The big gaffe, it seems, was trusting that her record fighting crime, both violent and white collar, would be enough to convince an already solidly Democratic state to vote for her. Crime, unfortunately for Coakley, is not the issue on everyone's mind right now. The issue is the faltering status of the middle class in a faltering economy. Everyone knows the Carville quote.
Which is why the other attorney, the one who ran as a populist, won.
Scott Brown, who specialized in real estate law before serving several terms in the Massachusetts legislature, and who infamously posed nude (yet covered where it counts) for Cosmo while at BC law, took the stage and declared, "I'm Scott Brown, I'm from Wrentham, I drive a truck, and I am nobody's senator but yours." Yes, he drives a truck. He also owns a home in Wrentham, one in New Hampshire, three condos in the Brighton section of Boston, and a timeshare in Aruba; he has a daughter who was an American Idol finalist and a star basketball player, another who is pre-med at Syracuse and a competitive equestrian. He's got stock in ExxonMobile, Bank of America, and GE. Though by Senate standards he's virtually poor (the average Senator is worth $14 million), his portfolio precludes him from being described as "middle class".
The win obviously took Brown by surprise. At his celebration, in between crowd-pleasing promises, curious chants by the audience ("Forty-One!"), and shout-outs to ex-football players (Doug Flutie, ok, but Steve DeOssie?), Brown repeatedly used the interruptions of crowd applause to collect himself, breathe deeply, and soak in the moment. Winners of boring elections tend to wear an air of overconfidence, as if their victory was inevitable and a virtual birthright. Brown was downright gleeful.
There were two immediate explanations given for Coakley's stunning loss.
First, she was a bad candidate. Her campaign was "weak and misguided", inept; she failed to campaign aggressively; Michael Capuano would have beat Brown.
The other immedite explanation was that this victory represented a rising tide of public opinion against passage of the national health care bill.
Virginia senator Jim Webb rushed to announce, fifteen minutes after the networks gave the victory to Brown, that he interpreted the election as evidence the American people don't want health care reform. This move by Webb, making sure he was the first big name Democrat to come out nationally for a quick retreat, is a clear indication that he sees himself as Presidential material. He doesn't have to run for re-election until 2012, so he can't be worried about immediate fallout from Virginia voters. Instead, this announcement was a way to position himself as a moderate, prudent candidate who might appeal to voters on both sides come 2016, or maybe 2012, if jobs aren't on the rise by the time President Obama is up for re-election.
Before the results were tabulated, my former Rep. Carolyn Maloney made her own dire prediction about Coakley and the health care bill: "If she loses, it's over."
Barney Frank said that he didn't think the Senate health care bill will pass in the House, that he himself would not vote for it, and that he thinks the Democrats would be wise to revise the bill in light of this obvious shift in public opinion. The fact that Democrats still have control of the White House, a 59-41 majority in the Senate, and a 78 member advantage in the House doesn't seem to matter anymore.
All that matters, it seems, is the future electability of incumbent Democrats.
The message being sent around the country is that health care will not get passed in this country because Democrats already in office are worried about getting re-elected. Considering how bad the economy is, I can sympathize with anyone concerned about losing their job. However, I wonder what these officials, now screaming retreat, think voters in 2008 had on their minds when they elected them into office? Do they think making policy decisions based on how easy or tough it might make their next reelection campaign will help them win that next election? For chrissakes, House reps are elected every two years. Which means Maloney and Frank are barely halfway through their term and yet they're making decisions based on self-preservation in the next election.
Obviously, the Republican noise machine is a long way from dead. With help from the insurance industry, pharmaceuticals, and the host of other industries profiting from the escalating cost of health care in this country, and with the megaphonic platform created for them by FixNews, Limbaugh and co., they've managed to raise their minority voices to such a level as to convince some gullible Democrats into thinking they represent the majority. As if the voting public was going to be more angry about getting universal health care than the state of the economy, and jobs, when they head to the polling places come November.
Brown was certainly a better candidate. There's just no denying that. If Coakley knew what she was doing, she would have been campaigning hard from the get-go, instead of resting on Ted Kennedy's record. A number of incidents in her time as Attorney General led many to question her judgment. But there are other explanations.
Overwhelming frustration with a stagnant economy and a lack of job creation will always hurt the incumbent party, whether or not that party is responsible for the downturn It's also clear that voters are frustrated with how long it's taken the Democrats to pass health care and move on to job creation. The Dems have a majority in both houses of Congress, had for almost a year an unfilibusterable 60 seats in the Senate, and they still haven't been able to get a health care bill passed. They look weak against a loud Republican minority(no surprises there), and now, after the back-room dealings with Ben Nelson, which even Nebraskans don't appreciate, and the hundreds of millions of dollars being thrown around in Washington by the health care and insurance industries, the Democrats, after years of Republican malfeasance and misrule, look corrupt and self-serving.
The other major issue is the bank bailout. With Democrats at the helm, giant banks, largely responsible for the economic recession and increase in unemployment, extorted billions in bailout money from the federal government with threats of a complete economic meltdown, only to turn around one year later and start handing out billions in bonus money to their employees. The Obama administration and Congress appear completely ineffectual when it comes to laying down the law on these oligarchal banking corporations. In fact, to the average citizen it appears that Congress has been complicit in helping out only their wealthy benefactors, while it has turned a blind eye to the middle class. When the stock market falls 30%, everyone takes a hit. However, the wealthy aren't worried about losing their homes, putting food on the table, or heating their homes over the winter. Millionaires comprise less than 10% of the population. Millionaires can influence elections through campaign donations, or by confronting elected officials in social circles. For the other 90%, elections are the only way they can express their anger where it counts. The other 90% is tired of the bullshit, and they're sending a message to incumbents across the country: start paying attention to main street or your days on East Capitol Street are numbered.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment