Ted Kennedy's Legacy: The Consummate Legislator

I have no doubt that many of my conservative readers will protest what I am about to write. To many on the right, any praise for Kennedy is blasphemy. This is also not an analysis on his personal life or on the accident that killed Mary Jo Kopechne. I wasn't there to witness either and so I am in no position to judge. I'm also in no position to judge other's personal failings.

That said, Kennedy spent nearly five decades as a legislator, and there's no doubt that he was extremely effective in his job. More than 300 bills that eventually became laws had Ted Kennedy's name on them. Think about that for a minute. John F. Kerry has less than ten in a similar time in the Senate.

Ted Kennedy was an unabashed liberal. Yet, in a career that spanned 47 years, ten presidents, all sorts of dynamics of power structures, all Kennedy did was introduce legislation and more than anyone that legislation turned into law. This legislation spanned the spectrum of issues. He was instrumental in the Voting Rights Act, SCHIP, No Child Left Behind, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Prescription Drug Benefit.

It's no secret that Kennedy wanted a single payer health care system. Yet, he was able to work with the likes of President Bush to turn into law legislation that went much less than that. Compare that to Hillary Clinton who refused to budge when Hillary Care blew up. Kennedy is the liberal lion and yet he worked with Republicans like John McCain, George Bush, and Orrin Hatch, to name just three, in passing legislation. Call them what you will, but none are liberals.

In August of 2001, he reached out to President Bush and they crafted into law No Child Left Behind. In 2003, he again worked with President Bush to craft into law the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. In the middle of it, he criticized Bush relentlessly for the war in Iraq. There's no minimizing the legislative skills of a Senator when they can essentially call the president a liar in public and turn around and in private work with them on crafting a bill. Yet, that's exactly what Kennedy did.

I am not here to judge the worthiness of the legislation he turned into law. For one, there's so much of it that such an endeavor would be impossible. I'm simply here to say that we should all realize that the sheer magnitude, scope, and breadth of his legislation prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ted Kennedy was a unique and effective legislator. Since that's the number one job of any Senator, I believe that's a very important part of his legacy.

Polticizing Death

I remember when Paul Wellstone died and his funeral turned into a rally for Senatorial candidate Walter Mondale. It was surreal and completely inappropriate. Norm Coleman went on to beat Mondale and no doubt the funeral turned rally didn't help Mondale's candidacy.

Now, health care reform is in big trouble. Universal health care was always a major legislative goal of Ted Kennedy. I believe death is a time for reflection and rememberance. Nancy Pelosi apparently believes death is a time for pushing legislation.

The death of Sen. Edward Kennedy quickly became a rallying cry for Congress
to pass health care overhaul legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office sent an email to reporters at around 2:30 a.m. today, just hours after his death, calling for the passage of health care overhaul. “Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration,” the statement read.

Try and put this into perspective. Ted Kennedy died when most people were asleep. Obviously, I don't know if the Speaker was asleep. It's not likely since she was likely three hours behind. Still, just as everyone was asleep or going to sleep, the Speaker used the death of Ted Kennedy as an opportunity to push health care. Someone in the dead of night put together a mass email and sent it into cyber scape.

The Journal article went on to point out that SEIU chief Andy Stern and Cogressman Clybourn linked Kennedy's death to passing health care reform.

Just try and understand how cynical this is. What all three of these folks are essentially saying is that not passing health care reform would be an insult to his legacy. It's almost as though they are trying to get people to feel guilty into passing health care reform. The country is supposed to leave their concerns aside in order to pass this legislation because not doing so would diminish his legacy. What if Karl Rove had sent out an email right after Reagan died proclaiming that Reagan fought for lower taxes and so it was time to urge the Congress to make the Bush tax cuts permanent? What if John Boehner had done something like that in the aftermath of Jack Kemp's death? The outrage would have drowned out any and all other news. Yet, now, most of the media is muted by something similarly outrageous. Talk about cynical and a totally inappropriate response to death.

The Smart Money Is Against Health Care Reform

When I say smart money, I actually just mean me. (I'll let the audience decide just how accurate that statement) That said, I would be stunned if any sort of radical health care reform passed. It's possible that the Congress and the president, to save face, might pass something harmless and scaled down that focused on non profit co ops. On the other hand, there are so many obstacles to radical health care reform that I just hope I remember them all.

The main problem is that the timeline simply doesn't match the sophistication of the legislation. This sort of legislation takes years of hearings, negotiation, along with timing to get done. The president wants this done by the end of the summer. I don't know if this is a matter of hubris or merely opportunity, but the president is working on a timeline that is simply not feasible.

Second, with each passing day, there is a new plan. So far, Ted Kennedy has developed the skeleton of a plan in his committee. That plan has now been rendered useless ever since the CBO came out with the price tag on said plan. Meanwhile, Max Baucas is working on his own plan though the rollout on that plan has been pushed back. Then, there are rumors that moderates from both the Republicans and Democrats are working on their own plan. The Republicans have yet to announce their plan. The House has yet to weigh in and its even possible that the president will then come up with his own plan. By the end, we will have four to six competing plans. We need a majority vote in the House and a super majority in the Senate. That isn't going to happen with all of these plans vying for attention.

Third, the numbers simply don't add up. No matter what, the plan is going to be expensive. It will cost at least $1 trillion over the next ten years. The president has figured out how to raise about one third of the revenues with taxes that aren't going to turn the public against the plan. He still needs to raise at least $700 billion over the next ten years. There is simply no politically viable way to do it. Here's how Dick Morris describes what Obama would do.

Obama faces two practical choices: a value added tax or taxing health insurance benefits.

The political harm either way will be enormous. Not only will Obama be breaking his pledge not to tax the middle class, but he will be doing so in a particularly pernicious way. If Obama opts for the value added tax (VAT), Democrats will hope to cloak the increase in the price of the product. They reason that the consumer won’t know how much the tax is since it will be added on throughout the sale and resale of the product rather than at the cash register at the end, as the sales tax is. But it will work the other way. As inflation sets in, triggered by Obama’s deficit spending, consumers will blame the whole thing on Obama. His VAT will be much magnified in the voters’ minds to include all of the inflation going on. Just as voters blamed Clinton’s gas tax
increase of five cents in 1993 for the entire run-up in gasoline prices at the pump, so they will place all the blame for inflation on Obama’s VAT.

Or Obama could tax healthcare benefits, a direct reversal of his campaign pledge. He would be adopting a policy for which he overtly and loudly criticized McCain. And his popularity will wilt as taxpayers suddenly have to add onto their tax liability the money their employer has always paid for their health insurance. Obama will probably have his own separate line on the 1040 and even on the short form for his new tax. That’s not the way to stay popular.

I don't think it would ever come to either option. President Obama is smart enough to know that if he tried to finance health care with a tax that was broad and reached beyond the 5% he's promised, not only would it be defeated but he'd suffer a blow he would likely not recover from. Cutting Medicare/Medicaid benefits would similarly be a third rail that would ultimate defeat the bill as well. So, ultimately, unless the president is able to do mathematical magic the numbers simply won't add up.

Fourth, there are starting to be far too many opponents to demonize. The CBO came out with its estimates just yesterday. Even before it was released, the Democrats were already trying to lower expectations and claiming they were going to use the numbers of the Office of Management and Budget, which is a part of the White House. The CBO is among the most respected bureaucracies in D.C. Trying to demonize their numbers is dicey to say the least. Then, the American Medical Association came out against the plan. The White House, and the left media, immediately went into attack mode. Of course, the AMA has backed Democratic causes on climate change and other issues. They represent doctors. Doctors are not apolitical but they are vital to any plan. Then, Senators like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu expressed doubts about the plan. Liberal media groups like Daily Kos and Media Matters went into full attack mode.

Pretty soon, supporters of the plan will need to start attacking just about everyone. At some point, enough groups that have credibility with the public at large are going to be against this plan. Some folks are easy to demonize, insurance companies for instance. It's probably a political benefit if they are against this plan. Republicans are easy to demonize. Try and demonize members of your own party, the CBO, and the AMA. That's a different issue.

Finally, there's no leader. You could say the president is leading, but that's not really even so. Somedays, Ted Kennedy is taking the lead. Other days it's Max Baucus. Then, the president takes interest. There is no point person to sell the details. The president is out there selling the idea, but he can't sell the details. He hasn't decided what those are. At some point, you have to explain the costs, how they'll be paid, and how this will benefit Americans. No one is doing that. How do you pull off radical legislation if no one knows how it will benefit them?

So, ultimately, President Obama will soon find out why health care reform has swallowed so many.

Obama/McCain...Rhetoric Vs. Reality

Barack Obama is now famous for his rhetoric of rising above partisanship and reaching across and ending partisan politics. While Obama has certainly been able to say these things with a charisma that is not usually found, he is not the first politician to say it. Here is some of the high minded rhetoric that Barack Obama says...

We're tired of being divided. We are tired of running into ideological walls and partisan roadblocks. We're tired of appeals to our worst instincts and our greatest fears. So I say this to you guys, that America is desperate for leadership. I absolutely feel it everywhere I go. They are longing for direction and they want to believe again.

and...

And it is because of these failures that we not only have a moment of great challenge, but also a moment of great opportunity. We have a chance to bring the country together in a new majority -- to finally tackle problems that George Bush made far worse but that had festered long before George Bush ever took office -- problems that we've talked about year after year after year after year.

And that is why the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won't do in this election. That's why not answering questions because we are afraid our answers won't be popular just won't do. That's why telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won't do. Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we're worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won't do. If we are really serious about winning this election, Democrats, we can't live in fear of losing it.

So, clearly, Obama has built his campaign as a politician that transcends politics as usual. He makes himself out to be an agent of change. He makes himself out to be the individual to finally shake things up in Washington so that it is a government that takes care of people rather than takes from them. While this is noble and lofty rhetoric, one has to ask if Obama has any accomplishments that go with this.

Sean Hannity is fond of challenging Obama supporters to name one thing he has actually accomplished. One time, he asked a Democratic group of voters in a focus group led by Frank Luntz what Obama has accomplished. None of them could actually name anything. In fact, In fact, when asked on television, Obama supporter Kirk Watson repeatedly couldn't name one accomplishment. In fact, Obama's lack of leadership on any substantive issues is the focus of this New York Times article.

Even those with knowledge of Obama's accomplishment point vaguely to "work" on bills regarding ethics reform and even more nebulous work on health care reform in the Illinois Senate. The reality is that Obama's actual accomplishments are very bare, but more importantly, he has never shown the kind of courage necessary to really bridge partisan divides. His rhetoric maybe lofty, but it is backed up with absolutely nothing that tells anyone that he will be able to deliver.

While Obama talks about transcending politics, reaching across the aisle, and being able to transcend partisanship, there is one candidate in this race with a history of actually accomplishing these lofty goals: John McCain.

In fact, on issue after issue, John McCain has become the scourge of die hard Republicans and Conservatives for doing what Obama says he will do. On the issue of campaign finance reform, John McCain reached deep across the ideological aisle to Russ Feingold. Campaign finance reform was a long and arduous struggle from concept to completion. It was first introduced in 1995 and it didn't become law until 2002. It went through many stages and evolutions. During that time, McCain had to reach out to many Democrats in order to make his vision a law. In fact, in its final version, it was voted on by more Democrats then members of his own party.

Barack Obama has also worked on the issue of campaign finance reform and transparency. He has proposed a series of vague and hard to define measures in his campaign. He has had no bills turn into law. He has lead no investigations. His time in the Senate has been spent in a supporting role on this issue besides the consistent lofty rhetoric he has.

On the issue of climate control, McCain again reached across the aisle, this time to Joe Lieberman. McCain/Lieberman became nearly the scourge of his own party that McCain/Feingold was. Once again, at political risk, McCain reached across the aisle to work in a bi partisan manner. It is ironic that this bill never became law specifically because members of his own party blocked it. For all of Obama's talk, I welcome anyone to name one issue on which he bucks to establishment of his party, let alone introduced a bill that bucked it.

On this issue, Barack Obama has again proposed a plan but turned nothing into law. His plan is described by this source as typical liberal policy. It is vague and undefined much like his plans for transparency and campaign finance reform.

I believe McCain's biggest coup of bi partisanship came with the Gang of 14. The battle over judges became more and more contentious over the years. During 2005, it came to a head, as judge after judge was being filibustered by the Democrats. The Republicans proposed the so called nuclear option that would remove the filibuster on judges. McCain saw this issue in a unique way. If the nuclear option was employed, it would change a rule that had been around when Daniel Webster roamed the halls of Congress. He felt that such traditions were more important than partisanship. Thus, he lead a group of 14 Senators, 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans, in creating this so called Gang of 14. They created a nebulous term, extraordinary circumstances, however since, no judges have been filibustered and the nuclear option hasn't been employed.

My Conservative brethren hold this as one of many unforgiveable actions by McCain, however I believe that political gamesmanship is disastrous for all. (Just read more about the 2003 fiasco over redistricting in Texas to see what happens when neither side backs down in a game of political gamesmanship) Had the Republicans employed the nuclear option, the Democrats would likely have walked out and shut the government down. Who knows where the crisis would have ended? In Texas, the Democrats went to Oklahoma and Tom Delay ordered their arrest in a public fiasco in which both sides exhibitied the most ugly characteristics of politics. McCain lead a group of fourteen Senators that avoided such a Mexican showdown.

On the issue of judges, Obama has stayed largely silent. He voted against both justice Roberts and Alito. On the issue of abortion, his position is so radical that he is actually to the left of Planned Parenthood on the issue. We don't know what sorts of judges he would choose because he has never said and no one has asked. His radical social agenda indicate someone more left than Ruth Ginsberg, and it is unclear how such a choice would accomplish any of the lofty rhetoric he proclaims.

Finally, McCain's boldest piece of bi partisanship came during the most recent campaign season. During the campaign this past summer, McCain reached out to liberal icon Ted Kennedy to try and pass comprehensive immigration reform. His contentious and controversial idea made him the scourge of his own party and nearly killed his campaign. It ultimately failed, however without a doubt it was political courage of the highest order. During the primary season he reached out to an enemy of most of the voters he was seeking and tried to legislate on a contentious and controversial issue. It was an unprecedented and bold move by a Presidential candidate. (On the other hand, Barack Obama has skipped the votes on most of the most controversial issues of the day during the primary season)

On this issue, Obama has also largely stayed in the background. His only leadership role was in trying to bring driver's licenses for illegals to Illinois. His biggest claim to fame on this issue was a major speech in front of the radical separatist group, La Raza. He stayed largely in the background of this past summer's illegal immigration debate. He has absolutely no substantive accomplishments on the issue, and his position is largely in line with his party as a whole.

So, what we have is a contrast between rhetoric and reality. There is one candidate in this race preaching about bi partisanship, change, and shaking things up and another one with a history of doing so. To truly reach across the aisle, buck partisanship, and bring everyone together requires political courage. It requires courage to buck your natural constituency and reach out to folks your supporters despise. It requires the gumption to withstand the attacks of your ideological comrades. One candidate has a history of doing all of these things, and the other one, a Democrat, was was voted most liberal Senator in 2007. In other words, while he talks about trascending politics, his voting record shows he is the exact opposite. It is quite ironic that Obama preaches bi partisanship and change, because on the merits, he is all talk on both issues and McCain, his opponent, has a unique and remarkable history of accomplishment on both issues.