Loss is ironic
Editor, The Times:
I just saw in the news that the Republican [Scott Brown] won the Senate seat in Massachusetts vacated by the death of Edward Kennedy [“GOP wins Kennedy seat,” page one, Jan. 20]. How ironic is it that the Senate seat of America’s greatest advocate for universal health care in America should become the means by which the Republican party can now attempt to halt the first significant health-care legislation?
I’m stunned and disgusted. The health-care bills currently before Congress are not what I think Sen. Kennedy had in mind, but they are the first steps in the right direction. If you don’t take a first step, you can’t take a second or third step or have a chance to correct your direction. You have no direction.
I think we all understand that the Republicans — as they have stated — want to kill the health-care legislation because they feel that losing on this issue will be President Obama’s Waterloo. And they will do anything to see him fail. So the American people are, once again, held hostage by those who are supposed to be our representatives.
If the American people are against the movement to provide health care for all Americans, it is simply because they have been fed so many lies about this issue by the ones who would stand to lose significant wealth if such a program was ever to be passed into law — i.e. the medical insurers and pharmaceutical companies, etc. The individuals that speak the loudest about how health care would not help the general public are usually those who are public servants. They have never been without health-care benefits for their families and have never had to pay exorbitant amounts for their coverage.
— Linda Joyce Knowlton, Redmond
Health care decided election
With the very fortunate and timely election of Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate, the Democrat party is in complete meltdown and denial mode. They have already thrown their hapless candidate under the bus and driven back and forth over her several times.
But in truth, there is no way she could have won this race because this race was not about her. It was instead about how President Obama and senior Democrat leaders in both chambers of Congress are trying to ram this abomination of a health-care bill down the throat of the people and we don’t appreciate it.
Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to have to look at this whole process anew and hit the restart button and start listening to the people once again. Or come November, they will join Martha Coakley as newly unelected persons looking for new opportunities.
— Scott Stoppelman, LaConner
Ashamed of Massachusetts roots
“I was born and raised in Massachusetts.” Up until today, I have always said those seven words with pride, but no more.
This Tuesday, 52 percent of Bay State voters let fear, greed and selfishness get the better of their intelligence, good sense and conscience. I am angry and ashamed.
As I tally up the years, I find that — coincidentally — as of this year, I will have lived in the Seattle-area longer than I lived in Massachusetts. From this day forward: “I am from Seattle.”
— David Swanson, Kirkland
Chance for Republicans to implement health care?
The Republican Party is to be congratulated for their victory in Massachusetts. Now the evil Democratic health-care overhaul plan can be summarily scrapped and the Republicans can begin working in earnest to implement their own health-care plan. This is great news and every concerned American should be proud!
Wait a minute…there is no Republican health-care plan — other than if you get sick to just go to the nearest emergency room.
Those popping sounds you’re hearing are Champagne bottles being opened in the boardrooms of pharmaceutical and insurance companies across the land. I’m sure Republicans will continue to give us the same wonderful care that they have in the past.
— Dave Richards, Bainbridge Island
Tragedy or farce?
In the concept of politics as theater, Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts is truly among the darkest of Greek tragedies! When a giant of the Senate like Ted Kennedy is replaced by a conservative neophyte only six months after his death, it might also qualify as a ridiculous farce!
Actually, the greatest overall tragedy is the U.S. Senate today. As one of the world’s greatest deliberative bodies in the world, it makes a mockery of democracy with its filibuster rules. Where else is 59 percent of the vote considered insufficient for a victory? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
— James A. Young, Seattle
Eliminate the power of the filibuster
Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi and Iowa combined have approximately the same population as California. California has two U.S. senators and all the other listed states have 42.
Not only is this undemocratic, it’s insane. I appreciate the significance of the Connecticut Compromise, but that was over 200 years and the Civil War ago. No other country in the world has a system such as ours. Our government was state of the art in 1787, but now it’s dysfunctional.
The underlying undemocratic nature of the U.S. Senate is exasperated by the use of the filibuster. The time has come to eliminate the filibuster from the rules of the U.S. Senate. I think the Democratic Party should commit to changing the Senate rules in 2011 so that a majority vote is sufficient to pass legislation.
Having said that, I think a supermajority should be required for issues not subject to legislative reversal, such as the confirmation of judges granted a lifetime appointment.
Making this change would restore vibrancy to our democracy and would require voters to become engaged and policy would matter once again.
— Edward Wietecha, Sammamish
Waiting for other parties if filibuster remains
The most evident problem that has been brought to the forefront by the health-care debate, is that America’s majority continues to lose out because of the filibuster process of the senate.
If our Senators want to show that they are willing to work for the people of this country, they should stop the filibuster process and accomplish bringing about the changes required to make us a strong, honorable nation again.
Do nothing and leave me hoping for the coming of a third party that I can stand behind and support.
— Patrick Lockridge, Renton
Chances better for third parties in Senate race
Some minor parties have done nothing but harp and carp about the “Top Two” primary — mostly because, according to them, it would keep minor parties out of the general election — but with the recent report about the U.S. Senate election in The Times, [“For Sen. Patty Murray and Democrats, voter anger is wild card,” page one, Jan. 17] it would seem a minor party’s chance of making it to the general election in a major race under “Top Two” is better than ever.
The report stated there were six Republicans running against the incumbent Murray. None of them seem to be particularly well-known in statewide politics. If the Republican vote is split six ways or more, that would seem to be an idea opportunity for a Green, Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate — or other minor-party or independent candidate — to get in the general election. And since that candidate would be one of two, he or she cannot be ignored by the media as in the past.
Some minor parties should stop effectively boycotting “Top Two” and get in the game. Half the battle, after all, is just showing up.
— Mark Greene, chairman of the Party of Commons, Newcastle