When Senator John Kerry was running for President in 2004, the prospect of having a Republican governor pick his replacement was unacceptable, so the State Legislature passed/overwrote the veto a bill that required a special election in the event of a vacancy, which presumably they would win. Well, surprisingly, John Kerry lost, Mitt Romney was replaced by Deval Patrick(The Darling of the Far Left, according to Bill O" Reilly). Ted Kennedy, knowing he was going to die and noticing before anyone the obvious dilemma. When he died, he would be replaced by an elected candidate. That might get in the way of healthcare reform. So they tried to change it back to a governor appointed candidate, and the cries of hypocrisy turned them back.
I know nothing about Scott Brown, but I don't care at all about him either. The one thing I am assuming is he will not vote for cloture on the healthcare bill, which means it will die as a filibuster. A filibuster is as stupid as having fist fights in a legislative body. It has never protected minority rights, in fact, it has often been used to block minority rights. And you used to have to stand up, attach one of those things to piss in that you get at a hospital, get a water bottle and read the phone book, 24/7. In 2006-2008 the Republicans brought 95 filibusters, more than any other congress. In 2008-2010 I don't have the numbers yet, nobody does, but they are definitely higher. Its time to get rid of the filibuster and replace it with a better mechanism.
Having said that, the current health care bill should be defeated. If someone had called drug policy reform imposing the death penalty for marijuana possession, it would not be what advocates of "reform" had in mind. The same logic applies to analyzing the current healthcare bill. It is worth noting no other President ever had trouble passing something with 60 Senate votes in his pocket. Its always assumed that if you are against the Democrats, you are a Republican. Not true. This is why the Massachusetts voters chose Brown. There where two people in the race and they didn't want the healthcare bill to pass, even though it is basically law in their state. They know how bad an individual mandate is.
As for Ted Kennedy's predicting of this tragedy, it show that the Democrats have honored his legacy appropriately. Recently his enthusiasm for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan, his staunch support of the moral denigration of Israel into a racist and colonial human rights violator and his abandonment of single-payer healthcare among other things should have brought criticism. I'm sorry if this contradicts your image of the Kennedys as these would be saviors, shinning leaders dedicated to leading you out of the woods. JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, and only Lee Harvey Oswald as the evidence clearly shows. The movies and books that pump other lies about what happened into the public consciousness do so on the pretext that Kennedy, after winning reelection would have withdrawn troops from Vietnam(even though he ordered the first bombing of South Vietnam), and went further saying he would have abolished the CIA, Federal Reserve, dismantled the military-industrial complex, and ended the cold war. This is simply not true. Bobby was merely an opportunist, using the activism of the sixties as a pretext for his gaining of political power. In fact, replacing Kennedy with Johnson, though tragic, might have been a net plus for society. Kennedy was a more dangerous leader than Adolf Hitler, willing and able to risk the extinction of civilization to defend his macho man image. To pretend Kennedy, who grew up in one of the richest families in world history and also one of the most right-wing(his father supported the Nazis, often referred to as "appeasement") would have pursued more "liberal" policies than Johnson, who grew up in absolute poverty in west Texas, is a wet dream.