Connecting the Dots on Health Care
If Martha Coakley loses today, and if Scott Brown effectively scuttles the Obama Health Care bill, someone’s eventually going to connect the dots and conclude that it might be Ted Kennedy’s fault. I’m going to do it first.
The facts are these: Ted Kennedy’s wish was to see a health care bill passed. He died while it was being constructed, and it has taken longer than expected to get to the final stages before some version of it is signed into law. None of this, nor the fact that the exuberance of the 18-month campaign has fizzled under the work of actual governance, could really be considered a momentus surprise. Nor is it incredibly surprising, despite what most national news outlets make you think, that a Republican could mount an effective campaign in Massachusetts. I lived there almost exclusively under Republican governors, and more recently, Mitt Romney held that position. I knew far more Republicans when I grew up in Massachusetts than I do now because I chose to be in a place teeming with liberals, just as political pundits seek out other political pundits and create a self-serving narrative where it’s a “shock” that a GOP candidate can compete in the Bay State. Both classes of people — the blue establishment and the punditry — underestimate Republicans at their own risk.
My friend Robb, who is a Republican living in Massachusetts, is pro-Scott Brown. To him, and to others, I sense that they see his insurgent candidacy as a vindication of sorts; Robb parrots tea-party rhetoric on his Facebook page, and while I don’t get the sense he actually believes Barack Obama is a socialist, there’s a certain resentment there that’s exacerbated by living in Massachusetts, which is sort of a Petri Dish for blue ideas. For all I’ve just written, Massachusetts is obviously solidly blue; it’s just that the state has never been afraid to elect a single member of the GOP at any given time. The Republican Party is Massachusetts is always ready to send a message, and the Democratic Party is able to stay in “bend-but-don’t-break” mode and flourish. One loss, for them, isn’t worth crying about—usually.
If Scott Brown wins, it will certainly disrupt the health care bill and possibly scuttle it altogether. Is that worth crying about if you’re a Democrat? Absolutely. Is that worth beating a drum over if you’re a Massachusetts Republican? Strangely enough, I don’t think that’s the motivation here. I think the motivation is far more provincial than that. This move is really meant to stick it to Massachusetts Democrats, and my reasoning is this: If Ted Kennedy was still alive, and this election was still happening, Martha Coakley would wipe the floor with Scott Brown.
Robb posted this Brown quote on his Facebook page the other day—one that I happen to agree with:
“With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”
… but as true as that is, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference if Kennedy was still alive: If he had resigned early in the Obama term, that would have pegged a special election somewhere between 145 and 160 days from the time of his resignation. Obviously he didn’t know when he was going to die, but having taken the Senate seat with him, he didn’t get to throw his support behind a candidate while he was still alive. Scott Brown tore down the perception that the seat belonged to Kennedy, but he did so because the perception was strong. He has done so as effectively as he could have done, and Martha Coakley has fought back as weakly as anyone could have done. But suppose Ted Kennedy has resigned and his office spent his final weeks urging his supporters that the cause endured, the hope lived, and the dream would never die with Martha Coakley in office. Are you telling me that a guy who posed naked in Cosmo would beat that?
So to any voters in Massachusetts who read this: If you think Scott Brown is a better representative of the people of Massachusetts than Martha Coakley, vote for him. But if you’re voting for Scott Brown as a referendum on Obama, think about this for a second. Obama was a objectively great campaigner, and you likely think he’s a bad President. Scott Brown is objectively a good campaigner… but that doesn’t necessarily make him a good Senator. What you’re taking away from with this vote has the strong, strong potential to affect every American and their children, and their children’s children, for decades. If no one has explained to you why that’s so important, imagine Ted Kennedy is doing it as you enter the voting booth. He might have messed up: He wasn’t there to help you through it, because he didn’t foresee the sequence of events that got us here today. That may be his mistake, but it’s one that hundreds of of millions of Americans will pay for. Health care might die because Ted Kennedy, of all people, miscalculated. It’s my hope that if your mind isn’t made up, you can find that mistake worth forgiving.
That’s the best I can do.
No, they had to do that for him to name an interim Senator, I believe. Jon Stewart, your favorite, detailed the whole clusterf*ck last night—the only reason the current law exists as written was that they changed it in 2004 in the event John Kerry became President.
Too lazy to look it up, but didn’t the Mass Legislature have to swiftly approve a bill to allow an election for the seat this soon, otherwise it would Patrick’s pick would ride the rest of it out?
I really don’t understand what is so hard about having a new election, say two months, after an office-holder leaves any office via resignation, removal or death. Even for the president. There’s enough to think about in choosing a prez, questioning whether his VP-pick is fit enough to serve should something awful occur should not enter into it. Prez leaves office, VP serves temporarily, then in 2-4 months we have another election. Anything else is not representative democracy.
While I’m ranting here, I’ve always found it curious that whenever the U.S. has established a democracy somewhere, it has established a parliamentary democracy rather than our own federalist system. West Germany, Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan are the examples I can think of off the top of my head. Without bringing my raging anglophilia into it, it seems to me that a parliament system is better for democracy simply because it makes it easier for more parties to have a voice.
Wow. That is amazing.
Democracy in America:
NYS Governor: Unelected
NYS Junior Senator: Unelected
NYS Comptroller: Unelected
NYC Mayor: Overturned two referendums and spent more than any candidate for any local office in history anywhere to narrowly get third term.
Candidates for NYS Unelected Junior Senator seat: Rick Lazio and Henry Ford of Tennessee.
IT’S DWAYNE JOHNSON NOW, SIR.
It’s no the best you could do. You mentioned the “People’s Seat” yet didn’t mention the Rock. Shame.