My two cents: this is a pushback against huge Democratic overreach. One hopes the leadership will hear it as such.
It was also CLEARLY a referendum on the healthcare bill–and peoples resistance to it is because it is a bad bill, not because they do not want health care reform. The three health care problems are coverage, cost and culture and the current bills (Senate and House) mostly deal with the first but not the second and the third.
Last thought–democracy may be messy but it sure is interesting.
Who would have thought Ted Kennedy’s seat would go to a Republican against the current Health Care legislation.
I wonder how long the Democratic legislative leadership will continue to insist on pushing their agenda, despite the People’s clear repudiation of the same. Do Pelosi and Reid have such power that their membership will continue to follow leadership, even into electoral defeat? If so, I imagine that 15-20 first term Democratic congressmen from traditionally Republican districts will be looking for jobs next January.
If the cocksure resolution of Reid and Pelosi to march forward with their program, despite the demonstrated will of the electorate, is genuine on their part, it is an example of appalling arrogance.
Kevin, the LA Times article that Kendall linked just after this post – Pelosi is hell bent on a bill no matter what (yes, when you live in San Fran., you can easily lose all sense of perspective). But the Dem. moderates will desert her, witness what what Sen. Webb has already said.
This is the biggest political upset in a generation – where has someone with so little inherent support managed to win? It would be like a Dem. in SC winning a Senate seat with a Rep. President campaigning against him. And with the 60-40 balance now gone, I don’t believe there has ever been a more significant Senate election.
First, thanks, Dr. Harmon, for putting up a place to talk and listen.
Second, I agree with all you said – it’s a vote against overreach (and what I see as arrogance). There was much that candidate Obama campaigned on that appealed to all people – even though I voted for McCain, I liked what candidate Obama said about openness in Government (all health care negotiations televised on CSpan), reaching across the aisle, not raising taxes (especially in a time of recession. One of the messages of the McCain campaign was that Obama was a radical – Obama insisted he was not. Unfortunately, Obama opened the first year of his administration governing like an arrogant radical – he opened the federal treasury and dumped money (that the US doesn’t have) on radical, extremist groups; he nationalized big businesses to bail out union members; he rammed through his health care plans by playing up power and not negotiating and building community. And everywhere he has shut doors instead of opening them – conducting meetings in secret and bargaining away money and position with lobbyists we’re not even allowed to know about. His health care plan smack more of government control and creating an entitlement to use as the reins to keep a political majority than it does to institute real reform. When the Bush-Gingrich-Delay Republicans were in power, we saw the same looting of the public fisc, the same closed-door arrogance, the same hyper-partisanship. Perhaps, this rebuke will cause the politicians to wake up and begin working together to solve problems instead of making things worse.
Last thought – for now – all my life (and it is getting to be a long one) that Senate seat has been held by a Kennedy – I think one of the main things Brown did was to remind all of us that this was not a “Kennedy” seat, but the people’s seat – and I hope partisan Democrats will take a breath and acknowledge in the long run this is a good (and ‘democratic’) thing.
With penetrating insight into the obvious, this is a major game changer for President Obama. President Obama can no longer cheer lead from the side, Webb has alread bolted and other Democratic Congress critters will follow. If President Obama is going to accomplish anything he will need to move to the middle and produce some real change and I don’t know if he can. President Obama seems to have a very deep liberal ideological bent boarding on socialism. Reid and Pelosi are not going to bruise their knuckles, take the hits and suffer all the blame while President Obama promotes himself..
“That would make the final score: national environment 13, Coakley 14, special circumstances 4.
If you follow through on the math, this would suggest that Coakley would have won by about 8 points, rather than losing by 5, had the national environment not deteriorated so significantly for Democrats. It suggests that the Democrats would have won by 9 points, rather than losing by 5, had the candidate been someone other than Coakley. And it suggests that the race would have been a 1-point loss (that is, basically too close to call), rather than a 5-point loss, even if Coakley had run such a bad campaign and even if the national environment had deteriorated as much as it has, but had there not been the unusual circumstances associated with this particular election.
Obviously, this is a rather imprecise and unsophisticated exercise. But each of those implications feels about right to me. Maybe you’d do the math a little differently. But don’t be sparing with your blame; there’s plenty of it to go around.”
I agree with Kendall+. This was 10% Martha Coakley running a terrible campaign (unfortunately and somewhat unfairly to be known as “Martha Chokeley”), but it was 90% a Obamacare rejection – not healthcare reform – by a very blue state. The democratic leadership would be very foolish to try to ram this through via reconciliation. I doubt they would get the required 50% votes.
A point that is being missed. When the tea party-ers threw their support behind Doug Hoffman versus the very liberal Scozzafaza, the Democratic pundits like Howard Dean were saying they were ideologues who would be instituting conservative litmus tests. It is telling that the only two national Republicans that Scott Brown thanked in his victory speech were the progressive McCain and Romney – two Republicans least likely to get Tea party endorsements. Now, Scott Brown seems to be more small-government than these two, but he doesn’t have full Tea party credentials, yet the Tea party folks threw their support to him wholeheartedly.
Bailing with a small bucket makes more sense than waiting for the “proper” bucket to do the job. THAT is what makes this rout so interesting. The sole purpose of it was to send the CLEAR message that Obamacare is neither wanted nor desired – even in Massachusetts. Alas. the call to “let him who has ears to hear, listen” will be thrown under the bus whilst the steamroller tries to accomplish its erroneous path!
1. Whose seat is it? Does it belong the Kennedy clan? The Democratic Party? It belongs to the people of Massachusetts is the answer.
2. Given the lack of control and oversight in the economic stimulus measures that were rushed through, must we suffer through another rush job? Will it be another hairball that fails to deliver, benefits the wrong people and costs way too much?
I think that people dislike the progress of events over that past year where the overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress and the presidency has enabled them to ignore the participation of those who represent the other half of the country. Obama’s failure to provide complete transparency (the CSPAN debacle, for failed promise it was) of his programs due to his majority is a contemptuous dismissal of the American people.
The American government represents the whole American people and their work in government should represent all of the country, not one party or the other.
#5. Dave B. wrote: Webb has alread bolted and other Democratic Congress critters will follow.
It seems to me that Webb actually uses his brain. He is quite analytical, does his own thinking, and is afraid of no one in government. He may be as big a winner as Scott Brown in this rout. If we see Obama slide further in popularity, I think Webb might mount a primary campaign for 2012.
Going back to Dr. Harmon’s statement that the three isues of Health Insurance reform are coverage, cost and culture, and that the current bill only deals with the coverage issue: I am not sure it even deals with coverage. If I understand the bill, every individual not covered by his employer has to buy health insurance. BUT, the cost of the health insurance is more than the potential fine. AND, there are no pre-existing conditions. You can literally sign up for coverage in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. If I could wait until my house is on fire to buy fire insurance I wouldn’t buy it.
Most Americans understand that we need reform, but we lack confidence that Congress and the President are capable of taking action without making things worse. The sleazy deals that we have seen feed into that perception.
I also think Brown is an appealing candidate. He seems, at least, real.
In the afterglow of Obama assuming the Presidency most of the media openly mocked the “Tea Party” people and dismissed them as racists and worse. The “Tea Parties” were an early manifestation of mounting voter anger over unpopular Obama/Pelosi/Reid polices such as the $1T Stimulus Bill that actually increased unemployment and the pace and direction of the Healthcare Overhaul.
When Lord! When, will the American media do its job?
I lived in Mass. for 16 years–the Republican party of that state is a bit to the left of the Democratic party of the state I live in now, South Carolina. Brown is pro gay-rights and pro-abortion (or at least against criminalizing abortion). Indeed, he’s much like Romney was a decade ago (before Romney decided he needed the evangelical vote and ran away from the gay-rights legislation he signed as governor).
But fiscally conservative socially liberal republicans like that (include former MA Governor William Weld on that list) are a world away from the Palin wing of the GOP, and I’m not sure this signals a full-on Republican resurgence. The social conservatives still have control of the GOP.
For me, a Democrat, I can live with a GOP comeback if it is driven by fiscal conservatives who stay out of the bedroom. Good for him.
CanaAnglican I found Webb to be very disengenous when he snubbed Bush. This level in uncivility has carried over to Obama. I hope Webb feels Obama’s management of American security is better than Bush’s. Webb hasn’t yet commented on the delay of Obama in responding to the Christmas event, the Fort Hood murders or the killing of the Arkansas recruiters.. So I personally don’t find Webb that compelling a person..
I have to admit I am stunned by this. If it was any other state in the Union, I might not be so surprised, but the Kennedy Seat in Massachusetts is the bluest seat in the bluest state in the country.
Perhaps even more shocking than that is that the final vote was not even that close. I was expecting the winner to win by 5000 votes or less, and a big recount/legal fight. Brown won by over 100,000 votes. That’s absolutely staggering in my mind in Massachusetts of all places.
Reading the spin of various commentators here and elsewhere, I think the Democrats on Capitol Hill have their work cut out for them. I think the knee jerk reaction so far is to blame Coakley for running a bad campaign. While she was a lackluster candidate, she was competent, especially given that that the electorate is 2 to 1 registered Democrats. I think Democrats are going to blow off this election as a fluke of bad campaigning at their own peril.
Certainly, this was about more than just a referendum on Health Care yea or nay. I think Canon Harmon speaks correctly in that if it was only that issue of reform or nothing at all, then I think the Democrats would have fared better.
I think I would interpret this election as a nuanced critique of Obama’s and Washington’s appearance to be willing to pass anything in the name of Health Care reform, whether or not it is a good bill or policy, and to pass it by any means necessary. I don’t think people are taking a shine to this policy of legislative bribery to get their ends (I’m looking at you, Sen. Nelson), floor votes in the middle of the night, and back room, closed door reconcilation meetings of the House and Senate bills into one omnibus plan that will include who knows what.
I think the other issue is cost. I think people don’t buy Washington’s call that this bill is somehow budget neutral. This bill, almost a trillion dollar liability, has to be paid for by cutting other services, deficit spending, higher taxes, or some combination of the three. The White House and Congressional Democrats have not been able to sell to the American people that paying for this scheme does not involved dangerous uses of the first two of those. The public has been asking serious questions on these funding issues, and getting sound byte answers that make no logical sense. For example, this is going to be partially funded by making cuts to Medicare, a program which is already slated to go insolvent in 10 years is some how budget neutral and good policy? Taxing every branch of the medical field is not going to instantly raise policy rates when those companies and hospitals pass on that tax to consumers?
I think people want more transparency, and not more Washington gobbledy-gook. It’s that simple.
I’m a right leaning independent, but all those loyal MA Democrats who held their noses and voted for Brown make me proud of my country. At this point Brown himself is a cipher as far as I’m concerned. The real story is the leadership that the good people of Massachusetts showed by coming together and electing what must have been for many an unpalatable candidate.
It’s important to note that Massachusetts already already has universal health care (thanks to Mitt Romney) and therefore voters might well perceive the current health care bill as something that will bring them costs but few new (if any) benefits. Obama came in as a “new broom” promising transparency and openness. Instead, I think voters see back room deals. Now, for all I know, our system of government is so screwed up that it’s impossible to get anything done WITHOUT back room deals, but the voters see certain financial institutions (but not others) getting special treatment, the representatives of certain states (but not others) getting to add their own special deals to the health care bill, unionized workers (but not not nonunionized workers) getting a few extra years before the “cadillac” health care tax kicks in (allowing them to re-negotiate their contracts before then) etc. And they don’t like it. Is electing a Republican (thus making back room deals probably even more likely) going to solve the problem? I doubt it. But that’s the political see-saw we live with.
Yes, I know it’s the National Review and so comes at this from the conservative angle, but you can’t argue with facts. On the universal health care in Massachusetts, there are major problems:
Although much of the burden falls on individual policy-holders, the costs to the taxpayers have also skyrocketed. Despite one tax increase already, the program faces huge deficits in the future. As a result, the state is considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a “global budget†on health-care spending — with its attendant rationing.
The reforms have added a new burden on companies, especially smaller ones, wanting to do business in the state. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council cites the Massachusetts health-care regulations and the mandate on companies as its reasons for ranking Massachusetts dead last among the 50 states for business-friendly health-care policies.
A shortage of providers, combined with higher demand, is increasing waiting times to see a physician, especially primary-care providers. The wait for seeing an internist, for example, has nearly doubled since the reforms were implemented. . .
The most problematic for me, and I’ve read this in other sources as well, is the shortage of providers. Many doctors are leaving Mass. because of the health care provisions.
Whoops, I finished too soon – my point was that Brown’s election may be because the voters of Massachusetts have seen what the problems of health care reform are when “reform” is done without careful consideration of costs, accessibility, and potential medical care shortages. They have seen health care reform up close and perhaps, better than the rest of us, know it is not the panacea the congressional democrats would have us believe.
Well, it’s almost impossible to have “reform” in one state only because anybody who thinks they can get a better deal elsewhere (employers, providers, whoever) is going to leave. The fact that employers would rather set up shop in a state (or a country, for that matter) where they can provide the fewest benefits to their employees does not mean that health care reform is bad or that we should drop our minimum wage to that of Kuala Lumpor. Had the voters of MA been so up-in-arms over the very idea of health care reform, they would not have so overwhelmingly elected Obama.
But we are the united states, Catholic Mom, and certain powers are the states alone. You are saying that all the states should do “reform” in lockstep just to keep those dissatisfied from finding a better deal – so much for a marketplace of ideas, where one state can try something its residents want and other states can see the result. You seem to be saying that we can’t have any differences between the states.
If reform is really working well, then it’s positive results can be seen. I don’t think most employers want to provide “the fewest benefits to their employees” – that doesn’t speak well of many of your fellow citizens who are working hard to provide jobs in the thousands of small businesses in this country. MA passed health care reform under a Repub. governor so I don’t know that they saw this as a Dem/Repub issue. But given that the program hasn’t worked out as well as they were told, I think they wanted to send a message to Congress to slow down, think it through, and don’t pass something by backroom deals and pay-offs to specific states or groups.
I’m all for sending a message not to do things by backroom deals and pay-offs to specific states or groups.
I DO think there are employers who exactly want to provide the fewest benefits to workers — WalMart being a great example. There used to be hardly a month go by they weren’t involved in some scandal like locking workers in at night and refusing to let them leave, forcing people to work off the clock or be fired, etc. etc. It’s one reason I shop at Target instead. There are certain laws/rights that have to be enforced at a government, not a state, level. Why do you think so many companies are incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware? Because Delaware is to corporations what off-shore banking is to rich people. However, even Delaware cannot waive federal laws such as Sarbannes-Oxley, etc.
I don’t think government should run the health care industry, but I do think there has to be a basis of common law for all the states and I would hope a health care reform bill would establish this.
Archer wrote:
> especially given that that the electorate is 2 to 1 registered Democrats.
As a resident of Mass – I think there’s an interesting misconception here being reported in much of the press, The actual numbers reported are 11% Republican, 37% Democrat and 51% unenrolled. HOWEVER, I don’t think the unenrolled are really that independent. Since Mass is a single party state (and has open primaries if you’re unenrolled), in many elections the only voting that matters is in the Democratic primary (at least before this week). As a result, many people who might otherwise register Republican, remain unenrolled so that can vote in those primaries. Some state districts are actually Republican dominated – and in those there are Unenrolled/Democrates…
I suspect that a fairly small part of that 51% doesn’t have a clear preference one way or the other – and I suspect that Archer’s ratio of 2:1 for the overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans is probably right.
It’s possible that simple economics has a lot more to do with this than has been discussed. The Massachusetts unemployment rate has gone from 6.1 % to 8.8 % since Obama was elected – 100,000 jobs lost. I’m betting there are a lot of Massachusetts voters who can’t *believe* they or their family member lost their jobs AFTER Obama’s election.
Obama was elected to fix the economy, not impose socialism on the rest of the country by secrecy, subterfuge, and deceit.
You would have thought they would get the message, that we don’t want the federal government taking over the entire economy, but here’s today’s headline:
“Obama to Nationalize Student Lending with Pending Budget Bill”
Like the rest of their legislation, they can’t get this through Congress the normal way, and so they are again planning to use “reconciliation” to avoid a vote.
These folks just don’t get the message, and all of the ones up for election are going to have to be turned out of office this fall.
I have been appalled by the sanctimonious arrogance of the Democratic leadership since BHO was elected in 2008. Reid, Pelosi and Obama have been breathtaking in their spewing of venom for anyone who has the temerity to disagree with their agenda and I don’t believe there has been a time in my life that I have loathed a group a much as these three. And as for the Democratic Party itself, the final nail in their coffin (for me, anyway) was the fancy footwork they did in appointing a temp for this seat after Ted Kennedy died. During Romney’s administration – during which John Kerry ran his unsuccessful campaign for POTUS – Massachusetts enacted a law nullifying the Governor’s authority to appoint an interim (pending a special election), should a senatorial seat become vacant (Obviously they were banking on Kerry winning and didn’t want a Republican governor to appoint a Republican replacement). After Kennedy died, though, the Democrats reversed themselves, because that would have left them without a filibuster-proof majority. Naturally, then, the governor appointed a Democrat “only because the people of Massachusetts deserve to have full congressional representation during this time when so many weighty issues are being faced by the country” (I’m sure that, like me, you are touched by his altruism). For the life of me, I cannot understand why THAT was not brought up [I]ad nauseum[/i] by every Republican who’s had a microphone shoved in his/her face since then. Likewise, I cannot believe that the Democrats are so blinded by their own ideology and drunkeness with power, that they don’t care that the people – whom the government is of, by and for – don’t want what they are selling.
So yes, I am extremely pleased that Brown won – even if it simply serves as a reminder to those in government that they serve at the pleasure of “[b]WE the PEOPLE[/b]”
I found the coverage on CNN yesterday, before the polls closed, very interesting and telling. Some who were greeting Brown held anti-Obama signs — my favorite one saying “I’m tired of living on change.” And then there was the Jack Cafferty commentary about people being fed up with the backroom deals and Chicago-style politics that are characterizing the Obama Administration. This is the SAME Cafferty who seemed to have an intense man-crush on candidate Obama and pooh-poohed every and any suggestion that he was a product of the Chicago machine and a consummate politician.
I had hoped that the scales would fall off people’s eyes before the Presidential election but they didn’t; it seems they are now. Obama has reneged on the transparency he promised and has escalated the partisan bickering and deal-making. When he began offering special health care perqs to the states whose congressional reps. would vote with him, it was the last straw.
Good for the people of Mass. in taking a stand! If Obama wants to continue to pit states and citizens and parties against each other, then We the People are going to have to do what’s best for the country and shut him down. If the Dems believe their spin and don’t heed the very clear message they’re being sent, then they’ll just have to suffer the consequences. One state at a time.
Actually “nationalization” of student loans is common sense. The way its done now is insane. Currently the U.S loans money to private banks to loan to students, guarantees the loans, then lets the keep banks the profits. Since the taxpayers are backing the loans, why shouldn’t the taxpayers get the profits??
With regards to #15 comment, we have this from Wikipedia:
[blockquote]Brown stated that he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but refers to the currently legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts as a settled issue, which he does not wish to change. Earlier in his career, he favored an amendment to the state constitution barring same-sex marriage and allowing the provision for civil unions. During a State Senate debate in 2001, Brown referred to the decision of his lesbian Democratic opponent, Cheryl Jacques, to have children as “not normal”. He also described her parenting role as “alleged family responsibilities”. Brown apologized for the remarks and commented that his view is the same as President Obama, both anti-gay-marriage and pro-civil-unions. He opposes ending the Defense of Marriage Act, and generally favors leaving the issue to the states to decide.[/blockquote]
We have this [url=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/is-brown-to-the-left-of-snowe.html ]discussion[/url] of whether Brown is [i]left[/i] of Olympia Snowe.
Coakley herself is getting blame from Democrats, but I had forgotten who it was that employed the DLC strategy of dis-lodging Republican candidates by running conservative Democrats (such as ‘Blue Dogs’) where otherwise too-liberal Dem candidates might have turned off voters: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Blame-Obama-Rahm-Emanuel-by-Rob-Kall-100119-554.html
In a quick google I find that Newsweek, Reddit and Progressive.com, at least, all share this evaluation. Incidentally it is also well-known that the Axelrods’ young daughter has grand mal epilepsy and they covet government-funded health care that relieves them of their financial burden in providing for her needs. I guess to them this is ‘the American Way’.
It’s been a while since much has been seen of or heard from Mr. Emanuel. He more or less embodies the elitist, we-can-ignore-flyover-country, DINO corporatist attitude in the party, but for Coakley to win he and fellow Obama advisers should have been supporting Coakley sooner and better. So did they fail her? (Or did they in fact sacrifice her, for some other goal we haven’t yet recognized?) And if they simply failed her, well, then Emanuel isn’t much of an adviser for Obama, I guess.
Knowing the thorough-going treachery of his Chicago-style politics I have no hesitation suggesting that parenthetic comment. Through the late 1980s I lived in a suburb between Chicago and Emanuel’s home turf in the northern suburbs, and often I couldn’t believe what I was seeing in local politics there. Unprincipled, yep, that’s the word. But it fed directly into the results in Nov. 2008.
The Wall Street Journal, but no one else that I have seen, ties Attorney General Coakley to the Amirault day care social worker abuse scandal. She is reported to have held the line even after the truth came out. I wonder if that made any difference.
Theres a general pushback against all incumbents, in part because the recovery isn’t happening fast enough. Although the Democrats haven’t been in power for very long, they’re being blamed for plenty of decisions that go back to the early 1980’s.
Coakley ran a tepid campaign; Browns was exciting. Add that Brown is an unusual candidate.
Brown may signify, much to the conservative’s chagrin, a possible direction for the Republican party. He’s a centrist, not a conservative, one who believes that fiscal responsibility, not cultural politics, should be central.
By and large, the Democrats have decided to be the party of big business, allowing Republicans to take the populist mantle.
Further, the Democrats haven’t done a good job at pushing back to some of the more outrageous lies about the bill. Reforming health care still has support by a majority of Americans, and remains necessary.
Some aspects of health care will probably pass: an end of recissioning; federal health exchanges; removing the trust protections of the insurance companies.
It could have been a lot simpler: just expand medicare and medicaid.
My two cents: this is a pushback against huge Democratic overreach. One hopes the leadership will hear it as such.
It was also CLEARLY a referendum on the healthcare bill–and peoples resistance to it is because it is a bad bill, not because they do not want health care reform. The three health care problems are coverage, cost and culture and the current bills (Senate and House) mostly deal with the first but not the second and the third.
Last thought–democracy may be messy but it sure is interesting.
Who would have thought Ted Kennedy’s seat would go to a Republican against the current Health Care legislation.
I wonder how long the Democratic legislative leadership will continue to insist on pushing their agenda, despite the People’s clear repudiation of the same. Do Pelosi and Reid have such power that their membership will continue to follow leadership, even into electoral defeat? If so, I imagine that 15-20 first term Democratic congressmen from traditionally Republican districts will be looking for jobs next January.
If the cocksure resolution of Reid and Pelosi to march forward with their program, despite the demonstrated will of the electorate, is genuine on their part, it is an example of appalling arrogance.
Kevin, the LA Times article that Kendall linked just after this post – Pelosi is hell bent on a bill no matter what (yes, when you live in San Fran., you can easily lose all sense of perspective). But the Dem. moderates will desert her, witness what what Sen. Webb has already said.
This is the biggest political upset in a generation – where has someone with so little inherent support managed to win? It would be like a Dem. in SC winning a Senate seat with a Rep. President campaigning against him. And with the 60-40 balance now gone, I don’t believe there has ever been a more significant Senate election.
First, thanks, Dr. Harmon, for putting up a place to talk and listen.
Second, I agree with all you said – it’s a vote against overreach (and what I see as arrogance). There was much that candidate Obama campaigned on that appealed to all people – even though I voted for McCain, I liked what candidate Obama said about openness in Government (all health care negotiations televised on CSpan), reaching across the aisle, not raising taxes (especially in a time of recession. One of the messages of the McCain campaign was that Obama was a radical – Obama insisted he was not. Unfortunately, Obama opened the first year of his administration governing like an arrogant radical – he opened the federal treasury and dumped money (that the US doesn’t have) on radical, extremist groups; he nationalized big businesses to bail out union members; he rammed through his health care plans by playing up power and not negotiating and building community. And everywhere he has shut doors instead of opening them – conducting meetings in secret and bargaining away money and position with lobbyists we’re not even allowed to know about. His health care plan smack more of government control and creating an entitlement to use as the reins to keep a political majority than it does to institute real reform. When the Bush-Gingrich-Delay Republicans were in power, we saw the same looting of the public fisc, the same closed-door arrogance, the same hyper-partisanship. Perhaps, this rebuke will cause the politicians to wake up and begin working together to solve problems instead of making things worse.
Last thought – for now – all my life (and it is getting to be a long one) that Senate seat has been held by a Kennedy – I think one of the main things Brown did was to remind all of us that this was not a “Kennedy” seat, but the people’s seat – and I hope partisan Democrats will take a breath and acknowledge in the long run this is a good (and ‘democratic’) thing.
With penetrating insight into the obvious, this is a major game changer for President Obama. President Obama can no longer cheer lead from the side, Webb has alread bolted and other Democratic Congress critters will follow. If President Obama is going to accomplish anything he will need to move to the middle and produce some real change and I don’t know if he can. President Obama seems to have a very deep liberal ideological bent boarding on socialism. Reid and Pelosi are not going to bruise their knuckles, take the hits and suffer all the blame while President Obama promotes himself..
Well put on all points, William Sulik.
538 pretty interesting here
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/lets-play-blame-game.html
“That would make the final score: national environment 13, Coakley 14, special circumstances 4.
If you follow through on the math, this would suggest that Coakley would have won by about 8 points, rather than losing by 5, had the national environment not deteriorated so significantly for Democrats. It suggests that the Democrats would have won by 9 points, rather than losing by 5, had the candidate been someone other than Coakley. And it suggests that the race would have been a 1-point loss (that is, basically too close to call), rather than a 5-point loss, even if Coakley had run such a bad campaign and even if the national environment had deteriorated as much as it has, but had there not been the unusual circumstances associated with this particular election.
Obviously, this is a rather imprecise and unsophisticated exercise. But each of those implications feels about right to me. Maybe you’d do the math a little differently. But don’t be sparing with your blame; there’s plenty of it to go around.”
I agree with Kendall+. This was 10% Martha Coakley running a terrible campaign (unfortunately and somewhat unfairly to be known as “Martha Chokeley”), but it was 90% a Obamacare rejection – not healthcare reform – by a very blue state. The democratic leadership would be very foolish to try to ram this through via reconciliation. I doubt they would get the required 50% votes.
A point that is being missed. When the tea party-ers threw their support behind Doug Hoffman versus the very liberal Scozzafaza, the Democratic pundits like Howard Dean were saying they were ideologues who would be instituting conservative litmus tests. It is telling that the only two national Republicans that Scott Brown thanked in his victory speech were the progressive McCain and Romney – two Republicans least likely to get Tea party endorsements. Now, Scott Brown seems to be more small-government than these two, but he doesn’t have full Tea party credentials, yet the Tea party folks threw their support to him wholeheartedly.
Bailing with a small bucket makes more sense than waiting for the “proper” bucket to do the job. THAT is what makes this rout so interesting. The sole purpose of it was to send the CLEAR message that Obamacare is neither wanted nor desired – even in Massachusetts. Alas. the call to “let him who has ears to hear, listen” will be thrown under the bus whilst the steamroller tries to accomplish its erroneous path!
Two messages I found compelling:
1. Whose seat is it? Does it belong the Kennedy clan? The Democratic Party? It belongs to the people of Massachusetts is the answer.
2. Given the lack of control and oversight in the economic stimulus measures that were rushed through, must we suffer through another rush job? Will it be another hairball that fails to deliver, benefits the wrong people and costs way too much?
I think that people dislike the progress of events over that past year where the overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress and the presidency has enabled them to ignore the participation of those who represent the other half of the country. Obama’s failure to provide complete transparency (the CSPAN debacle, for failed promise it was) of his programs due to his majority is a contemptuous dismissal of the American people.
The American government represents the whole American people and their work in government should represent all of the country, not one party or the other.
#5. Dave B. wrote: Webb has alread bolted and other Democratic Congress critters will follow.
It seems to me that Webb actually uses his brain. He is quite analytical, does his own thinking, and is afraid of no one in government. He may be as big a winner as Scott Brown in this rout. If we see Obama slide further in popularity, I think Webb might mount a primary campaign for 2012.
Going back to Dr. Harmon’s statement that the three isues of Health Insurance reform are coverage, cost and culture, and that the current bill only deals with the coverage issue: I am not sure it even deals with coverage. If I understand the bill, every individual not covered by his employer has to buy health insurance. BUT, the cost of the health insurance is more than the potential fine. AND, there are no pre-existing conditions. You can literally sign up for coverage in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. If I could wait until my house is on fire to buy fire insurance I wouldn’t buy it.
Most Americans understand that we need reform, but we lack confidence that Congress and the President are capable of taking action without making things worse. The sleazy deals that we have seen feed into that perception.
I also think Brown is an appealing candidate. He seems, at least, real.
In the afterglow of Obama assuming the Presidency most of the media openly mocked the “Tea Party” people and dismissed them as racists and worse. The “Tea Parties” were an early manifestation of mounting voter anger over unpopular Obama/Pelosi/Reid polices such as the $1T Stimulus Bill that actually increased unemployment and the pace and direction of the Healthcare Overhaul.
When Lord! When, will the American media do its job?
I lived in Mass. for 16 years–the Republican party of that state is a bit to the left of the Democratic party of the state I live in now, South Carolina. Brown is pro gay-rights and pro-abortion (or at least against criminalizing abortion). Indeed, he’s much like Romney was a decade ago (before Romney decided he needed the evangelical vote and ran away from the gay-rights legislation he signed as governor).
But fiscally conservative socially liberal republicans like that (include former MA Governor William Weld on that list) are a world away from the Palin wing of the GOP, and I’m not sure this signals a full-on Republican resurgence. The social conservatives still have control of the GOP.
For me, a Democrat, I can live with a GOP comeback if it is driven by fiscal conservatives who stay out of the bedroom. Good for him.
CanaAnglican I found Webb to be very disengenous when he snubbed Bush. This level in uncivility has carried over to Obama. I hope Webb feels Obama’s management of American security is better than Bush’s. Webb hasn’t yet commented on the delay of Obama in responding to the Christmas event, the Fort Hood murders or the killing of the Arkansas recruiters.. So I personally don’t find Webb that compelling a person..
I have to admit I am stunned by this. If it was any other state in the Union, I might not be so surprised, but the Kennedy Seat in Massachusetts is the bluest seat in the bluest state in the country.
Perhaps even more shocking than that is that the final vote was not even that close. I was expecting the winner to win by 5000 votes or less, and a big recount/legal fight. Brown won by over 100,000 votes. That’s absolutely staggering in my mind in Massachusetts of all places.
Reading the spin of various commentators here and elsewhere, I think the Democrats on Capitol Hill have their work cut out for them. I think the knee jerk reaction so far is to blame Coakley for running a bad campaign. While she was a lackluster candidate, she was competent, especially given that that the electorate is 2 to 1 registered Democrats. I think Democrats are going to blow off this election as a fluke of bad campaigning at their own peril.
Certainly, this was about more than just a referendum on Health Care yea or nay. I think Canon Harmon speaks correctly in that if it was only that issue of reform or nothing at all, then I think the Democrats would have fared better.
I think I would interpret this election as a nuanced critique of Obama’s and Washington’s appearance to be willing to pass anything in the name of Health Care reform, whether or not it is a good bill or policy, and to pass it by any means necessary. I don’t think people are taking a shine to this policy of legislative bribery to get their ends (I’m looking at you, Sen. Nelson), floor votes in the middle of the night, and back room, closed door reconcilation meetings of the House and Senate bills into one omnibus plan that will include who knows what.
I think the other issue is cost. I think people don’t buy Washington’s call that this bill is somehow budget neutral. This bill, almost a trillion dollar liability, has to be paid for by cutting other services, deficit spending, higher taxes, or some combination of the three. The White House and Congressional Democrats have not been able to sell to the American people that paying for this scheme does not involved dangerous uses of the first two of those. The public has been asking serious questions on these funding issues, and getting sound byte answers that make no logical sense. For example, this is going to be partially funded by making cuts to Medicare, a program which is already slated to go insolvent in 10 years is some how budget neutral and good policy? Taxing every branch of the medical field is not going to instantly raise policy rates when those companies and hospitals pass on that tax to consumers?
I think people want more transparency, and not more Washington gobbledy-gook. It’s that simple.
I’m a right leaning independent, but all those loyal MA Democrats who held their noses and voted for Brown make me proud of my country. At this point Brown himself is a cipher as far as I’m concerned. The real story is the leadership that the good people of Massachusetts showed by coming together and electing what must have been for many an unpalatable candidate.
It’s important to note that Massachusetts already already has universal health care (thanks to Mitt Romney) and therefore voters might well perceive the current health care bill as something that will bring them costs but few new (if any) benefits. Obama came in as a “new broom” promising transparency and openness. Instead, I think voters see back room deals. Now, for all I know, our system of government is so screwed up that it’s impossible to get anything done WITHOUT back room deals, but the voters see certain financial institutions (but not others) getting special treatment, the representatives of certain states (but not others) getting to add their own special deals to the health care bill, unionized workers (but not not nonunionized workers) getting a few extra years before the “cadillac” health care tax kicks in (allowing them to re-negotiate their contracts before then) etc. And they don’t like it. Is electing a Republican (thus making back room deals probably even more likely) going to solve the problem? I doubt it. But that’s the political see-saw we live with.
Yes, I know it’s the National Review and so comes at this from the conservative angle, but you can’t argue with facts. On the universal health care in Massachusetts, there are major problems:
The most problematic for me, and I’ve read this in other sources as well, is the shortage of providers. Many doctors are leaving Mass. because of the health care provisions.
Whoops, I finished too soon – my point was that Brown’s election may be because the voters of Massachusetts have seen what the problems of health care reform are when “reform” is done without careful consideration of costs, accessibility, and potential medical care shortages. They have seen health care reform up close and perhaps, better than the rest of us, know it is not the panacea the congressional democrats would have us believe.
Well, it’s almost impossible to have “reform” in one state only because anybody who thinks they can get a better deal elsewhere (employers, providers, whoever) is going to leave. The fact that employers would rather set up shop in a state (or a country, for that matter) where they can provide the fewest benefits to their employees does not mean that health care reform is bad or that we should drop our minimum wage to that of Kuala Lumpor. Had the voters of MA been so up-in-arms over the very idea of health care reform, they would not have so overwhelmingly elected Obama.
But we are the united states, Catholic Mom, and certain powers are the states alone. You are saying that all the states should do “reform” in lockstep just to keep those dissatisfied from finding a better deal – so much for a marketplace of ideas, where one state can try something its residents want and other states can see the result. You seem to be saying that we can’t have any differences between the states.
If reform is really working well, then it’s positive results can be seen. I don’t think most employers want to provide “the fewest benefits to their employees” – that doesn’t speak well of many of your fellow citizens who are working hard to provide jobs in the thousands of small businesses in this country. MA passed health care reform under a Repub. governor so I don’t know that they saw this as a Dem/Repub issue. But given that the program hasn’t worked out as well as they were told, I think they wanted to send a message to Congress to slow down, think it through, and don’t pass something by backroom deals and pay-offs to specific states or groups.
I’m all for sending a message not to do things by backroom deals and pay-offs to specific states or groups.
I DO think there are employers who exactly want to provide the fewest benefits to workers — WalMart being a great example. There used to be hardly a month go by they weren’t involved in some scandal like locking workers in at night and refusing to let them leave, forcing people to work off the clock or be fired, etc. etc. It’s one reason I shop at Target instead. There are certain laws/rights that have to be enforced at a government, not a state, level. Why do you think so many companies are incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware? Because Delaware is to corporations what off-shore banking is to rich people. However, even Delaware cannot waive federal laws such as Sarbannes-Oxley, etc.
I don’t think government should run the health care industry, but I do think there has to be a basis of common law for all the states and I would hope a health care reform bill would establish this.
Archer wrote:
> especially given that that the electorate is 2 to 1 registered Democrats.
As a resident of Mass – I think there’s an interesting misconception here being reported in much of the press, The actual numbers reported are 11% Republican, 37% Democrat and 51% unenrolled. HOWEVER, I don’t think the unenrolled are really that independent. Since Mass is a single party state (and has open primaries if you’re unenrolled), in many elections the only voting that matters is in the Democratic primary (at least before this week). As a result, many people who might otherwise register Republican, remain unenrolled so that can vote in those primaries. Some state districts are actually Republican dominated – and in those there are Unenrolled/Democrates…
I suspect that a fairly small part of that 51% doesn’t have a clear preference one way or the other – and I suspect that Archer’s ratio of 2:1 for the overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans is probably right.
It’s possible that simple economics has a lot more to do with this than has been discussed. The Massachusetts unemployment rate has gone from 6.1 % to 8.8 % since Obama was elected – 100,000 jobs lost. I’m betting there are a lot of Massachusetts voters who can’t *believe* they or their family member lost their jobs AFTER Obama’s election.
Obama was elected to fix the economy, not impose socialism on the rest of the country by secrecy, subterfuge, and deceit.
You would have thought they would get the message, that we don’t want the federal government taking over the entire economy, but here’s today’s headline:
“Obama to Nationalize Student Lending with Pending Budget Bill”
Like the rest of their legislation, they can’t get this through Congress the normal way, and so they are again planning to use “reconciliation” to avoid a vote.
These folks just don’t get the message, and all of the ones up for election are going to have to be turned out of office this fall.
I have been appalled by the sanctimonious arrogance of the Democratic leadership since BHO was elected in 2008. Reid, Pelosi and Obama have been breathtaking in their spewing of venom for anyone who has the temerity to disagree with their agenda and I don’t believe there has been a time in my life that I have loathed a group a much as these three. And as for the Democratic Party itself, the final nail in their coffin (for me, anyway) was the fancy footwork they did in appointing a temp for this seat after Ted Kennedy died. During Romney’s administration – during which John Kerry ran his unsuccessful campaign for POTUS – Massachusetts enacted a law nullifying the Governor’s authority to appoint an interim (pending a special election), should a senatorial seat become vacant (Obviously they were banking on Kerry winning and didn’t want a Republican governor to appoint a Republican replacement). After Kennedy died, though, the Democrats reversed themselves, because that would have left them without a filibuster-proof majority. Naturally, then, the governor appointed a Democrat “only because the people of Massachusetts deserve to have full congressional representation during this time when so many weighty issues are being faced by the country” (I’m sure that, like me, you are touched by his altruism). For the life of me, I cannot understand why THAT was not brought up [I]ad nauseum[/i] by every Republican who’s had a microphone shoved in his/her face since then. Likewise, I cannot believe that the Democrats are so blinded by their own ideology and drunkeness with power, that they don’t care that the people – whom the government is of, by and for – don’t want what they are selling.
So yes, I am extremely pleased that Brown won – even if it simply serves as a reminder to those in government that they serve at the pleasure of “[b]WE the PEOPLE[/b]”
I found the coverage on CNN yesterday, before the polls closed, very interesting and telling. Some who were greeting Brown held anti-Obama signs — my favorite one saying “I’m tired of living on change.” And then there was the Jack Cafferty commentary about people being fed up with the backroom deals and Chicago-style politics that are characterizing the Obama Administration. This is the SAME Cafferty who seemed to have an intense man-crush on candidate Obama and pooh-poohed every and any suggestion that he was a product of the Chicago machine and a consummate politician.
I had hoped that the scales would fall off people’s eyes before the Presidential election but they didn’t; it seems they are now. Obama has reneged on the transparency he promised and has escalated the partisan bickering and deal-making. When he began offering special health care perqs to the states whose congressional reps. would vote with him, it was the last straw.
Good for the people of Mass. in taking a stand! If Obama wants to continue to pit states and citizens and parties against each other, then We the People are going to have to do what’s best for the country and shut him down. If the Dems believe their spin and don’t heed the very clear message they’re being sent, then they’ll just have to suffer the consequences. One state at a time.
Actually “nationalization” of student loans is common sense. The way its done now is insane. Currently the U.S loans money to private banks to loan to students, guarantees the loans, then lets the keep banks the profits. Since the taxpayers are backing the loans, why shouldn’t the taxpayers get the profits??
My thoughts on the Mass election results?
It has been confirmed that the emporer has no clothes…
Conversely, it may be that the suit is empty…
With regards to #15 comment, we have this from Wikipedia:
[blockquote]Brown stated that he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but refers to the currently legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts as a settled issue, which he does not wish to change. Earlier in his career, he favored an amendment to the state constitution barring same-sex marriage and allowing the provision for civil unions. During a State Senate debate in 2001, Brown referred to the decision of his lesbian Democratic opponent, Cheryl Jacques, to have children as “not normal”. He also described her parenting role as “alleged family responsibilities”. Brown apologized for the remarks and commented that his view is the same as President Obama, both anti-gay-marriage and pro-civil-unions. He opposes ending the Defense of Marriage Act, and generally favors leaving the issue to the states to decide.[/blockquote]
We have this [url=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/is-brown-to-the-left-of-snowe.html ]discussion[/url] of whether Brown is [i]left[/i] of Olympia Snowe.
Coakley herself is getting blame from Democrats, but I had forgotten who it was that employed the DLC strategy of dis-lodging Republican candidates by running conservative Democrats (such as ‘Blue Dogs’) where otherwise too-liberal Dem candidates might have turned off voters:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Blame-Obama-Rahm-Emanuel-by-Rob-Kall-100119-554.html
In a quick google I find that Newsweek, Reddit and Progressive.com, at least, all share this evaluation. Incidentally it is also well-known that the Axelrods’ young daughter has grand mal epilepsy and they covet government-funded health care that relieves them of their financial burden in providing for her needs. I guess to them this is ‘the American Way’.
It’s been a while since much has been seen of or heard from Mr. Emanuel. He more or less embodies the elitist, we-can-ignore-flyover-country, DINO corporatist attitude in the party, but for Coakley to win he and fellow Obama advisers should have been supporting Coakley sooner and better. So did they fail her? (Or did they in fact sacrifice her, for some other goal we haven’t yet recognized?) And if they simply failed her, well, then Emanuel isn’t much of an adviser for Obama, I guess.
Knowing the thorough-going treachery of his Chicago-style politics I have no hesitation suggesting that parenthetic comment. Through the late 1980s I lived in a suburb between Chicago and Emanuel’s home turf in the northern suburbs, and often I couldn’t believe what I was seeing in local politics there. Unprincipled, yep, that’s the word. But it fed directly into the results in Nov. 2008.
The Wall Street Journal, but no one else that I have seen, ties Attorney General Coakley to the Amirault day care social worker abuse scandal. She is reported to have held the line even after the truth came out. I wonder if that made any difference.
A couple things:
Theres a general pushback against all incumbents, in part because the recovery isn’t happening fast enough. Although the Democrats haven’t been in power for very long, they’re being blamed for plenty of decisions that go back to the early 1980’s.
Coakley ran a tepid campaign; Browns was exciting. Add that Brown is an unusual candidate.
Brown may signify, much to the conservative’s chagrin, a possible direction for the Republican party. He’s a centrist, not a conservative, one who believes that fiscal responsibility, not cultural politics, should be central.
By and large, the Democrats have decided to be the party of big business, allowing Republicans to take the populist mantle.
Further, the Democrats haven’t done a good job at pushing back to some of the more outrageous lies about the bill. Reforming health care still has support by a majority of Americans, and remains necessary.
Some aspects of health care will probably pass: an end of recissioning; federal health exchanges; removing the trust protections of the insurance companies.
It could have been a lot simpler: just expand medicare and medicaid.