Massachusetts Democrats — most especially Martha Coakley — have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and managed to give away a U.S. Senate seat that had been held by Democrats for more than half a century. With Republican Scott Brown headed to Washington, let’s speculate on what some of the long-term effects might be.
Is this the end of healthcare reform legislation?
Probably so. Brown promised throughout his campaign that he will be the “41st vote” against healthcare, which means that Senate Republicans can now sustain filibusters against any and all attempts to achieve final passage of a House-Senate compromise version.
It is possible that a healthcare bill could be “ping-ponged” to Obama’s desk if the House would simply agree to pass the Senate version of the bill, but that’s not likely to happen either. The House version of the healthcare bill only passed by a 220-215 margin. Coakley’s defeat in the Massachusetts election will surely scare off enough marginal Democrats in the House to keep that chamber from ever agreeding to pass the Senate bill.
If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on healthcare reform being killed this year — which means it won’t resurface for another 15 to 20 years.
How would the loss of healthcare reform hurt Democrats?
Obama’s loss on this issue will further energize the teabaggers and birthers who are assuming effective control of the Republican Party and kill Democratic enthusiasm heading into this off-year election. Remember, the collapse of healthcare reform in 1993-94 was a key factor in the Republican wave that swept congressional Democrats out of office in the 1994 elections. The failure to pass healthcare reform this year would similarly discourage Democratic voters even as it fires up Republican activists.
The Democratic congressmen who are most endangered by the collapse of healthcare reform will be those in swing districts such as Jim Marshall and John Barrow of Georgia. Even though Marshall and Barrow voted against the Democrats’ healthcare bill, they will become prime targets of Republican PACs that will be looking for GOP candidates to finance in competitive districts. The defeat of healthcare reform won’t hurt congressmen in safe districts — but it could be an absolute killer for Blue Dogs.
Who’s really to blame here?
There’s no question that Democrats at the state level in Massachusetts blew it big time. Martha Coakley was a charisma-impaired candidate who got her doors blown off when she took it for granted that she could win an election without actually campaigning. Massachusetts Democrats should have nominated a candidate who would get out there and work for the office.
The biggest part of the blame should rest with Barack Obama and the Senate leadership, who bumbled and miscalculated on the healthcare reform issue every step of the way.
Shortly after Obama was elected in 2008, the question arose among the Senate Democratic leadership of what to do about the Joe Lieberman problem. There were many, many progressive Democrats who said loudly and clearly on websites like Daily Kos that Joe had to go. Obama and Harry Reid had the idea that it was better to be “inclusive” and “forgiving” of Lieberman and let him continue as a committee chairman because, after all, “he’s with us on everything but Iraq.” All of those dirty leftwing hippies at Daily Kos obviously didn’t know what they were talking about and should be ignored.
That really worked well.
Obama’s insistence on a “bipartisan” approach to healthcare and other issues was also a disastrous mistake for Democrats. Here’s a news bulletin for the Democrats in Washington: Republicans are the opposition party. One thing an opposition party does is oppose. It was obvious since Jan. 20, 2009 that Republicans were going to oppose every issue brought forth by the White House and Senate Democrats. It didn’t take a genius to see this — and yet, Democrats continued to believe that somehow a “bipartisan” consensus was going to be reached on healthcare reform.
South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint said it about as plainly as it could be said back on July 20: “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” Did the Democrats think he wasn’t serious? Were they not aware that DeMint’s comment was a clear and concise summary of the GOP strategy? And yet, they continued to waste months of valuable time pursuing a “bipartisanship” that was never going to happen.
It’s also difficult to overstate the incompetence of Harry Reid as Senate majority leader. DeMint’s “Waterloo” remark made it obvious — from the middle of July on — that Republicans were not going to negotiate in good faith on any healthcare reform bill. But Reid and the Senate leadership kept allowing Republicans like Olympia Snowe to blow up the process and push back a Senate vote on the issue. The Republicans were simply trying to run out the clock on this issue — and Reid allowed them to do it. It turns out that the best political tactician in Washington was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Even though he had only 40 Republicans to work with, he used the Senate’s archaic rules and the stupidity of the Democratic leadership to effectively kill the legislation.
Is there any reason for Democrats to be hopeful about the 2010 elections?
The indications are strong that Harry Reid is going to lose his reelection race for another term in the Senate. That’s about the best outcome Democrats can hope for, because a Reid defeat means that someone like Chuck Schumer, who’s actually competent, could become the majority leader. If the Democrats are even able to hold on to that majority.
Leave a Reply