s skippy the bush kangaroo: On Massachusetts

skippy the bush kangaroo



Tuesday, January 19, 2010

On Massachusetts

I am saddened that Martha Coakley lost in Massachusetts. But I am already cringing at the thought of what news stories will arise from this- from both sides. I will leave the Republicans, and their Overton Window pushing, aside for the moment.

What does this mean for the Democrats? Basically, what we decide it means. Having 60 votes in the Senate didn't matter much when one of the votes belonged to Joe Lieberman, who will scurry to whichever ship he thinks is sinking slower (and is currently doing so), and another to Evan Bayh, who said today, "Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country — that’s not going to work too well.”

The most pressing agenda at the moment is health care. Paul Waldman outlines in the American Prospect how it could still happen:

The first path would be for the House -- where they have this strange tradition in which the majority rules -- to simply pass, as is, the bill that already passed the Senate. Obama would sign it, and the infrastructure of reform would be in place. Then [they THE HOUSE?] could attempt to correct some of the Senate bill's weaknesses in the reconciliation process, which only requires 51 votes (though it does limit which parts of the bill can be addressed).

The other path -- and the preferable one, from a policy perspective -- would be to get the bill done before Brown is sworn in. Keep in mind that the White House and congressional leaders are nearly done hammering out the differences between the two chambers' bills. Though reports about what is in this version are sketchy, it looks to be a considerable improvement on the Senate bill. They have to get a score from the Congressional Budget Office, which takes a few days. Then depending on how the bill is offered in the Senate, a vote could come within a few days after that. In other words, no matter what happens in Massachusetts, if Democrats decide to move things through quickly, we could get a vote on health care within 10 days.

Paperwork and formalities could make it up to two weeks before Brown is officially in. And that's without the Democrats pulling any fast ones, à la the Republicans and Franken. Do I think either of those scenarios will play out? Probably not. But it is important to keep in mind that they could have at least been attempted, regardless of Brown's win. And a failure on that front will be a greater loss than the Massachusetts seat.
posted by Brandy Betz at 11:01 PM |

8 Comments:

I think the odds of the House passing the current Senate language in the next two weeks are close to nil. The odds of getting through another Senate filibuster are also probably nil. Go with reconciliation.
commented by Blogger mahakal, 9:33 PM PST  
Oh hell.... how could such an important bill be so tight? Not one effing Republican in the Senate has a heart enough to hear the grueling 3rd world like stories happening right here in the US due to lack of health care coverage.

How could MA vote for this jerk who just recently pledged to push to let Wall Street have their $145 billion in Bonus money.

Really hard to believe.

This country has really gone to hell in a handbasket.

Wall Street & Wars prevail.

Sick
commented by Blogger Fran, 9:57 PM PST  
Fran, it's not that MA voted for Scott Brown. It's that they rejected, REJECTED, Martha Coakley.
commented by Blogger mahakal, 9:56 AM PST  
ROFL.

I reckon mahakal is partly right. Remember, Obama went to Massachusetts specifically to declare that it was all about him and health care. It's not just Coakley that got rejected.

Fran, dear, don't be so distraught. It's not a case of "heart", it's a case of checking out all those "grueling 3rd world like" stories and finding out they're bogus. The few that are valid end up being bureaucratic mixups, and if you expect zero bureaucratic mixups from FedMed I want some of what you're toking.

When even Barney Frank demonstrates that he can see lightning and hear thunder, you might as well give it up. If Democrats pass this thing using parliamentary chicanery, you shouldn't just worry about November -- there's likely to be recall elections. As a Conservative this delights me right down to the ground.

Regards,
Ric
commented by Blogger Ric Locke, 9:56 PM PST  
I noticed the Brady Gun Control people decided to give Obama a grade of "F" on gun control. It occurred to me then that there's really nothing wrong with a Republican that a bullet to the head can't improve.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 1:00 AM PST  
Ric, there aren't recall elections for Congress, or the Senate. And while you and your anti-human cohort would vote against ensuring that people have health care, most people would prefer to have a public option.
commented by Blogger mahakal, 8:08 AM PST  
Anon, killing does not solve anything.
commented by Blogger mahakal, 8:26 AM PST  
It'd be nice if majority ruled in a democracy, but that's not how the Senate works. When two NY Senators represent 25 million people have their votes negated by two XX Senators representing less than a million people, things can get weird really fast. So even if a majority of Americans believe that abortion is a personal choice, gay marriage is acceptable, a public option for health care is preferred, and so on... Senators from less populous and more rural states still have to represent their constituents. It'd be nice if more people understood that when these dumbass polls are aired as "news." It can be bullshit at times, but that's the way it works and I get that. What bothers me more is that too often Representatives from smaller states can be bought by one commercial industry, one or a few rich donors merely threatening to fund another candidate if they don't get their way. And now with the new Supreme Court ruling, things are really going to be fucked.


mahakal -- Whether I agree with anon's comments or not, killing people to solve matters has been our foreign policy for over 100 years.
commented by Anonymous sean, 9:01 AM PST  

Add a comment