A 28 year veteran of the House named Alan Mollohan got beat in his party's primary yesterday in West Virginia.
Democratic primary voters in West Virginia showed 28-year congressional veteran Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., the door on Tuesday night.
It came after delegates to the Utah Republican convention ousted Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, from serving a fourth term in Washington over the weekend.
But the Mollohan loss could signal trouble for Democrats.
Democratic state Sen. Mike Oliverio toppled Mollohan. Oliverio’s victory made Mollohan the first House casualty in what has already been a turbulent midterm election year.
This comes less then a week after Republican voters did the same to Robert Bennett in their primary. One thing is clear and that is that all incumbents are in trouble. John McCain is facing a stiff primary challenge of his own and in the next month Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter may also lose.
The last time we had this sort of a tsunami for incumbents was 1994 and we followed that up with welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts, and several balanced budgets and so this may be just what the country needs.
Then, there is this video of Congressman Lloyd Doggett being confronted by voters in his home district outside a grocery store.
These sets of videos are making the rounds and they should be a warning to all Democratic politicians. Forget the polls. What is clear is that the passion and energy is on the side of the of those opposed to the health care plan that is filtering through Congress.
For weeks, everyone predicted all sorts of excitement once the politicians got back to their districts and met with the constituency. We just got a peek at this with these sets of video. This is not pretty.
What should be even more startling is that the regular voters that are opposed to the Democrat's health care reform are parrot ting the talking points of the politicians. One lady raised the chart the Republicans put out that looks much like a very sophisticated maze you create for a mouse. One asked how we can trust politicians with health care when they so underestimated cash for clunkers. Another asked how politicians can vote on the bill without reading it. Several asked for the process to slow down. All of these are Republican talking points.
This is only happening for one of two reasons. First, the voters believe the talking points and that's why they're parrot ting them. Second, the talking points have been verbalized effectively whether they're correct or not. Either way, what this means is that the Republicans have snagged the debate. It is their points that are finding the most effective audience.
This is one town hall in one state. So, we should all not take too much from it, though I doubt anyone that thinks this will be an anomaly. If this becomes the standard then two things will happen. First, politicians will come back to D.C. scared of health care reform. Second, this scene will become a standard viral phenomenon. Just imagine seeing a new townhall scene like this nearly every day throughout the month of August. The perception will be clear, even if by chance the reality is different, that the folks are against this plan.
Now, as the first in a series of townhall meetings portends that Democrats will have a lot of very nervous townhall meetings, the president and his allies are moving forward full speed ahead. Nancy Pelosi has changed the Democrats' talking points and now they are attacking insurance companies. The president and his team will spend the month of August selling health care. The House still intends to vote on the bill in September. The Senate is still trying to create its own bill. No one is talking about any moderate plan like Wyden/Bennett. The Democrats have no plans to make any substantial changes even though these videos follow a series of other signs that the current health care reform path is failing. Polling shows that the public is happy with their own health care overwhelmingly. Polls also show that people are worried that the current health care pass will make their health care more expensive, not as good, not as available. The public doesn't like the plan and its polling continues to fall, and that's just the consensus of all the polling.
It appears more and more clear every day that the president is willing to commit political kabuki and move forward with this health care plan despite 1) that it won't pass and 2)that it will cost him a good chunk, if not all, of his presidency. I suspect that the scene we just witnessed will become repeated all over the country and it will create the perception that the public at large can't stand his health care plan. Yet, rather than trying to change it and make the changes necessary to make it better, the president moves forward in a stubborn act of political suicide. For his presidency's sake, he had better heed the lesson early, this health care plan is roundly being rejected by the public at large.
(by the way, as of now, none of my three legislators, Mike Quigley, Dick Durbin, or Roland Burris have scheduled a townhall though I hope to report from one as it is scheduled)
Senator Specter's career as a Democratic Senator got off to a rocky start. First, he voted against the first two Democratic initiatives that were put in front of him. Then, he pronounced he was rooting for Norm Coleman to win in Minnesota though later he backtracked, likely when he realized what party he is a part of now. Then, Democrats began to announce that they weren't necessarily going to get out of the Pennsylvania primary just because Specter switched. The most recent hit is the announcement that he will not get committee seniority but rather he will be treated as a rookie.
All of this rings of poetic justice as well as irony. It appears that at least Joe Sestak will challenge Specter in the primaries. Already the netroots are against Specter. The unions are lukewarm at best. This has all happened in less than a week of him being a Democrat. So, what does it all mean? It means that the best case scenario is the Specter will win a brusing primary. At worst, he will lose in the primaries. As such, he is essentially facing the exact same options as he did as a Republican, only then he had seniority.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are in at least as good a position to win in Pennsylvania as they were with Specter. Tom Ridge is ready to put his hat in the ring. He of course would have never run if Specter was still a Republican. In effect, after all the wheeling and dealing, the Republicans are in roughly just as good a position to keep the Senate in Pennsylvania as they were when Specter was a Republican.
Meanwhile, the Democrats still don't have a filibuster proof majority. That won't happen until Minnesota is resolved. The time frame on that is still up in the air. Even assuming they do, it's unclear just how solid that majority will be. Specter is proving to be nearly as unreliable as a Democrat as he was a Republican. Meanwhile, the Republicans have just become that much more cohesive. Most votes still come down to Bayh, Nelson, Specter, Collins, Snowe, and Landrieu, only now there is one more Democrat in that field. The unions appear to be demanding a vote on card check for their support of Specter, but even that still remains unclear.
So, it is all rather ironic and full of poetic justice. Arlen Specter switched parties. Yet, everything continues to be just as muddled. Furthermore, given that his switch was entirely opportunistic, it is nothing short of poetic justice that ultimately the only thing we know for sure is that the switch cost him seniority.
The nation is on the "brink of a depression," but there's a "reasonable chance" that the $787 billion economic stimulus package will help ease the situation, Sen. Arlen Specter said Monday.Specter, R-Pa., said the nation's economic situation is more dire than the public has been told, but did not elaborate.
"Our economic problems are enormously serious — more serious than is publicly disclosed. And I think we're on the brink of a depression," he told reporters.
Specter went on to say things would be even worse had the stimulus package not passed.
I am rather conflicted on all of this. On the one hand, I know exactly how bad things are. For the better part of five years, I had a front row seat to all of the excess of the real estate boom. I know exactly how bad the loans were and so I understand exactly how dire things are. On the other hand, I am not privvy to whatever information I can only assume that Specter sees that has made him make this statement.
What makes me dubious about Specter's statement is that this isn't the first time I have heard. In fact, just about everyone from the Bush administration made similar statements when they attempted to sell TARP to the public. I heard then HUD Secretary Steve Preston use similar language when he defended TARP. He made the point that TARP stabilized a financial system that was about to spin out of control. President Obama used similar language for weeks to drum up support for his stimulus as well. Everytime, it seems that there is a controversial economic solution, someone says the sky is about to fall economically (and only the solution will save us)
None of it adds up to me. If the sky is falling as all these folks claim, why are we getting economic solutions in piece mail. Everytime there is a new economic solution, there is a drumbeat claiming the sky is falling. Don't get me wrong. I believe that things are dire. I'm just suspect of those that link its fragility to an economic policy they support.
How bad can things be? After all, the public may not be privvy to whatever Specter sees, but the public believes things are pretty bleak themselves. For the most part, the public thinks things really are that bad. Whenever I hear someone say something like this, they never give any specifics. It's as though the specifics are classified. This isn't classified information. The public is better off understanding the specifics of the situation. Instead, politicians will come out of the woodwork to tell us in a nebulous way that things are even worse than we imagine. Yet, they never say anymore than that.
I don't much go for scare tactics. If a politician knows something the rest of us don't, the best thing to do is to share it. The public can handle a sober assessment of the truth. I am, however, tired of these nebulous allusions to things being even worse than we imagine. I am especially tired of it when they are tied to a controversial policy that just happens to need justifying.
Please note. I welcome any and all comments from any political perspective. I will not stand or approve any swearing, and personal attacks will likely also not be approved.
