Is Martha Coakley Really That Bad a Candidate?
Posted on January 15th, 2010 in Uncategorized | 69 Comments »
Not living in Massachusetts, I find it hard to say. But she must be pretty ghastly if she’s really in danger of losing Ted Kennedy’s seat, as by all accounts she is.
What strikes me as amazing about this is that Scott Brown, Coakley’s opponent, is such a nothing, and the gist of his campaign is opposition to the health care bill. What’s he proposing (as one should) in its place? Back to the drawing board. Or, in other words, nothing.
And what’s really remarkable is, this campaign of nothing is working in Massachusetts and around the country.
National polls have shown dismal support for the House and Senate health care bills, which Democratic leaders are racing to merge in talks this week. A CNN poll conducted Jan. 8-10 found 57 percent of respondents opposed to the proposals and 40 percent in favor.
Granted, the White House hasn’t done much of a job of selling this bill to the public. It’s not easy to do that when the legislation keeps evolving (thanks, Joe Lieberman). But the majority opposition to it raises real concerns about an electorate that is so mindnumbed by American Idol and Jon and Kate and Twitter that it can’t see what an overall positive this health care legislation is. How can a president, any president, solve any complicated problem if the public is so easily misinformed and misled?
Rick Hertzberg had a terrific “Talk of the Town” on this theme in this week’s New Yorker. In the piece, he took on the fact that the Democratic left has grown disenchanted with Obama and many of its avatars have come out against the health care bill. Forgive me for quoting it at length:
When Congress reconvenes a few days from now, it will be on the cusp of enacting a sweeping reform of American health insurance and health care that could be, as the President put it on Christmas Eve, just after the Senate passed its version of the bill, “the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the nineteen-thirties and the most important reform of our health-care system since Medicare passed in the nineteen-sixties.” Perhaps he was exaggerating, but not by much. Jonathan Cohn, the New Republic’s health-care correspondent, calls the bill “the most ambitious piece of domestic legislation in a generation—a bill that will extend insurance coverage to tens of millions of Americans, strengthen insurance for many more, and start refashioning American medicine so that it is more efficient.” Paul Krugman, the Times’ resident Nobel laureate (and a frequent Obama critic), calls the bill “a great achievement” that “establishes the principle—even if it falls somewhat short in practice—that all Americans are entitled to essential health care.” Princeton’s Paul Starr, the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning history “The Social Transformation of American Medicine,” calls it “the single biggest measure on behalf of low-income Americans in more than forty years.” How big? The University of Chicago’s Harold Pollack has done the sums. By the time the reforms are fully implemented, “the Senate bill would provide about $196 billion per year down the income scale in subsidies to low-income and working Americans.” That’s more, Pollack notes, than the federal government spends on the earned-income tax credit, Head Start, assistance to single mothers and their children, nutrition programs like food stamps, and the National Institutes of Health combined.
None of these people, from Obama on down the wonk scale, deceive themselves that the Senate bill, which now must be merged with its (marginally stronger) House equivalent, comes within hailing distance of perfection. All of them recognize that the final bill, in the now overwhelmingly likely event that it surmounts the remaining hurdles, will be flawed and messy. All of them also understand that, compared with the status quo—and the status quo, not perfection or anything like it, is the alternative—it will constitute a moral and material advance of historic proportions.
Yes, the bill is imperfect. Yes, the process is imperfect. Yes, no one will get everything they want.
Welcome to democracy.
For all of this bill’s flaws, we have health care legislation that extends insurance to 30 million Americans, prohibits insurance companies from turning people away because of preexisting conditions, and is reportedly budget-neutral. It addresses a huge national problem that is costing the country unnecessary billions and hurting our productivity that presidents have been trying and failing to address for the last century.
And 57% of Americans are opposed to this?
The question here is whether Americans can grow up—whether they can act maturely to focus and solve problems in an entertainment age. Obama has been president for about a year. The changes in our government and our public life since he took office are profound—greater transparency in government, a stabilized economy, a more coherent and less militaristic foreign policy, environmental sanity, a more balanced Supreme Court. And I’m not even paying that close attention. Someone who is could probably rattle off more. For all our woes, we are vastly better off than we were under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
And yet Americans—even, especially liberals—are disenchanted with the president. Forgetting, apparently, that the problems he inherited are complex and take time to resolve; that those who voted for George Bush must hold themselves responsible for the mess the country has found itself in; that a recession does not turn around in a year; that the Republican party has chosen a stance of utter antagonism to whatever the president proposes, not because it’s in the country’s best interest, but because the GOP believes that knee-jerk opposition is its re-path to power. And it is, of course, much easier in our political system to keep things from getting done than to get them done.
These are not easy circumstances in which to lead.
Of course there are things that Obama can do better; in my opinion, he made some crucial mistakes in picking his economic team. But on the whole, he is doing many things well. The country needs him to succeed. But the public’s petulance, its refusal to grow up, makes it less likely that he—and we–will.
69 Responses
1/15/2010 9:00 am
Martha Coakley is a uninspiring candidate — not terrible, just not someone who makes you want to get out of bed on a cold January morning and vote. Especially, after Ted Kennedy.
As for the bigger picture, not only is the health care bill extremely complicated, most people I know are so burned out from hanging onto their jobs and their hold on middle class status that the “sweeping change” borders on too much change to absorb. (The devil you know and all that.)
I was going to skip it until Scott Brown actually started looking strong, hard to believe we would actually replace Kennedy with a Republican.
1/15/2010 10:05 am
As an observer, and not a citizen, why is this piece not on the front page of the New York Times…in big, bold black letters? And for that matter, why not on the front page of every newspaper in the country?
1/15/2010 10:27 am
Martha Coakley
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html#mod=todays_us_opinion
1/15/2010 10:36 am
Oh for God’s sake, who cares about Martha Coakley! I mean Richard’s piece!
1/15/2010 10:58 am
A few quick points.
1) Coakley is a terrible candidate. As Gail Collins said in the NYT yesterday, “Martha Coakley, the Democratic Senate nominee, is the kind of candidate who reminds you that the state that gave birth to John Kennedy also produced Michael Dukakis. She is the attorney general, and her speaking style has been compared to that of a prosecutor delivering a summation to the jury. In civil court. In a trial that involved, say, a dispute over widget tariffs. She is so tone deaf that she made fun of her opponent for standing outside Fenway Park shaking hands ‘in the cold.’ A week before the election, Coakley was off the campaign trail entirely in Washington for a fund-raiser that was packed with the usual suspects. But undoubtedly it was well heated.”
Coakley followed the conventional wisdom in Massachusetts that the primary is the real election, and all she had to do in the general election was not to make any mistakes. That was very un-Kennedy-esque. And then she made mistakes (the dust-up between the reporter and her aide was silly stuff, but she should have been nice about it rather than denying she knew what happened.)
Scott Brown is not inspiring either. He is not a Weld or a Romney, to name a couple of Republicans who have succeeded here. When asked in debate about ending the war in Afghanistan, he did a wind-up toy act about lawyering up terrorists, which was silly, but it wasn’t as silly as Coakley saying there weren’t any terrorists in Afghanistan anyway. Brown is a decent guy as far as I can see, unless you think that Republicans can’t be decent by definition.
And (I say this as one who scolded Richard for complaining about Sarah Palin’s voice): there is something unattractive about Coakley’s voice. It IS from Massachusetts, but I’d love to have someone explain it to me. (Which reminds me, Richard: Why didn’t you bring up the fact that Scott Brown is good looking? Margery Eagan did.)
2) We are being UTTERLY BOMBARDED with advertising here, in some TV interludes as many as 5 in a row, back to back. Remarkably, THE ONLY PERSON WHO SEEMS TO APPEAR IN ANY OF THEM IS SCOTT BROWN. Coakley’s team seem to feel they have so little to work with that instead they hammer at connecting Brown to GWB. And yes, his statement that he would be the 41st vote against the health care bill. Brown then comes on and asks why they are talking about him all the time, rather than the issues.
The Democrats keep dragging out Vicki Kennedy to show her support for Coakley, and are bringing in Bill Clinton, but interestingly our Democratic governor, Deval Patrick, doesn’t seem visible to me. Probably because they know that people are getting fed up with him; that may be hurting Coakley too.
3) Today’s Boston Globe mentions the poll you cite NOWHERE. The poll was out in time for the Herald, which always misses sports scores the Globe stays up late enough to catch, to put the poll on the front page. The Globe’s front page story on the race is “Brown’s run may be model for GOP.” (The boston.com site does have the poll, though.) This is what is known technically as being “in the tank,” I believe.
4) Please remember that Massachusetts actually PASSED a health care reform bill, under a Republican governor. And that Brown voted for it. And that Obama’s basic plan is, in no small measure, modeled on that plan. (See David Warsh.)
But what we have in Congress is not the basic plan, it is a bloated monster of a bill, decorated with hundreds of those earmarks that were to be no more in the new political world. There is a point when it becomes disingenuous to describe a bill like that as “imperfect.” “Grotesque” might be closer to the truth; “incomprehensible,” surely.
5) “Welcome to democracy,” you say. Here is something else about American democracy. A party that controls the White House and both houses of Congress by substantial majorities is in no position to be in a panic over what is going on in a single interim election. I am not defending the behavior of the Republicans by any means, but I am also not going to let the Democrats off the hook with their moaning about Senate rules. THEY HAVE ALL THE POWER AND STILL WILL AFTER THIS ELECTION, except for such power as is reserved to the minority in that democracy to which you have welcomed us.
Next few days are going to be interesting for sure. I’ve lived here pretty much my whole life and I have really never seen anything like it.
1/15/2010 11:27 am
Really a shame that such a dud Democrat won the primary, Harry. She sounds dreary.
As to moaning about Senate rules…each party moans about those rules when they are the majority, and thanks God for them when they are in the minority. But the filibuster seems anachronistic to me, like the appendix, as does the rule that one senator can anonymously block legislation by putting a hold on it.
1/15/2010 11:50 am
Harry,
That was a fantastic piece, particularly, but not only, the second paragraph of # 4 (with special emphasis on the word earmarks).
Bravo!
1/15/2010 11:54 am
I’d be curious to know what successes Harry attributes to Romney. I’ve lived here (sorry, Richard, here in SITD is Mass) since late Weld and it never seemed to me, as it was going on, that health insurance was really Romney’s achievement if that’s what you’re thinking of.
1/15/2010 11:56 am
I agree that the Senate rules are insane. I wonder if they would survive a constitutional challenge. But so is one-party government insane (that is, voters are insane to want it!).
One more comment. I don’t consider it a terrible thing that Coakley is lawyerly and cool; I long ago fatigued of the late Teddy Kennedy’s oratorical bombast. The only campaigns Coakley has mounted in her career were for lawyerly jobs, DA and AG, and the style worked fine in those campaigns and those jobs (of course, most Massachusetts campaigns aren’t. But that means she has a record, and her role in the Amirault case described in the WSJ editorial someone linked to above is the other half of her civil-rights record rights which she stresses (with respect to women’s rights) in her campaign. It is only one case, but it is not an obscure, Willie-Horton, gotcha-type case; it was already well known in Massachusetts when she got involved with it, and huge amounts had been written about it. Her handling was inexplicable and she has never explained it. To his credit, Brown has been smart enough not to make a campaign issue of that weird, sad, inflammatory business. He is plainly not getting his advice from the places Republicans usually turn, and good for him. But a lot of people in Massachusetts remember the case anyway.
1/15/2010 12:02 pm
11:54, I was actually just referring to the fact that Romney was successful in getting elected here, though I don’t know why you don’t think he should be given some credit for the health care plan. Read the Warsh piece.
(and in my previous post I meant to say that most Massachusetts campaigns aren’t seriously contested.)
1/15/2010 12:27 pm
Sam and Harry-I hear you both, but if I may point out, health insurance is not an issue for either one of you. (Harry, I’d love to be a tenured professor and have health insurance through Harvard—a huge worry that I’d never have to have.)
But I belong to a professional class where people worry immensely about health insurance and, increasingly, don’t have it. A friend of mine with a wife and two kids just lost his job at the Times (his wife is a freelance writer). Once Cobra’s gone, their insurance is going to cost something like $4300 a month. And good luck being a journalist looking for work in this environment.
Of course, there are millions of Americans in the same boat.
Earmarks, yes—bah-humbug. We all hate them. But then, every piece of legislation has earmarks. It’s a mistake to throw out a significant advance in health care legislation for that reason.
Consider the situation: It’s a given that we need some version of health care reform. Obama won in a landslide, he has a Democratic Congress, health care reform was on his agenda.
If we can’t pass something now, under these conditions, it will never happen. And the United States will be a sicker, less productive, and poorer country as a result.
1/15/2010 1:04 pm
Richard,
Health insurance is not an issue for me (I presume that you were referring to me “as in my personal health insurance”, as you did with Harry)? What would make you say that?
I would like nothing more than to see universal health coverage in this country and would be quite willing to pay for it. However, the latest version of the House and Senate bills that have been made public are an absolute disaster. I could list a hundred reasons why, but I’ll list the four that are the most bothersome. First, there is no tort reform. Second,until fee for service is moderated or eliminiated, health costs will continue to rise at a rate much faster than the general economy. Third, you can cover pre- existing conditions but do not call it insurance. Fourth, this will be another nail in the coffin of smaller businesses, businesses which are the backbone of employment in this country.
I was trained as an actuary. I read a lot of the first House bill (at that time a mere 1956 pages, today more).
I simply couldn’t believe the convoluted mess that it was; actually I could.
True healthcare reform, which would encompass universal health, absolutely. The proposals as presented (changing every day to give some other party a sop), absolutely not.
1/15/2010 1:10 pm
Whoa!
1) You must have missed the part where I pointed out that Massachusetts, a heavily Democratic state, passed a good health care bill, with Republican support that it didn’t even need. And did it relatively quickly and effectively (not perfectly to be sure).
2) Having missed that, you seem to have concluded that it’s only because I am fat and happy that I could possibly object to the health care bill now in conference. That ad hominem twist was unnecessary.
3) The ransom-note argument is also a loser. “Give me your vote on all 1500 pages of this monstrosity, with all its pork and special deals and add-ons, or these poor people will die, and you will be responsible.”
If the shoe were on the other foot, and the majority party were acting that desperate, wouldn’t your reaction to be only that much more cautious and skeptical? (NB: I am an unenrolled voter, as they call independents up here.)
1/15/2010 1:10 pm
I am going to need some evidence that the health-care bill has earmarks at all. Aren’t earmarks pork? I don’t understand Harry’s skepticism at all — and I am confident that a month after it passes the bill will be favored by 70+% of the populace. It is chock full of very very good things, and once the focus is off Congresspeople PR efforts and bandwagon effects can kick in.
As for Democrats’ stock being down, just consider the unemployment rate. I’m about to post a link that is very much worth a moment of your time.
It would be the beginning of a horrible snowballing media meta-narrative if Brown were to win, and I dread the possibility for that reason — not because if the single Senate vote (although incidentally, Harry, you should be more informed than you seem to be about the utterly unprecedented overuse if the filibuster in the last few years).
Basically a good post, Richard. However! I continue to have confidence that Obama knows when to make his moves, however, and most of the elections are a long way off. The guy gives poker players (among whose number I count myself) a very good name.
SE
1/15/2010 1:23 pm
Actually, SE, perhaps I am mistaken, but I think the filibuster doesn’t get used; the threat is enough, so the filibustering doesn’t actually happen. I know all that. Glad to know you’ve read the bill and it’s all copacetic, Sam’s worries notwithstanding.
If anyone needed any more evidence that Coakley’s campaign is incompetent, here is another advertisement for her … featuring only an image of Scott Brown … and the World Trade Center. (I am sure they didn’t mean to do that; stuff like this happens when you grab images in a hurry. But still.)
1/15/2010 1:33 pm
Sam,
I’m sorry, but your post is underinformed and undersupported. Out of four points I score it at 1.3.
1) There is all too little tort reform in the bill. I give you .85 here — the discount representing the fact that actual studies about how much difference tort reform would make are not at all encouraging. Even if doctors really did feel a ton less defensive, wouldn’t they still have every incentive to overspend on each patient?
2) You are right about fee-for-service (and notice how it undermines your first point) but wrong to imagine it could ever have been addressed rapidly. Several extremely important seeds are planted in this bill that move the industry in the right direction — especially the provisions on ‘bundling.’ I score you at .1 here, unless you can show that this isn’t a serious effort at just such the moderation of fee-for-service that you asked for. The Senate, incidentally, did better on cost control than the House, and Obama has been staunch for those provisions in the last week or so.
3). Very little credit. You neglect the fact that everyone is now required to buy insurance! In the short term, yes, the concept of pre-existing condition is being done away with; but soon after that we are getting rid of the idea of ‘pre-insurance.’ I grant you .2 here, since the fines start out too small — but c’mon! The bill CRIMINALIZES free-riding. That’s a very important move.
4). This assertion about ‘small business’ is, like most such assertions, pure rhetoric. If you back it up with proper analysis of the exchanges and the subsidies it might score you something.
Sorry this is on the iPod and short on documentation. Ic
can’t even scroll up in the text-entry box to check my arithmetic. But I stand ready to go to the mat for this piece of legislation. It’s a phenomenal accomplishment.
More soon.
SE
Standing Eagle
3)
1/15/2010 1:34 pm
Yes, Harry, of course I meant the threat is what’s overused. And that’s been measured empirically — it’s not a close judgment. This minority is unhinged.
1/15/2010 1:46 pm
So the argument for Coakley is that the Senate rules make it impossible to do anything with 59 votes? And I suppose if the Senate were to adopt a 70-vote rule instead, we should move farther towards a one-party system to suit Senate rules? Please, this is another ransom-note argument that is insulting to the American people.
1/15/2010 1:58 pm
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/presidential_approval_and_unem.html
That’s the link I promised to Richard.
Harry, I didn’t say anything. But yes, the Senate rules do make it impossible to do anything with 59 votes when absolutely EVERYTHING rises to the ‘filibuster’ level of opposition on the other side. That used to be a very high bar. No longer.
Lots of people are advocating for a 10-year-out alteration of the filibuster rules for just this reason. If one party digs in its heels — and let’s be clear, it’s the GOP that has written this ransom note — NOTHING gets through the Senate. Ungovernability results. In the past only racism could cause this kind of intransigence (see Caro on civil-rights bills pre-LBJ); now, Republicanism does it by itself.
More documentation soon to address Sam’s points. I’m on an actual computer now, but catching a plane in a few hours, so who knows.
In any case, I would be busy voting for Coakley if I were currently in MA for the simple reason that her opponent is a Republican running for national office in the Age of Bush II. That’s a no-brainer for me. The legacy MUST be repudiated, and that would be true even if I thought the health-care bill was a bridge too far (or whatever Sam thinks).
Consider for a small contrast, by the way, the squashing of real CBO numbers on the Medicare Part D bill under Bush — Congress voted for it based on falsified numbers after a coverup by a Bush appointee. Now THAT was deficit spending, avowedly so, and still required *lying* to get it passed.
Standing Eagle
1/15/2010 2:01 pm
Correction: for “I didn’t say anything” read “I didn’t say THOSE things.” I’m always saying SOMEthing, wot?
1/15/2010 2:05 pm
Thanks, SE, for boiling your argument down to its core: you wouldn’t vote for any Republican. Fair enough, I get where you are coming from. Frankly, the Republican party deserves some of that for its many sins. But I think that as a political posture, it has has caused the Democrats to overplay their strong hand, and some of what you are seeing in Massachusetts is a reaction.
1/15/2010 2:15 pm
If I had been following the campaign I am confident I would have more specific reasons to vote against Brown. But I can say without research with 99.87% certainty that I am against him, simply because choosing to be a Republican candidate for national office in the wake of Bush II is a proxy for many beliefs (and cynicisms) I find deeply repugnant. It’s not a perfect proxy, of course, but if you count up the obstructionist votes in Congress on (say) health care you get pretty close to my 99.87 number.
1/15/2010 2:25 pm
Got it, you make your decision strategy very clear. As an unenrolled voter, and not all that interested in the game theory of politics, I don’t think much about those second order issues, much less third order issues like Senate rules. I just vote for whomever I prefer on the basis of whatever I am able to figure out about them.
1/15/2010 4:09 pm
SE,
With regard to your 1:33 post, I’ll have to give you a failing grade re: understanding what is being proposed in the bills; understanding my comments (your comments 1 and 2 make no sense as a reply to my post); getting your facts straight.
You never took me up on my offer to buy you dinner. If you’d like, contact me and perhaps we can discuss this over dinner.
1/15/2010 5:37 pm
The reason health care passed in MA was because Partners Health Care (comprised of Harvard teaching hospitals) wanted it to! Having an R govnah running for president ensured that all the R’s would support it…and it is ruining the public health care system in MA in that the largest hospital serving the poor has filed suit against the Commonwealth for non payment. (But Partners declared a whopping margin this year - go figure!)
And the reason Coakley is losing is because she has run a lousy campaign…she took time off for God’s sake when she should have been pounding the phones, IDing votes (#1’s for the unitiated) doing standouts, etc…if you believe you are the strongest you prove it with visibility and she didnt (that is how all the guys who are still elected staid elected this year)…and then all the newspapers have to do is declare it a race and it is a race…so much for newspapers being irrelevant.
Now, believe the poll late Sunday night (it is the only one pre Tuesday at 8:01 pm) that is instructive. Then, if you want Coakley to win, pray for rain or snow. Only committed voters with a machine behind them and pulling them will go out to the polls.
This is MA and it is machine politics. Looks like the machines are being cranked up and the workers (the real ones who work for mayors) are being stationed on phones, street corners and polling places…it is ugly and will not be pretty but it is plain and simple GOTV time.
Please no nonsense about policy at this point…it is pure block and tackle and the 20-somethings she has around her are being pushed aside and the grown ups are moving in (read mayors, unions, seasoned campaign and party people ) Not sure what out-of-state Rs and their money can do to mobilize the I’s in MA but we shall see…
Have a good weekend.
Cheers.
1/15/2010 6:04 pm
Sam and Harry-I will try to respond ASAP; Worth (aka “the real job”) is taking a lot out of me at the moment…
1/15/2010 6:07 pm
Health care passed in MA because Partners Health Care wanted it to (Partners is the parent of the Harvard teaching hospitals). Having an R govnah running for president ensured that all the MA Rs would support it (good propaganda for Romney).
In its current form health care in MA is such a burden to the largest hospital serving the poorest patients in the state that the hospital has file suit against the Commonwealth (the current administration in D, however). Oh, and Partners declared a whopping margin this year. (and one does have to wonder why a non-profit - Partners - needs to fund a non-profit…that could be interesting to delve into….)
The reason Coakley is losing is because she is running a lousy campaign. She took time off for Gods sake when she should have been pounding the phones, IDing voters, hold signs on street corners with tons of visibility…that is a sign of strength and she blew it. That is what guys who want to stay elected do and they did and they are still the “electeds”…food for thought.
So the newspapers saw the malaise and declared it a fight and so it is…so much for the fourth estate in decline. Remember this is just business…newspapers need something to write about and candidates need to raise money.
Back to the disaster - The 20-somethings she has around her are being allowed to contribute in other ways now while the more seasoned workers (read mayors campaign workers since those campaigns are over and done with for another 4 years unions and party workers) step in.
This is MA and what will happen over the next few days will be strickly machine politics…door knocking, phone calling, identifing voters, standouts and visibilities along with negative TV adds. (the papers and TV stations must love the add buys). Mayors, unions, state and national party workers will be working it up until the end strickly GOTV along with old fashioned foot-pulls Tuesday night.
Now as for polls, the only one worth paying any attention to is the one on Sunday night. The next relevent poll is Tuesday at 8:01PM. So relax about the numbers and margin of error.
So, if you want Coakley to win pray for rain or snow. Not sure how the out-of-state R money actually identifies Rs and Is at this late date and has a machine to get them to the polls on Tuesday. This is ugly and it will not get pretty. Hopefully, Coakley has IDd her vote and is mobilized to get them to the polls.
Please no need for any policy discussion at this point. The only relevant issue is GOTV and who has the machine (owned or borrowed) to get that out.
Have a good weekend.
1/16/2010 10:10 am
Give me the facts, Sam; I’m willing to document my views but not if you’re not going to reciprocate. As I said I feel particularly strongly the lack of any specifics in your first post about how the employer mandate is going to cripple “small business.”. It’s a subject that’s dear to my heart because it was Bush’s treatment of the Small Business Administration that tipped me off in mid-2001 to what bad actors he and his crowd were when it cane to policy.
As to dinner, I have not forgotten. I haven’t been to Boston in close to two years, but if I do I’ll certainly take you up on it. I have a buddy you would enjoy meeting too (tho you don’t have to pay for HI
of course). I like Henrietta’s Table.
One backdown I meant to post yesterday: I should have said your original comment was underinformed IN SOME PLACES, and undersupported IN OTHERS. I didn’t mean to be too sweeping — but I do challenge you again herewith to back up your claims.
SE
1/16/2010 12:10 pm
SE,
First things first.
You linked an article from the Washington Post (which you said you promised to Richard). I’ll presume that you thought the article was favorable to whatever viewpoint you were espousing. Below is the last paragraph from that article.
What are your thoughts?
Second, this is a good time to deficit spend. The government can borrow money at uncommonly low interest rates and pay it back in the future, when that money represents a much smaller portion of our total economy, and total tax revenues.The bang for the buck, both in terms of the price of borrowed funds and the economic impact those funds can make, is hugely favorable.
1/16/2010 12:20 pm
Off topic.
Interesting what former presidents of Harvard write books about:
“The Politics of Happiness: What Government Can Learn from the New Research on Well-Being by former Harvard president Derek Bok.
Achieving happiness has generally been left to the individual armed with self-help books that purport to show the paths to well-being. But, imagine if we had a partner in this quest for happiness. Essentially, Bok explains how the government could be this partner. Imagine what would change if happiness, not growth, was the goal of politics. What policies would make sense? Could the government truly make its citizens happier? Bok tackles the burgeoning research being done on happiness by economists, sociologists, psychologists, and political scientists, and explains how their findings can be useful in policy-making.
This book will be widely available in February and will officially be published on March 3, 2010″
1/16/2010 1:25 pm
Meanwhile, back at the ranch.
— I just got a call from Pat Boone urging me to vote for Coakley. Now that will persuade me.
— A friend who moved into state recently and registered to vote as unenrolled noticed that the receipt she received says “Democratic”. The machine is rusty, but it is functioning.
— UPS has told the state Democratic Party to stop using the slogan “What can Brown do to you?” featuring (guess what) a picture of Scott Brown, dressed as a UPS driver.
— There is speculation that either way, you can rest easy about the health care bill, because if Brown wins, Congress will rush to get something to Obama before Brown can be sworn in, so that the lame-duck appointed Kirk can cast the decisive vote for it, event though the Massachusetts polling shows popular sentiment now significantly against it. Welcome to democracy, as Richard puts it so well.
1/16/2010 4:23 pm
I’m in NZ, so have only had an e-mail from John Kerry, but my wife has been called by Barak and Bill.
1/16/2010 5:01 pm
I have friends making calls (from NYC) for Coakley and who say that people seem pretty unimpressed to hear from a voter, since they’ve already had the calls from Barack and Bill!
1/16/2010 5:29 pm
All four of Harry’s little sidelines suggest someone about to vote Republican
1/16/2010 6:58 pm
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jim
Date: January 16, 2024 3:56:44 PM EST
To: [email protected]
Harry,
The health-care bill, even at this nadir, is polling very well in MA — wayahead of Coakley. If you trust my judgment about the legislation, by the way, you should vote for Coakley. The legislation is epochal.
Sam,
Lots of misunderstandings I’d like to clear up but I have very few minutes. The point of the link was just to reassure Richard that a goodly amount of Obama’s low approval numbers be attributed to unemployment. Neither the charts nor any claim about deficit spending relates to our discussion of the health-care bill.
But since you mention it, I do agree that IF there is a good time for deficit spending it’s when it’s countercyclical.
You do know the health-care package REDUCES the deficit, don’t you? And it does a ton to solve the looming nightmare of long-term Medicare shortfalls?
Anyway, what are YOUR thoughts? Don’t be stingy with them.
SE
1/16/2010 6:59 pm
Oops, technical glitch with iPod. Richard, could you repost that without my e-mail address?
1/16/2010 7:34 pm
I apologize if the “Public Policy Poll” is some well-known tool of the right, but a week ago it reported “Those folks planning to vote in the special election are actually opposed to Obama’s health care plan by a 47/41 margin.” A poll reported on TV this morning had it 51 opposed, 44 (I think) in favor, but unfortunately I don’t remember whose poll or which station.
Mind you, I do recognize that a bill like this should be passed by Congress, not by plebiscite. But those are the best facts I have on what people in Massachusetts think about the current health care bill. SE, on which poll are you basing your judgment?
1/16/2010 7:35 pm
Sorry, I meant to link to the PPP.
1/16/2010 8:39 pm
Anyone seen Scott Brown’s centerfold pictures from Cosmopolitan (“America’s Sexiest Man”)? I can’t believe this hasn’t been in the news, or have I missed it?
http://bit.ly/8k1WrA
1/16/2010 9:10 pm
Harry - the PPP is a week old…no good
1/16/2010 10:54 pm
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/election_2010_massachusetts_special_senate_election
Harry, your poll is probably legit, but if it screened for likely voters in the special election it got just a smallish sliver of the electorate.
I get all my polling knowledge at fivethirtyeight.com.
1/16/2010 11:33 pm
Okay, that link was wrong. Here’s another Ezra Klein post that shows you what I actually know.
Sorry to be so scatterbrained today.
1/16/2010 11:33 pm
Okay, that link was wrong. Here’s another Ezra Klein post that shows you what I actually know.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/should_democrats_pass_health-c.html
Sorry to be so scatterbrained today.
1/17/2010 6:55 am
I’m concerned to hear that RT is in NZ. And I’m in Germany. That places two of the “Adventurous Four”* out of Massachusetts and hence-unless RT is coming back in a hurry-not voting. And then Harry Lewis is an independent, staunchly reserving his rights to make a last-minute decision. Aargh.
*A tip of the hat to Enid Blyton, whose “Secret Seven” adventure stories (childhood reading for some of us) were a breath of fresh air compared with the Secret Seven who have been a central topic on this blog recently. The “Adventurous Four” was another of Blyton’s book series.
1/17/2010 8:48 am
But presumably Australians and New Zealanders can’t vote in US elections, even in the leftie nuthouse that is Massachusetts? I doubt Coakley will win/lose by 2 votes, anyway. Even Bush needed 500 in Florida.
1/17/2010 9:16 am
I’m a US citizen (naturalized about 10 years ago). I’m pretty sure that RT is a US citizen as well.
1/17/2010 12:14 pm
If the election is so important to you, why didn’t you vote by absentee ballot?
1/17/2010 12:42 pm
A non-affirmative but utterly persuasive case for Coakley:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/my-vote-for-brown-isnt-a-vote-against-obama-ctd.html#more
Many of the things Sullivan says here seem like pinions but are actually pretty indisputable. Am happy to provide documentation.
Harry! Don’t vote for the Republican!
SE
1/17/2010 12:46 pm
OK, the other poll I heard was Suffolk U/Ch 7, which had 51% of likely MA voters opposed. That was 1/14, same poll that had Brown up by 4 points.
Someone who doesn’t think this bill is full of nonsensical special deals, please explain to me why nonunion workers should pay a tax on their health care plans that union workers with the identical plan won’t have to pay. Oh, I remember: it’s because that’s the way democracy works.
1/17/2010 1:43 pm
To Anonymous 12:14: I certainly regret now not having arranged to send in an absentee ballot. That was truly dumb on my part.
1/17/2010 2:24 pm
If it does end up being close enough to count absentee ballots before declaring a winner, I think they can demand to wait a full ten weeks for them to come in. Would that delay give enough time to pass a health bill?
(Apparently absentee ballot requests have been very high. Requests for absentee ballots would have had to go in by Friday, since tomorrow’s a holiday.)
1/17/2010 3:18 pm
Harry,
It’s because many collective bargaining agreements are already negotiated for quite a few years out with the understanding that premium health-care plans could go untaxed. All those arrangements would been screwed up by the new excise tax. This way industry and unions can adapt to the new reality over time.
Surely they could have adapted with some inconvenience over a shorter horizon, but you’re right: the Dems need enthusiastic unions for the midterms, which for a number of reasons look ominous and are always hard to generate enthusiasm for after wave elections.
So as always you’re at least half right. Obama calculated from the beginning that if he wanted to get things done he was going to have to work with some of these groups. In light of how broken Congress is, it’s now clear he was right.
1/17/2010 3:31 pm
So where is the 60 billion in excise tax that would have been levied on union Cadillac plans going to come from.
1/17/2010 3:37 pm
Oh, Beecham, why did nobody tell me this? I didn’t realize that I could have requested an absentee ballot as late as Friday. Well, it is all my fault. Should have got on line and got the info.
1/17/2010 3:59 pm
And as for the health care bill, I don’t think this is a moment to be fussing about details. Once a bill is passed and we gain some experience of its effects, we can always tinker with it.
I’ve observed universal health coverage in other countries-including during the last months of my parents’ lives-and it’s a lot better than anything we have right now in the US. We need to catch up with the rest of the developed world and stop forcing millions of Americans to obtain their health care in the most expensive of all possible ways-in the emergency ward. This also affects anyone who has come tot he emergency ward for truly emergency service,
1/17/2010 4:09 pm
Which, SEl is why the Harvard clerical and technical union was calling staff at their desks last week and telling them to vote for Coakley.
Everybody makes financial decisions—accepts a job at a particular salary, borrows money to buy a house, and so on—based on planning assumptions that get screwed up when taxes they weren’t counting on get imposed. Everybody, not just unionized labor.
I wonder if this analysis makes sense. The Democrats’ 60 votes were really a curse. It caused both parties to proceed in an uncompromising mood. The Democrats, having written off the Republicans (perhaps for good reason, I make no judgment on that), were forced to bribe their own colleagues (hence the deals for Nevada and Louisiana). At the same time they know they are unlikely to have 60 votes again, creating urgency to act while they have the 60. The result is a positive feedback loop, where the bill keeps getting more bloated, since the only way to keep the 60 is to add more of the same (the senator from Nevada wants to solve the injustice of the special deal for his state by giving it to everyone). (To understand positive feedback, imagine a dual control electric blanket with the controls swapped-one person keeps getting colder and the other keeps getting hotter as both react to what they are experiencing.)
1/17/2010 7:23 pm
Quite possibly true in some aspects, Harry. But the facts matter and your theory of the case departs from them in a couple spots. Most importantly: the Dems did NOT write off the Republicans. Indeed they burned perhaps seven months trying to find some way to win ANY of their votes. Many provisions in the bill are vestigial compromises with GOPers who then voted against it, and against cloture for it, anyway.
Read the Sullivan post: this really is an EXTREMELY moderate bill. And it REDUCES (need I say it again?) the deficit, both in this decade and the next.
One other caveat to your theory (which, again, has a grain of truth): sometimes spandrels are very good things. For example, the Medicaid funding that Nelson wangled for his state (Nebraska, bee tee doubleyew, not Nevada) may have come in through an ugly moment of logrolling — BUT on the merits it’s a good idea for all states. The biggest weakness if the stimulus bill was its relative paltriness in helping state budgets. Extra federal Medicaid spending added to the nation’s tab is much better tan the drastic education and safety-net cuts many states will otherwise have to resort to.
Standing Eagle, currently just outside Eagle Vail
1/17/2010 8:06 pm
Interesting quote from Paul Kirk in the NYT today, on the question of why Coakley is in trouble. “But for many people it was like, ‘Jeez, how much government are we getting here?’ That might have given them pause.”
1/17/2010 8:52 pm
On NZ, time, yes, Judith and 8:48, I’ve been a US citizen since 1990, and have voted in every election since then (once even for a Repuglican, Weld). I much preferred Capuano (not the manner), but of course would have voted for Coakley, who appears to have run a terrible campaign.
1/17/2010 9:00 pm
SE, are you skiing at Vail this holiday weekend?
1/17/2010 9:33 pm
Beaver Creek with the jockish daughters (7, nearly 5, and nearly 2).
1/17/2010 10:14 pm
Nice to know the book (http://www.amazon.com/At-Brink-Infinity-Humility-Boundless/dp/1587296284/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263784360&sr=1-4) is selling so well! Beaver Creek ain’t cheap/
1/18/2010 12:34 am
Harry, as you know, one of the standard lines in the right wing mantra is that government is bad, and having been repeated three times, it goes unquestioned by many people. Thomas Frank talks about this in his interview on Bill Moyers Journal:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01152010/watch.html
1/18/2010 8:03 am
Further, Harry, the people may say “government is bad,” and they might consequently decry the stimulus. But without that stimulus, the economy would be far worse than it is, and they’d be lamenting the lack of government intervention.
1/18/2010 9:41 am
For all you free-marketeers and less-government types please take a look at the mess in Haiti. Strip away the adolescent urge to blame it on race. A properly functioning government takes care of its citizens day-in and day-out - roads, public safety, infrastructure, schools, medical infrastructure, economic development, etc…so, there but for the grace of God go….well, we saw it in this country in NOLA at the very least.
If you don’t want to pay taxes (or less than what you pay now) expect that when disaster hits (in any form) that the situation in PAP could be your neighborhood. Níl aon tintéan mar do thintéan féin.
1/18/2010 9:54 am
What started this thread was Richard’s thesis that Coakley was in trouble because she is a lousy candidate. Other explanations have been offered, here and in the press: it’s the health care bill; it’s Obama; it’s Deval Patrick. I was simply noting that Kirk seems to have an interestingly different explanation.
1/18/2010 10:09 am
Harry, you took Kirk’s quote a little out of context. Kirk’s previous sentence was about all the major crises that required Obama to take so much action in his first year to “expand” the “government.” So it’s not fair to present his comment as a companion to your theory-of-the-day about hubristic Dem overreach. It could however fit into a highly chastened version of that theory which might be about underinformed/amnesiac public PERCEPTION of Dem overreach. Anything Richard and I can do or say to chasten you on this? My view is that Obama’s team (including our shared bugbear LS) yanked this country out of a handbasket and is pulling it up a very slippery slope. In 2007 I could never have dreamed of an executive branch this good so fast (although in 2008 I did dream of a few things from Obama I’ve not gotten — yet).
Poker players and good citizens need not just hope but concomitant Sitzfleisch.
Incidentally, since I’m typing now and Richard hasn’t removed my nom de vie from this thread, I’d like to point people again toward my 2006 Crimson editorial. James Fallows this month had quite a lot to say in this month’s Atlantic cover story about the framework I used in it — the ‘jeremiad’ concept identified by the great Sacvan Bercovitch.
I’ll post a link. Then, more coffee; then, the bunny hill!
Standing Eagle
1/18/2010 10:16 am
von der Heydt 2006:
http://www.thecrimson.com/writer/1202915/Jim__Von%20der%20heydt/
Fallows 2010:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001/american-decline
1/18/2010 10:20 am
Standing Eagle - usually don’t agree with you (or maybe it is just your style) but this time you are spot on. Happy trails to you.