TheMillerCircle.org

It was supposed to happen like this: Ted Kennedy, the acknowledged lion of the U.S. Senate, dies while serving in the Senate during the year in which his signature issue of a national healthcare plan passes and looks like it might actually become law (even though there is some doubt how much he would have approved of the bill that the Senate has actually passed). But the healthcare drama wasn’t over. The Senate still needed a 60 vote majority to prevent a possible filibuster when the House-Senate conference bill comes back for a final vote. But the Massachusetts election laws require that an election take place to fill the remainder of Kennedy’s term and one would think, given Kennedy’s passion for healthcare legislation, that the voters of Massachusetts would genuflect and turn out in droves to elect the candidate that the Democrats decided to run, thereby retaining the 60 seat majority. This is what Massachusetts was supposed to do. The state has a 3:1 registered Democrat to Republican ratio. The Teabagger Republicans of Massachusetts obliged by making the decision seemingly easy for voters, as their candidate, Scott Brown, was described as a male Sarah Palin and seemed to have the credentials to prove it rhetoric and all. A Piece of cake, or so it seemed.

A few weeks ago, about the time that the yawning began to become a factor in the Massachusetts Senate election, with Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley enjoying a comfortable lead in the polls, I tuned in to watch one of her campaign efforts and came away shocked to see how ineffective she was as a candidate and how passive she seemed to be about her future role as a Senator. So, I imagined that many voters in Massachusetts felt as I did–very disappointed. If you are going to elect a replacement for a lion, why would the Democrats run a mouse? Of course, she did run and win in a primary, but who were all the other candidates? And, as Coakley continued to stumble and hesitate, voters got increasingly pissed off, many Democrats stayed home and voila! Massachusetts elected a substitute Sarah Palin!

I believe that most of the political pundits, anxious to expand on the deeper meaning of the Massachusetts election, have interpreted the results to represent a referendum on Obama’s Presidency. Even level-headed Barney Frank seems willing to throw in the towel and sue for a new healthcare bill that will pass with some Republican votes. Imagine what that bill will look like.  Democrats would be making a foolish mistake if they interpret the Massachusetts election that way. First and foremost, it was a “local election” and the Democrats opened a wide door with their candidate who ran an ineffective, passive campaign, with many slips and hiccups.  Martha Coakley may be a fine Attorney General, but she did not campaign as if she belonged in the Senate, particularly in the Senate seat voided by Ted Kennedy. Kennedy had conditioned the Massachusetts voters to grand rhetorical displays and they had imprinted to his voice. If Coakley had been a better candidate, there wouldn’t be a discussion about an Obama referendum. But, more importantly, if the election in Massachusetts had any national overtones, it was not for excessive liberalism in Congress, but rather giving in too much to the conservative few: the polls have shown for months, in consistently 3:2 numerology, that the public wants a public option plan in the healthcare bill and the fact that the Senate took it out because they were captives of three conservative Senators, including Joe Lieberman, has angered voters across the country. Last night Democracy for America conducted a poll of voters in Massachusetts immediately after the election and registered a public preference for the Public Option plan with the 3:2 majority that has existed nationally for quite some time. The Democrats have committed an error of omission, not one of commission. Only a fool would assume that the country is ready to give Congressional leadership back to the Republicans after eight years of GWB and conservative Republican rule.

The Senate has always had the option of using “reconciliation” to pass the healthcare legislation. Now is the time to dust that option off, put back the public option in the form a national plan and pass the new bill, needing only  a 51 vote majority under the reconciliation rules! That will be the surest way for the Democrats to free themselves of their own trap for the 2010 election. But, who will be smart enough to see it that way? Stay tuned. ON the health care bill, the Democrats moved too far to the right, not the left. Thanks to those kinds of moves, this year will probably be a more contested election year than it had to be and if Obama is going to be of any assistance to his Party, he will have to stop trying to steer a course that triangulates between Republicans and Democrats and oblige the Republican Party by opening the trash can of history and making it easier for them to all jump in. Obama needs to stop emulating a corporatist Democrat!

RFM