I'm in a confession mood again. Tonight's results in the Boston election for a replacement for Senator Kennedy's Senate seat, have me scratching my head. Like many other Democrats, this was one seat I believed was safe. You'd think Teddy Kennedy's memory alone would serve as a shoo-in for a liberal candidate. (Is anything sacred, anymore?) You'd think that a state with three Democrats for every Republican wouldn't have to worry about a real challenge from the Right.
But Martha Coakley went down to defeat (47%), while Scott Brown (52%) scores a stunning upset.
And already a postmortem is taking place. As one pundit observed: "There's blame aplenty to go around."
Some are blaming Martha Coakley herself. They say she allowed Scott Brown to define her, and the scope of the election. Others are saying she took too much time off (I hear three weeks.). And during that time, Brown had the field to himself, and he took advantage of it.
Still others are blaming Coakley's failure on local politics, the unhappiness of Massachusetts' electorate with the economy, and recent tax increases. Some have observed that the state's health-care system, although expensive, has broad coverage, and people are happy with it--suggesting that maybe they didn't want Washington tinkering with it.
Perhaps the most optimistic message some are seeing is this: Voting in Brown is sending a message to the Democratically-held congress that it's not going far enough in its efforts to reform health care, and that they want their representatives to get tougher, and pass real health-care reform, and take up other progressive legislation.
That seems a bit naive to me. You don't give your opponent another loaded weapon (in this case, a filibuster majority), if you're down to your last few bullets.
Whatever the reason, the Republicans have scored a major upset, and I'm left in a quandary. As painful as it is, I have to admit: I don't understand the mind of the electorate.
Here we are struggling with a seesaw economy inherited from the previous administration. Two wars inherited from the previous administration. An international black eye inherited from the previous administration. A gaggle of do-nothing Republicans, waging an obstructionist war against Democratic incumbents. And what do Democrats do for an encore? They besmirch the memory of Teddy Kennedy, possibly depriving him of his dream for health-care reform, and elect to his seat, not a Blue Dog Democrat, but another do-nothing Republican who claims he's fiscally conservative, and will vote against tax increases and the looming health-care reform bill.
Frankly, I don't see the logic.
With liberal friends like this, you don't need Republican enemies. Democrats are their own worse enemy. Republicans need only resist, whine, and persist to be rewarded. Unlike Republicans who can circle a wagon train, all going in the same direction, Right. Democrats, on the other hand, don't know their Left from their Right, and keep bumping into each other.
Okay, perhaps the health-care reform bill in the Senate is nothing more that a give-away to Big Insurers. We haven't seen the final version. It has been secreted away, at least the finalizing moves, to wed it with the Senate version, ostensibly to prevent more Republican stall tactics.
Perhaps it should be scrapped and replaced with Medicare for those fifty and above--Democrats possibly hammering out something in reconciliation. Because Democrats play fairly, more fairly than Republicans, I'd be shocked if they hold up the induction of Brown. If they don't, and if they don't find a way to pass some kind of health-care reform bill, before Brown takes the oath of office, health-care reform is dead on arrival.
Will the Democrats run even more scared now--now that a Republican from an ultra-blue state has become a senator, and abandon health-care reform altogether, as well as a progressive agenda?
And what about President Obama's agenda--keeping his campaign promises? Will he have to scrap that, too, now that the filibuster proof senate has gone bust?
Are we seeing a referendum on the president and the Democrats' progressive hopes for the country? It's going to be twice as hard now to get anything of a reform nature or a progressive nature through both houses of Congress.
I heard one woman remark that she was voting for Scott Brown because she wanted to equalize the power in the Senate. What she failed to observe: the minority party wields most of the power simply by sticking together, and doing nothing, but allowing the democrats and the blue dogs to battle it out.
Republicans can win more through inaction than through action. Who would have thunk it: Sitting on one's ass can open up more opportunities for success, than actually getting up off of one's ass and doing something? I guess doing nothing is tantamount to doing something, just as not to decide is to decide.
What is the message Democrats need to take from this election, if any? You have the floor, now.
But Martha Coakley went down to defeat (47%), while Scott Brown (52%) scores a stunning upset.
And already a postmortem is taking place. As one pundit observed: "There's blame aplenty to go around."
Some are blaming Martha Coakley herself. They say she allowed Scott Brown to define her, and the scope of the election. Others are saying she took too much time off (I hear three weeks.). And during that time, Brown had the field to himself, and he took advantage of it.
Still others are blaming Coakley's failure on local politics, the unhappiness of Massachusetts' electorate with the economy, and recent tax increases. Some have observed that the state's health-care system, although expensive, has broad coverage, and people are happy with it--suggesting that maybe they didn't want Washington tinkering with it.
Perhaps the most optimistic message some are seeing is this: Voting in Brown is sending a message to the Democratically-held congress that it's not going far enough in its efforts to reform health care, and that they want their representatives to get tougher, and pass real health-care reform, and take up other progressive legislation.
That seems a bit naive to me. You don't give your opponent another loaded weapon (in this case, a filibuster majority), if you're down to your last few bullets.
Whatever the reason, the Republicans have scored a major upset, and I'm left in a quandary. As painful as it is, I have to admit: I don't understand the mind of the electorate.
Here we are struggling with a seesaw economy inherited from the previous administration. Two wars inherited from the previous administration. An international black eye inherited from the previous administration. A gaggle of do-nothing Republicans, waging an obstructionist war against Democratic incumbents. And what do Democrats do for an encore? They besmirch the memory of Teddy Kennedy, possibly depriving him of his dream for health-care reform, and elect to his seat, not a Blue Dog Democrat, but another do-nothing Republican who claims he's fiscally conservative, and will vote against tax increases and the looming health-care reform bill.
Frankly, I don't see the logic.
With liberal friends like this, you don't need Republican enemies. Democrats are their own worse enemy. Republicans need only resist, whine, and persist to be rewarded. Unlike Republicans who can circle a wagon train, all going in the same direction, Right. Democrats, on the other hand, don't know their Left from their Right, and keep bumping into each other.
Okay, perhaps the health-care reform bill in the Senate is nothing more that a give-away to Big Insurers. We haven't seen the final version. It has been secreted away, at least the finalizing moves, to wed it with the Senate version, ostensibly to prevent more Republican stall tactics.
Perhaps it should be scrapped and replaced with Medicare for those fifty and above--Democrats possibly hammering out something in reconciliation. Because Democrats play fairly, more fairly than Republicans, I'd be shocked if they hold up the induction of Brown. If they don't, and if they don't find a way to pass some kind of health-care reform bill, before Brown takes the oath of office, health-care reform is dead on arrival.
Will the Democrats run even more scared now--now that a Republican from an ultra-blue state has become a senator, and abandon health-care reform altogether, as well as a progressive agenda?
And what about President Obama's agenda--keeping his campaign promises? Will he have to scrap that, too, now that the filibuster proof senate has gone bust?
Are we seeing a referendum on the president and the Democrats' progressive hopes for the country? It's going to be twice as hard now to get anything of a reform nature or a progressive nature through both houses of Congress.
I heard one woman remark that she was voting for Scott Brown because she wanted to equalize the power in the Senate. What she failed to observe: the minority party wields most of the power simply by sticking together, and doing nothing, but allowing the democrats and the blue dogs to battle it out.
Republicans can win more through inaction than through action. Who would have thunk it: Sitting on one's ass can open up more opportunities for success, than actually getting up off of one's ass and doing something? I guess doing nothing is tantamount to doing something, just as not to decide is to decide.
What is the message Democrats need to take from this election, if any? You have the floor, now.
I'm on CREDO's mailing list. They've composed a letter you can send to friends, if you choose, and a link to sign a petition (No, I'm not giving up.):#######
--The CREDO Action Team
Here's a sample message to send to your friends:
Subject: Message from Massachusetts: Pass a public option with 51 votes
Dear Friend,
The voters of the ultra-Blue state of Massachusetts have decided to elect Scott Brown, a conservative Republican to the Senate in a special election. With the election of a Republican senator from Massachusetts, the Democrats' so-called "filibuster proof" majority in the Senate is officially dead.
The loss of Ted Kennedy's Senate seat sends a clear message that the Senate health care bill does not go far enough. While the message might be lost on the power brokers within the Democratic Party, the message of the Massachusetts special election is clear.
Voters did not elect President Obama and a Democratic supermajority in the House and the Senate so that health care reform could be written by the likes of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.
I signed a petition telling President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid that the Senate must use reconciliation to pass a better health care bill with a strong public option. I hope you'll follow the link below and take action, too.
Campaign For Reconciliation Petition Drive
