tangent4ronpaul
01-18-2010, 04:44 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/us/politics/16dems.html
Many Democrats say they still believe the best course is to forge ahead and enact sweeping health care changes, allowing them to claim the party has conquered a domestic issue that has long defied a legislative resolution.
But they also say the health fight has dragged on for far too long, denying Democrats the opportunity to concentrate on issues that are foremost in the minds of many Americans, jobs and the health of the economy.
Now the prospect of Attorney General Martha Coakley of Massachusetts losing on Tuesday in the special election to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy — the longtime champion of a health care overhaul — is intensifying anxiety among Democrats who were already worried about the 2010 midterm election environment.
Democrats warn of panic in the ranks should the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, prevail. Highlighting the sense that the political climate is shifting rapidly, the White House announced Friday that President Obama would travel to Massachusetts on Sunday to campaign for Ms. Coakley, hoping to generate Democratic enthusiasm in a contest that will hinge on turnout. The decision to put the president’s political prestige on the line after the White House initially said he would not make a trip was a gauge of how seriously the administration was taking the threat.
A victory by Mr. Brown could cause the fragile Democratic coalition behind the health legislation to unravel and put approval of the measure itself in jeopardy. Were he to win and take his seat before final consideration of the health legislation, Democrats would be one vote short of the 60 needed to get the bill through the Senate.
Senate Democrats say that in the event of a close race, getting the required election certification and seating a new senator could take up to two weeks. Democrats were considering whether to try to hold the final health care vote before Mr. Brown took his seat if he won, so they could use their 60-vote majority for one final victory — a move sure to inflame Republicans and pose political risks for Mr. Obama and his party.
But top Democratic officials said it was unlikely they would try to jam the measure through if the Massachusetts election went against them. Other options would be to try to persuade the House to pass the Senate version and avoid another Senate vote or to employ a procedural shortcut that would negate the need for 60 votes but limit the scope of health changes Congress could consider.
Democratic strategists also warned that a Republican victory in Massachusetts could fundamentally alter the outlook for the 2010 Congressional election season by sparking retirements among vulnerable Democrats.
For the first time, Democratic operatives said privately that control of the House could be at stake if enough Democrats saw the Massachusetts race as evidence they were headed toward defeat in November and decided to forgo a race. Another Democratic House incumbent, Representative Vic Snyder of Arkansas, announced Friday that he would retire, giving Republicans a good opportunity to pick up the seat in November.
Senior Democrats in Congress and the White House said they continued to believe Ms. Coakley would win in Massachusetts, but they acknowledged that her loss could have severe political consequences for them.
[...]
“Why in the heck are we spending that amount of money for something the American people don’t want?” asked Mr. Taylor, who said the Democratic situation reminded him of the climate before the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. “I was here for 1994, and I know what ugly looks like.”
Many Democrats say they still believe the best course is to forge ahead and enact sweeping health care changes, allowing them to claim the party has conquered a domestic issue that has long defied a legislative resolution.
But they also say the health fight has dragged on for far too long, denying Democrats the opportunity to concentrate on issues that are foremost in the minds of many Americans, jobs and the health of the economy.
Now the prospect of Attorney General Martha Coakley of Massachusetts losing on Tuesday in the special election to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy — the longtime champion of a health care overhaul — is intensifying anxiety among Democrats who were already worried about the 2010 midterm election environment.
Democrats warn of panic in the ranks should the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, prevail. Highlighting the sense that the political climate is shifting rapidly, the White House announced Friday that President Obama would travel to Massachusetts on Sunday to campaign for Ms. Coakley, hoping to generate Democratic enthusiasm in a contest that will hinge on turnout. The decision to put the president’s political prestige on the line after the White House initially said he would not make a trip was a gauge of how seriously the administration was taking the threat.
A victory by Mr. Brown could cause the fragile Democratic coalition behind the health legislation to unravel and put approval of the measure itself in jeopardy. Were he to win and take his seat before final consideration of the health legislation, Democrats would be one vote short of the 60 needed to get the bill through the Senate.
Senate Democrats say that in the event of a close race, getting the required election certification and seating a new senator could take up to two weeks. Democrats were considering whether to try to hold the final health care vote before Mr. Brown took his seat if he won, so they could use their 60-vote majority for one final victory — a move sure to inflame Republicans and pose political risks for Mr. Obama and his party.
But top Democratic officials said it was unlikely they would try to jam the measure through if the Massachusetts election went against them. Other options would be to try to persuade the House to pass the Senate version and avoid another Senate vote or to employ a procedural shortcut that would negate the need for 60 votes but limit the scope of health changes Congress could consider.
Democratic strategists also warned that a Republican victory in Massachusetts could fundamentally alter the outlook for the 2010 Congressional election season by sparking retirements among vulnerable Democrats.
For the first time, Democratic operatives said privately that control of the House could be at stake if enough Democrats saw the Massachusetts race as evidence they were headed toward defeat in November and decided to forgo a race. Another Democratic House incumbent, Representative Vic Snyder of Arkansas, announced Friday that he would retire, giving Republicans a good opportunity to pick up the seat in November.
Senior Democrats in Congress and the White House said they continued to believe Ms. Coakley would win in Massachusetts, but they acknowledged that her loss could have severe political consequences for them.
[...]
“Why in the heck are we spending that amount of money for something the American people don’t want?” asked Mr. Taylor, who said the Democratic situation reminded him of the climate before the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. “I was here for 1994, and I know what ugly looks like.”