Have Faith in Massachusetts

That was the title of Calvin Coolidge's book, which many conservatives profess to admire. Most of them haven't read it. I certainly haven't, though I do admire the fact that Coolidge could read ancient Greek.

Now I wonder whether I should read the book after all. On Tuesday, Massachusetts will hold a special election to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy. The reason a special election is in order is that the Massachusetts state legislature changed the rules for replacing a senator years ago, to keep a Republican Governor from putting a member of his own party in if John Kerry was elected President. That sleazy maneuver may have been a very big mistake.

Recent polls are all over the place, but some of them put Republican Scott Brown ahead of Democrat Martha Coakley. What is clear is that Brown has been steadily gaining ground. This in itself is a crisis for the Democrats. They have to spend millions and put the prestige of the President on the line to try and save Coakley. If Brown comes near to winning, that will send a massive tremor through the electoral landscape.

But what if Brown wins? That will mean that almost no Democratic seat is safe, and that the Democratic base has all but disappeared. It will also present a new problem in the struggle for health care reform. A Republican win in Massachusetts would deprive the Senate Democrats of their 60^th vote. That would mean that they can only pass a health care bill by some kind of procedural shenanigan. They may very well do so, but they do so in the face of public opposition that is robustly manifest in the polls and in recent elections. Republican voters are as aroused as ever we have seen them. Independents are leaning so strongly Republican that one does not know how to interpret the data. What happens if the opposition feels like it has been cheated?

Democrats are already preparing their spin in case of a loss, which is what I would do if I were them. They are saying that Martha Coakley was another Creigh Deeds. Deeds lost the Virginia governor's race, it is said, because he ran a lousy campaign. Indeed Deeds did. But he was also swimming against a Republican wave, and it is hard to swim gracefully in the face of that.

Martha Coakley ran a much worse campaign. She assumed that the seat was hers, and was missing in action for much of the five week campaign. She took a six day vacation. She skipped debates. Meanwhile, Scott Brown was everywhere, shaking hands and getting to know the voters. Both Coakley and Brown are handsome. But Brown is smart, while Coakley has the distinct disadvantage of being stupid. When finally forced to show up for a debate, she revealed herself to be clueless about the issues. In one comment, she managed to insult both the institution of hockey and Fenway Park.

So is Coakley in trouble only because she is running a dreadful campaign? When one party consistently fields bad candidates, like Deeds and Coakley, that is a problem with the party, not the candidates. But the real problem is the Democrat's agenda. The majority of Americans place the national economy well ahead of health care as their major concern. The Democrats have spent the last year obsessed with the latter rather than the former. Worse still, most Americans, including most independents in Massachusetts, are opposed to the health care legislation that the Democrats have been pushing. If it weren't for that, Martha Coakley would be in fine shape no matter how incompetent she is.

Welcome to democracy. Ain't it grand?

Comments

[Miranda]

It's probably a stupid question, but one wonders why Coakley assumed the seat was hers. It easy to understand why a long time incumbent might come to that conclusion, but as Coakley has never held the seat, it seems a little strange.

[KB]

Good question, but I think the answer isn't difficult. She was the Democratic nominee, and assumed that Massachusetts was a safe Democratic seat. She also had the Beacon Hill establishment behind her as well as the Kennedy clan, and figured that they owned the seat. There was good reason, only a few weeks ago, to assume that she couldn't lose.

What was dumb was for her to act like she assumed the seat was hers. That, as much as anything else, may have cost her the election.

[Deborah]

This race in Massachusetts will be a referendum from all Americans. How can a soldily Democratic state turn from its decades long history? The people of Massachusetts will pay dearly for Obamacare, especially considering they have their own system in place. But I hope they understand that all Americans will pay for a system that will reduce care for the elderly and make regular blue collar Americans pay for the cadillac plans of the unions, and medicare for some state but not all.
Even if Brown wins, who says he will keep his word. If Obama can so easily break all of his promises, what does that say for a junior state senator.
Ethics have been thrown out and I am really beginning to question who we can trust.
In my less paranoid moments I have faith in my neighbors and all the American people to stand up for what is right and fight viciously against what is so wrong with our current political heirarchy.
I fear that no one is listening and that without a violent revolution we might not have a chance to protect our Constitution.
If intimidation and fraud is documented by video or other means in Massachusetts do you really think the DOJ will do anything about it?
We need healthcare reform but this current bill doesn't even come close.

[jonk]

While it was the name of the collection of President Coolidge's speeches, he took that name from perhaps his most famous speech, the one he gave upon being installed as the President of the Massachusetts State Senate. And that is definitely worth a read.

http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/html/_have_faith_in_massachusetts__.html

[KB]

Deborah: I agree that this legislation is a big mess. I am guessing that Scott Brown has saved us from it.

Jonk: I guess now I am going to HAVE to read it. Thanks for the tip.