Why Buffalo Springfield lyrics, you may ask? Well, ladies and gentlemen, here’s why: in the great state of Massachusetts, a reliable bastion of progressive liberalism, a Republican has won the seat of liberal icon Theodore Kennedy. Longtime state senator Scott Brown defeated state Attorney General Martha Coakley by a margin of 52%-47%, with about 97% of districts reporting.This is especially shocking considering this was deemed almost impossible a mere month ago, when Coakley held a commanding lead in polls. However, early in the month momentum shifted to the moderate Republican, and he never looked back.

How, you may ask, was a Republican able to run close to a Democrat in Massachusetts, much less achieve convincing victory? The answer, honestly, is that it is mostly the fault of Martha Coakely herself. When early polls showed her achieving a landslide over Senator Brown, the Coakley campaign literally did nothing. No door to door efforts or even calling was initiated, and Coakely barely spoke at any events. Brown,on the other hand, did not back down from the insurmountable challenge and blew full steam ahead. He organized and spoke at campaign event after campaign event, and made known to the people of Massachusetts that if elected, he would be the 41st vote against the unpopular sweeping healthcare reform proposed in Congress, which Senator Kennedy had fought for for years. This allowed him to generate a lot of momentum going into the first debate,

In this debate is where Brown made his biggest impression, by quipping that he was running not for Ted Kennedy’s seat, or even the Democrat’s seat, but for the seat of the people of Massachusetts. This populist statement won him much support from Independents, especially after Coakely’s poor performance, made worse by her being caught watching one of her aides literally maul a reporter to the ground. After this, Senator Brown received huge boosts in funding from his new national attention, and began to pull close or ahead in many polls.  Finally, near the end of the campaign, nearly every polling outlet had Brown ahead, and not even intervention from President Obama and former President Clinton could help Coakley in the end.

Inevitably, we must ask now, what does this mean for the aforementioned health care bill? This answer is not so simple. If Congress correctly decides to seat Brown within a few days, he will certainly vote against the bill, and the Republicans will surely filibuster, which according to fellow Massachusetts politician Barney Frank, would effectively kill the bill. If the Democrats go for the “nuclear option”, however, they will likely pass it, but then also likely face huge repercussions in 10 months. So, essentially, Congress is presented with a damed if you do, damed if you don’t scenario.  What happens in these next few days will likely be even more important to predicting the health of the healthcare bill and the Democratic majority than this election was.

HR 3590, the Senate version of the congressional health care bill drafted by Harry Reid, is now available online. A word of warning for those who want to read it: it is immense. In fact, it eclipses the 2,000 page mark, longer even than the House version of the bill (1,990 pages). Highlights include a public option which states can opt out of–although details on that appeared to be sparse on a very preliminary skim-through, Medicare and Medicaid cuts to pay for the thing, a provision preventing illegal immigrants from receiving benefits, a mandate for all Americans to purchase insurance, and of course, tax increases of all kinds (examples are a 0.5% increase in Medicare taxes to single people making $200,000/yr or more and couples making $250,000/yr or more, and taxes on cosmetic procedures). Unnecessarily long winded details here.

P.S. WARNING: The link is the actual bill. Loading takes a pretty long time for a .pdf file, probably because of its gargantuan length.

Check out this interesting article from Bloomberg comparing today’s economic climate with that of 1982, the year before Ronald Reagan’s immense tax cuts were paired with the Fed’s tight money policy. The climates are hauntingly similar, but the path of Obamanomics is being taken as opposed to Reaganomics, a pattern which all of us at the Insider believe should be reversed.

In the recent week or so, one has not been able to turn on the news without seeing grainy, turbulent cell-phone video depicting the protests in Iran regarding the obviously fraudulent election there. Despite many polls showing a tie in the race and even some in favor of moderate candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, incumbent Mahmoud Ahmidinejad was announced the winner of the election, by a questionable margin of 62.6% of the popular vote. This sparked nearly immediate protest from moderates, unfortunately culminating in violence in the capital city of Tehran and generating international response.

As a symbol of democracy across the world, it is clearly the obligation of America to stand for justice in the democratic process and condemn this national hoodwinking of the Iranian people, but then one must beg the question; namely, how important is the defeat of Ahmidinejad to American interests? The answer, surprisingly, is not very much.

The greatest concern to America right now coming from Iran is the nuclear threat. Iran’s reasons for the program are obvious; a country that literally sits on a sea of oil has no need of uranium for energy. This, combined with their threats towards Israel, our nation’s great ally in the Middle East, makes the prevention of Iranian bomb possession a key element of American interest. Our second concern has thankfully been minimized, but remains a grave threat: Iran is suspected of ( and in some cases proven to) giving arms, both physical and financial, to terrorist cells in Iraq and Afghanistan, waging a shadow war against U.S troops. As stated before, vast improvements in ground conditions in Iraq has lowered this fear on that front, but certain upheavals in Afghanistan provide a new opportunity for Iran to provide money for a common interest.

Oddly enough, the powers of nuclear determination and international financing do not fall within the president of Iran’s power at all. It is important to remember that Iran is an “Islamic Republic”, or a thinly-veiled theocracy. Major decisions of foreign policy therefore rest with the clerics of Iran and, ultimately, the Ayatollah himself. Being that these figures control the programs that provide the greatest threat to American security, a regime change in the presidency would have little effect on the country’s threat to the United States. A new president, however, would possibly improve relations with our country slightly, by perhaps being more open to talks with President Obama on certain issues. However, it is unlikely that they will succeed in the long run to disarm Iran.

What does this mean to you and me, then? In short, don’t hold your breath. Even if international pressure causes an Iranian recount assuring a Mousavi victory, it is likely Iran will remain a grave threat to the United States. In the meantime, we must stand firm as a country in support of democracy, and while for now diplomacy is the way to deal with Iran, it must be tough (but fair) diplomacy.