Honestly, I'm so anxious to see what happens tomorrow, I have little to say today. Zo is in Mass.
Jake Tapper is doing some good analysis on the Brown/Coakley race.
Puppy Blender directs to this Baron piece:
Barack Obama got 62 percent of the vote in Massachusetts in 2008. His percentage was lower in 42 other states. With the Massachusetts seat in jeopardy, no Senate seat in those 42 states can be considered utterly safe for Democrats in today's climate of opinion.
That climate might have been different if Democrats had never gotten that 60th seat. In that case, they would've had to bargain with Republicans to pass a health-care bill and might even have proceeded on the genuine bipartisan approach that Obama promised in his campaign.
We might have been spared the spectacle of the Louisiana purchase ($300 million for Mary Landrieu's vote) and the Cornhusker hustle (Ben Nelson got Nebraska exempted from Medicaid increases). Or at least the onus of such spectacles would fall on Republicans as well as Democrats.
But with 60 seats, the Democratic leadership took the partisan path and the Obama White House supinely went along. They ignored the abundant evidence that most voters increasingly opposed their government-directed health-care bills.
The 60th seat was a temptation, and like Oscar Wilde, the Democrats were able to resist anything except temptation.
Good stuff.
Michael C. Moynihan writing in Reason Magazine on Coakley's incompetence:
A decade ago, Coakley told The Boston Globe that if her political career were to flame out she would likely "retire to Martha's Vineyard and write murder mysteries." On Friday, liberal journalist Steve Kornacki reported that Coakley's own internal polling shows Brown with a three-point lead. I eagerly await Coakley's literary debut.
O/T conclusion:
Does anyone watch the Golden Globes? That was apparently on last night , and - well - who cares, right? I couldn't honestly even tell you what the "Golden Globes" celebrate? Celebrity? You've got me.
Posts
|