That’s right. Student loans and health care. They go together like chocolate chip cookies and a tall glass of Pine-Sol. The changes state that “savings” from removing the Federal Family Education Loan Program will go to increase the per student Federal Pell Grant. (You do know that a community college student with a Pell Grant can walk away with a refund check that’s derived solely from Pell Grant proceeds, right? Just a little something for you to mull over, as if this health care debacle isn’t bad enough.)

Those “savings” from eliminating FFELP will also off-set health care costs, too. Yeah, um, okay. (By the way, the elimination of the FFEL Program means choice in student lending is over and the only option students will have is the Department of Education. In case you aren’t aware, the US Department of Education has been telling schools for a year they need to begin setting up their processes to handle this switch as it was inevitable with Obama as President.)

Back to the Slaughter Rule. If the House votes for those proposed changes, then they will “deem” the Senate bill as having been passed, although no votes were actually cast for or against the Senate bill.

Then, the Senate bill that the Senate passed and the House “deemed to have passed” is sent to the President to sign, the “Cornhusker Kickback” and “Louisiana Purchase” included.

The Slaughter Rule seems underhanded, doesn’t it? That’s BECAUSE IT IS.

What about the “fix” that includes the elimination of FFELP? That reconciliation bill will be sent to the Senate for their vote. Since it’s a reconciliation bill, the Senate only needs 51 votes to pass it. The original Senate bill didn’t have pro-life language in it so it’s not a given the Senate will pass the reconciliation bill. If they make any changes to the reconciliation bill, it has to go back to the House. The question is, will pro-life Democrats in the House, like Bart Stupak of Michigan, trust the Senate to pass the changes? Are there more procedural tricks up Nancy Pelosi’s sleeve to somehow assuage Stupak’s concern, maintain the large pro-abortion coalition in the House and get the bill passed? (By passed I mean, deemed-and-by-default-passed.) [UPDATE: According to HotAir, there is a possible hand to play between Pelosi and Stupak to do just that. Will it ever end??]

So much for Scott Brown being central to defeating health care, right? Wrong. The election of Scott Brown has brought to light all the dirty tactics the left is willing to use, like the Slaughter Rule, to cram government-controlled health care down the throats of the American people.

Perhaps Representative Stephen Lynch (D-MA) is a little nervous that his home state elected a Republican. Although he voted for the initial House version of the bill, he is saying he will vote against the Senate version. Ah, but what about the Slaughter Rule? He was quoted in a Boston Globe article saying the Slaughter Rule “may be unconstitutional” and using it would damage their credibility.

Lynch also criticized the procedure Democrats are considering using to pass the legislation – by “deeming” the Senate bill approved, instead of voting directly on the Senate bill itself. Repeating a comment reported by the Boston Herald today, he called the procedure “disingenuous.” Echoing Republican complaints, he also said it “may be unconstitutional” because it wouldn’t involve an up-or-down vote on legislation.

“It’s a stretch,” he said. “I think it hurts our credibility to try to pull a prank like that. We should stand up and tell voters where we stand.”

Nonetheless, Lynch predicted it would pass.

“I think the president and speaker Pelosi are fairly persuasive,” he said. “They wouldn’t call on a vote unless they had the votes.”

He predicted it would pass? Well, what do you know? Stephen Lynch voted FOR the Slaughter Rule the same day the article appeared! Imagine that.

Are you still confused over the Slaughter Rule? Here’s all you need to know: In voting to use the Slaughter Rule to bypass actually voting for the health care bill, the House has slaughtered the oath they each took to uphold and defend the Constitution. As Article 1, Section 7 states, “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.” A bill that has not passed the House but has been “deemed” as passed through a procedural Slaughter Rule and is signed into law by the President will find itself headed to court.

Are you still confused? I don’t blame you. This 90 second video pieced together by the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) will quickly explain, not how a bill becomes a law, but how a bill gets “demon passed” in a House run by Nancy Pelosi.

For those of you wondering, “demonpass” may not have entered the nation’s vernacular so readily were it not for a Carly Fiorina campaign ad, known as the “demon sheep” ad. If you haven’t seen it yet, or need a dose of laughter after all this Slaughterhouse activity, here it is for your viewing pleasure.

Today is the moment of truth. Today we find out if Massachusetts will send a second shot heard ’round the world, or, at least, heard ’round the nation. Millions of citizens have rallied, from local town hall meetings to Washington, DC. We’ve raised our voices, hoisted our homemade signs and thrown symbolic tea into our waterways, all while being called despicable, raunchy and crude names by the media lap dogs. However, despite the tricks and schemes of Pelosi, Reid, Obama, SEIU and closed-door compromises sans C-SPAN, current health care legislation hinges on this all-important vote: the Massachusetts Senate seat to replace the departed Ted Kennedy.

Yesterday afternoon we went to a rally outside the TD Garden. We got to shake hands with Scott Brown, speak with him briefly and have our pictures taken. (It’s not the first time I’ve heard Scott Brown speak but it was the first time I shook his hand as I didn’t have a cold this time!)

A Bruins game was about to begin inside the TD Garden which meant crowds dressed in yellow and black were drifting by us. One man said, to no one in particular, “Hey, is that Brown over there?” to which I replied, “Yeah, he’s shaking hands with everyone. You should go over and say hello” and off he went. There were chants of “Go, Scott, Go!” and “41st Vote!” but what struck me the most was the amount of smiles on people’s faces. Look, I’ve lived in Massachusetts long enough to know that smiles outside TD Garden (and its myriad of former names) only occur after a Celtics or Bruins victory. Perhaps that is what was in the air: a prelude to victory. We could almost taste it.

After the rally, Brown left for North Attleboro and we headed for our relaxing day in the city. As we turned to walk away, a reporter from the New York Daily News asked if we could answer a few questions. I read through their account of the Boston rally and we weren’t quoted. No surprises there as the article was pro-Coakley. The questions were what you’d expect:

Q: Why does Scott Brown have your support?
A: He has promised to be the 41st vote against the current health care reform bill.

Q: What do you think about a Republican winning Ted Kennedy’s seat?
A: It’s not Ted Kennedy’s seat. That’s not just a line, either. It’s the truth. This being the people’s seat has resonated with the state. Once they heard Scott Brown articulate that in the final debate, people began to say, “Yeah, that’s right! It’s our seat!”

Q: How do you feel about his chances?
A: We’re optimistic. The polls look good and he’s drawing large crowds.

Q: Why do you think Coakley is trailing?
A: For one, she took the Democrat vote for granted. She didn’t think she needed to work for it. Also, in the same vein, as you are probably aware, the majority of Massachusetts voters do not align with either major party. Independents like to be courted and they haven’t been courted by Coakley. Scott Brown has made a concerted effort to woo Independents over to his side.

Q: Do you think the people of Massachusetts will turn out for Coakley, though, because they want to do it for Obama, especially since he came to town yesterday?
A: No. (My husband and I were laughing as we said No and the reporter started chuckling as well.)

To many who are skeptical about Scott Brown and his conservative credentials, let me keep it simple for you. Our current struggle is to avoid government-run health care. As you can see from my prior entries, the health care debate is what started this blog and is the thread that runs through my posts. I am determined to do what I can to keep the current health care bill from passing. I’ve e-mailed my Senators and Congressmen but this is the one thing, as a resident of Massachusetts, that will actually get attention. I am voting for Scott Brown for the very reason I listed above: He has promised to vote against the current disastrous health care bill.

To those who think Scott Brown is the prototype for 2010 elections, quit wasting your ink. He is the best candidate for Massachusetts. He may not be the best candidate for the other 49 (or is it 56?) states. If I were back in my native South Carolina, I would want a fiscal and social conservative, like Jim DeMint. Jim DeMint is a fantastic Senator. He has served South Carolina well and continues to spearhead efforts to reduce the size of our federal government. As great as I think he is, he would likely have a difficult time winning a Republican primary in a New England state. This is the beauty of state elections. Each state gets to choose the candidate that best fits their needs, their values and their priorities.

Massachusetts, this Brown’s for you! Cast your vote for Scott Brown to send a message to Washington that even the most stubborn amongst them would be hard-pressed to ignore. What’s at stake is immeasurable: our freedom to choose our doctor, make our own decisions about treatment and the inalienable right to pursue life.

That’s why, for this state senatorial election, I join in unison with fellow Scott Brown supporters to say:
Go, Scott, Go!
Go, Scott, Go!
Go, Scott, Go!

UPDATE I: Follow Hot Air’s ongoing election coverage here and tune in to local radio (www.wrko.com or www.wtkk.com) for anecdotal coverage from local callers.

UPDATE II: Join us on Hot Air with the open thread for the election results!

UPDATE III: Scott Brown wins! Scott Brown is now the Senator-elect of Massachusetts! We’ll send him to DC with a big red bow on his GM truck. It’s rather fitting, then, that tomorrow is President Obama’s 1st year anniversary as president. Our gift to him is, of course, Scott Brown. To reflect a sentiment familiar with the First Lady, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud to be a Massachusetts resident.

You should know I like to watch basketball. No, not the NBA. I truly loathe watching the NBA. I prefer men’s NCAA basketball. It’s technical, fast-paced and those guys play for their schools, not their pockets, yet.

I was watching one of my favorite teams last week and one of their stars accidentally tipped a rebound into the other team’s basket. They were up by almost 20 points at the time so it was treated like no big deal. Even I said something like, “Oops! That’s not supposed to happen!” laughing as I wondered how I had escaped high school not doing something like that. (My coach called me “Butter fingers” by the way.)

The game goes on and the other team begins to catch up by playing solid defense and hitting 3s. Before you know it, they take the lead. As the final minutes begin to tick there are several lead changes. If you’ve ever watched a close game, you know how much can change in “a basketball minute.”

My team ended up losing by 2 points. 2 points! Yes, those pesky 2 points that were unearned when my guy, the center, tipped the ball into the other team’s basket. It was no sweat when they were up 20 points. But when they lose by 2 points you don’t think about points missed at the free throw line, off-balanced jump shots or lazy fouls. No, you think about those 2 points that were put in the other team’s net by your team’s big guy. He might as well handed over those 2 points on a silver platter.

The GOP is acting like the basketball center on this health care debate. Whether they play defense or offense, it doesn’t matter. The Democrats have a majority and can do whatever they want, as long as they stick together and find consensus. Does America like a one-party system? We’ll know for sure in 2010.

Until then, the GOP needs to make sure they don’t accidentally tip health care in the Democrat’s favor to take it over by passing amendments that make the bill more tolerable by the likes of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson (see Ed Morrissey’s article on HotAir). They already did this in the House with the amendment to keep abortion from being funded by federal dollars, forgetting the long range view that the amendment doesn’t have to be adopted during Conference and likely will not. The same goes for these Senate amendments. (Follow Erick Erickson as he monitors the GOP’s attempt to fix the bill on Red State.)

A spoonful of sugar may help the medicine go down, but they’ll spit that sugar out in conference and we’ll all be stuck with government-run health care, which is not really health care at all.

GOP, you need to focus, or you’ll end up looking like this:

P.S. Since I don’t like the NBA, I thought this was the perfect clip. Wish I could have found something of better quality but the replay is nice. There was no way I was going to show you a clip of my team’s center. I like him and don’t want to embarrass him. But take note. If you’re a Senator and you aren’t listening to the American people and you pass this behemoth of a take over health care bill, we will all know who you are. You will need to look for new work when your term is up for reelection, be it 2010, 2012 or 2014. We will not forget!

I never questioned whether or not the state legislature would acquiesce. I knew what would happen. I was here when it happened once before.

You see, when John Kerry and John Edwards (you know, the father of the love-child sometimes referred to as “furniture expense”) were on the national ticket for the Democratic Party in 2004, people here with their Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers actually thought they’d win! How laughable.

Even though John Forbes Kerry had the initials JFK, I knew the country wouldn’t be fooled for several reasons:

1. He wasn’t able to have “JFK” printed on the ballots.
2. His charm is as winning as Lurch from the Addams family.
3. In explaining his opposition to the supplemental funding bill for US troops he famously quipped, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
4. Do you really need more reasons? Fine. Check out the Top Ten Flip-Flops as compiled by CBS.

The people of Massachusetts, however, seriously thought John Kerry would win! In order to keep then Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to replace John Kerry, the state legislature changed the law to remove the Governor’s authority to name a replacement.

What goes around, comes around. Unless you’re Massachusetts where laws are for suckers! You don’t need to follow the law. No, you just change the law. Sure, Barack Obama was guaranteed this state by having a D after his name but what sealed the deal was his catch phrase, “Change you can believe in!” Massachusetts should coin that as their official state motto or at least add it as a license plate option.

Just this week they changed the law back. This morning, Governor Deval Patrick (whose campaign slogan, thanks to David Axelrod, was “Together We Can!”) announced that Paul Kirk, former Kennedy staffer and longtime Kennedy friend, would serve as a temporary replacement.

Kirk is headed to Washington to represent Ted Kennedy and vote the way Kennedy would on all things health care, cap and trade, student loans and whatever other government-controlled bill is up for a vote. The special election will occur on January 19th and I’ll be doing what I can to keep another Kennedy-Kerry-Dukakis type out of office. In the meantime, I’ll just try to keep sane with all the candidate ads that have already begun to run on every single channel here in Massachusetts. It’s going to be a long 117 days!

We know how well the Illinois appointee Roland Burris is doing in Washington. For instance, would Paul Kirk vote to defund ACORN or would he go the way of Burris? We know how he’ll vote on everything else.