With Scott Brown‘s victory in Massachusetts, one year of total domination in the Senate held by the Democrats came to an end. With nothing to show for it but increased government spending, increased government size and a public resentment towards elected officials (such as Nancy Pelosi), the Democrats have, once again, been forced to consider their options. What Scott Brown’s victory demonstrated – in a state that has always gone blue – is that even those most loyal to you will back down if they consider something to be dangerous to the country.
The American people, while they might possess tremendous political apathy, have a knack for knowing when something is just not right. The government bailouts, the increased spending and the ridiculous health care bill that Pelosi tried to pass off as constitutional are all examples of things that the American people just didn’t agree with. The truth was, the American people had gone through increased government spending, bailouts (TARP came under Bush) and other programs under the Bush administration and when they voted Obama in, they wanted change.
Since that change didn’t come from Obama, they decided to find it elsewhere. That change came in the form of Scott Brown. Do I think Brown is the next best thing since sliced bread? Absolutely not. There are policies that I disagree with. However, what Brown comes the ability for bipartisanship, something I have truly wanted for so long. He brings that 41st Republican vote. He brings the ability for Republicans to say, “Um, no, that’s crazy.”
Even Obama realizes that the Democratic Party’s attempts at quietly negotiating bills is at an end. In an interview with ABC, he said, “It is very important to look at the substance of this package and for the American people to understand that a lot of the fear-mongering around this bill isn’t true.” In other words, “let’s get past this election and work together on figuring out the key points of this bill.” Bipartisanship.
The big question, though, is what does Brown do to the future of government health care reform? He forces negotiation. Because the Democrats cannot get sixty votes – the necessary amount to have a bill passed – they will have to negotiate with Republicans. They will have to make deals. More importantly, though, the bills won’t be so one sided and Democratic politicians won’t be able to say, “Tough luck, that’s the way it is…We’ve got sixty votes.”
The second thing Brown brings is the idea of fiscal responsibility. So long as he keeps true to his elected agendas, he might be able to team up with some people to work on fixing the economy the correct way. One example would be Evan Bayh, a Democrat, who is actually becoming an enemy of the Democrats because he is so against raising the national debt. Could the two team up to work on something? I’d like to see it happen.
For the first time yesterday, Democrats voted for a Republican because he represented what might be change in Washington. The same reason people voted for Obama is the reason people voted for Brown. Fiscally, Brown could bring the change Washington needs. Forcing Washington to become more responsible would be an effective stance Brown could champion. Hopefully, Scott Brown from Massachusetts takes up the banner and fights it.
About Jacob Cohen Donnelly
I love how Colbert phrased it…”Republicans now have a SUPER MINORITY!”
Well put. I am anxious to see whether Brown’s election will spark a route change in Washington, or whether it’s just another election (which is most likely).
I am definitely left leaning, not a liberal, and I don’t want to label myself a Dem., but Obama really has lost a LOT of his supporters by, more or less, ignoring them. Which obviously affects the Dems as a whole.
Obama’s biggest group of supporters, basically the base, those who want equal gay rights, the don’t ask don’t tell “rule,” drug reform, healthcare, environmental change, etc., are the ones he has basically abandoned.
Maybe this guy’s election will show Obama that if he, and his majority, doesn’t step up, we’re OBVIOUSLY going to go back to the policies of the past. Because that’s all these old, career politicians know. These old ass fundamentalists…the ones that want us to go back to the “good ol days.” These guys are just so old, they’ve lost touch with Main st. and what REALITY is. They have no idea what it’s like to even have a job…and now there’s guys going straight into politics after graduation…”My major is…..Republican?”
And the ones that aren’t old are into the money. They’ve been getting paid to voice their opinions for so long and they accept the cash from lobbyists and others as a justification of their views…if these guys actually went from a blue collar job to a politician, and then back to a blue collar job when his term was over (like the founding fathers INTENDED) American politics would be much more “for the people, by the people.”
In the event of a filibuster being enacted, the ones enacting should be required to hold the filibuster until they negotiate the terms or the bill gets dropped. The idea of being able to filibuster, then go home that night to your bed does NOT allow bipartisanship, but instead allows the opposing party to stall based on nothing more than belonging to the opposing party…
I just can’t process why people would ever vote for a guy claiming to be an independent but belonging to the republicans. It’s an obvious attempt to gain more votes, and in turn, the GOP thinks they encompass everyone from hard right to independent. Sounds like politics as usual…they’re currently attempting, along with Fox “news,” to hijack the Tea Parties, which is just pitiful, as the Tea Partiers disagree with many of the GOP’s tactics….either they are grassroots or they are an affiliate of Fox “news” with millions at their disposal…..they can’t be both at the same time, though.
You see how Fox “news” british pundit is claiming “healthcare is dead,” and “cap and trade is dead,” its just naive…they seriously think this Brown guy is some sort of savior…I give him 6 months in office before he commits adultery….
Fox “news” has been boasting this guy and putting down Coakley for weeks now…and I wonder, if the Dems had THEIR own news organization….their little safety net of “news” network where they could go to express their opinions as fact, and in turn, not be challenged, would Coakley have pulled ahead in the election? Who knows. But it would certainly increase communication efficacy amongst Dems.
I just wish communication and organization amongst Democrats was evident. And I HOPE that the DNC, not only now but for future elections, will APPEAL to the YOUNG people. Obama was elected because the majority chose him, but a lot of those people were between 18-30. And MANY of these voters just didn’t show up in Mass. to vote at all, which is really disheartening to hear. Either we prepare our country for future generations (as the Dems have been proposing since day 1) OR we just make it the best we can currently and say screw the future generations (which is what the Repubs are blatantly proposing).
But one thing I DO know is that the minority thinks it’s the majority, and they think that this election is going to lead to some new kind of revolutionary change. I’m just not sure why!
The Dems. STILL have 59 vs 41…I’m not sure how this is causing “Democrats to run scared!”
Well…it’s not, it’s just a scare tactic, but opinion without reason is just noise….
The one thing I circle back to EVERY time though, is where were all these opinionated/anti government people during the Bush years?? It seems like the ones taking issue now are the ones who thrived financially during the Bush years.
But I digress….these are only my opinions and I don’t want to upset anyone.
You make a few real interesting points. The first that I want to touch on is the Republicans saying that now that it is 59 to 41 that they have a majority. I think what the Republicans are more interested in is the fact that they are now needed to get anything passed. There have been bipartisan bills done in the past, so they obviously can be done. However, I don’t think stalling on a bill is a bad idea. We’ve got considerable issues going on right now and it is better to consider all options before making decisions. Otherwise, crazy things happen that hurt the country.
The second thing I want to touch on is the Fox News and Democrat’s need for their own station. It can be argued that MSNBC (Keith Olbermann) are, in fact, parts of the Democratic powerhouse. It has also been suggested that CNN (Clinton News Network) is also a part of the Democratic powerhouse. However, whether that is true or not, I am not sure. Fox News is so blatantly right wing that it seems difficult to imagine any other television channel being so biased. I’m sure a right winged individual might disagree with me, though.