Can't Anybody Here Play This Game II?

"I don't belong to any organized party: I'm a Democrat"---Will Rogers

Several months ago I wrote a column about the downfall and ineptitude of the Republican party (http://sumopopblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/cant-anybody-here-play-this-game.html). Now, I'm back for round 2. Only this time, I'm taking the Democrats to the woodshed.

Say what you want about the Republican Party, but at least it took 6 years for them to fall apart (the mid-terms of 2006). On the other hand, the Democrats only needed about 12 months.

Think of what the Democrats have squandered in the last year: After battering the Republicans in the 2006 mid-terms, electing their best candidate in years to the white house, and pulling out powerful majorities in both houses of congress in 2008, they may lose both houses by the end of the year. Unfortunately, you have to do more than win elections, you have to lead, and most of these Democrats have proven incapable.

After Tuesday night's election debacle in Massachusetts, there's plenty of blame to go around. So, let's hand some out shall we? We can start at the top, with the White House. President Obama rode in on a wave of change. Little did he know that many of the Democrats that got swept in on his tsunami would be complete pains in the ass. Even worse are the entrenched dinosaurs he inherited. It's been said that Obama could use a little more LBJ in him when it comes to dealing with congress, and while that's probably true, blaming the President for this mess is a bit like blaming Lebron James for the Cavaliers not winning the NBA championship. I mean, dear God, have you seen his teammates? Sure, Obama was naive about the willingness of Democrats in congress to get behind his ideas. Maybe he could have rolled out his agenda more clearly and forcefully. Perhaps he could have twisted more arms in the Senate and moved health care along faster. However, it's worth noting that in our system of government, the President is not a king, he's more of a point guard. And to be a good point guard, you can't shoot all the time, you have to pass the ball.

So, Obama passed the ball to congress in early 2009 and asked them to advance health care reform legislation. Now, I know it's popular to knock House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but she's been fairly effective in getting legislation through the house. Unfortunately for President Obama, Pelosi had to pass the ball to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after the health care bill cleared the house. Harry Reid, the only man who can take a super majority and turn it into a deficit. To be fair to "milquetoast" Harry, no majority leader should ever be saddled with the likes of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. Still, if Reid can't pull his party in line for the showcase issue of the Democratic platform, what good is he? Regardless, of what you may think of the Republican Party, they know how to carry the water for their president. Even if the destination for that water is off the edge of a cliff (see the Bush years), they will hold hands and pretend they can fly.

As far as the health care debate is concerned, it's worth noting that the Democrats in congress and the White House botched the roll out. It's difficult to defend a bill that doesn't exist yet, but easy for the opposition to take it apart. The Democrats took so long to figure out what they could agree on, that by the time they started to coalesce around a bill, the tea baggers, deathers, and right wing talk show hosts had done a real number on it. Whether it's death panels, socialism, or simply saying health care reform would destroy the deficit, the opponents of reform managed through uninformed (or willful) disinformation to shape the conversation around health care.

To be clear, there were no death panels in the bill, the public option that was being discussed (and eventually abandoned) was scaled way back from anything that would qualify as a government takeover, and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found the proposed bill to be both a short term and long term deficit reducer. However, starting with the town hall criers this summer and ending Tuesday night with the stunning election of an anti-reform Republican in the liberal state of Massachusetts---for the seat held by the greatest champion of health care reform in modern history (Teddy Kennedy)--- they controlled the debate.

One need look no further than the available polling data regarding the health care bill for evidence. In survey after survey, people who were asked if they were in favor of the bill or not, typically were opposed by solid margins. However, when they were asked specific questions about things that are in the bill like "Are you for ending the right of insurance companies to turn people down for coverage due to pre-existing conditions," they responded in favor of the bill's position by large margins. When you ask people if they are for disallowing insurance companies to drop people's coverage when they get sick (and therefore expensive), again, people largely responded "for." Hell, you can find many a poll that says that a plurality (if not a majority) of people are in favor of a public option. However, the Democrats, due to their plodding, were not able to make the sale. Now don't get me wrong, everyone who is against health care reform is not reflexively dishonest. Some folks just don't want government involvement in health care. I assume these same people are against Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA too. That would at least be consistent.

You could see this storm-a-brewin' before Tuesday night. The gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia earlier in the year were troubling signs of what was to come for Democrats. When incumbent Democrat, Jon Corzine lost in New Jersey to Republican Chris Christie, and fellow Democrat, Creigh Deeds got waxed by Bob McDonnell for the open seat in Virginia (previously held by current DNC Chairman, Tim Kaine), the Democratic Party got a taste of the future. Now, we have the election of Scott Brown over state Attorney General Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.

So, how did all this happen? How did these three seats held by Democrats fall to the opposition? Let's take a look at the candidates.

In New Jersey, Governor Corzine was a Wall Street connected (former chairman of Goldman Sachs), ineffectual, and highly unpopular politician. In fact, his job approval rating was in the 30s just prior to election. Numbers that were only slightly higher than that of George Bush in the final year of his disastrous presidency. Even though Corzine didn't have a strong opponent in Christie, he never had a chance.

In Virginia, Creigh Deeds ran a lousy campaign that never gave the people a reason to vote for him. On the surface, Deeds looked like a good candidate. He was well-known state wide, with rural roots, and had narrowly lost to McDonnell in the 2005 state race for Attorney General. Coming off Obama's victory in Virginia, Deeds looked poised to succeed Tim Kaine and keep the Governor's house with the Democrats. However, Deeds ran a negative campaign from the start, ran away from President Obama early on, then tried to close the contest by running back to Obama, and flailed away without a cogent message in between. To make matters worse for Deeds, the staunch conservative, McDonnell ran a terrific, disciplined campaign as a centrist Republican. While McDonnell's candidacy was not entirely on the level (he's no centrist), it was effective.

That leaves us with Martha Coakley, Scott Brown, and Massachusetts. You know how I said that Deeds ran a lousy campaign? Well, Coakley ran almost no campaign at all. After winning the Democratic Primary to become the nominee in the special election for the late Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat, Coakley sat on her hands until about three weeks ago, when her poll numbers started to crater. She ran (if you can even call it that) as the lady of the manor, as if there was no way in hell that the people of Massachusetts would ever consider someone else. She ran hardly any TV ads, turned down multiple opportunities to debate Brown (and got clobbered when she finally did), and actually said she didn't see the point in going out in 30 degree weather to "meet new people." Brown, on the other hand, worked his ass off. He had clever ads, struck a "man of the people" pose, and is blessed with good looks and a dynamic personality. In a normal year, Coakley might have been able to coast to victory. However, in a tough year for Democrats, Coakley simply couldn't rely on the base alone, she needed independents too. She never even gave them a reason to consider her.

So, why after one year is this such a tough time for Democrats? Well, to quote James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid." Unemployment is at 10%, and those that have jobs fear losing them. The year long health care debate made Democrats appear distracted from what people care about the most, work (or the lack of it). People are fed up with bail-outs, million dollar bonuses for the bankers who got us in this mess, and a stimulus plan that they aren't feeling the benefits of. And, they no longer care that Bush got us into this mess. Nevermind that most economists believe the bailouts and stimulus plan may have saved us from a depression, the people aren't buying it. Not to mention, that it's very hard to prove that if we hadn't done this, things would be even worse. This, along with a lazy candidate, is how you get an anti-health care reform candidate named Scott Brown winning the seat previously held by Teddy Kennedy (who must be doing 60 revolutions per minute right now).

So, now that the Democrats have lost their 60 vote super majority (needed to pass almost anything of major consequence) in the Senate, where does that leave us (to hell with them) now? Well, quite possibly, nowhere. Republicans are now emboldened as the party of "no," and sitting Democrats are scared shitless to move forward with anything that might be the least bit controversial. This means goodbye cap and trade, immigration reform, entitlement reform, and quite likely any significant health care reform. Oh, they may be able to pass some small things, do some nibbling around the edges, but forget about addressing the largest issues of the day. The only possible exception is the economy. Obama may be able to do something there by employing the strategy that Clinton used against Republicans when he was president. Take their issues and use them against them. Push for measures so popular with the public and dare the opposition to vote against them. Perhaps a bank tax, caps on bonuses and the salaries of bank CEO's, maybe even some financial regulation, and definitely some kind of jobs bill. That would be very difficult for the party of "no" not to say yes to.

But here's the thing that scares me most about our current two party system: Neither of them seem to be prepared to lead. The Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of financial responsibility despite all of the evidence to the contrary during the Bush years, and the Democrats in congress are too chicken shit to take a genuine stand for whatever it is that they profess to believe. And if Republicans are so sure that their comeback is at hand, they may want to be careful of overreacting. The overall popularity of Republicans is actually lower than that of the Democrats (although the Dem's are sure working on it). In fact, the most popular politician with the public at large is still President Obama.

Unfortunately for the President, he like Lebron James has no Scottie Pippen, or even a Horace Grant to back him up. Before Lebron joined the Cavaliers in 2003, the Cleveland Cavaliers were often referred to as the "cadavers" for their moribund play. Well, that's what Obama is left with now, a bunch of cadavers. And with the opposition party in no mood to compromise, we the people are left with two nasty, partisan, rudderless groups of politicians who are probably taking us nowhere at an excruciatingly slow place. In other words, we're fucked, again. Or is it still?

Sumo-Pop
January 18, 2010