Scott Brown: Massachusetts moderate

By Richard K. Barry

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Of course, a bunch of Republicans feigned outrage with Obama for sidestepping the Senate with this recess appointment, as if such manoeuvring hasn't been the approach taken by presidents of all parties over the years. But who needs facts when you are mostly all about being indignant?

The most interesting part of all this is that Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown decided to support Obama, much to the annoyance of his own party. As he said:

I support President Obama's appointment today of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB. I believe he is the right person to lead the agency and help protect consumers from fraud and scams. While I would have strongly preferred that it go through the normal confirmation process, unfortunately the system is completely broken. If we're going to make progress as a nation, both parties in Washington need to work together to end the procedural gridlock and hyper-partisanship.

Gee, I wonder if this had anything to do with the fact that the Democratic challenger for his Massachusetts Senate seat is Elizabeth Warren, the president's first choice to lead the agency?

That's what you get when you're a Republican trying to hold onto a Senate seat in a generally liberal state going into a presidential election cycle that will surely bring out a lot of Democrats on election day. You try to out-progressive your progressive opponent. 

Could Brown be one those "Massachusetts moderates" Newt Gingrich likes so much to talk about? Why, those people will say anything!

Everywhere else in the country, the GOP panders to the right. In Massachussets, it panders to the left. 

Give him credit, his campaign spokesman is spinning hard as he said this about Brown:

Scott Brown promised to be an independent voice when he ran in 2010, and he is keeping that promise. He looks at every issue on the merits and does what he thinks is best for Massachusetts and America regardless of partisan politics.

I'm just not sure this is the election for independent minded Republicans to be hawking their wares. More like, "be a true believer or be gone."

Like the old joke: "The only thing you get by standing in the middle of the road is run over." Truer words were never spoken for Republicans this time around. 

Bye, Scott.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Smartest Republican of the Day: Scott Brown

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

Fighting for reelection in deep-blue Massachusetts, GOP Sen. Scott Brown ripped into House Republicans on Tuesday after Speaker John Boehner vowed that his caucus would reject the short-term payroll tax cut extension that nearly 90 percent of senators voted for over the weekend.

"The House Republicans' plan to scuttle the deal to help middle-class families is irresponsible and wrong," Brown said in a statement.

Well, he's right. And I'm sure political self-preservation has nothing to do with it.

A vulnerable freshman, Brown has been running to his left as he prepares for a tough challenge next year from Elizabeth Warren, the presumptive Democratic nominee. While Brown lauded House GOP efforts to secure a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut, he said the two-month Senate compromise would avoid tax hikes for millions of Americans at year's end, when the tax cut expires.


"The refusal to compromise now threatens to increase taxes on hard-working Americans and stop unemployment benefits for those out of work," Brown said. "During this time of divided government, both parties need to be reasonable and come to the negotiating table in good faith. We cannot allow rigid partisan ideology and unwillingness to compromise stand in the way of working together for the good of the American people."

Hey, give him some (but not much) credit, he's smart enough to know what works in Massachusetts -- and throughout much of the rest of the country. Which is to say, he's smart enough to know that being a Republican is toxic, with so many of his fellow Republicans looking completely insane, particularly when the Democrats stand firm on a popular issue and back the GOP into a corner.

(But will the White House cave once again?)

Elizabeth Warren ahead in Mass. Senate race

By Richard K. Barry

Late last week, the Boston Herald reported on a new poll in Massachusetts showing Democrat Elizabeth Warren now ahead of Republican incumbent Scott Brown for the first time in their contest to grab a U.S. Senate seat in the 2012 election. 

In the University of UMass-Lowell/Boston Herald poll, Warren is ahead of Brown 49 to 42, "outside the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 5.3 percentage points":

The poll of 505 registered Massachusetts voters was conducted for UMass-Lowell by Princeton Survey Research from Dec. 1 - Dec. 6, and shows Warren with her largest lead yet in the campaign. A UMass-Lowell/Boston Herald poll taken in late September showed Brown ahead by a 41-38 percent margin, so the new poll represents a 10-point swing in Warren's favor in less than two months.

It's early days, but this is the first lead for Warren against Brown. The poll also indicates that the barrage of attack ads from both sides is having an impact, with the negatives for both candidates inching up.

[L]ess than half of Massachusetts voters -- 48 percent -- now say they have a favorable view of the Republican from Wrentham, down from 52 percent in the UMass-Lowell/Herald poll in late September. The percentage of voters who say they have an unfavorable view of Brown has increased from 29 to 35 percent, according to the poll. 

But Warren has also apparently suffered from a Karl Rove-led TV attack ad campaign, which focuses on her stated support for the Occupy Wall Street movement. Just 18 percent of voters had an unfavorable view of Warren in late September, and that number has now jumped nine points to 27 percent. Warren's favorable numbers have increased only slightly, from 30 to 34 percent.

However:

Warren right now appears to be winning the battle of campaign messages... Asked who would do a better job of looking out for middle class families, 43 percent of voters cite Warren and 33 percent identify Brown. Nearly half of Massachusetts voters also say Warren would do a better job of regulating Wall Street institutions.

Yes, it's early days, but one of the keys to the 2012 election, both for the White House and for Senate and House races, will be the extent to which the unfairness of the growing gap between rich and poor resonates with independent voters. If the right is successful in blaming Obama for the sluggish economy, that's trouble for him. But if enough people understand, despite some populist sleight of hand, that the GOP has always embraced its role as mouthpiece for Big Money, the Democrats benefit.

If the ballot question in 2012 is, Who will best stand for the middle class against Wall Street, Warren wins and so, maybe, does Obama. Because Elizabeth Warren has been such an effective voice as a critic of wealth and power in America, it will be interesting to see how this argument plays out not only in Massachusetts, but across the country. 

But as the impact of political ads from both side shows, it will be some time before we know how the American people are likely to see the election. Karl Rove would like to frame it as a campaign about stopping dirty hippies and other supposed slothful sorts from getting money for free. Democrats would like to frame it as about the grossly unfair distribution of power in the country and the impact it has on the ability of most hard working America to get a fair shake.

Massachusetts could well be a testing ground for the effectiveness of competing messages.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Elizabeth Warren, class warfare, and what politics means right now

By Richard K. Barry

I have said before in this space that I am very excited by Elizabeth Warren's campaign to reclaim a Massachusetts Senate seat for the Democrats, a seat won in a surprise result by Republican Scott Brown in 2010.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Warren is her willingness to engage in a kind of discourse that isn't afraid to state the obvious: politics is about power. Those with wealth and access to power are generally pretty successful at rigging the rules of the game to their benefit. And when this is pointed out with any degree of coherence, they scream that the accuser is engaging in class warfare.

But, really, all the accuser is doing is, again, stating the obvious: politics is about power. It's about having the resources to influence decision makers to do things that benefit you and those who share your interests.

When the resources in question are votes, democracy is working as it should. When the resources are wealth, we are not really living in a democracy at all (see Aristotle's Politics).

When the right says that someone is engaging in class warfare, what they really mean is that someone is getting close to clearly explaining how the minority have come to use their wealth to control so much of what goes on in America.

Those with wealth and power don't want anyone to define the battle lines too clearly because the 1% are, by definition, in the minority. If people actually started to understand the nature of the facts in all their simplicity, things might change rapidly.

Unless you are a part of the 1%, your goal should be to understand how the few control so much as a basis to help you agitate for a more equitable, fair and just society.

If you are not a part of the 1% and still think that the Republican Party has your best interests at heart, you are delusional.

Obama has never wanted to go there, in the direction of understanding that politics is about power, not until recently anyway. Elizabeth Warren has always seemed to be okay with that fight and that is what makes her interesting.

In a better world, politics might be something else, but this is what it is right now.

If you haven't seen her campaign launch announcement made some weeks ago, here it is.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Mass. Senator Scott Brown's futile attempt to sell himself as an independent

By Richard K. Barry

I am on a mission. It is to assist, in whatever small way I can, the candidacy of Elizabeth Warren for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. Well, sure, I'm not likely to have much of an impact. I know that. But I have noticed that Ms. Warren is so effective at getting under the skin of conservatives everywhere that it will be no end of fun to follow her campaign and attack and counterattack those who would try to stand in her way.

Early good news is that Warren seems to be polling well. According to a new Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey, she is now leading the incumbent, Republican Scott Brown, by two points. While that may not sound like much, earlier in September a different poll had Brown with a nine point lead.

As The Wall Street Journal suggests, this may:

[R]eflect a growing number of moderates who perceive Ms. Warren as a viable and palatable alternative to Mr. Brown, whom they've cooled to since Republicans took the House.

Mr. Brown's poll numbers last year made him look untouchable. In December, he posted a 53% approval rating and a 24% positive differential in a PPP survey. By June, however, his approval rating had slipped to 48% and his positive differential to 12 points. His differential has since turned negative and his approval rating now hovers at 44%. His approval rating among moderates, which proved critical in his upset of Democrat Martha Coakley two years ago, has slipped 12 points, though moderates still favour Mr. Brown over Ms. Warren by six points. The poll also shows that independents increasingly view the senator as more Republican than independent. Independents also perceive the GOP as more extreme.

As the numbers game is likely to be played:

Independents and moderates make up about 45% of Massachusetts' electorate, while Democrats constitute 40%. Should she win the primary, Ms. Warren almost certainly has the Democratic vote tied up. So Mr. Brown would probably have to win roughly 75% of the independents to prevail in November.

Frankly, I'm not quite sure I follow their math, but if they mean that Brown will have to paint himself as a centrist while standing with one of the most conservatives incarnations of the Republican Party in American history, good luck to him. It simply will not be possible. If there is one truth about the GOP in 2012 it is that apostates need not apply, with a corollary that the term "moderate Republican" has become an oxymoron. So, no matter how hard he tries, he will be judged by the company he keeps.

Yes, Warren needs to win the nomination, which I think she will do. At the end of the day, much to Brown's consternation, she will also prove herself, I am sure, to be no Martha Coakley and he will prove himself incapable of putting enough distance between himself and his party - though he will have to try.

To put a fine point on it, the good citizens of Massachusetts thought they elected an independent who just happened to be a Republican. They didn't and Ms. Warren will make sure that everyone knows the truth.

Should be fun to watch.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Elephant Dung #12: Republican organization targets Scott Brown

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

Woe is Scott Brown.

Once a huge Republican star, back when he won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat and for a brief moment turned Massachusetts a little bit red, back when Republicans spun his win as a referendum defeat for Obama, back when it looked like his election would derail health-care reform, Brown is now in the party's "crosshairs," as Republicans like to say, a target of the right's purification campaign to rid the party of anyone and everything not sufficiently conservative (in a rigid, ideological, far-right way).

And even some of those who were once firmly behind him have now turned on him:

A Republican organization that backed Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) with independent expenditures and fundraising assistance says it will work to defeat Brown in a Republican primary next year in order to protect the party's brand.

Scott Wheeler, who heads the National Republican Trust PAC, said the group never expected Brown to toe a consistently conservative line, given his home state. But Brown's vote for the New START Treaty with Russia in late 2010 was a bridge too far, Wheeler said.

Now, to keep this in perspective, the NRT PAC isn't a huge organization with vast resources. Still, turning on Brown could lead to others doing the same:

[T]he PAC has a national network of donors, and Wheeler promised he would use the committee's resources against Brown.

"We're going to finance a primary opponent," he said. "I might even ask him to give our money back."

To Brown's credit -- even if he knows that he has to be somewhat moderate to play well back home -- he has been one of the few Republicans to break from the party's intransigent obstructionism. He may once have voted against Red Cross volunteers, but he did, as senator, vote with the Democrats to move a jobs bill forward, as well as against a Republican filibuster of an unemployment benefits and tax credits bill. And then he voted not just for New START but for DADT repeal as well. That's not a bad record for a Republican...

Unless you're a Republican and your party is turning against you because -- how dare you! -- you voted with Obama and the Democrats on something and aren't as extremist as most of the rest of the GOP.

Brown is quite popular in Massachusetts and may well defeat any right-wing challenger. Indeed, he may just win re-election. At the very least, Republicans would be stupid not to pick him, as he's their only chance for victory. (And Massachusetts isn't, say, Utah, so the right, including the Tea Party, may not prevail even in a primary vote that generally rewards right-wing turnout and grassroots campaigning.)

But it's a sign of the times, and a sign of where the Republican Party is (and is heading), that a popular and, in Massachusetts, electable moderate (relatively speaking) is being targeted by some in his own party. (I suspect that the national and state party establishments will stand by him.) He's just not Republican enough, you see -- not enough of what the likes of Limbaugh and Palin want.

Better to be "right" than to win, it would seem, even if so many Republicans crazily think that the best way to win is to move further and further to the right. And that's fine for Democrats, who should be able to pick up a Senate seat in Massachusetts if the Republicans are stupid enough to purify success out of the party.

So, absolutely, let's hope Republicans really do see Scott Brown as a pro-Obama liberal who will vote with the Democrats. (That's what he is, isn't he? Isn't he one of us? Yes, Republicans, you can trust us!)

And let's hope Brown gets the primary challenger he deserves.

Are we about to get DADT repeal?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Maybe. Yes, just maybe. There's no good reason to be optimistic, given how the Senate works, but, well, things are looking good.

Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown today voiced his support for a stand-alone repeal of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, bringing the bill one vote over the 60-vote threshold that it will need to reach if and when the Senate votes on the measure in the coming weeks...

Brown's backing means that – on paper – supporters of the repeal have 61 senators in favor of the bill. On Wednesday Republicans Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lisa Murkowski both announced their support for the stand-alone repeal. The House passed the clean repeal on Wednesday and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has vowed to bring it to a vote in the Senate before the end of the year.

With the $1.1-trillion omnibus budget bill pushed aside (and off into the next Congress), mainly because Republicans (who had been involved in crafting it) were going to use it to paralyze the Senate (by requiring that it be read in its entirety, out loud by Senate clerks, all 1,924 pages of it), there would now appear to be enough time to get DADT repealed and perhaps also START ratified.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced late today that he would hold cloture votes (which effectively end any filibusters) on DADT and the DREAM Act (which is unlikely to pass) on Saturday. It looks like the Senate will vote on stand-alone DADT repeal before turning to the START treaty.

Credit where credit is due: Joe Lieberman has been a big supporter of DADT repeal and seems to be the one behind this legislative strategy:

I want to thank Senator Reid for his leadership in bringing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010" to the Senate floor for a vote. I am confident that we have more than 60 votes to end this law that discriminates against military service members based solely on their sexual orientation. Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will affirm the Senate's commitment to the civil rights of all Americans and also make our military even stronger.

Now it's just a matter of getting the necessary Republican votes: Brown, Snowe, and Murkowski, and maybe also Collins, Lugar, and Voinovich.

No, we're not there yet, but we're close -- and I honestly didn't think it would get done.

And think about it.

If DADT is repealed and START is ratified, wouldn't that be an incredible way for this Congress to bow out? DADT repeal in particular would be a major victory for the Democrats' progressive base (and of course also for civil rights), particularly at the end of a two-year run that was hardly all that positive for progressives. And START ratification would be a major victory for Obama's foreign policy agenda.

It would be hard to maintain any momentum heading into the next Congress, with Republicans taking over the House and the Democrats coming back to a smaller majority in the Senate, but two such victories in the wake of the midterms and the bleak post-election period would give us a good deal to cheer about as we head into 2011.

In praise of Scott Brown (again)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

First, just a couple of weeks ago, it was for voting with the Democrats to move a jobs bill forward, now it's for announcing he'll vote to end a Republican filibuster on an unemployment benefits and tax credits bill. It's for coming out generally against the filibuster and for supporting simple majority rule even when it means he, and his party, will lose:

I have very serious concerns about the overall cost of the bill, but my vote for cloture signals that I believe we need to keep the process moving... [T]here has been a week of debate and allowing this bill to receive an up-and-down vote, would be a step, I feel, in the right direction.

Well done, Sen. Brown, Republican from Massachusetts. Maybe you're more of an independent than many of us thought you were.

**********

Look, it's not that I've done a 180 on Brown.

Let us not forget that, shortly after 9/11, he voted against Red Cross volunteers.

Let us not forget that he ran aggressively against Democratic health-care reform (even though his own state has a system, introduced by fellow Republican Mitt Romney, that is close to Obama's).

And let us not forget that he has a history of playing to the Palin-teabagging far right and that he won Ted Kennedy's seat largely because he successfully tapped into seething Republican anger and resentment (oh, and because Martha Coakley was a horrible, horrible candidate).

He may have an independent streak in him, but that doesn't necessarily make him any less noxious.

Still, his opposition to the filibuster, and more specifically to Republican filibusters, is admirable, and, for that, he deserves some serious praise.

In praise of Scott Brown

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And four other Republican senators, who yesterday voted with the Democrats to move the Democrats' jobs bill forward in the Senate.

But let's not go too far. It's not like the GOP was on board with this, and it's not like the bill goes far enough.

The other four Republicans were the two centrist Maine senators, Snowe and Collins, and two retiring senators, Voinovich of Ohio and Bond of Missouri, neither of whom must now face the wrath of the far right mainstream of their party.

And it's just a $15 billion bill, not the $85 billion alternative that was being discussed (and that was bipartisan but that lacked firm Republican support and included too many concessions to centrists). (For more on the inadequacy of this smaller effort, see Bill Scher at HuffPo.)

Still, it's better than nothing, and Brown's vote is a positive sign that there may now be a small group of GOP senators who are prepared to work with Democrats to get things done.

"No one likes paying taxes obviously"

By Creature

Scott Brown makes Massachusetts proud. Nice to know our elected officials sympathize with murder.

Reconciliation for Dummies

By J. Thomas Duffy

That be you, President Obama, and the entire Democratic caucus!

You guys have been acting like old ladies, standing on a chair, because a mouse came into the room, all because some bozo PartyofNoican won an election nobody thought he would (and, in fairness, he campaigned and took victory without mentioning he was a PartyofNoican), and suddenly the sky is falling.



This is what we wrote last week:

However, as to the bigger picture, unless something remarkably uncanny happened, and all kinds of state and federal laws were, suddenly, abrogated, and changed, today, newly-elected Teabagger Senator Scott Brown only won one Senatorial seat, not 18-20, and, unless something else has changed, Brown will come to a dead stop, after he runs-like-the-wind, to get to DC, and join the rest of the PartyofNoicans, in doing nothing

[snip]

What the Dems need to do is, along with growing a few pairs, start governing, start using their majority in Congress, to govern, much as the PartyofNoicans did (when they were known as "Republicans"), during the The Bush Grindhouse years, where they, without a majority, handed The Commander Guy everything he wanted.

Since you seem to be having trouble growing a pair, Paul N. Van de Water and James R. Horney have handed you some, laying it all out for you today:

Using Reconciliation Process to Enact Health Reform Would Be Fully Consistent With Past Practice

Conclusion

Because rising health care costs represent the single largest cause of the federal government’s long-term budget problems, fundamental health care reform must be part of any budget solution.[15] The foregoing examples indicate that using the budget reconciliation process to enact health reform in 2010 would be consistent with the ways in which Congress has used reconciliation in the past. Many major policy changes, including welfare reform, large tax cuts, and new health programs, have been included in past reconciliation bills. Moreover, if health reform is pursued through the reconciliation process this year, the resulting legislation — unlike the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 — will need to be designed so it does not add to the deficit. Any legislation also is likely to include provisions, such as an independent Medicare Commission and demonstration projects to identify ways to deliver health care more efficiently, that could lead to further reforms that slow the growth of health-care costs and contribute to longer-term deficit reduction.

Back in the old days (early '70s) on the "Point-Counter" of 60 Minutes, Nicholas von Hoffman called disgraced President Richard Nixon a "dead mouse on America's kitchen floor ... And it was time for Congress to come in and sweep it up ..."

This is your moment, this is what you are there for.

So, climb down off your chairs, grab a broom, sweep away those pesky, minority PartyofNoican mice, and get to work passing legitimate, benefiting-the-citizens-not-the-corporations health-care reform (and with a Public Option, or a Single Payer system, thank you very much).



(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Reid, Pelosi, and the fight to save health-care reform

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The top two Democrats in Congress, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, are apparently working this weekend to try to save health-care reform:

Struggling to salvage health reform, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have begun considering a list of changes to the Senate bill in hopes of making it acceptable to liberal House members, according to sources familiar with the situation.

The changes could be included in separate legislation that, if passed, would pave the way for House approval of the Senate bill -- a move that would preserve President Barack Obama's vision of a sweeping health reform plan.

But the move comes with political risk, because it would open Democrats up to charges that they pressed ahead with roughly the same health care bill that voters appeared to reject in the Massachusetts Senate race Tuesday. Republican Scott Brown won on a pledge to try to block Obama-style health reform.

The effort also puts Reid and Pelosi on the side of giving a sweeping reform bill one more try, instead of adopting a course being floated by some Democrats in Congress and at the White House of adopting a scaled-back bill including popular reform provisions.

The changes are being worked on this weekend with plans for Pelosi to present them to her caucus next week, according to sources familiar with the situation. But, sources stressed, neither Reid nor Pelosi know if this strategy can win the support of their members, but they are attempting it because it is the quickest path to passage.

This is from Politico, though, so there's some pro-Republican bias to the reporting.

First, the vote in Massachusetts last Tuesday was neither a referendum on Obama nor a referendum more specifically on health-care reform. That's just the Republican narrative, pushed by the Beltway media. As I have said again and again, though, while national politics did feature prominently in the Massachusetts race, the outcome was ultimately driven by the economy/unemployment on the one hand and factors specific to the race on the other (such as the fact that Coakley was a lousy candidate while Brown was an outstanding one.) Scott didn't win because of that one "pledge." It is simply ridiculous to suggest that he did. (Not least because health-care reform is widely popular in Massachusetts.)

Second, health-care reform is not just Obama's "sweeping vision," it's been a goal of Democrats for decades, and there are many Democrats who support more sweeping reform (and many on the left who object to this bill in particular on the grounds that it doesn't nearly go far enough). What's more, the Senate bill would hardly implement a radical overhaul of America's health-care system. Of course, changes would be substantial and genuinely meaningful, but it's a compromise bill designed to win the support of centrists, including Lieberman and Nelson. It's not like Obama is demanding that a single-payer system be put in place.

Third, while this may be "the quickest way to passage," it's likely only the only way to passage. The fact is, the House needs to pass the Senate bill as is in order to avoid sending reform back to the Senate, where it would likely fail given the fact that Reid no longer has the 60 votes to defeat a Republican filibuster. (He may not even have 59, as both Nelson and Lieberman have already backed away from it, and it is unlikely that a "moderate" Republican like Snowe, who is now firmly against reform despite the fact that she supported the Senate Finance Committee bill that closely resembles the final Senate bill), would vote with the Democrats. Which is to say, it's pretty much now or never for reform. Republicans say tthey want the Democrats to start over on reform, but going back to the drawing board would only empower Republican obstructionism still further. (Republican strategy is to drag out the process for as long as possible so as to kill reform initiatives through attrition.) Some Democrats have talked about working on a smaller bill, but that, too, would fit into the Republican obstructionist agenda, as they have shown no signs of supporting any reform bill, including a smaller one. (And, again, Democrats have already given away so much already.)

Spinning their narrative, Republicans are claiming not just that the American people (apparently channelling their political will through the people of Massachusetts, a state that Republicans generally loathe) have voted their opposition to reform but that Democrats, in response to that vote, are trying, undemocratically, to ram their bill through Congress. This is utterly ridiculous. Both houses of Congress voted for reform well before the election in Massachusetts and, of course, the Democrats still control both houses with solid majorities. (Even if Republicans and their media mouthpieces, and not just at Fox News, would have us believe that Brown's victory fundamentally shifted the balance of power in Washington.)

So, essentially, Reid and Pelosi are simply trying to close the deal, and there is actually good reason to be optimistic despite signs of fear and panic among Democrats the past few days. The Senate bill is a fine baseline of reform, and House Democrats should accept it as such. But they want more, and that can be achieved through separate legislation or through reconciliation.

Is there "political risk"? Sure, but when is there not? And, I would argue, there's much greater risk in doing nothing. (Given the opportunity Democrats (still) have to pass meaningful reform, doing nothing would also amount to a colossal failure to do what's right for the American people.)

"But if Reid and Pelosi can package [the] already-discussed improvements, and agree to approve them through reconciliation after the House passes the Senate bill, then there's still hope that a fiasco for the ages can be avoided" (Steve Benen).

Let's hope they can get this done.

**********

For more of our coverage of health-care reform this past week, see, in reverse chronological order:

-- Creature: Health-care reform
-- Carl: Pass it... to kill it?
-- J. Kingston Pierce: 1994, the coming sequel?
-- Michael Stickings: Worst Democrat of the Day: Dianne Feinstein
-- Michael Stickings: What Democrats need to do about health-care reform
-- J. Kingston Pierce: Pass health-care reform NOW!

Stop the insanity! (Stop the insane Republican narrative about Obama and Massachusetts.)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's another example of the insane narrative emerging from Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts on Tuesday -- from a leading German publication, Der Spiegel:

US President Barack Obama suffered a painful defeat in Massachusetts on Tuesday. With mid-term elections looming, it means that Obama will have to fundamentally re-think his political course. German commentators say it is the end of hope.

US President Barack Obama has had a number of difficult weeks during his first year in the White House.

Please... Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

First, Obama didn't lose, Martha Coakley did. She was a horrible, gaffe-prone candidate who fell into the trap of invincible inevitability. And she lost to a right-wing Republican masquerading as an independent and moderate, a former nude model with an attractive family. When he said in his victory speech that he drives a truck, he was pretty much identifying his sole qualification for getting elected. That and the fact that he recites Republican propaganda without sneering too much. Republicans have tried to turn the "special election" into a national referendum on Obama, and on the Democratic legislative agenda in Congress, but the outcome of the election had more to do with the candidates themselves and with a general anti-incumbent (that is, anti-party-in-power) mood at a time of relatively high unemployment and widespread economic insecurity and fear than with, say, health-care reform, which remains hugely popular in Massachusetts. The state actually has a well-regarded system already in place, "Romneycare," named after former Republican Gov. (and presidential aspirant) Mitt Romney.) Republicans and their media mouthpieces refrain from mentioning this awkward fact when spinning Brown's win to fit their anti-Obama narrative.

(Isn't it amusing how Republicans are focusing on Massachusetts like it's the true national bellweather? It isn't, of course, and Republicans generally think of it as one of the most un-American states in the union. Their use and abuse of it now, as if the people of Massachusetts are all-wise, is dishonest and cynical.)

Second, Obama has actually had a fairly successful first year in office. I won't get into details here, but see my post responding to Jacob Weisberg's piece at Slate on "Obama's Brilliant First Year." Undeniably -- and by the president's own admission -- there have been some mistakes. And there have been some missteps, as well as some policies with which I disagree (the Afghan surge, Bush-like national security secrecy, economic policies, including the Wall Street bailout, devised by Wall Street insiders for the benefit of their pals on Wall Street). I have been sharply critical of the president, as have many others, including many of his supporters, but there is a certain revisionism going on now, and it's pretty much getting the past year wrong. Again, though, this is part of the Republican narrative: Obama has been a failure (except when he's done too much, been too successful, undermined America with his socialist/fascist ideology, etc.).

Enough already.

1994, the coming sequel?

By J. Kingston Pierce

Any Republican’ts who weren’t already popping champagne corks over former underwear model Scott Brown’s success at capturing the late Edward Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat earlier this week now have more reasons to rejoice. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced this morning that Democrats in the lower chamber lack the votes necessary to pass the Senate’s compromise health-care reform legislation, quashing hopes--high only a month ago--that reforms sought for more than century in the United States might finally be adopted.

“I don’t see the votes for it at this time,” Pelosi told reporters. “The members have been very clear.”

Unbelievably, President Obama--who said only last summer that “he was willing to be a one-term president” if that’s what it takes to get health-care reform passed--essentially conceded the battle on Wednesday, saying, “Here’s one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn’t try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated. People in Massachusetts spoke. He’s got to be part of that process.”

Are you kidding, Mr. President? Were a Republican’t in this same position, having lost only one seat in the U.S. Senate, do you really think he would throw in the towel? Admittedly, the fight would probably not be over something as important as health-care overhaul legislation, but I’m confident that even a wrongheaded stumblebum like George W. Bush would not be so considerate of the opposition. There’s absolutely no reason for Democrats to lose their backbones, just because they’ve suddenly lost their 60th vote in the Senate. This should be motivation to step up the fight, not step away from it. The American people elected Obama and his fellow Democrats to Capitol Hill majorities last year, because they believed that Dems could deliver on their promise to enact essential health-care reforms. If the promise is abandoned, then the motivation for keeping Democratic control of Congress disappears with it.

Sure, Obama and the Dems in Congress promise to carry on the struggle. But who’s going to believe them, when they are so willing to snatch failure from the jaws of success?

Ted Kennedy must be spinning in his grave. The moral cause to which he devoted so much time and energy during his almost 50 years in the Senate--winning access to high-quality medical care for all Americans--is suddenly endangered by Democrats who are ready to succumb without taking the last vote they need to fulfill at least part of Kennedy’s dream. All House Democrats have to do is endorse the Senate’s health-care reform legislation, then make improvements through the subsequent budget-reconciliation process. The results would likely fall short of what many progressive members want, but there would at least be a platform to build upon in the future. (The importance of that cannot be discounted. Remember, Social Security and Medicare didn’t pass in the forms we know them today; they also had to be modified over time, just as health-care reform would need to be improved with the passage of years.) To walk away from this opportunity, just as there is victory over the horizon for health-care reform, would be political suicide.

If health-care reform is allowed to fail in this way, making Democrats and the president both look weak--victims of a tyrannical minority on Capitol Hill--voters can’t be expected to believe Dems when they say they’ll keep up the fight. Can you really see lawmakers returning to the subject of health-care reform immediately, when they are also expected to cure the nation’s persistent unemployment and reign in banking abuses?

Prominent Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said earlier today that “moving away from health care would be the worst decision. ‘We can’t talk about it for a year and deliver nothing, that would be a disaster. We should pass it and then we have to go sell it. We have to tell people what is in it.”

She’s absolutely right. Democrats on Capitol Hill as well as in the White House have to deliver on their promises, or their promises mean nothing. And even if they can’t ultimately deliver, for one reason or another, they must at least fight the good fight. They cannot roll over and play dead just because Republican’ts in Massachusetts were more energized to turn out and vote for one of their guys than Bay State Democrats were motivated to endorse Brown’s opponent, state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Presidential advisor David Axelrod had it right when he said, after the Massachusetts election: “[W]e should finish health care because the caricature of that bill is there and everyone who voted for it will have to live with that. The way to deal with that is to pass the bill and let people see ... the value of it.”

Ezra Klein says it still better in The Washington Post: “Letting this process die is, of course, the worst of all worlds. Democrats have 59 votes in the Senate and almost 260 votes in the House. They brought their [health-care reform] bill to the one-yard line before Scott Brown forced a fumble. Proving yourself unable to govern in that scenario is proving yourself unable to govern. Moreover, it would be staggeringly cruel to the people that this bill is meant to help, and who need this bill’s help. Covering 30 million and protecting countless millions more is not just a talking point. It’s the reason for this whole enterprise. To abandon those people because Brown won in Massachusetts is simply indecent, and would prove the Democratic Party worse than ineffective. It would prove the party unconcerned.”

No wonder Republican’ts are talking again about being able to recapture control of Congress in 2010. If Democrats give up on health-care reform now, they run the decided risk of delivering to the GOP the same sort of successes this November that they enjoyed in 1994. And Obama loses the faith of so many people who backed him in the presidential election of 2008.

The time has come for the Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives to put aside its egos and petty policy differences, and for the president to step up and prove himself capable of taking this fight to the finish line. They all have a larger goal: to deliver on health-care reform now, while they have it within their reach. That’s essential to keeping faith with the American public, retaining anywhere near their lawmaking majority come the midterm elections, and stopping Obama’s remark about being a one-term chief executive from coming true.

(Cross-posted from Limbo.)

The real meaning of the Democrats' loss of their 60th Senate seat

By MSS

What is the real meaning of the Democrats' loss of their 60th Senate seat this week, with Republican Scott Brown winning the Massachusetts seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy?

It is yet another item in the “charge sheet” against the American way of politics and policy-making. Consider that in the Obama Administration we have a government that, along with its legislative majorities, was endorsed by substantial majorities of the electorate just over a year ago. Yet it now seems likely that its entire agenda has pivoted from marginally probable to be implemented to virtually vetoed. On the outcome of a special election for one seat in one house in one state just one year into its tenure.

It is worth noting that the current government is the first government in the USA to have popular majorities backing both it and its legislative majorities in quite some time (since 1976; no Republican Senate majority in at least five decades has been backed by a popular majority and Clinton never won over 50% of the vote). But that does not matter. One might think that elections should matter -- that is, national elections -- and that governments endorsed by majorities might be generally able to implement their programs. Well, at least that is what one might think if one were a committed small-d democrat. Or a committed progressive.

I wonder when -- if -- progressives will ever come to the recognition that a progressive agenda is simply doomed if we do not break free of the straitjacket of our 18th century political institutions.

It's not the economy. It's not health care. It's not even the global climate. It's political reform, stupid!

More at the "American Political Reform" block at Fruits & Votes, and at my home blog's Mission Statement.

Headline of the Day (Scott Brown edition)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From The Village Voice's Runnin' Scared blog: 

Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate

Listening to Republicans and their GOP-narrative-spewing media mouthpieces, whether at Fox News or elsewhere, you'd think that really was the new reality in Washington.

Quote of the Day 2

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Scott Brown on waterboarding:

I believe that it's not torture. America does not torture. We used aggressive enhanced interrogation techniques.

Well done, Massachusetts. Well done.

(This is from a couple of weeks ago. It shows just how incompetent the Coakley campaign was that it could never connect Brown, a wolf in sheep's clothing, to the right-wing Republican agenda that he supports, more or less, but kept well-hidden behind a pretty face and a self-styled facade of independence and moderation. Brown was able to get away with it while Coakley was recoiling from gaffe after embarrassing gaffe.)

Martha Chokely

By J. Thomas Duffy

Oh My!

It really hasn't been, oh, that long that fervent, boiling, in-your-face expectations have been thoroughly crushed, decimated, blown to smithereens.

Just two years ago, when local icons Tom Brady and Bill Belichick walked off the Super Bowl field, 18-1, as opposed to the expected 19-0.

Paging Martha Chokely!

Oh boy, did she blow it ... big time!

She took a Ned Lamont-siesta after winning the primary, and never got into the game.

State Senator Scott Brown is now U.S. Senator Scott Brown, and the first thing he should do, in the morning, with a bouquet of flowers, is send a "Thank You" note to Martha Chokely.

• He needs to thank her for being such an enormously pathetic candidate
• Thank her for settling into the mindset of entitlement, that winning the primary was, essentially, all she had to do
• Thank her for not driving a pick-up truck
• Thank her for not knowing anything about sports

While The Village, and all the Cable Talking Heads, will be pontificating, like an "All You Can Eat" at the Country Buffet, that "health-care reform is dead" and "Obama's agenda is in trouble," stopping short (maybe) of calling him a lame-duck president, the Dems will, if they stay to form, cower at this fusillade, offer no rebuttal, and beat Martha Chokely like a pinata.

It will be like a Looney Tunes cartoon, with Chokely being punched, kicked, anvil-hit-over-the-head, shot, thrown off a cliff, before crawling to her feet, and being plowed over by the speeding truck.



Most of it deserved.

However, as to the bigger picture, unless something remarkably uncanny happened, and all kinds of state and federal laws were, suddenly, abrogated, and changed, today, newly-elected Teabagger Senator Scott Brown only won one Senatorial seat, not 18-20, and, unless something else has changed, Brown will come to a dead stop, after he runs like the wind to get to DC and join the rest of the PartyofNoicans, in doing nothing.

Amazingly, some three-plus hours ago, Tweety was showering the crowd at Doyles with spittle, foaming over Brown, and all but coronating him the presidential winner in 2012.

And that was before the polls closed.

You can expect more of that, when the Flying Monkeys of the Right Wing Freak Show pick up on it, soon followed by the projected pairing of Teabagger Senator Brown with Teabagger Moneyraker Mommy Moose, the former half-term governor of Alaska.

There'll be endless blabbering about "recalibration," with all the discussion about how the Democrats, for losing one Senate seat, will have to "change," and the calls will grow for them to bend over and give the PartyofNoicans whatever they want.

What the Dems need to do is, along with growing a few pairs, start governing, start using their majority in Congress to govern, much as the PartyofNoicans did (when they were known as "Republicans"), during the The Bush Grindhouse years, when they, without a majority, handed The Commander Guy everything he wanted.

As far as governing, drafting up, and passing new laws, polices, etc, Brown's election is but a blip.

The PartyofNoican leadership (yeah, we know, an oxymoron) will exploit Brown, new red meat to throw out there, and recycle the Obama slurs and distortions, generate headlines on the house rag, Politico, Matt Sludge, etc. and become the new darling guest talking points stand-in over on Faux News.

So, in sum, more of the same.

No game-changer here.

Ball's in your court, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

Just remember, in any interviews you do in the next few days, Curt Schilling is not a Yankee fan.



(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Massachusetts Senate Vote: Live-blogging the drama of the century

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Updated frequently -- see below.)

Okay, here we go.

My prediction: Brown 51, Coakley, 48. Closer than the last polls were suggesting but still a fairly decisive victory for the Republican.

And an appalling one. A Republican like Brown filling Teddy Kennedy's seat? Did Massachusetts make a pact with the devil or something? What else could it have done to deserve this?

Well, for one, state Democrats picked Coakley, who has proven to be a terrible, gaffe-prone candidate (e.g., Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan).

For two, Brown has campaigned as an independent, sort of moderate Republican, hiding his right-wing cred (e.g., his link to the Birthers), and he's campaigned extremely well, not least through social networking.

For three, Republicans are engaged, excited, and frothing at the mouth.

For four, Democrats, even with Obama in the White House and majorities in Congress, are divided, as usual, and seemingly unable to come together when it matters (except to pass health-care reform, of course, though it continues to hang in the balance).

Okay, more later. I'm off to make dinner.

But isn't this so incredibly exciting? Er, no, not really.

I mean, sure, for political junkies, like us, but the Beltway insider types are making way, way too much of this, as if the very future of American democracy rests on the outcome of this "special" election.

I would say it does not. And neither, necessarily, does health-care reform, which can be passed by the House without going back to the Senate. Sure, it's better to have 60 votes (including Sanders and Lieberman) than 59, given the silly filibuster rule in the Senate and the fact that it now seems that legislation requires 60 votes, an awful, paralyzing perversion of democratic rule, but Democrats will just have to work harder and be more creative -- if Brown wins, that is.

Okay, later.

**********

Mmmm. There's nothing quite like breakfast for dinner: eggs, (turkey) bacon, fried potatoes, fried tomatoes, toast.

**********

ABC News: "Bayh Warns 'Catastrophe' If Dems Ignore Massachusetts Senate Race Lessons." That strong language. A catastrophe? Really? Come on.

But what are the lessons?

"It's why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren't buying our message." Oh right... because, of course, Evan Bayh, self-styled centrist and thorn in the side of mainstream Democrats, thinks the Democratic Party should be the Republican Party Lite.

The lesson. Be more Republican!

Wrong, Bayh, wrong. You can't nationalize this race that way, you can't generalize it. As I said above, Brown has been a really good candidate while Coakley has been a really bad one, Republicans are angry, energized, and mobilized, and Democrats aren't, or not as much, and it's an off-year "special" election that won't turn out an apathetic electorate (even if turnout is pretty good, relatively speaking).

Okay, sure, it's tough to see Kennedy's seat go to a Republican, but it's not like Democrats don't win in what are largely red/Republican states. As Jon Chait pointed out earlier today, a Democrat, Ben Nelson, won in hard-core Republican Nebraska back in 2000. Similarly, there are, lest we forget, two Republican senators from Maine.

It is surprising that Massachusetts would elect a Republican to the Senate? Well, yes, not least given that its two seats have been Democratic for... well, almost forever -- held by Kennedy and John Kerry.

So let's not make too much of this.

Oh, but so much is being made of it, because the Beltway commentariat needs to have its concocted drama, needs to feel important and smarter-than-thou with over-the-top analyses of the way things are. 

Just take it all with a few grains of salt. Preferably, if you have it, Bolivean Rose Andes Mountain salt, which I had on my eggs. Very tasty.

********** 

Oh, by the way, Brown is up 52.7 to 46.3 with 69% of precincts reporting. (Results here.) 

Alas. 

********** 

9:24 pm -- And there you have it. CNN has called it for Brown. And Coakley has apparently conceded.

Well... 

You know what really grinds my gears? The fact that Republicans all across the land are celebrating. That really friggin' irks me.

What have they done to deserve any sort of victory? 

********** 

Why am I still watching CNN? It's Larry King, for God's sake.

I will say this: Ari Fleischer is an idiot. Unheard of for a Republican to win a state-wide seat? Well, sure. But that's because two giants, Kennedy and Kerry, have held the two Senate seats. It's not like there haven't been any Republican governors of Massachusetts, after all -- William Weld and Mitt Romney. 

And he says health-care reform is dead? Why? Again, the House could pass the Senate bill as is and that would be that. Okay, there could be a revolt among Democrats in the House, but there's a good chance, staring defeat and embarrassment in the face, they'll actually stick together.

Look, the Democrats hold the White House and majorites on both sides of Capitol Hill. How could it be that a single election, a single Democratic seat going Republican, would change everything? This is the narrative Republicans are going to spin, and the mainstream media are going to help them do it, but it's simply wrong. It's not that Brown's win means nothing, it's just that it doesn't mean everything. And part of what it means is that there's serious anti-incumbent sentiment out there. No, Coakley wasn't the incumbent, but her party held the seat, and, with the economy still struggling, voters are angry and frustrated, and part of the reason she lost is that voters took out their anger and frustration on her. 

Oh, look, Gloria Borger. Fantastic. She's rambling on about Big Government or something. Nonsense. She opens her mouth, and it flaps, and she's good at being a talking head, but she offers nothing of genuine value. 

And there's Dana Bash reporting that she's talked to so many House Democrats, and they just won't vote for the Senate bill. Fine. But it's still early. Let the loss in Massachusetts sink in, let Obama and Pelosi push for a vote, let these Democrats consider how horrendous losing health-care reform would be to them. Then we'll see where they stand.

Make sure to read Jon Chait's "Panic!!! Why Democrats need to take a deep, deep breath. Maybe two." at his new blog. He explains why so much of the punditry surrounding the Brown-Coakley race was and is just plain wrong.

**********

Okay, well, enough.

For more, check out The Boston Globe.

Oh, here's a bit from Brown's victory speech: "I know I have a lot to learn in the Senate, but I know who I am and I know who I serve. I'm Scott Brown, I'm from Wrentham, and I drive a truck. And let me just say in conclusion... I am nobody's senator but yours."

Great. I hope chills of fear and panic just went up and down the spines of Massachusettsians (or whatever the hell they're called), because they're now stuck with this guy, just like the rest of the country is, and, while he may claim to be nothin' but a truck-drivin' good ol' nor'easter boy, he'll fit it quite nicely thank you very much with the rest of the Republican insanitarium in Washington.

"Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country." And so it begins...

Massachusetts Republicans, it seems, can bullshit with the best of 'em.

**********

For the record, it's now 51.9 to 47.1. So I was off by a bit, expecting it to be 9/10th of a point closer on either side.