well, and give him my 2 cents about the campaign. I told him I thought this election is really about freedom: Will we have the freedom to choose our own health plan or will the government decide what’s best for us? Will we have the freedom to spend our own earnings or will the feds tax it and spend it the way they think is best. In light of this, I asked Scott, how come he doesn’t talk about freedom? Sen. Brown replied that he thought he didn’t need to since it is so clear that freedom is the common thread through the campaign issues. Nevertheless, he said he would give some thought to speaking about it more. “It worked for Reagan,” I pointed out.

One of the nice things about an election for Senator, compared to one for President, is that there are many opportunities to meet the candidate and tell him what’s important to you. If you would like to meet Scott Brown and show your support, check out the calendar of events on his website at http://www.brownforussenate.com/events.

Note to the FEC: At no time during the evening did I consult with or receive a request or a suggestion from the candidate, the candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents, concerning the content of the Nexus of Power website. Satisfied?

Beacon Hill Shocker: A Health Care Proposal that Reduces Costs

I argued elsewhere that even though President Obama is selling his healthcare proposal to the nation as a cost cutting measure, there’s almost no provision in it that will actually cut costs.

So it was a refreshing change yesterday when Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown filed a bill in the State Legislature that even his opponent admits brings costs down (http://www.brownforussenate.com/press/12-28-09/12-28-09-brown-files-legislation-control-health-care-costs). If passed, the bill puts a moratorium on new coverage mandates for insurance companies and gives the Massachusetts Connector Authority power to reduce existing mandates. In other words, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will back off from telling insurance companies what coverage they have to provide. This is a change from current law, which requires health insurance policies sold in the Bay State to cover chiropractic services, infertility treatments, contraceptives, minimum maternity stays, mental health, “Scalp hair prostheses for cancer patients”, off-label uses of prescription drugs for cancer and HIV/AIDS, and 29 other items.

The Coakley camp responded with a press release containing several attacks on the Brown proposal, poorly reasoned, and starting with the headline: “Removing Such Mandated Coverage Across The Board Would Only Reduce Premiums By 3-4 Percent.” To put this headline into perspective, Massachusetts residents are projected to spend some $70 billion on health care next year, so the 2010 savings from eliminating state mandates is “only” $2 billion. In the same press release, Ms. Coakley boasts that Obamacare will bring an additional $500 million in Medicare and Medicaid payments to the state. It is hardly consistent to brag about a $500 million windfall, and then belittle a $2 billion dollar savings (Since Ms. Coakley admits that eliminating state mandates reduces costs, does she also admit that the federal mandates in Obamacare raises costs?).

The Coakley statement argues that a better alternative to reining in mandates is “expanding coverage, increasing transparency, and reducing health care costs for all.” The press release did not explain how the economic miracle of simultaneously expanding coverage and reducing costs will be achieved. It seems that Martha Coakley, like the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass, cultivates the habit of believing impossible things.

Near the end of the press release is a list of multi-million dollar settlements that Attorney General Coakley extorted from pharmaceutical companies, including a $2.5 million haul from Pfizer “for the company’s deceptive campaign to promote drugs for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration” (hey, isn’t that what “off-label use of prescription drugs” means?). I’m scratching my head as to exactly how increasing the costs of being in the drug business reduces the nation’s medical bill.

The back-and-forth between Coakley and Brown on this issue focused on dollars and cents, but there is something more fundamental at stake: freedom to choose. Today every Bay State resident must buy a one-size-fits-all policy that covers test tube babies and spine adjustments, regardless of whether they happen to want that coverage. The Brown idea is to restore freedom to the patient. If you do not want a policy that covers wigs, a psychiatrist, or the Pill, you do not have to buy one – but if you change your mind later you will have to pay for these items out of pocket. If you do want the extra coverage, it is available to you, but you will have to pay more for it; patients who don’t want it won’t subsidize you. Fair’s fair.

There are over six and a half million of us in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Each of us has a unique combination of medical history, family situation, financial resources, and personal preferences. Clearly, this diversity is better served when we are free to choose a health care plan suited to our individual situations, rather than being forced to fit into a standardized plan designed by a bureaucracy.

Debate Rebroadcast Tonight

Watch last week's debate between Massachusetts Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown and his opponents Democrat Martha Coakley and Libertarian Joseph L. Kennedy. Rebroadcast tonight at 7 PM on WSBK TV 38. Hosted by John Keller.

Christmas Greetings from the Brown Family

The New Jersey Effect: Why Scott Brown Can Win

“There is no way in hell we’re going to elect a Republican to Ted Kennedy’s seat” – Massachusetts Congressman and former Democrat Senatorial candidate Mike Capuano.

A Republican running for office in Massachusetts begins the race about 20 yards back from the starting line. That’s because the Dems have a three-to-one advantage over the GOP in the voter registration department. It’s a mystery why. Thanks to the hard work of our all-Democrat Congressional delegation, Massachusetts ranks 40th among the states for Federal Spending Received per Dollar of Tax Paid (source: The Tax Foundation). Still we keep registering for their party and returning them to Washington.

But I digress. The dirty secret is that the majority of Bay State voters are neither Republicans nor Democrats; they’re unenrolled in either party. Win enough of these independents and you win Massachusetts.

In the last off-year elections, 2006, Bay State independents were about evenly divided between Democrat Gubernatorial candidates Deval Patrick and Republican Kerry Healey. But there are two good reasons to think that they will swing to the GOP in 2010.

First, that’s what they did in New Jersey last month. New Jersey’s electorate looks a lot like Massachusetts’s: Democrats have an overwhelming advantage over Republicans in voter registration, but around half of all voters are independents. Like Massachusetts, New Jersey independents were about evenly split in 2006. But in 2009 they overwhelmingly supported Republican candidate Chris Christie over Democrat John Corzine. In spite of the classy campaign run by Gov. Corzine (he ran adds accusing the overweight Christie of “throwing his weight around”), a 60-30 margin among independents gave Christie the edge he needed to become the first Garden State Republican to be elected Governor since 1997.

Second, polls show that, nationally, independent voters are increasingly sympathetic to Republican views on the issues. For example a November 27th Rasmussen polls shows independents oppose Obamacare 59% to 37%. A late June poll on climate change shows 57% think that “keeping the cost of energy as low as possible” is more important than “developing clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy”.

If independents vote Republican in Massachusetts in January the way they did in New Jersey in November, the Brown vs. Coakley race is a dead heat. Sorry, Congressman – looks like there is a way in hell we’re going to elect a Republican to Ted Kennedy’s seat.

Scott Brown Comments on Debate

Republican Senate hopeful Scott Brown held a press conference today to comment on last night's debate with Democrat Martha Coakley and Libertarian Joseph L. Kennedy. Among his remarks:

"Last night’s debate revealed some significant differences between Martha Coakley and me."

"During the debate, Martha Coakley referred to higher taxes as “investments.” I believe higher taxes are job killers that will make it harder for us to get our economy moving again."

"If you believe the health care bill has been mishandled and that it will lead to more government, higher taxes and increased spending, then vote for me and I will stop it from becoming law."

For the full text, see Scott Brown discusses last night debate's in press conference at kennedyseat.com.

Debate Wrap-Up

Tonight’s webcast debate among the three Senate candidates just concluded. Some random thoughts about each of the participants:

Libertarian Joseph L. Kennedy deserves credit for being the only candidate to talk about freedom and to argue that there are some issues (in this case single parenthood) that Washington should stay out of.

Democrat Martha Coakley boasted twice that under her leadership the Attorney General's office brought in five times more money in fines and settlements than it spent. The notion that law enforcement should be operated for profit is truly frightening and invokes images of roving police gangs shaking down the citizenry.

Republican Scott Brown did an excellent job of staying on message: low taxes are a necessary condition for a thriving economy. “We can not continue to tax and spend and expect people to have money,” he said. However, as a 29-year veteran of the National Guard, it was in the area of military policy that he really distinguished himself. When, the other two candidates expressed their opposition to the President's surge in Afghanistan on the grounds that the mission there is unclear, Mr. Brown explained that it is very clear: to ensure that the Taliban and al-Qaeda do not regain a stronghold there which they could use as a base for expansion into nuclear-armed Pakistan and for terrorist attacks against the rest of the world.

The debate will appear on broadcast TV Sunday night at 8 PM.

Debate Tonight

Tonight at 7:00 on via webcast wbztv.com: Watch Republican Scott Brown debate his opponents Democrat Martha Coakley and Libertarian Joseph L. Kennedy. Hosted by John Keller.

Candidates on Nightside with Dan Rea

Here's an article about Scott Brown's appearance with his opponents on last night's Nightside with Dan Rea: http://www.wbz.com/Candidates-for-Kennedy-s-seat-spar-in-1st-forum/5946009. Seems like Scott came out a little ahead.

Health Care: It Ain't Over Yet

What do vampires, the KGB, and Senate Democrats have in common?

They all come after you at night.


Around 1 o’clock this morning, Senate Democrats won a procedural vote that clears the way for Christmas Eve passage of a health care bill. The Democrat leadership obtained the 60 votes needed for this triumph by buying the support of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson in exchange for additional Medicaid funding for his state.


This Christmas present for America is more lump of coal than brightly wrapped toy: it is a government takeover of health insurance masquerading as cost cutting. Under the bill, insurers would remain private, but the government would dictate what coverage they must offer and who they must offer it to. Supporters argue that it is necessary to lower the high medical costs that take so harsh a toll on so many American families. They promise to lower costs without limiting the treatment choices available. But as I argued elsewhere (http://www.grebnesisrazor.com/2009/07/health-care-reform-counting-on-fewer.html), nearly every provision in this bill raises costs and limits choices.


Fortunately, this Congressional death match ain’t over. There are considerable differences between the Senate’s bill and the one passed by the House last month: creation of a public insurance option to compete with private insurers, restrictions on federal funding of abortion, and whether to pay for the bill with a tax on those who are rich or a tax on those who merely have rich insurance plans. When Congress returns from its Christmas junkets in January, House and Senate negotiators will have to resolve their differences and agree on a final bill. When they do, there will be new votes in both chambers.


Just as they did last night, the Democrats will need every vote they have in order to pass the final bill. Something for the people of Massachusetts to think about when they elect a new Senator in January.

The Democrats' Gettysburg

As I explained on my website ( http://www.nexusofpower.com/about.htm), the Massachusetts special election is the Nexus of Power in Washington. It will determine the fate of the Democrats’ sixtieth seat in the Senate – the one they need to stop Republican filibusters and realize their dreams of looting manufacturers, enslaving doctors, and outlawing the Big Mac.

In addition to the potential to restore checks and balances to Washington in January, this race has profound implications for the election in November, when the nation will decide the fate of 35 Senators and 435 Representatives.

Massachusetts is, in John Keller’s phrase, the bluest state. According to the Gallup poll, the percentage of Bay State residents who are “Democrat” or “Lean Democrat” is higher than any other state in the Union. Its Congressional delegation of 2 Senators and 10 Representatives does not include a single Republican. The voters sent the country’s most famous liberal, Ted Kennedy to the Senate nine times.

The Commonwealth’s solid Democrat creds make Scott Brown’s campaign an uphill battle. But they also would make a Brown victory that much more game-changing. After last month’s loss of Governor’s mansions in New Jersey (another blue state) and Virginia (a swing state), the loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat, which was supposed to be solidly Democratic, would demoralize the Dems and put them on the defensive going into November, while energizing the GOP. I can see the post-election press conferences now: a pissed-off Barney Frank spitting into the microphone and a deer-in-the-headlights Nancy Pelosi renewing her attacks on Brooks Brothers.

In 1863, the battle of Gettysburg marked the high-water mark of the Confederacy. The rebels had never advanced as far North as that town in Southern Pennsylvania. After being turned back by the Union armies, they never would again. We have an opportunity in January to turn back the Democrat advance into the Senate. It can be the Democrats’ Gettysburg.

Coulter on Coakley

Check out Ann Coulter’s take on the Massachusetts Senate race at http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=345 (“Martha Coakley: Too Immoral for Teddy Kennedy’s Seat”). Her claim that “anyone with the smallest sense of justice cannot vote to put this woman in any office” may be over the top, but Ann raises some good points about Ms. Coakley’s sorry career as a prosecutor.

Dueling Press Releases

Carbon was the issue of the day on the campaign trail. The Brown campaign released a press statement urging Attorney General Coakley to renounce her support for Cap and Trade, the proposal to reduce America’s carbon footprint by imposing a new tax on the burning of fossil fuels. The statement cited high Massachusetts electricity costs and a National Association of Manufacturer’s study predicting the loss of 2.4 Million American jobs if the Cap and Trade becomes law. According to the press release, “Cap and trade is anti-jobs and anti-growth. It would be bad for our economy and bad for working families. We all want a clean environment and we all want to reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuels, but we shouldn’t do it at the expense of jobs. I think a better idea is to pursue alternative sources of energy, including nuclear power. Massachusetts can’t afford Martha Coakley’s giant new tax on energy,”

Rather than refuting these arguments, Coakley responded by accusing Sen. Brown of flip-flopping on the issue. In a press release of its own, the Coakley campaign pointed to the Senator’s January 2008 vote in favor of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). This accusation is true. But since the reason for the flip-flop was that RGGI led to an increase in electricity rates, rather than the decrease that its sponsors expected, I hardly see how this is an argument in Ms. Coakley’s favor.

Perhaps even more significant is a flip-flop of Ms. Coakley’s. Her initial campaign strategy was to ignore the Republican candidate. That she is now responding at all to Mr. Brown suggests that he is making inroads with the voters.

Welcome!

Welcome to the Nexus of Power Blog. This blog is dedicated to supporting Scott Brown in his bid to become the first Republican Senator from Massachusetts since the 1970s. To learn why, see http://www.nexusofpower.com/about.htm.