TPMDC

Senate Dems: We'll Wait For Massachusetts To Act Before Seating Brown

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

MA Senate candidates State Sen. Scott Brown (R) and AG Martha Coakley (D)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

With health care reform on the line, Republicans worry that Democrats may try to slow walk the seating of Scott Brown if he wins tomorrow's election. But the Senate leadership says they will follow the usual process which requires the state to certify the winner--so any delay between the election and Brown's swearing in would be because of the process for certifying the election in Massachusetts. Not because of Senate delays.

The winner, says Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, "needs to be certified by the state. Question is how long will that take."

"When there is a certified winner in Massachusetts, the Senate has received appropriate papers and the vice president is available, the successor to Kennedy/Kirk will be sworn in," Reid spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle told the Washington Post last week.

According to the Secretary of the Senate, this falls directly out of Senate rules (specifically Rule 2). The Secretary of the Senate's office has said she needs the certificate before winner can be sworn in, according to a Senate Democratic aide. The Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has said it will take "up to 10 days" to allow for absentee votes and the military votes to be counted, then cities and towns each have to certify the results, then the statehouse.

Last week, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Secretary of State told us that it would likely take between 10 and 20 days for the winner to be certified. Either way, though, interim senator Paul Kirk will remain a voting member until the winner is seated, according to the aide.

The size of the window between election day and the winner's swearing in could be crucial. If Republican Scott Brown wins, Democrats will have to do some quick math to determine the answer to two key questions: How long do we have? And how quickly can we move ahead with "Plan A"?

(Plan A, you'll recall, is for the House to amend the Senate health care bill and then send it back to the upper chamber for final passage.)

Last week, I asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if the election in Massachusetts was upping the pressure on Democrats to reach a deal quickly.

"The fact that the CBO takes so much time is really more the issue," she said. That'll be at the heart of the calculation: can the House get numbers back from CBO quickly enough to pass a bill in a way that gives the Senate enough time to push past its time-consuming procedural hurdles before their majority drops by one.

This math, of course, will have to take into account the political risks involved in slow-walking Brown's swearing in. If Brown wins, particularly if he wins convincingly, Republicans will want to see him seated as soon as possible--no footdragging. More on what you can expect to see if Brown wins in a forthcoming post.

Additional reporting by Christina Bellantoni

Comments (43) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 18, 2010 1:12 PM   

'Political risks'? For what? A few weeks of fainting-couch bullshit from the DC media and the usual crap from the GOP? How about the 'risks' of complete failure to pass a bill with huge majorities, a failure that will last through 2010 and beyond? Democrats should have five contingency plans set to go and should delay seating Brown, ram the bill through by any means necessary, and tell the Broderian hordes to kiss our ass. Of course, they won't even try.


Weeferdog

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 7:48 PM    in reply to Weeferdog

Seriously. Screw the political fallout; no amount could be as bad as failing to pass this bill. And that's just the politics, not even considering the damage to the country.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 1:22 PM   

Dems should not screw around with seating brownie. That will be a disaster for dems in 2010. They have already screwed around with this seat too much. If they screw around, they will be looking at massive losses in 2010.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:24 PM    in reply to Michael A

You mean like how stalling Franken's seating for 6 months hurt Republicans? Or how stalling every single bill in the Senate has hurt Republicans?

Wuss much?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:30 PM    in reply to FreeRider

As I said to cmpnwtr: the media give Republicans a much wider berth than is given to Democrats.

Just because the GOP has been able to get away with acting petulantly doesn't mean that Democrats will be able to do the same.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 1:31 PM   

The headline of this column is a disgrace, it practically screams
BROWN WINS!.

Another example of friendly people adding to the self fulfilling prophesy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 1:39 PM   

Dems should foot drag as long as possible, just like the Rs did in Minn. There was no political cost for the GOP, and the same would be true in this case.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:15 PM    in reply to cmpnwtr

Anyone who's been paying attention to politics for the last 20 years should be well aware that the media will let Republicans get away with things they they'd never let Democrats get away with.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:27 PM    in reply to eratosthenes8

You're wrong about that. Republicans will let Republicans get aways with things--cheating, infidelity, stalling elections, etc. Whereas, democrats will destroy other democrats for anything close.

Just read this thread--Democrats crying and whining "Don't mess around with that seat. You need to seat Brown right away or else people will be mad." Democrats were willing to throw Chris Dodd to the wolves because he got a good deal on his mortgage. Republicans are willing to reelect scumbags like Vitter and Ensign.

And we wonder why we always lose.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:33 PM    in reply to FreeRider

I'm not talking about the reaction of the Republican and Democratic base. I'm talking about the reaction of the media. Republicans are very rarely held to the same standards that Democrats are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:41 PM    in reply to eratosthenes8

Who gives a crap about the reaction of the media? They are always going to hold Democrats to a higher standard, so why not just grow a pair and get HCR passed?

The media isn't going to go lighter on Democrats if they bow down to Republicans, so what's the point?

As for people being concerned about how Dems have screwed around with this seat? No one outside of Massachusetts gives a damn.

I can't believe the lack of backbone in Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:50 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Totally agree! Every time Democrats start to play a little hardball, the hand-wringing starts: oh, my. The media will make us look bad; the teabaggers are going to use this against us. Blah, blah, blah.

As if voters are going to remember this in 8 months or even 8 weeks. Hell, it's like they have collective amnesia about the last 8 years of Republican incompetence and are willing to turn their backs on the Democrats after 1 year.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:57 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Who gives a crap about the reaction of the media?

Who cares? The Democrats in Congress, that's who. Republicans can always rely on Fox News and Drudge and talk radio to rally their side. And, like it or not, the Fox News/Drudge line is picked up by the rest of the mainstream media and given wide currency. That gets Republicans fired up for the GOP position and gives doubts to independents.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Democrats should bow down to the Republican way. I'm saying only that there will be a lot more public pressure on Democrats to fold than there would be on Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:17 PM    in reply to eratosthenes8

The media is always and ever going to be harder on the Democrats. If more Democrats stood up and called the political equivalent of "Bullshit!", maybe independents and moderate Republicans wouldn't be so tepid about Democrats.

Instead, Democrats cower, Republicans continue the name-calling, lying, and misrepresentation (aided and abetted by Fox/Drudge) and what do we have? Sliding poll numbers and on the verge of losing a seat from Massachusetts.

Being afraid doesn't work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:25 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Again, you're misunderstanding my point.

I wasn't arguing what Democrats should or shouldn't do. I was commenting on a thesis put forth that Democrats would get no more heat in dragging out the Massachusetts certification than Republicans did in dragging out the Minnesota contest. That seemed to me to be nothing more than naive, wishful thinking.

You seem to be under the impression that since I'm in favor of looking at the world realistically that I think the Democrats should just surrender. That was never my point...although, I think Democrats are much more likely to surrender because of political pressure coming from all sides.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:28 PM    in reply to eratosthenes8

I'm not misunderstanding your point at all. Your point is that Democrats are going to take far more heat for doing something that went virtually uncommented upon when Republicans did it.

My point is who cares? And my other point is that if Democrats started actually, you know, looking like they're fighting, rather than cowering, they might begin to get better approval ratings.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:35 PM    in reply to CT Voter

My point is who cares?

Then you're talking about something really outside the extent of my point. I was responding to the idea that "[t]here was no political cost for the GOP [in dragging out the Minnesota Senate contest], and the same would be true in this case."

As I said, I think that's just wishful thinking. Just to make myself clear, I am not arguing for one course of action or another. I'm just being realistic about the reaction the Democrats are likely to get from the media and from the public (and, sadly, from other Democrats).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:14 PM    in reply to eratosthenes8

And the Democrats will look like fraidy-cats if they don't get out the brass knuckles after what the Repukes did in Minnesota. So given that it would be lose-lose, I'll take the loss that the Democrats also get something out of.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:47 PM    in reply to eratosthenes8

I think your focus is on the wrong thing. On one hand, Democrats scream for our leaders to act more like Republicans but begin to faint when we start to draw some political blood.

The media was all over the Republicans stalling Franken but the Republicans didn't care. They were unapologetic about holding him up and said it was because they didn't want to give the Democrats another vote. Their base cheered them on.

By contrast, look at Democrats: even the mention of Democrats taking the customary two weeks to seat Brown and Democrats start to pee themselves.

Democrats harm their own agenda more than Republicans harm it. Even though Republicans didn't like that prescription drug bill, they rallied behind it and praised it when they realized it was gonna happen. But not Democrats: we start trying to sabotage our own side with "kill the bill" and "it's not good enough" and "let's vote for the naked Republican."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:01 PM    in reply to FreeRider

You're seriously misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying Democrats shouldn't play hardball; I'm saying that Democrats shouldn't expect to get the same reaction from the public and from the media that Republicans get when they do the same thing. I'm saying the people are mistaken if they believe that Democrats will get the same treatment for taking the same actions.

As JFK said, life is unfair. It's simply the way of the world.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:11 PM    in reply to eratosthenes8

Democrats get a harsher reaction from the media. Correct. But that's because Democrats HELP drive the negative message about our own side.

There's no denying that MSNBC is liberal in prime time but the liberals on MSNBC were bashing Congress and the president and the healthcare bill as much as the wingers on Faux! Every night, Ed Schultz, Olbermann, Maddow were bitching and moaning about talking about how sucky the Democrats were. They were actively pushing to kill the bill.

This president and Congress have accomplished more in one year than Clinton did in four years but you'd never know it from reading HP and watching MSNBC. The meme is that the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans and can't govern.

Hell, when your own side spends hours trashing you in the media, what the hell do you expect?!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:21 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Damn. Now you're all wrong again. Well, one in a row is a start. Keep it up!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:29 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Democrats get a harsher reaction from the media. Correct.

If you look at my posts, you'll notice that this really is the extent of my point. I was rebutting the idea that Democrats will get the same treatment from the media and the public that Republicans have gotten for the same conduct. I thought that was a silly idea...and I said so.

I was not suggesting that Democrats should back down or give in or turn tail. I was suggesting only that Democrats are going to face more heat for actions that Republicans would get a pass for.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 19, 2010 8:54 AM    in reply to FreeRider

I'm with you Free Rider and even here at TPM there was quite a bit of Obama bashing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:41 PM    in reply to eratosthenes8

I think that if the Dems start consistently kicking some GOPer tush with a smile on their faces like they like doing it the public will smile and cheer. If they do it by some slightly underhanded means and use the advantage to advocate what the people really want (say, good healthcare for everyone ferinstance) the public will hoist them high on their shoulders and carry them into the history books.
to recap: 1) Make the healthcare bill good. 2) Do whatever has to be done to pass it short of assasination. 3) Vote that good bill into law. 4) Repeat with a vengence!
People like to vote for kick ass winners so kick ass and win!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:38 PM    in reply to FreeRider

We don't always lose. Rather we fail to win more than one in a row.

Some brief historical thoughts (simplified for the republitards here):

Reagan runs as a conservative, governs as a conservative. Wins 2x.
Bush I runs as a conservative, governs as a moderate. Loses.
Clinton runs as a moderate, governs as a moderate. Wins 2x.
Bush II runs as a conservative, governs as a conservative. Wins 2x.
Obama runs as a progressive, governs as a corporatist.....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:52 PM    in reply to matt in so dak

Corporatist. You people need to get a new word. You're so boring with your incessant whining.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:18 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Oh noes. Going to report me to Rahm?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:45 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Especially since none of these folks seem to understand what corporatism actually is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:33 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Maybe you're right. So Obama runs as a progressive, governs as a corporate waterboy. There. Feel better?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:19 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Agreed (!). Time for hardball.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

NH

user-pic

January 18, 2010 1:47 PM   

IF they know what's good for them, they won't wait for anything.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:23 PM    in reply to NH

What's that supposed to mean? You gonna git 'em if they wait?

I think the line is clear (emphasis mine):

"When there is a certified winner in Massachusetts, the Senate has received appropriate papers and the vice president is available, the successor to Kennedy/Kirk will be sworn in," Reid spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle told the Washington Post last week.


I bet Joe Biden goes on a good-will tour of East Bumfuckistan for two weeks until HCR passes if Brown wins.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:28 PM    in reply to ClosetLuddite

Nah, weather in Alabama is a little chilly right now. I'm guessing he goes to West Bumfuckistan instead.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:25 PM   

The Dems are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Check mate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:42 PM    in reply to Silence

Good thing we're playin' checkers! I'll see your check mate and raise you Boardwalk!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 2:58 PM   

Has anyone ever considered waiting to see how the race actually plays out? If it is so close as the polling suggests, and if you really do hang your hat on the polling then shine up your crystal balls...what the heck do you need to go to the polls and vote for...if the pollsters are so correct. I really wish this doom and gloom scenario would stop......we don't know what is really going to happen! Being prepared for any outcome is one thing, but getting overly cautious is another.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:57 PM    in reply to Lucieann

That's crazy talk. We must jump now!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 4:49 PM   

Why the emphasis on when Brown takes his seat? We need 60 votes to overcome a Repub filibuster. Kirk has a seat "until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy". In other words, as of Wed morning, Kirk is out of work and can't be the 60th vote. Qualification, not certification. 59 votes in the Senate doesn't get us there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 10:57 PM    in reply to jske

I'm afraid you have not been paying attention; Kirk is the Mass. Junior Senator right up until (Coakley) is sworn in. He could cast a vote while she was reciting her oath, as long as he did it before she "so help me god'ed"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 7:37 PM   

The proper strategy if Brown is elected, is for the House to agree to the Senate bill, and send it to the president. End of process.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 10:56 PM   

Please. These arguments are all hypothetical wishful thinking that even if MA takes 20 days to certify a possible Brown win, Congressional Dems will actually pass healthcare within that timeframe.

They won't. For crying out loud, I doubt if they'd pass it within the next 6 months even if Martha Coakley won by a landslide.

Lieberman will suddenly decide that healthcare will make his maatzoh ball soup too lumpy, Landrieu will say that it curdles the gumbo and Ben Nelson will just be himself. Obama will keep making speeches about how healthcare is just around the corner. November 2010 will come, and they'll still have nothing to show.

These clowns had a year to pass this thing, and yet they screwed up.

As usual, Democratic cowardice and political stupidity loses against Republican evil and demagoguery. Nothing new there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 19, 2010 9:03 AM   

According to all I have read, Obama is very popular in Massachusetts and there are only a small number of registered republicans even though there is a good number of independents. What is going on in Massachusetts that would cause so many people to vote for this nobody? Granted Coakley has been a lackluster candidate, but what else is going on?

Anyone here from Mass who can shed some light here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on