Was it really worth it?

Martha Coakley, Paul Kirk, and Joe Kennedy (no relation) in happier times

In an interview with Matthew Reid of the Medford Transcript on September 23, 2009 - ironically the day that Martha Coakley filed papers to run for the U.S. Senate - I expressed my concern on behalf of the Medford GOP of allowing our Senate seat to be the political plaything of the Washington Machine. My exact quote on that day was, “State laws should not be subject to the whims of either federal party. It’s obvious that Kennedy’s letter is from federal Democrats who want the law changed for their own gain. Some [Massachusetts lawmakers] may not want to risk the political backlash of voting to change the law. They might be asking themselves, is it really worth it?” I think that is a question that many Democrats in Massachusetts, and indeed across the country, are asking themselves today.

Carl Sciortino, my Representative, was one of the supporters of the law change that installed Paul Kirk to, in effect, broom the Obama healthcare initiative through the Senate. I had spoken with Carl on the issue, and he promised to present an open letter of mine to the Joint Committee on Election Law, which - though he clearly expressed his disagreement on the issue - I have to believe he made good on. But he still supported the measure, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the measure, with Rep. Sciortino concluding, “I gave the issue a lot of thought, and believe it is important for our state to have two senators acting on behalf of Massachusetts at this time."

That was the common expressed consensus that the measure was passed behind, but looking back now, what exactly did Paul Kirk vote on? A quick look at his bio on Congress.org shows an empty voting record, though we all know he was the 60th vote on the healthcare bill. So, it is only logical to assume that the only reason Kirk was sent to Washington, the only reason that our elected legislators played backroom baseball with the Washington Machine, was to be that 60th vote.

Fast forward to today, while we await the certification of our newest U.S. Senator, Scott Brown, Republican of Wrentham. Many factors contributed to Senator Brown's victory, not the least of which was the strength of his candidacy as a populist, independent candidate that made a theme of his campaign to listen to and respect the voters. In a year where a single party is ruling the country from behind closed doors and flagrantly violating the will of the public, this was political gold. I advance that this alone would be enough to win the day, but a closer look at how this political climate came to be in America bears taking.

Beyond Scott Brown's savvy campaigning, showing Massachusetts his many strengths as a leader in a state bereft of strong leaders, is the disaffection the national and Massachusetts voting public has with healthcare, cap and trade, overspending, and the hubris of single party rule from Democrats on Capitol Hill and Beacon Hill. The weakness of Martha Coakley makes a convenient scapegoat, but in truth, she ran the same type of duck-and-cover campaign successfully run by Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Ed Markey, Barney Frank, and legions of other weak Massachusetts Democrat candidates my entire life. No, the true reason for Senator Brown's election was his appeal to voters as an alternative to the unconstitutional and unrepresentative elected leadership personified nowhere more distinctly than here in Massachusetts.

And no episode made that national malady more clear to Massachusetts voters than the absconding of our second Senate seat in 2009, nothing was a more harsh slap to the face of a free and democratic people than installing a political operative named Paul Kirk to be a 60th vote to stifle the national debate on an atrociously unpopular law that seeks to fundamentally change our country. In hindsight, it has been proved out that the central tenet of Socratic ethics still holds today, in the Athens of America; we see that even today, the vice harms the doer.

Here we are today with socialized healthcare just about completely derailed, an energized electorate unified against it, and with the Democrats losing the seat Ted Kennedy held for 47 years to an upstart Republican. If this seat had not been stolen for 3 months, to cast 1 vote, would Obama and Pelosi's agenda for further socializing America be in this kind of trouble? Had Martha Coakley not been a willing participant in the crime against Democracy that was the installation of Paul Kirk, would she have been this vulnerable, or could she have run out the clock hiding from Scott Brown as John Kerry did with Jeff Beatty in 2008? Would every Democrat in Congress today not feel a chill running down their spine every time they turn a TV on with live news coming in from Boston, with their thoughts quickly shifting from appeasing a tyrant President and his sock-puppet House Speaker to the strongest political instinct in the history of civilization, self-preservation?

Having had decades of being able to push around Massachusetts voters, having the luxury of ignoring the will of the people on everything from taxes to capital punishment, to tolls on the Turnpike, and paying no political price, it is understandable that Democrats would not see the line before they crossed it. Understandable, but not excusable in my opinion, and apparently of my fellow voters.

So, my question to the Democrats currently running Massachusetts with corrupt single-party rule is the same today as it was in September of 2009; was it really worth it? I think Carl Sciortino, Sean Garballey, and a lot of other Democrats might have a different answer today.

Nick McNulty
Medford GOP