Many political pundits are talking about how the Scott Brown win in Massachusetts was at least partially due to independent voters in Massachusetts showing their displeasure with how Obama and the Democrats are pursuing their agenda.  However, it appears that the White House is clueless about what the Scott Brown win in Massachusetts means.

On Fox News Sunday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs indicated that the White House is still considering pushing Obamacare Health Care reform through the Senate by what ever means possible.  Even as many prominent Senate and House Democrats are indicating that the Scott Brown win signals that the American public is against the current bill and how it is being pushed through Congress, the leaders of the Democrat party are still trying to find a way to pass the increasingly unpopular bill.Despite the popular view of the Scott Brown Senate victory, the White House seems to be reading the Democrat Senate loss in Massachusetts as a positive development.  According to Robert Gibbs, “More people voted to express their support for Barack Obama than to oppose him”. 

This arrogance is partially why many Americans are opposing the Obama agenda.  The Obama Administration seems to be clueless that many Americans support the idea of Obamacare health care reform, but not the secretive way that the bills are being created or the details of the Obamacare bills.

Hopefully, the Scott Brown win will lead to a common sense bill that will address many of the items that most Americans agree on and leaves out the trillion dollar costs and tax increases that will be used to add to the ever increasing size of the goernment.

Being that Republican Governor Mitt Romney would almost certainly appoint a republican, Kennedy pushed for the law to be changed to require a special vote within 5 months to elect a replacement, taking the choice of the replacement out of the hands of the governor.

Now that Kennedy is gravely ill, he is imploring the Massachusetts government to change the law back to allow the governor to pick.  Kennedy is declaring that “…it is vital for this commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.”

Odd that he feels this way now that there is a Democrat in the Massachusetts governor’s mansion.  Apparently, the need for representation is only imperative if he can guarantee that a Democrat fills the seat.  He most likely is concerned that if a republican fills the seat, it will be one less vote for nationalized health care.

The Constitution reserves the right to determine how senators are choosen to the states, but it seems wrong to change the law every few years depending upon the circumstances.  The fact that “we the people” stand for such lack of principles in our representatives is an indicator of the sad state of the political environment.

Ted Kennedy’s over 40 years in congress is a shining example of why term limits are necessary.