In a way, it’s better like this

34 Responses to “In a way, it’s better like this”

• Ron Thiessen

  January 19, 2010 at 9:33 pm

  I’m fine with this. I really don’t think we’ve suffered enough yet.

  Reply
• Anonymous

  January 19, 2010 at 9:39 pm

  Or maybe they will wake up and get things done, the way Bush did. They do not need a supermajority to get things done — -just a spine.

  Reply
• rhus

  January 19, 2010 at 9:42 pm

  Evil cannot win forever, as Ron says we need to fall into the abyss. The Democrats problem remains that the right hates the constitution and wants all government to fail. Reason and facts will not counter evil ideology.

  Reply
  • Ron Thiessen

    January 19, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    “Reason and facts will not counter evil ideology”

    Karl Rove’s epitaph and the vision statement for Fox News.

    Reply
  • DantheMan

    January 19, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    “The Democrats problem remains that the right hates the constitution and wants all government to fail. Reason and facts will not counter evil ideology”

    Exactly the kind of logic that backfires. Making comments like that makes both extremes look bad, disabling either from ever locking in the independent voters for more than a couple election cycles at a time.

    Reply
    • MrTom

      January 20, 2010 at 7:25 am

      Unfortunately, knee-jerk anti-government sentiment is behind the loss in Mass. It is easier to hate than to cooperate.
  • Steve

    January 19, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    rhus, something about your comment brings this news report to my mind.

    Reply
• lojasmo

  January 19, 2010 at 10:00 pm

  Really doesn’t represent any change from the status quo. Fuck lieberman.

  Reply
  • Ron Thiessen

    January 19, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    And Nelson and Landrieu and Snowe for that Matter. You get Snowe Lojasmo

    Reply
• lojasmo

  January 19, 2010 at 10:01 pm

  And whomever thinks Brown will serve more than one term: You are retarded.

  Reply
  • Ron Thiessen

    January 19, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    Haven’t you beat up on CMan enough already?

    Reply
• DantheMan

  January 19, 2010 at 10:37 pm

  I’m shocked that Brown won this seat. Not that Brown won’t be a good senator — he is the type of moderate that we need more of. But even with the weekend polling showing his lead, I felt the Mass voters would snap back to the left today.

  I can’t speak for the people of Massachusetts — I don’t follow their politics closely enough, and I don’t want to simply infer that Brown’s victory was only due to national momentum. But it seems as if the process of correcting back to the middle is underway, a cycle that is always a matter of when, not if.

  Still, I’m quite stunned that Brown actually pulled it off.

  Reply
  • CMan

    January 19, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    As much as everyone wants to say “all politics are local”, this was an outcome on Washington and how it’s doing “the people’s business”. If you say otherwise, you are wrong! I agree with Jeff. If the Democrats can pull in their ego a bit, they can benefit from this in November. I guess we’ll see what the tone is starting tomorrow, because, some in the media tonight sound as if they haven’t heard the message that was sent tonight (Howard Dean, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Dick Durbin to name a few).

    Reply
  • south metro dem-

    January 20, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Just watch, your so called moderate Senator Brown will vote inlock step obstuctionism with the GOP, along with moderate Senators Snowe and Collins. His personal views and Massachussettes voting record are completely irrelevant in the modern senate. btw, I’ve read that he supports the Romney health care plan in MA and wouldn’t vote to repeal it. I guess his attitude, along with his voters, is we got our health care, screw the uninsured in the rest of the country.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/it_doesnt_matter_if_brown_is_a.html

    Reply
    • DantheMan

      January 20, 2010 at 7:52 am

      If Brown isn’t a moderate in practice, he will deserve to be tossed out in 2012. That is one nice thing for the Dems — they only have two years to make up their minds about him before the seat is due for re-election.

      We Franken skeptics still have another 4 years before we get to decide if Franken has earned another term
    • Pete

      January 20, 2010 at 12:33 pm

      DtM, when all 39 senators vote in lockstep to obstruct every bill that comes up for a vote, there are no moderates amongst them. Brown will do likewise. I’m surprised that you actually think he’ll take a moderate stance!
• south metro dem-

  January 19, 2010 at 10:37 pm

  With what Obama and congress do about the health care bill over the next week or two, we’ll learn if the dems take away the right message and fight harder for progressive policy. Hope the house will come through for the millions of people who thought subsidized insurance was on the way.
  Since we were going to lose the so called super majority in Nov. anyway, losing it now and shaking things up could be for the best. The repubs will have to offer something beyond “no” for the next election.

  Reply
  • Don Huizenga

    January 20, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    He’s Done Everything Wrong
    by Mort Zuckerman

    |
    | | |

    AP Photo Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.
    He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.
    This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.
    In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.
    Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.
    Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, “I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.” You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.
    • More Daily Beast opinion on Obama’s first year Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.
    I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.
    One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”
    I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.
    I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?
    He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, “This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency.” Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.
    It’s very sad. It’s really sad.
    He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”
    The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.
    It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.
    I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.
    Mortimer B. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report and publisher of the New York Daily News. He is also the co-founder and chairman of Boston Properties Inc. He is a trustee of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, and the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

    Reply
• Brian Link

  January 19, 2010 at 10:43 pm

  I loved Kos’ observation on losing the 60th vote: “Given last year’s track record in the Senate, it certainly can’t make the Senate any less effective.”

  Reply
• MrWright

  January 19, 2010 at 10:49 pm

  The Democrats squandered a rare opportunity to forge a new direction for this country. This is the inevitable result.

  The fundamental flaw in liberalism, almost by definition, is that it is too timid in the wielding of power. Had the Republicans possessed a super-majority in the senate, we’d all be sitting on privatized social security accounts and waging war in Iran as well as Irag and Afghanistan.

  The point is, the Republicans are still better at distilling their core principles and rallying their base to focus political muscle toward a clearly defined agenda. The Democrats are still too, well, democratic.

  Obama must take stock, figure out what he really stands for, and just go for it. More bluntly: Grow a set, and use them.

  Reply
  • DantheMan

    January 19, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    Interesting post, and I think you are not alone in your sentiment. I have a slightly different view.

    If the GOP does one thing well, it is realizing that an election where they win seats means that people are temporarily endorsing them being in power, not that people have bought in to their agenda lock, stock, and barrel. It is a slight nuance, but very important.

    Said differently, it seems as if when the GOP wins seats, or the Presidency, the meter of their proposed policy moves less than their pure ideology would suggest it could. They incrementalize (more on that in a different thread).

    To paraphrase an article I read today which I agreed with, I think the Democrats confused the 2008 election (with which the voters sent a clear message that they wanted the Democrats in power) with a misinterpreted signal that the country’s ideology had moved to the left. There is a difference between wanting a new party in power, and having a fundemental shift in the core beliefs of the electorate.

    We are still a country in the center. We are also a country with 40% independent voters who like to change their leadership from time to time. But the two are decoupled.

    Reply
• McFry

  January 20, 2010 at 12:51 am

  2010 is going to be a GREAT election yeat!

  Change IS on the way!

  Reply
  • DantheMan

    January 20, 2010 at 8:11 am

    I can already see GOP hubris beginning to simmer. It will boil over someday and we’ll correct back to center.

    First party to get this wins: Elect bright, talented leaders, capable of getting the public on board with a moderate and persistent agenda that gradually improves peoples’ lives. Create policy that is so common-sensical that politicians of all stripes look bad to their constituents for not supporting it.

    Repeat.

    Reply
    • CMan

      January 20, 2010 at 8:20 am

      I agree DtM. I was a little disappointed in the acceptance speech. He had a right to let it all out after what he accomplished. It went on a little long for me and there were some real shots at the Dems. If the right is smart, they will move forward in a smart fashion and not go on a spree like we just saw from the left.
    • Ron Thiessen

      January 20, 2010 at 11:22 pm

      “First party to get this wins: Elect bright, talented leaders, capable of getting the public on board with a moderate and persistent agenda that gradually improves peoples’ lives. Create policy that is so common-sensical that politicians of all stripes look bad to their constituents for not supporting it.”

      You will get no argument with me on that statement DTM.

      Obama fits your description. So does Franken. Coleman could. Too many in both parties and both houses of Congress don’t.
• Lloyd

  January 20, 2010 at 5:34 am

  Evan Bayh bailed on Obama before Brown was even announced the winner. From the comments I judge that Matt Entenza is only slightly to the left of Barry Goldwater. These are the Democrats that got you 60 seats in the Senate and they are the kind that will sell you out in the end. The squish is who I am most afraid of. Say what you will about Bernie Sanders but you know where he stands and likewise with someone like Paul Ryan. It’s these squishy clowns in the middle that mess us up because they muddle our message. With Brown’s win, every rural democrat will go back to acting like Evan Bayh and every republican try to sound like Barry Goldwater. I expect a lot of bluster but absolutely no change in the way politics is done in Washington, if anything it will be worse because this loss will be blamed on transparency.

  Looks like Jim Webb bailed on you too.

  Reply
• theoko

  January 20, 2010 at 8:23 am

  This country wants change in general but rejects every specific change presented. We are a nation with serious problems that is too afraid to take the steps necessary to overcome them. No matter the solution, people of some stripe will vociferously oppose it. Our leader is fear, and we’re paralyzed. The Democrats have floundered in getting health care reform through, and the Republicans - as the historical record unarguably shows - did not even try it when they had the opportunity.

  It is easier to motivate “no” than it is to motivate “yes”.

  Obama’s failure is entirely in being a poor cheerleader. Cheerleading is very important in leadership- one might say that without Churchill or Stalin’s “cheerleading”, WWII would have been lost- regardless of men, materials, etc. Cheerleading takes a public sentiment and successfully focuses it into concrete change and action. Obama has been too cerebral, though he may change course- that will ultimately be the measure of his presidenty.

  Regardless of the actions Democrats took or didn’t take, this was going to be a rough special election because fundamentally an economy of this size and with this many problems cannot be turned around rapidly. While people are feeling pain, the majority party pays the price and are the target of various undefined frustrations.

  What happens in November is not a forgone conclusion. There are a number of things in the economy that have convinced most economists that the Great Recession is over, and jobs may very well start ticking up. What happens in November depends very much on how the job climate changes by then. The jobs picture will not be good by November, but will likely be on an upward path and that will be good enough for Democrats and their electoral success. They’ll likely suffer little more than is the historical average for first term elections for the party in power (in this case, likely they will lose around 25 House seats, 3 Senate seats).

  Reply
  • Lloyd

    January 20, 2010 at 9:43 am

    The irony of course is that the jobs climate will definitely improve if this health care bill dies here and now. The uncertainty it has been causing to business has snuffed out any chance of recovery. I know you don’t get that but know that a rebounding economy resulting from the death of health care, cap and trade, and card check would give the appearance that Obama’s stimulus worked and would likely keep you in control of DC and maybe even deliver a couple governor’s mansions. Doing nothing to stay in power will work for the DLC’rs and Blue Dogs but would it work for your progressive standard bearers like Obama, Reid and Pelosi? We can only wait and see. I would frankly be a little dissapointed if all the vocal progressives stopped going on record about what they really want to do to the country because we might forget about them by November but I am willing to have the economy come back if that were the trade.

    Reply
    • theoko

      January 20, 2010 at 10:50 am

      “The uncertainty it has been causing to business has snuffed out any chance of recovery. I know you don’t get that but know that a rebounding economy resulting from the death of health care, cap and trade, and card check would give the appearance that Obama’s stimulus worked and would likely keep you in control of DC and maybe even deliver a couple governor’s mansions”

      Yes, kicking the can down the road is the key to short-term electoral success. If you don’t bite the bullet and deal with growing long-term problems, you don’t engender opposition. Far better electorally is to let America die a slow death in a similar fashion to Europe’s dynamic aptly entitled “Euroschlerosis”.
    • Lloyd

      January 20, 2010 at 11:15 am

      I knew we could find some sort of agreement if we worked at it. Euroschlerosis indeed. The entitlement bomb is still ticking and if we don’t have the balls to make a deal with everyone that believe they are entitled to entitlements it is still going to explode eventually. If health care dies, all we’ve done is kept a new bomb from going off, the government has over promised on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and just about everything else. I’m anxious to see whether this new brand of independent voter will finally demand the reckoning or if they will just go back to sleep once the wolves go back into their sheeps clothing. Recent history says they will be asleep by November, but the 1770’s weren’t that long ago in the scheme of things. There is always room for hope.
    • theoko

      January 20, 2010 at 11:53 am

      “The entitlement bomb is still ticking and if we don’t have the balls to make a deal with everyone that believe they are entitled to entitlements it is still going to explode eventually.”

      This is probably where I’m most likely to diverge with my fellow Democrats. The retirement age needs to be increased. We need to keep upping the age in order to maintain the (off the top of my head) 3 working adults to 1 retired adult ratio we had when SS was initiated.

      “If health care dies, all we’ve done is kept a new bomb from going off…”

      I disagree there, and hew to CBO and Harvard analyses that indicate that the healthcare reform bills would decrease long-term deficits as well as the overall out-of-pocket insurance expenses of the vast majority of Americans. In addition it would have (still might) cover millions of Americans without healthcare today.

      “the government has over promised on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and just about everything else”

      Too much in there to reasonably debate, but one point is worth noting. Demographics are the fundamental problem with SS and health care for the elderly. We are living longer and have a greater elderly population than we did when SS was started up. The program itself was not flawed nor was it an overpromise. Just as a corporate strategy needs to change when the business environment changes, so to do government programs. Need for reform does not mean something was flawed to begin with, otherwise there never in history has been a successful corporate strategy or government program.
    • Lloyd

      January 21, 2010 at 5:52 am

      Your point is well taken. Need for reform does not necessarily mean something was flawed to begin with but it doesn’t rule it out. If the intention of Social Security was to provide for people in their retirement years and care for their children should they die, it has been a failure. The deal was to only take the percentage needed from everyone working now to pay for their retirement in the future as well as paying those same benefits to anyone retired now. Every reform has simply been an attempt to keep that deal. You can say it worked for awhile and thats fine but we need to renogiate that deal now before it bankrupts us. We the people are big enough to handle whatever new deal is made.
• Pete

  January 20, 2010 at 12:37 pm

  The lesson to be learned here is that the democrats should have used budget reconciliation to pass the healthcare bill. Even with Brown’s victory, it would have been a done deal. But I doubt they’ll listen. Too late anyway.

  Reply
  • Lloyd

    January 21, 2010 at 5:54 am

    It would have been a much better bill if it had followed the budget process but like the tax cuts, it could just expire. What’s wrong with that?

    Reply