Brown Wins: Now What?

The fallout from yesterday’s special election in Massachusetts to fill the seat some thought would forever be contoured like the inverse of Ted Kennedy’s butt has just begun. Democrats are running out of fingers to point at one another.  Depending on who’s on the proximal end of the digit it’s Martha Coakley’s fault for having run a lackluster campaign, the DNCs fault for not offering timely support, or Obama’s fault for overreaching on his agenda.  I’ve even read that Massachusetts’ western Democrats (Coakley’s bunch) got no help from eastern Democrats because of an intra-party rift. In other words, it’s Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s fault.  I hear there’s a run on Teflon coats cut to fit donkeys.

Democratic Party responses vary.  The militants who insisted on ramming Obama’s signature initiative down Americans’ throats despite definitive proof the majority wanted no part of it remain undeterred.  Plans are afoot to get the reconciled legislation through the Senate before Brown’s 41^st vote against cloture is possible.  Alternatively, some insist that the liberals in the House take what’s offered in the Senate bill and vote it through with the understanding they’ll get more of what they want, later.  It’s reported by  The Hill that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) may be willing to do just that.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) made clear his openness to applying budget reconciliation to healthcare, a position he opposed prior to this week’s special election in Massachusetts, is contingent on the content of the bill.

His comments lend weight to speculation that congressional Democratic leaders plan to have the House pass the Senate healthcare reform without changes, then pass a second bill with changes hashed out between the two chambers’ leaders and the White House.

“If the House passed the Senate bill, could reconciliation, that process, be used to fix things that might be improved upon? Yes,” Conrad said. “Would I support it? I can’t know that without knowing what would be included in the package.”

Those of this mind-set thought it wise to make the Louisiana Purchase (payoffs to Mary Landrieu), approve the Cornhusker Cave-in (payoffs to Ben Nelson), and sign off on the Cadillac-tax kowtow (payoffs to unions.)

It was this backroom-dealing, holdout-peeling, taxpayer-reeling, raise-the-budget ceiling, pass-at-any-cost feeling that Brown parlayed into a win that a month ago was more improbable than finding a virgin at a Bill Clinton intern reunion.  Senator-elect Brown campaigned on the fact that health care and cap and trade are not-too-hidden tax increases soon to be sprung on the middle class.  He railed against the secret negotiations that made laughable Obama’s promise of transparency and he lambasted Reid and Pelosi’s “you’ll like it after we force it upon you” hubris.  His is a playbook that will be copied and disseminated to all Republicans running for national office this year.

Some Democrats have taken notice.  A handful already have indicated they’ll not go down with the SS Obama or, at least, that passing health care now will be problematic.  Anthony Weiner (D-NY), one of the most liberal congressmen admits as much.  (With a touch of much-needed levity.)

“It would have to be so quick that they happen at the same time.  We’re in full whistling past the graveyard mode in there. [...]  They’re talking as if, like, what our deal is, what our negotiations are with the White House. Yeah, I mean if the last line is ‘pigs fly out my ass’ or something like that. [...]  We’ve gotta recognize we have an entirely different scenario tomorrow. — Anthony Weiner

Likewise Barney Frank (D-MA):

“I know some of my Democratic colleagues had been thinking about ways to, in effect, get around the results by working in various parliamentary ways, looking at the rules, trying to get a health care bill passed that would have been the same bill that would have passed if Martha Coakley had won, and I think that’s a mistake.  I will not support an effort to push through a House-Senate compromise bill despite an election. I’m disappointed in how it came out, but I think electoral results have to be respected.

I don’t think it would be appropriate for the Democrats to say well, we’re going to — for instance [...] delay seating Sen. Brown so that Sen. [Paul] Kirk, the appointed successor to Sen. Kennedy, could give it the 60th vote. That would be very wrong. I would oppose it, and wouldn’t vote for any bill that was a product of that”

And Jim Webb (D-VA):

“In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process.   It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders.   To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

Republicans would be well served to note that in April of last year most Americans favored health care reform.  That was before they understood they’d receive THIS reform.  They want something — just not Obamacare.  A strategy would be to take the initiative and begin offering market-based alternatives and tort reform.  Demonstrate leadership on the issue now so that it can’t be taken back come election time with claims that, “Republicans torpedoed any chance of changing how health care is delivered.”  Then again, today’s Republicans haven’t been known for doing the smart thing so I doubt they’ll take this advice.

I've Also Written...

• What We Wish Obama Would Say
• $1.3 Trillion, For What?
• The Rush to Pass Obamacare

Other Sites To Try

• Scott Brown Election Results Fallout
• McCain supports Obama? What?
• What Happened to Illegal Immigration?