Brownie Points

PrintEmail

Before the special election, I stated that Martha Coakley would emerge the victor by a mere few percentage points in Massachusetts, enough to leave the impression that no Democrat is “safe” in his or her seat for the midterms in November. Many of the Republicans I spoke with could not quite fathom the idea of Ted Kennedy’s seat turning red. Some even rolled out half-baked conspiracy theories of the Service Employees International Union counting the votes or even--a la Minnesota--“discovering” ballots in the trunk of a car.
 
Quite simply Republicans could not believe they had a chance of winning, which most certainly aided Brown. Let there be no bones about it, the Republican Party brand is still most certainly toxic. Brown won the election by hardly mentioning the fact he was a Republican and called on baseball players rather than political celebrities to pitch for him (no pun intended). Had Brown mounted a challenge early on and had the baggage of, say, a vociferous Newt Gingrich and his endorsement, he may well have lost. It was a silent victory.
 
So once Coakley conceded I imagine that most of these individuals were as confused as the Democratic staffers who probably never even expected their candidate to campaign. In hindsight, had she not bothered campaigning she may well have stood a better chance of winning. Her best campaign pitch came when she conceded the race.
 
Unlike Coakley, Brown was photogenic and charismatic. And he was able to convey in a few sentences his small government mantra without sounding like the mean-spirited-white-guy that Republicans are regularly portrayed as. Barack Obama attempted to label Brown as a “friend” of the banking industry. But the mud didn’t stick--a sign that people have stopped listening to the Obama campaign pitch.
 
Some people have remarked with bemusement how could Massachusetts vote for a candidate that opposes implementing a similar health care plan currently in place in the Bay State, at a federal level? But do the people of Massachusetts see health care as an issue of which the federal government should seize control? Why pay more for coverage when you’re already covered by an existing state plan?
 
So where does that leave the vote for the landmark health care bill? The unwelcome overhaul being pushed by Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is dead, and the Democrats can either continue to flog a dead horse or choose to be serious about looking for a bipartisan solution to what is a pressing issue. If they choose the former, they’ll suffer in the midterms and Obama will be all out of what little political capital he has only halfway through his first term. If they choose the latter, Obama can attempt to rebuild the image of himself as a uniter, a post-partisan President, and--most crucially--hang clearly to the center of the unpopular Pelosi.
 
Following the election, Obama sounded a somber note last Wednesday when he implied the Democrats may well opt for a more incremental approach to reform. Probably a wise option, especially if it’s a bill that, say, just prevents people with pre-existing conditions from being refused treatment. I would imagine the public would support that; it’s fair. But after this moment of frankness, Obama then claimed that Brown’s victory was down to “the politics” of the last decade. Really? This isn’t something you can blame on Bush, especially if people are electing a Republican (who incidentally carried Barney Frank’s district) in one of the most liberal states of the union. Sure, people are mad, but with both parties.
 
Perhaps Obama should take a leaf out of Senator-elect Brown’s playbook? Be your own man. Step away from your party.
 
If you liked this piece on Scott Brown's upset in Massachusetts, read this post on Obama's first year in office.
 
(Photo by GRK1011 of Scott Brown supporters at Northeastern University; C.C. 3.0)