Osler's Razor

Four quick observations:
-The Massachusetts Democrats were hoisted on their own petard. They (re-)changed the law to allow for the appointment of an interim Senator so as to keep a Democrat in office while the Special Election was held. If they had set up a special election immediately after Ted Kennedy died, Brown and the GOP would have had a tougher time getting organized. Hubris contributed to this loss on many levels.

Secondly, the vast majority of "big changes" in U.S. Policy had support from at least some members of Congress not in the proposing party. The Reagan and the Bush tax cuts both attracted Republican votes, as did the resolutions in support of the war in Iraq. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program and the creation of the Prescription drug entitlement also had lots of Democratic support. Going back to the creation of Medicare -- that had GOP support.

In fact, some of the biggest changes in U.S. policy actually had more people from the Opposition supporting the President. More Republicans voted for Bill Clinton's NAFTA proposal than Democrats. And the same is definitely true for Welfare Reform. Hard to believe now, but the Civil Rights bills pushed through by LBJ actually garnered more Republican votes than Democratic votes.

Third: If Obama had gone to the GOP IMMEDIATELY after being elected and cut a deal with major tort reform and provisions to tax benefits, he could have gotten plenty of GOP votes. Instead he took a "my way or the highway" approach. He's beholden to unions and the Plaintiff's bar and could not include these provisions.

Finally, I think its NUTS that a minority of 41 (from either party)can stop legislation in its tracks by just THREATENING a filibuster. If Harry Reid had any guts, he should tell the GOP, put up or shut up-- go ahead run your silly filibuster. Read the phone books, the nonsense and craziness. Do it and see how the American public reacts to you stopping the business of the Senate for weeks, days on end. Until the late 70's, a Senator who objected had to actually stage a filibuster. Threats were meaningless. But then- Majority Leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia had a brilliant idea called "dual tracking." If someone wanted to threaten a filibuster, they would just take the threatened piece of legislation off the calendar and move down a different track with other business.

The Democrats lost their majority in 1980 and Byrd was soon deposed as party leader.
 

Ooops, second para. I meant "Democrats" supported the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war resolutions
 

It means Americans aren't buying what the far left "progressives" are selling.

It means democrats should reconsider whether the far left should be allowed to continue to dominate the party's agenda.

It means democrats should ask themselves: What does it mean to be a democrat?

It proves that when politicians in this republic stop carrying out the will of the people, they will be voted out by the common sense American electorate.
 

I laugh, I really do, when people talk about the Democrats "far left" agenda. You people do realize that in any other country on the planet, the Democrats would be considered "center-right?" America's idea of the "far left" is always good for chuckles.

(1) The health care situation was badly handled and will always be because it's being handled by a bunch of reactionaries (Republicans, libertarians, etc.) and incompetent centrists (Democrats). Any attempt at a truly socialized medicine plan is killed off in committee or by special interests, because money talks in American politics, and the healthcare industry has more money than just about anyone.

(2) This was never up for debate; midterm elections typically go against the White House, and I would have expected no less. Obama is a bit of a polarizing figure for the reactionaries, as I said, and they've galvanized a base that grew complacent under Bush.

(3) Democrats will always screw things up until they eliminate conservatives from their ranks. No Ben Nelsons or Joe Liebermans should be associated with the Democratic Party. They also need to realize that conservatives, libertarians, and the religious right will never support them and enjoy having a loyal opposition. I'm all for bipartisanship and amicable compromises that serve the interests of the populace, but blood does not come from turnips nor water from stones. Democrats allowed themselves to be sidetracked by dirty politics, talking heads, and opinion polls (like always). But remember Clinton's first 18 months: they were pretty bad as well, and his healthcare project similarly stalled out.

He went on to be a supremely effective centrist president. I fear that Obama has been trying to find the center too much and has alienated the whiny left while pushing away too many centrists that buy into the "OHMYGODHESASOCIALIST!!!" propaganda. Obama needs to get back on message and shape up the Democratic Party. Personally, a few less of them in 2010 isn't a bad thing, so long as the campaigns for 2012 are run smartly, or better yet, we see more third-party candidates for Congressional office win from actual leftist parties.
 

I agree with you about the insanity that's developed over the mere threat of a filibuster, IPLG. And everybody--the media included--have picked up on it and report it as if it's a foregone conclusion the health-care bill, or any bill, will be filibustered. Everywhere, you hear that the Dems have to have sixty votes to win anything, not 51!!! It's crazy, and the Dems have shown absolutely no balls or brains to stop the craziness.

In reality, how often does a filibuster actually happen? Aargh . . . .
 

~I would love to watch a good old fashioned filibuster on CSPAN.

~I am laughing along with Lane at the description of the far-left.

I describe myself as a centrist democrat (registered Ind.). I agree with IPLaw that the Mass. Dems. screwed up in delaying this election. That being said, Mass already has health care, so why do they give a ratz patootey about the rest of us? Most citizens of their state have health coverage of some form.

I think congress has a better chance of passing smaller, incremental health care reforms than one big, POOR bill that will be revised through additonal legislation forever. There is so much reform required in this industry that it needs to be handled in smaller pieces. For instance, pass something that handles the pre-existing condition issue. Close the drug donut hole. Pass something that will make it easier to purchase health insurance. Have any of you tried to buy health insurance in the open market as an individual. It's not like buying car insurnace or home owners insurance. Virtually impossible to price and compare. How about a tax credit for those of us who purchase individual policies?

With regard to the Prof item 3: Seems to me someone just needs to get this bill on the floor. You should be petitioning your State Reps to sponsor this bill and get it moving (my apoligies if you are already doing this). Why does Obama have to do it? There is 'other' business taking place in DC.

Overall, it means more gridlock and yes there will be a lot of new faces in Congress a year from now for LOTS of reasons, not just because people are mad at the Democrats.
 

1. I associate myself with IPLG's remarks.

2. President Obama misread his mandate. We are a center-right nation, and he attempted to enact too many center-left programs.

3. The economy is stagnate. After one year, voters see the economy as Obama's economy. Blaming Bush grows thin.

4. The President (like the previous president) promised to change the tone. He didn't.

Adds up to frustrated electorate. Not sure what to do--but putting the brakes on one-party rule is a good place to start.

WHAT HE CAN DO

1. Engineer the ouster of Nancy Pelosi. Has anybody notice that Steny Hoyer is really good at his job and makes a lot of sense? Sack the controversial speaker and install a less abrasive consensus builder. Hoyer's your man.

2. Fire Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod. Those guys are too snarky and shifty. RG should not be the face of this administration. Sometimes campaign geniuses do not make good policy advisors. In re Axelrod, I think this is one of those times. Get some new blood.

3. Admit that this vote was a referendum on the HCB. Obama has oft said that there is agreement on 80 percent of the health care issues. Get a bipartisan 80 percent bill.

I continue to hope for the best for this president. While a lot of my conservative friends are happy to watch him fail over the next three years, I am convinced that we are in the midst of an existential crisis. I don't know if we have three years to screw up--and then hope for something better with some unknown GOP quantity. We need this President to straighten up, face the real issues, and start working with the other side to address our dire circumstances.

PLEASE!!!
 

It’s obvious that Brown’s election is a repudiation of Obama's agenda, or at least what the people of Massachusetts believe his agenda to be. Obama guaranteed as much when he went up to campaign for Coakley. But this "41st Vote" business is mostly gamesmanship. Don't forget that Bush never had a filibuster-proof majority, and he has been criticized for doing whatever he felt like doing. There is no real magic to having 60 votes from any one party--the magic is in assembling 60 votes, wherever they come from. Obama’s biggest mistake wasn’t in allowing Brown to win in Massachusetts, it was in allowing his agenda to get away from him and into the hands of the people most assured of screwing it up and watering it down: a Democrat Congress.

Prof., you're right in that the health care bill has been badly handled. Rather than trying for some grand omnibus Health Solution, the Obama should have asked the leadership to split his proposals into separate bills, some of which Republicans could have supported (e.g., Olympia Snowe). Instead, Obama put all his eggs in one basket, cashed in ALL of his political capital, and let Congress give the Republican's beautiful sound bites about government funded abortions and death panels.

Also, the traditional “old fashioned” filibuster no longer exists. Generally speaking, there is no Mr. Smith style procedure in the Senate. The Senate basically put in an HOV lane for bills about 40 years ago, and can run legislation on parallel tracks. The "filibustered" bill just sits stalled on its track while business continues as usual on the other track. This is what happens to judicial nominations, in addition to secret holds.
 

I think the election of Scott Brown means the following things, and I think them because I get all of my opinions from MSNBC, that bastion of centrist Democrat thoughts:

1. Democrats should view this as a wake up call that voters are not happy with them. They should wake up and become MORE liberal and MORE progressive. Because if voters tell you your gigantic messy nightmare health care bill is unwanted, what they are actually saying is, "GIVE US MORE!! Go BIGGER! MORE GOVERNMENT! WOOHOO!"

2. The voters of Massachusetts support an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.

This of course perfectly explains why they voted for Ted Kennedy for so long...except the ex-nude model part.

3. This means nothing! Nothing we tell you. Nothing to see here. This was a local election, about local issues. We are just fine. Move along, move along.

4. Massachusetts is racist. And sexist. No other possible explanation. Couldn't be they disagree with us. Simply couldn't be.

5. The fillibuster is a terrible thing...well, that is, unless we are using it to keep some reactionary, racist, sexist, homophobe of the federal judiciary. Then it is a completely reasonable procedural tool that is founded on principles of fundamental fairness. In other words, the fillibuster is bad, unless we're using it. Got it. Good.
 

Hoyer would be an incredibly better Spokespserson for the Democrats! In a race against Pelosi for the job of Minority Whip in 2000 she barely beat him.

Hoyer and Pelosi have been rivals since they were interns in the same office at the same time during the 1960's for a Maryland Senator! Pelosi is from Baltimore; her Dad and her brother were both Mayors of Baltimore.
 

Gee, RRL, that sounds an awful lot like Ann Coulter's actual reaction than anything I've read from an MSNBC-affiliate. Of course, I typically read Google News and BBC more than MSNBC, so I might be wrong on that.

However, buried within your sarcasm are some rather important points. The first is that Democrats, in attempting a broader appeal to moderates, a strategy that worked for them well with Clinton's second term, have alienated a large section of the progressive base that expected a more left-leaning government. Big tenters like Pelosi (who I agree needs to go) and Reid sacrificed a bit of their values for expediency, and it shows in things like the health care bill, which I honestly can't figure out why you of all people oppose, since the final version to clear the Senate is more or less exactly like conservatives want: fully privatized, with definite increases in the forecasted profits for those private interests, and a fairly significant setback to a true public option.

Second, Scott Brown isn't a tea-bagger type, though I suppose it is true he did model nude. Nate at 538 has an excellent breakdown of the fact that while Brown is "fiscally conservative" (I think there are about 2-3 senators that aren't) he is socially liberal, and represents what is traditionally a liberal state. If he wants to be re-elected in the general election, against a real candidate, he'll have to drift further toward the center.

Third, a filibuster on the health care bill is likely, because lines in the sand have been drawn and people are going to have their gladiatorial combat even though the message and the goals have been lost in the fracas, so a "filibuster-proof" supermajority is more or less meaningless talking head speculation.

Fourth, I do think this shows an increasing unease with independent voters with the public perception of the Democratic party platform. I just think people aren't paying attention, as evidenced by Anonymous above calling it a "far left" platform and wishing for a return to "common sense" principles of American conservatism, which he/she no doubt sees as centrist. AWF is right: this is a center-right country, and anything but far-right or center-right is going to be painted in the media (and therefore seen) as "far-left" because the left is such an efficient boogyman for Middle America. It conjures up visions of dastardly elitist snobs from the coasts trying to impose their evil cosmopolitan ways on simple, honest, "real" folk.

Instead, all it shows is that "common sense" is folk wisdom nonsense that gets parroted back by enterprising entrepreneurs looking to score a quick buck off of corporate-funded "populist" outrage. Muck wants only for the racking.

I do think the Massachusetts election is indicative of one larger issue, and that is that the 2010 elections will be moderately worse for Democrats than I first suspected. But, consider: if 2010 is a rejection of the "big government" policies of Obama (as opposed to the shrinkage in size, expenditure and power experienced between 2001 and 2008), then if things do not drastically improve by 2012, there will be a similar, if not stronger, shift back toward the Democrats as they are able to capitalize on "Republican obstructionism" during the past two years and blame the continued problems on Republican meddling with their own plans. It'll be 1994-1996 all over again.
 

A few things...

1. I was joking...except for the Ted Kennedy part;

2. Here is a link to Ann Coulter's thoughts on the Scott Brown election: http://www.anncoulter.com/ I don't see how her ramblings match up with my sarcasm exactly, but I won't take that strawman away from you Lane.

3. "I typically read Google News and BBC" - I typically read ESPN and Osler's Razor for all my news. This predisposes me to believe that the mascot of William & Mary is the most important news story over the last year. Otherwise, I feel very well educated on current events.

However, I think the fact that you get your news from the BBC explains a lot.

4. "buried within your sarcasm are some rather important points."

I seriously doubt that.

5. "The first is that Democrats, in attempting a broader appeal to moderates, a strategy that worked for them well with Clinton's second term, have alienated a large section of the progressive base that expected a more left-leaning government."

I do believe that he has alienated progressives, I just don't think it matters. There aren't that many true lefty progressives in this country. Democrats gained back control of congress with socially conservative, fiscally conservative, populist candidates. Most of whom were Republicans that didn't support the Iraq war. Jim Webb is a good example here. Democrats want to be the big tent party, in fact they celebrated the fact they were the big tent party in November of last year when it won them a presidential election, so they can't govern as a small tent party by focusing on policies that only the far left of their base supports, like carbon taxes and health care.

The reality is, if Obama runs as what he is, a true progressive lefty then he wont win. Because there aren't that many people that truly want that.
 

6. "and it shows in things like the health care bill, which I honestly can't figure out why you of all people oppose"

Because I don't support corporate-government make out sessions anymore than I support government takeovers of private industry.

7. "while Brown is "fiscally conservative" (I think there are about 2-3 senators that aren't"

Are all those fiscally conservative senators the ones that are about to raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 billion??

8. "and anything but far-right or center-right is going to be painted in the media (and therefore seen) as 'far-left'"

Find me one example of a news anchor on ABC, NBC, or CBS calling Obama's agenda "far-left." And they can't be doing it as in, "Obama's agenda, which some perceive as far-left." I mean, I don't know what media you're referring to, other than maybe Fox, but the idea that media has an agenda to stop left-leaning policies is ludicrous.

9. "because the left is such an efficient boogyman for Middle America. It conjures up visions of dastardly elitist snobs from the coasts trying to impose their evil cosmopolitan ways on simple, honest, "real" folk."

Two things. First, I'm pretty sure all liberals are dastardly elitist snobs trying to impose their evil ways. Own it man, just own it. Second, this is what I'm talking about. It couldn't just be that us idiots from "middle america" (by the way, talk about convenient boogeymen, I love the way the left talks about middle america) could actually have thoughts and just disagree with you. Nope, it has to be because we are easily duped. And racist.

Man, I can't imagine why they think liberals are elitist when liberals take them so seriously.

10. "Instead, all it shows is that "common sense" is folk wisdom nonsense that gets parroted back by enterprising entrepreneurs looking to score a quick buck off of corporate-funded "populist" outrage."

This quote was brought to you by that part of Lane's brain that is committed to turning everything into a conspiracy where corporations are trying to screw somebody. If you see anybody in suspenders wearing a top hat with a cigar and flipping a gold coin with his thumb, be very cautious. These people are dangerous. We now return you to our regular program.

11. "then if things do not drastically improve by 2012, there will be a similar, if not stronger, shift back toward the Democrats as they are able to capitalize on "Republican obstructionism" during the past two years and blame the continued problems on Republican meddling with their own plans. It'll be 1994-1996 all over again."

1994 saw the Republicans gain 54 seats in the House. It saw Republicans gain control of the house for the first time in over 50 years. In 1996 Democrats gained 9 seats. There was not a similar or a stronger shift in 1996 towards Democrats, there was a mild shift, if anything.

However, I don't think Republican gains in the midterms will be that great. Because Rachel Maddow told me so.
 

I was referring to Coulter's use of "racist, sexist tea-bagger" to refer to Brown's supporters. It's in the penultimate paragraph of Coulter's column.

I'm not saying you're wrong about Democrats gravitating toward the center: it's been my largest gripe with them since I grew frustrated with Clinton (I was a very unpopular junior high student) and his moderate moderateness. I was hoping for a little leftward shift with the new generation of people like Obama. Whoops.

I'm glad we agree on the horror of the health care bill, though. Broken clocks are right twice a day, eh?

By fiscally conservative, I meant "not socialist." That they don't know how to manage money only exacerbates the problems of rightist economics.

Also, the Tea Party phenomenon is directly fomented, supported and encouraged by corporate front groups. Again, sometimes even paranoid anticorporate lefties are right to be paranoid and anticorporate. I mean, today the Supreme Court gave carte blanche to corporations to finance legislation however they want (the right's standard response: well, so can unions! You lefties like unions, right? Sure we do... when pro-labor forces are running the unions.), so maybe the phenomenon of astroturfing will go away and we'll just get transparent government buyouts.

I don't disdain "Middle America." I live here, grew up here, and don't plan to leave. I think there are as many uneducated political buffoons that care more about party loyalty than sensible policy in every locale, among every demographic and on every side. There are factions among the left I sincerely wish would go away, just like I'm sure righties feel when Pat Robertson takes to the airwaves. But, looking at the general voting trends of State's, the red states do tend to cluster in the South and Midwest, e.g., Middle America. Now, either those states are full of honest, conservative students of politics and economics that really believe in the power of the free market to shelter us from all evil... or they're buying into the spin manufactured by foreigners and coastal elitists that run major media outlets like Fox or talk radio or even some commentators on the other networks (Joe Scarborough, Lou Dobbs, etc.) spin that the Democrats are advancing a "far left" agenda. I don't think they're being duped or fooled so much as just buying the spin because it flatters the (again, speaking in broad and general terms) biases and prejudices of the major demographics... just like hipsters in New York or LA will gush over Rachel Maddow no matter what she says. It plays into what they want to hear.

Ergo, BBC News: who better to have a balanced view of American news than those without any personal stake in it?
 

I tried to read all of the Lane/RLL debate and ended up skimming the middle parts. Kind of like in law school.

-I agree, the percentage of truly lefty/progressive voters in this country is pretty small. But they're loud. Just like the nuts on the right.

-I have no idea how the Democrats get any sort of Health Care Bill done in this Congress. If I were them, I'd take the ball and go home. They're in a hole -- time to stop digging.

Here's what I think Obama should have done:
-Had a definite program lined up DAY ONE and dropped it on Reid and Pelosi's doorsteps immediately. They could have moved it through committees by March if they had taken advantage of the honeymoon effect.

Reagan's big tax cuts and big defense expansion all took place in the first few months of his term. Same with Bush and No Child Left Behind and his Tax cuts. They were done deals by the summer of his first term.

Obama should have made it clear by winks, nods or whatever to the GOP that he was ready to turn against either the unions and allow taxation of benefits or the trial lawyers and allow tort reform. If he'd done that day one, the GOP would have played along. Reagan did not get everything he asked for, but he knew what he could trade away in order to get what he really wanted.

If the Obama team had adopted the identical strategy for Cap and Trade, it might have gotten somewhere too. But its dead as well.

So about the only BIG accomplishment of the Obama administration so far has been ending the war in Iraq...of course, the reason he could even pretend to do that was that the surge was successful.

Of course, we still have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq and my guess is that we will blow that deadline, just as we blew the deadline to close Guantanamo
 

And another stunning and detailed rebuttal by Anonymous! Anti-intellectualism is a plague upon society; you're a symptom.

IPLG, I'm sort of glad tort reform wasn't what was traded off for health care reform, etc. Then again, does it surprise you that Democrats mishandled major policy initiatives?
 

FTR:

Let me once again associate myself with IPLG's remarks. His last post is absolutely, brilliantly on target. The great tragedy of Obama, who I still think has plenty of "political" life left in him, BTW, is not whatever happens to Democrats in the elections of 2010 and 2012, it is the unprecedented opportunity to bring together a bipartisan coalition for something substantial during a desperate moment--which he fumbled away so maladroitly.
 

Cool your indignation. I don't think anyone here is stupid, and I doubt anyone would care if I did. I even point out quite regularly that I think people here are very intelligent. You're upset because you think I'm rude or condescending because I have the temerity to have a view of the world that doesn't myopically end at the US border. If you do, why am I bound to respect that? My view is always subject to the criticism that it's unamerican, and that I cannot participate in the democratic process because it is not a popular view (ie, your love it or leave it! argument).

You've got a double standard, and you hide your disdain for my philosophy behind righteous indignation. You don't get to claim the moral high ground by virtue of your opinion.

Now, if you can find substantive fault with what I write, we will discuss it like adults. If your complaint is that you think I'm mean, grow up.
 

Anonymous--

I delete comments that are just personal attacks, especially from anonymous cowards like yourself.

There are times that anonymity has its place (ie, last week's comments about experiences with alcoholism), but I won't let my blog be used as a space for anonymous, cowardly and personal attacks from the right or the left. You and your chicken-$#%^ kindred spirits at either extreme are at the center of what is wrong with political discourse in this country.

If you want to see effective right-wing advocacy, read the posts here by people like IPLawGuy, Waco Farmer and RRL-- all people who are man enough to have me know who they are (and each is a remarkable person and writer I am proud to know on and off the blog).

You want to just spew venom?

Not on my blog, wuss.
 

People in Massachusetts voted for a FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE guy because they have lost their jobs and they are afraid that they will lose their homes. Real Estate in New England, and particularly in Massachusetts and in Connecticut, is ridiculously overpriced, even when we take into account the drop in prices that have occurred over the last several years.

Boston, Cambridge, and the college towns in the Happy Valley, went for Coakley by 20 or more points. The outerlying suburbs of Boston, went for Brown by on average fifteen or more points precisely for the aforementioned reasons.

It is not that the people as such are entirely against health insurance reform. Rather, it is that they see a very very bleak economic present and future and they are terrified.

And as with religion, in the political realm, fear is a great manipulative tool to achieve a desired end.
 

Spot on, Spot Davis! (or, as they would say in Massachusetts, "Spawt")
 

Was this a referendum on health care? It is impossible to say either way with absolute certainty--but, the fact is that Scott Brown traveled far in wide in his pick up truck promising the voters that he would be the 41st vote against the current health care bill that was set to pass in Congress and land on the President's desk.

I would agree with Scott Davis that the people of Massachusetts, like intelligent people all over the nation, "see a very very bleak economic present and future and they are terrified." What they want are national leaders who will put aside politics as usual and address this existential national crisis.

I hope that is the lesson the President takes away from this defeat.