From CNN:

Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, a 16-term Democrat, will announce Monday he does not intend to seek re-election in 2012, according to a statement from Frank’s office.

Good riddance, don’t let the door hit you on the way out Congressman.

H/T: Weasel Zippers.

Update: Matt Mackowiak tweets:

With Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) retiring, next in line on the Dem side of the House Financial Services Committee is Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA).

Ouch, would it be wrong of me to say I hope Rep. Frank reconsiders?

Massachusetts Sen.-elect Scott Brown on Wednesday demanded to be seated immediately, saying that while he is scheduled to be sworn in Feb. 11, “there are a number of votes scheduled prior to that date.”

In a letter from his lawyers to Gov. Deval Patrick and Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, Mr. Brown argues that the results of the special election in Massachusetts on Jan. 19 are not in doubt and he should be able to take the seat right away.

“We represent Senator-elect Scott Brown. We understand that the election returns from Massachusetts cities and towns were transmitted this morning to the State Secretary’s Office and by the State Secretary to the Governor’s Office. While Senator-elect Brown had tentatively planned to be sworn into office February 11, he has been advised that there are a number of votes scheduled prior to that date, For that reason, he wants certification to occur immediately. As he is the duly elected United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, he is entitled to be seated now.

I don’t see where there’s any reason for controversy or delay here, Scott Brown is the duly elected Senator from Massachusetts he sworn in as soon as the election results are certified. The only real question is why is Democratic seat warmer Paul Kirk still casting votes in the Senate when it would seem his term ended with Mr. Brown’s election?

I was wrong… Scott Brown not only won the race but he did it by a significant margin:

A little-known Republican upended the balance of power in Washington by winning a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, a result that imperils President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities and augurs trouble for his party in this year’s elections.

With 75% of the vote counted, Republican Scott Brown was leading his opponent, Massachusetts’ Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley 52.7% to 46.3%, according to the Associated Press, which declared Mr. Brown the winner.

The Brown victory forces the White House and Congressional leaders into a mad scramble to decide how—or whether—to salvage their long-sought health-care overhaul. Rushing the bill after losing Massachusetts carries political risks. So does allowing it to collapse.

House Democrats Tuesday opened the door to passing the Senate version of the legislation, which the president could then sign into law. The White House has floated that idea, but it will be a hard sell. The Senate bill contains abortion, immigration and tax provisions opposed by many House members.

Scott Brown’s decisive victory in one the bluest states in the country should send a cold shiver through the hearts of Democrats…  Yeah, sure, Martha Coakley ran an unfocused gaff prone campaign and I’m sure some politicians and pundits are going to wrongly try and lay the blame for this loss squarely at her feet.

Yes, her gaffs made matters worse, but the simple truth is voters sent a message to the President and Democrats on Capitol Hill today, Mr. Brown made his campaign a referendum on their policies and they lost!

Related

• In epic upset, GOP’s Brown wins Mass. Senate race – The Washington Times
• The fallout: Democrats rethinking health care bill – The Politico
• The Pragmatic Leviathan – David Brooks, The New York Times

It’s the people’s seat… Not Ted Kennedy’s, not Martha Coakley’s and the Democrats… This race is as close as it is Martha Coakley and Democrats arrogantly assumed they owned the seat. They don’t, the people do, that’s something both Democrats and Republicans would do well to the remember.

What the Journal doesn’t mention is that Democrats have become so brazenly corrupt that should Brown they may try to delay swearing him in until after the Senate has voted on health care reform:

It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.

At a business forum in Boston Friday, interim Sen. Paul Kirk predicted that Congress would pass a health-care reform bill this month.

“We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.

“Absolutely,” Kirk said, when asked if he’d vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. “It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy’s agenda. . . . I think you’re asking me a hypothetical question but I’d be pleased to vote for the bill.”

~ ~ ~

Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.

That Democrats would even hint at such underhanded tactics should surprise no one… Particularly after the after the tactics used by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used to effectively bribe Senators into voting for his health care reform bill on Christmas Eve!

Related

• 41st What? – Jules Crittenden

Previous

• Ted Kennedy: Hey Lets Change Elections Rules… Again

U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, a towering figure in the Democratic Party who took the helm of one of America’s most fabled political families after two older brothers were assassinated, died at age 77, his family said.

“Edward M. Kennedy, the husband, father, grandfather, brother and uncle we loved so deeply, died late Tuesday night at home in Hyannis Port (Massachusetts),” the Kennedy family said in a statement early on Wednesday.

One of the most influential and longest-serving senators in U.S. history — a liberal standard-bearer who was also known as a consummate congressional dealmaker — Kennedy had been battling brain cancer, which was diagnosed in May 2008.

His death marked the twilight of a political dynasty and dealt a blow to Democrats as they seek to answer President Barack Obama’s call for an overhaul of the healthcare system.

In life I disagreed with Sen. Kennedy on just about everything, but that’s irrelevant now… He was a husband, a father and a grandfather our thoughts and prayers belong with his family.

Now that there’s democratic governor Kennedy wants the law changed again for purely partisan reasons:

Senator Ted Kennedy, who is gravely ill with brain cancer, has sent a letter to Massachusetts lawmakers requesting a change in the state law that determines how his Senate seat would be filled if it became vacant before his eighth full term ends in 2012. Current law mandates that a special election be held at least 145 days after the seat becomes available. Mr. Kennedy is concerned that such a delay could leave his fellow Democrats in the Senate one vote short of a filibuster-proof majority for months while a special election takes place.

“I therefore am writing to urge you to work together to amend the law through the normal legislative process to provide for a temporary gubernatorial appointment until the special election occurs,” writes the Senator.

Democrats dominate the Massachusetts legislature so they could easily grant Sen. Kennedy’s wish… The only question is do they have the chutzpa to be as transparently partisan as the state’s senior senator?