By: John ShafferFriday January 22, 2010
In what has been called "The Scott heard 'round the world," or "A small earthquake in Massachusetts," Republican Scott Brown has defeated Democrat Martha Coakley for the US Senate seat once held by the late Ted Kennedy and his brother John. That in and of itself would be a significant shift in America's political landscape, but given the situation in the Senate, with the majority Democrats determined to force their heathcare reform bill on an unwilling public, it is a political tsunami.
The bill needs 60 votes to pass, and the Democrat leaders in the Senate got them through such tributes to representative democracy as "The Cornhusker Compromise," the "Louisiana Purchase," the Union exemption for the "Cadillac insurance tax," and who knows what other sordid deals to secure the necessary votes; until Tuesday's election. That took away their 60th vote, and assuming that Senator Brown is seated promptly, will compel the party to refigure its tactics.
There are congressional Democrats who realize that Sen. Brown's victory in Massachusetts, coming on the heels of Republican victories in governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia (three states carried by Barack Obama) send a clear message that things have moved too far, too expensively, and that the voting public (as another cliche has it, "even in Massachusetts") has had a bellyful of the arrogance of the party leadership, the backroom deals of the healthcare reform bills, of the obviously phony "scoring" by the formerly-respected Congressional Budget Office, of the soaring federal expenses, the rising tax bills, and the refusal (until perhaps now) to treat opponents of the measure with respect.
There is some sweet irony at work here, for until 2004 the Governors of Massachusetts had the power to appoint successors to uncompleted Senate terms; however, back then Democrat Sen. John Kerry was running for president and the state had a Republican governor. The Democrats in the Bay State decided that they did not want to run the risk of a Republican governor appointing a Republican to the seat held by Sen. Kerry (should he win the presidency and therefore resign his seat), so they changed the law, and required a special election instead of an appointment. Flash forward to last year, when with a Democrat governor (Deval Patrick), Senator Kennedy passed away. The Democrats needed that 60th vote, so they changed the law again; but this time were forced to settle for the Governor appointing a temporary successor (for the purpose of voting for the healthcare reform), who would hold the seat pending a special election. It goes to show that we run the risk of unintended consequences when we tamper with laws for political purposes; had the Democrats left everything as it was, if they had not tried to rig the system for their party's benefit, Governor Patrick would have appointed Sen. Kennedy's successor, there would have been no special election, and that 60th vote would have been secure.
Scott Brown successfully nationalized this election and declared that he would vote against the healthcare reform; the voters responded by propelling him to an historic victory. Have the Democrat leaders gotten the message, or will they continue to push ahead with healthcare just as it is? Judging from most of their comments, they will keep on the present course. Many in the President's inner circle seem intent on blaming Mrs. Coakley for the loss, citing her gaffes and her weak campaign. If they truly think that is the reason she lost, they are in for even more alarming surprises come the elections of November 2010. Those people who did not "get it" over last Summer's tea parties, or after the New Jersey and Virginia elections, probably won't get it this time, either.
One additional effect of Sen. Brown's election could be that Democrats such as Rep. Chris Carney and other alleged "Blue Dogs," who voted in favor of the present healthcare reform bill, may well decide that passing the bill might not be worth losing their seats; for if the ground can shift in Massachusetts as dramatically as it has, it is even more likely to do so in rural Pennsylvania or New York or the Midwest or South.
The leaders would be well-advised to go scrap the wretched compromises and dishonest vote-buying deals of the present bill, and start again; this time in a bi-partisan effort to do those things that will reform healthcare without bankrupting the nation. It remains to be seen.
What's been said:
No documents found
Have your say: