To everyone's surprise, the special election tomorrow in Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate is actually competitive. You don't get more "blue" than MA, and there hasn't been a republican Senator from there in over 30 years. Moreover, Ted Kenedy's seat has been controlled by that family since 1953. In the election, you have Martha Coakley as the dem nominee, who is the current Attorney General. On the R side, you have Scott Brown, a col. in the MA National Guard and a virtually unknown state legislator.
The stakes are high. Scott Brown would be the 41st republican senator, which means that they could filibuster the health care legislation, already "hanging by a thread" according to Chris Dodd. Pres. Obama went to MA yesterday to stump for Coakley, just like he did for Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine, who both lost the election for VA and NJ governor, respectively. Will it help? It's not looking good for Coakley. The poll today has Brown over Coakley 51 - 46.
So if Coakley loses tomorrow, taken in context with NJ and VA electing republican governors, powerful D senators like Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan "retiring," and 10 more dems in the House "retiring," does this mean that the democratic party is on its way out? Last May, Creighton asked the same question about the Republicans. It's amazing how quick the tables can turn in politics. I'll answer my own question the same way I answered Creighton's. No. It's just the political pendulum, and I wouldn't read much more into it than that. To Creighton's credit, he didn't know last May that the health care debate would have gone the way it did, that the economy would still be in the tank, and that Obama's first year popularity would drop off quicker than any previous president in U.S. history.
Back to the MA Senate race. Why is Brown leading in the polls, despite all the odds? Has Coakley coasted, bungled the campaign, and taken victory for granted? Perhaps there's something to that. The mainstream press will give that answer, wanting to distance Obama and his policies from another defeat at the polls. I'd give Brown some credit though. He's struck a chord with the people of MA, who already have universal health care. "We're going to be basically paying for our plan, and then we're going to be subsidizing Nebraska and Louisiana…boy, that's a real bargain." I also loved his response to CNN's David Gergen when he condescedingly asked Brown if he was willing "to sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and block the passage of health care for another 15 years?" Brown immediately shot back: "With all due respect, it isn't Ted Kennedy's seat, and it isn't the democrats' seat. It's the people's seat."
So what do you guys think? Would a Scott Brown victory be a referendum on health care? On one-party rule? On Obama's policies? Or would you chalk it up to Coakley's bungling of the campaign?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
One more possibly big factor: Back in the 80s, MA prosecuted three members of a family that ran a daycare facility, for child abuse in the extreme. National hysteria over the safety of kids in daycare broke out and a raft of prosecutions spread across the country, with one common thread: there was no evidence of abuse other than the testimony of small children, and that was trumped up, planted, through intensive interrogations and psychological suggestion. They were truly the modern version of the Salem witch trials.
For example, one of the convictions was based on testimony that an adult daycare worker inserted a knife deep inside the rear of a child, while the two were outside in the presence of several children, with the adult turning the knife and laughing all the while. But there was no physical evidence, not even a scratch on the supposed victim.
Yet the male was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
When the tide turned, and nearly everyone in the State system recognized the injuustice, Ms. Coakley persuaded the Governor not to commute the sentence of the man despite the unanimous recommendation of the parole board. Some of the statements she made along the way are truly outrageous, and have been thrown back at her, with no comment in return. In short, her record as a prosecutor and AG is indefensible.
So if Brown wins, it won't be hard for Pres. Obama to distance himself from this candidate. But not, I believe, from the defeat. The Democrats picked Ms. Coakley because, under normal circumstances and without the national issues swirling around, she would be a shoe-in regardless of her campaigning and history.
All of the above. Brown's win is a referendum on healthcare, one-party rule, Obama's policies and Coakley's bungling of her campaign.
Then again, it could be all the Sox fans rebelling when she accused Curt Schilling of being a Yankee fan.
How can you expect to win an election in MA after accusing Curt Schilling of being a Yankees fan? I definitely wouldn't have votes for her.
I am very relieved that senator-elect Scott Brown won. I did not like the democrats having filibuster-proof power in the senate. I think Pres. Obama (although he says otherwise) is realizing that Americans don't like to see the Government spending like a drunken sailor. What I hope we see in the next few months is some sort of a spending commission that recommends actions to lower the national debt. I think the democrats are gonna take it in the keyster come November election time.
Yeah, I agree. Things are looking worse and worse for the dems. I think if they were smart, they would coalesce around the smaller, more popular components of health care reform - something the Americans actually would be in favor of - and not try to hijack 1/6 of the American economy in one fell swoop.
The Republicans controlled the executive and legislative branches from 2000 to 06 and bungled their mandate. Looks like the dems are doing the same thing now.
And in other news, did anyone cath the latest quote from Obama? He said, "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." Hmmmm, seems like he sees the writing on the wall perhaps? He's only been in for one year and he's saying something like that? You know things must be bad for him right now. But his comment confused me. If he WAS a really good one-term president, you'd think that he'd be good enough to get re-elected.
Post a Comment