Thread: MA. Senate vote fires shot heard 'round political world

Massachusetts Senate vote fires shot heard 'round political world

In all their strategizing about how to pass health reform, Democrats never seriously considered — at least until the past few days — the possibility they could lose the special election to succeed Sen. Edward Kennedy, the late liberal icon and champion of universal care.

But that's what happened Tuesday in Massachusetts as Republican Scott Brown won a shocker over DemocratMartha Coakley, dealing a crushing hit not just to the Democrats' health plans but to President Obama's whole agenda. It will deprive Democrats of their filibuster-proof, 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, and it suggests a pendulum swing after two successive elections put Democrats in power.

Democrats would rather blame the candidate than acknowledge a repudiation. But even an inept campaigner such as Coakley — who all but took her election for granted — had a huge built-in advantage in Massachusetts, where just 11.4% voters are registered as Republicans and which hadn't elected a GOP senator since 1972.

As it turned out, independents — 51.2% of Bay State voters — broke heavily for Brown. His upset win reflects voters' suspicion of Big Government solutions and their frustration with either party when it is in power. What it does not do, sadly, is suggest a new answer to the country's medical mess. In a bit of an oddity, voters in the one state that already has near-universal health care stymied the Democrats' plan to give it to everyone else.


With Republicans simply stonewalling, Democrats are left with unappealing options as they consider what to do about the separate but similar health bills that passed the House and Senate.

Ideally, one or more Republicans would help get a compromise through the Senate by bargaining with the Democrats to force more cost control and tort reform. Alas, the odds of that seem remote. Brown's success at stoking the public's natural suspicions of any grand plan from Washington makes those odds longer.

The next option would be for the House to pass the Senate bill as is, eliminating the need for another Senate vote. That would be better than leaving the health care system to fester on expensively for another decade. But it would require the House Democrats to resolve internal tensions on a host of thorny issues, including abortion and taxation of union insurance plans — a tall order.

Finally, Democrats could use the arcane rules of the Senate to pass a stripped-down plan with a simple majority, but it would be difficult to craft a credible one.

What they must not do is try to delay Brown's seating to sneak a plan through.

Recent history shows that one-party rule in Washington is a fleeting thing. Democrats had it in 1993, then lost it in 1995. Republicans had it briefly in 2001, regained it in 2003 and then lost it again in 2007. This is healthy when it forces compromise. But with the Senate now as polarized as the House, it's more likely to create gridlock.

Democrats had a window of opportunity to pass health overhaul after the seating of Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., in July gave them a supermajority. The sound coming from Massachusetts on Tuesday might well have been that window slamming shut.

(AP photo of Republican Scott Brown)

Posted at 12:22 AM/ET, January 20, 2010 in USA TODAY editorial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You can post a comment at this link:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/01/ ... .html#more

I did not get to meet Scott again tonight but I do have a nice signed Po;laroid of Ayla which I took when she was selling CDS to raise money for Haitian relief.

Originally Posted by Richard

I did not get to meet Scott again tonight but I do have a nice signed Po;laroid of Ayla which I took when she was selling CDS to raise money for Haitian relief.

What's your impression of Scott Richard?

To me he seemed very down to earth and very genuine in that portrayal of himself. I didn't get that "used car salesman" feeling from him at all.

I interviewed Scott Brown in person on behalf of NumbersUSA. At the beginning of his campaign Brown was voicing support for McCain Kennedy. He has switched to a position more aligned with Mitt Romney. He has consistently opposed in state tuition and drivers licenses for illegal aliens while a State Senator.

John McCain on Immigration

[b]Restart comprehensive reform only after securing borders. (Jun 2008)

Other aspects only after consensus that borders are secure. (Feb 2008)
Deport 2 million illegal immigrants who committed crimes. (Jan 2008)
Would no longer push his own 2006 immigration proposal. (Jan 2008)
Certify border is secure; only then allow guest workers. (Jan 2008)
2003 “amnestyâ€

Don't get me started on John McAmnesty. The "other guys" are now posting on the hill that Mass voters voted Brown because Obama had not done "enough change". So, if that is true, they voted for a Republican? I don't get it. Nancy does not have the votes now. Going back to the senate is not a viable option either. Immigration reform will not happen in an election climate like this in 2010.