HURRY UP AND WAIT

All of a sudden, Nancy Pelosi and Chris Dodd want to slow down on a health care bill. After all the urgency, now they want to "take a breather", maybe for a month or six weeks. Wasn't this what the congressional Republicans were advocating all along? Funny how the senatorial loss in Massachusetts has made Democrats more cautious.

OBAMA GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT

In explaining Coakley's defeat in Massachusetts (and the Democrats' losses in the governors races in New Jersey and Virginia), President Obama says that that were so busy solving crises that they weren't able to get their message out to the American people. This "explanation" has become the refuge of every failed politician in recent history. Couldn't get his message out? He's on TV more often than Jay Leno.
He got the message out just fine. The voters simply rejected it.
But he continues to believe the American people acted stupidly, like a bunch of cops who would arrest someone in their own home. Maybe the president will announce a National Beer Summit Day so we can all hear him better, and he can get his point through our thick skulls.
Really now, who's the one not getting the point?

THE MEANING OF THE MASSACHUSETTS SENATE ELECTION

The future of the Democratic Party's health care reform efforts are very much in doubt. Most people think that the only way a bill will be passed is if the House of Representatives swallows the Senate bill whole. Don't look for that. Instead, there will be several smaller bills passed that can be supported by some Republicans. This is what the Republican leadership has been after. This won't satisfy the left wing of the Democratic Party, but it's the best they can get. This way, the Dems can say they got some reforms passed on a bi-partisan basis.
The real consequence of this election, however, does not concern health care. It concerns "cap and trade". As legislation, it is dead. Democrats, after seeing the results in Massachusetts, won't have the stomach for legislation that Candidate Obama conceded would "necessarily" cause energy bills to "skyrocket". Not that President Obama will give up on "cap and trade". He'll just have the EPA impose regulations that will get the same results. This will take congressional Democrats off that particular hook.
But achieving "cap and trade" through administrative fiat will put President Obama on the hook all the way. He already is regarded as arrogant and unconcerned about the popular opinion of his policies. His turning EPA regulators loose on CO2 emission standards will only reinforce the negative opinion that Americans are developing about their president.

MASSACHUSETTS SENATE ELECTION

There is much to say about the ironic election of Scott Brown to fill the senate seat of Ted Kennedy. This election is seen by many as a referendum on the agenda of President Obama generally, and on the health care bill specifically. While this may be true, there is one factor which must be kept in mind in interpreting the results of this election. Massachusetts already has had a law on the books which provides health care for its citizens. The health care bill pending in Washington offers nothing for Massachusetts. If it were to pass (and this is not certain), the people of Massachusetts would be taxed to provide health care for the remainder of the nation without receiving any benefit themselves. No wonder the pending national health care bill was unpopular, and this contributed to a big Republican victory.

OBAMA'S ELECTION

I think that people voted for Barack Obama in two discreet blocs. Some voted for him because they supported his campaign pledge to "fundamentally transform the United States of America". Others voted for him because he ran as the Anti-Bush. Of these two groups, I think the latter group was the larger, and was decisive in the election.
Historically, after a political party has held the White House for two consecutive terms, the other major party's candidate is elected. This is not always the case (G.H.W. Bush succeeded Reagan), but it is the general rule. Electors generally like "change", if only for the sake of change. And George Bush's unpopularity sealed the deal, especially since the economy was shaky. So a Democratic nominee, regardless of who it was, had a great chance to win; a Republican candidate was almost certain to lose. The platforms and promises of the candidates were less important in this election than their party labels.
Except for that smaller group, who voted for Obama because they did desire to see the institutions of American government fundamentally changed. These people would have voted for him regardless of his party affiliation. Had he run as the candidate of the Know-Nothing Party, or the Whigs, they would have voted for him anyway.

Now, I don't think Obama understands that the two voting blocs I've described are separate groups. I think he mistook his election as an endorsement of his "transformational" platform by everyone who voted for him. Now he finds his popularity sinking a bit, and the polls are showing disapproval of his major policy initiatives in the areas of health care reform and energy policy. This is because the "Anti-Bushers" who voted for him never liked his platform from the start.
But transformation has come. Even if it isn't wanted.