Pages Menu
TwitterRss
Categories Menu

Posted on Jan 18, 2010 in 2010 Election, Campaigns, Congress, Conservatism, DC Life, Party Politics

One way to ensure a short-lived Democrat majority: Rush healthcare, stall Brown

I read a startling article yesterday regarding various contingency plans being tossed around Democrat circles in Washington and Massachusetts, preparing for the prospects of Scott Brown defeating Martha Coakley, in what could be one of the greatest political upsets of the 21st Century.

From the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON—With the Massachusetts Senate seat unexpectedly in play, Democrats are weighing alternative scenarios for passing a health bill without their filibuster-proof majority.
Congressional Democrats and the White House have rapidly stepped up the pace of negotiations on a final bill in the last 48 hours as polls showed a tightening race in Tuesday’s special election.
But Senate leaders need every one of the 60 votes they can call on—including two independents—to pass the bill. A Republican victory in Tuesday’s special Senate election would deprive them of that margin.
It’s also possible that vulnerable Democrats could bolt after a defeat, leaving more votes to make up. Even a narrow victory for Democratic contender Martha Coakley—in one of the nation’s bluest states—could unnerve fellow party members.
Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Democratic leadership circle in the House, acknowledged Friday the Massachusetts race would “complicate things if we lose.”

WASHINGTON—With the Massachusetts Senate seat unexpectedly in play, Democrats are weighing alternative scenarios for passing a health bill without their filibuster-proof majority.

Congressional Democrats and the White House have rapidly stepped up the pace of negotiations on a final bill in the last 48 hours as polls showed a tightening race in Tuesday’s special election.

But Senate leaders need every one of the 60 votes they can call on—including two independents—to pass the bill. A Republican victory in Tuesday’s special Senate election would deprive them of that margin.

It’s also possible that vulnerable Democrats could bolt after a defeat, leaving more votes to make up. Even a narrow victory for Democratic contender Martha Coakley—in one of the nation’s bluest states—could unnerve fellow party members.

Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Democratic leadership circle in the House, acknowledged Friday the Massachusetts race would “complicate things if we lose.”

While we’ve known for awhile what was at stake with this special election, it’s disgusting to see what “nuclear options” are being proposed and considered by the various Democrat caucuses.

So far, four options have come to light: Move Quickly, Pass the Senate Bill, Use Reconciliation, or simply Give Up.

This obviously poses a challenge for the Democrats.

Should Scott Brown win, they’re going to have to select one of the four options mentioned above if they want to get their health care bill passed. Unfortunately for them, no matter which option they go with (other than waiting it out and hoping for a miracle), the current Democrat majority is going to lose a huge chunk of their base, those who lean more towards identifying themselves as conservative or moderate Democrats.

Not only will the Democrats lose popularity amongst there base, but they’ll also lose a significant amount of political capital, which is essential during an election year.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, they’ve set up a legislative agenda that will fracture them even more should they not maintain a safe number of reliable votes. After all, this Congress still hasn’t been able to come up with a cap and trade policy that is popular with the American electorate.

Luckily for the GOP, if the Democrats aren’t able to hold Ted Kennedy’s seat, and their filibuster-proof majority, I think it’s safe to say that the Dem’s are going to into a tailspin between now and November, essentially writing their own attack ads, paving the way for a Republican victory.