Election 2013 – Massachusetts Special Election- Primary – Does One Vote their Conscious, their Wallet or their Party? Who are the Candidates for the Senate Seat and why It Matters. – Issue: ObamaCare

In the Bay State, there appears to be one political power that is a powerhouse, the Democrats, who control the majority of seats in both the State House and the State Senate, as well as the Governor’s office, and the varied city, town and municipal offices – yet, Democrats comprise approximately 35.3% of the States Electorate, when it comes to registered voters, according to the Massachusetts Secretary of States’ office. The Balance of registered voters (from the 2012 voter rolls), 11.5% Republican, .15% Green Party, .4% other, and a whopping 52.58% who are unenrolled and hypothetically vote for whomever they please having no party affiliation. (MA Sectary of State).

There are five candidates running – two Democrats, both U.S. Congressional Representatives: Ed Markey, who has been in the U.S. Congress since 1976 and is a solid Democrat vote in the House, he voted straight party line for The Affordable Health Care Act (ObamaCare). (U.S.House) Stephen Lynch is the opposition Democrat candidate in the Primary, is also a U.S. Congressman, has been in the U.S. Congress since 2001, and his vote was against Obama Care. He is not, always, a reliable Democrat vote in the House, it depends upon the issue, and on this particular Issue, he voted against his Party. (U.S. House)

On the Republican Ticket, one has Gabriel Gomez, a young, former Democrat, who is in favor of repeal, believing the States should design their own programs.(Gomezforms.com). Gomez had written a letter to Governor Deval Patrick outlining his support for the President, and his policies, asking the Govenor to appoint him as an interim Senator. In the letter, he described himself a as moderate, and, as New England Cable News points out, he then suggested he also supported Republican John McCain in 20008.

Michael Sullivan, former U.S. Attorney and crime fighter, is a stalwart Republican, pro-life, Catholic, who was part of the Romney Administration in the State, he has no website for his campaign that appears in Bing or Google searches. In the Republican Debate, he suggested repeal of Obama Care – and does not support the Health Care Law as written (Gazette.net)

Lastly, there is the Libertarian leaning Dan Winslow , - Dan Winslow’s Issue Page, does not refer to the Health Care Act, rather, focuses on the Debt, Jobs, and Energy as the first three priorities. That said, In a recent debate, he is somewhat opposed to Obama Care, and emphasized state’s rights options, citing Massachusetts having an adequate program in place, and suggesting states that meet guidelines under the law, would be exempt from the law, including taxes Mass Live.

As far as the Health Care Act, its hyper-inflated bureaucracy, the fees’ for non-compliance, the increase in insurance premiums for private policies, and the obvious boost to the Insurance companies (one big DC lobby or two), the list goes on, appears to be a hodge podge of options that those that wrote the bill suggested, placing them willy-nilly in no specific order (having read this monstrosity, it is somewhat intelligible, but that’s about it – there are no true costs savings measures, rather additional debt, and the unformatted suggestions that with the cost of implementation, the taxes that are attached to cover specific programs, that there will still be 50 million uninsured in 10 years. In other words, the bill as written gives no assurances that there will be any net positive changes to U.S. Health Care delivery.

But what does Obama Care, Abortion, the Defense of Marriage Act, really have to do with someone running for Senate, other than give the public who may or most likely will not vote in the primary (but will vote in the general election), an idea of how that individual might vote if, and this is a big if, that issue ever was brought to the Senate Floor. With the abortion issue, one knows that it is stated law, and has been decided in the Supreme Court. With the Defense of Marriage Act (or the current, case before the Supreme Court on striking down the Law (which defines marriage as between one-man and one woman), again, it is a Supreme Court issue, and not an issue that will be address in any Federal office (unless of course, someone is running (either party) and needs to use it as a way to strike fear into the hearts of those pro and con in order to get votes.

What the next U.S. Senator will be is either a “party stamp” or someone who thinks for themselves and will vote as they feel the people they represent will best benefit. The only two that strike a chord at this point for this blogger are Stephen Lynch and Dan Winslow. The defense is made by Winslow, who is from Western Massachusetts (not a reason to vote for anyone), but his ability to annoy both major parties, with his Libertarian views.

Lynch would be a second choice, as he is not a straight party vote, but..he is party identified.

What we have here is a somewhat new phenomenon of Liberation-Republican’s, who strict Constitutionalist and are big of personal liberty. They are anti-war, unless of course, to defend, and they are pro-individual and states’ rights, they are above all, fiscally conservative, while being less than enthusiastic about social issues.

On Social Issues: Although this blogger is pro-life (no abortion- no death penalty), and sees no purpose in changing the meaning of marriage as it now stands (given that it is, for the most part a religious term), rather would see legal partnerships that would allow for all “couples” be they strait, gay, or otherwise, allowed to care for one another, with benefits associated, across the board. Those wanting to have a religious aspect or Marriage would do so by going to their church or synagogue or mosque.

Simple!

On abortion; as the Supreme Court is about to decide on the issue of Gay Marriage in two cases, one brought to strike down a California proposition banning Gay Marriage and one that cites DOMA as Unconstitutional, a ruling in June is anticipated. As no one knows how the justices will finally rule, one understand that all justices, those liberal those conservative on the court, are not thrilled to be voting on this issue, and many have indicated through oral arguments that this belongs to the states. Should they decide to rule it a State issue, that will have a bearing on those who would attempt to change Abortion, bringing it back to the court, and with the precedent set (should that be the course) that Gay Marriage is a state issues, why not abortion? This is of course hypothetical now as no one knows the minds of the justices, but both those battles will be fought in the courts.

Leaving Candidates to claim they are anti-or pro on social issues, that they have little or no say over.

One might think in this election therefore, one should be concerned more with their pocketbook, and in that wise, the fiscal conservative, Winslow, will go the distance to protect the rights of the taxpayer.

Note: Although this will be a little watched, and low voter turn-out primary, with an anticipated low-voter turnout special election, it will be decided by those who are more politically minded, and in as this is Massachusetts, those who declare no party.