If Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts after a last gasp appearance from the president (albeit an anemic one), the spin war will be on. Just as they did after the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial losses, Democrats will rationalize the loss — a weak candidate, a lousy campaign, and a “challenging political environment.” (The challenge is overcoming the rising unpopularity of their agenda, but that’s left unsaid by those defending their run of losses.) Bob McDonnell, who was sworn in this Saturday, ran against the Obama agenda and won in a landslide. Scott Brown ran as the 41st vote against ObamaCare. At some point, all but the most deluded Obama spinners must acknowledge that the public is registering its opposition to Obama’s leftward lurch in general and his brand of health-care “reform” in particular.
Obama rolled the dice by going to Massachusetts. But had he not gone, the headline will be the same in the event Martha Coakley loses: “Massachusetts Decks Obama.” Obama’s rhetoric may no longer carry the day. But of more concern to the White House may be that his agenda is becoming politically toxic. Those who embrace and defend it do so at their political peril. And if Coakley is defeated, far fewer Democrats will be inclined to defend it.
In one sense, this might be a blessing for Obama and the Democrats. Better to get the wake-up call in January and lose one seat than to get the message only in November and lose one or both houses of Congress. If Brown pulls off the greatest political upset since, well, since Obama took down the Clintons, then Obama and the Democrats will have a choice. They might continue to bury their heads in the sand, tag all critics as illegitimate partisan stooges, and push ahead with ObamaCare (with whatever parliamentary trick they can dream up). Alternatively, they can decide not to commit political suicide. They might stop and listen to the voters rather than insulting them. They might finally rethink the premise that they can jam through a highly unpopular, earthshaking piece of legislation on a straight party vote. And then there finally might be the opportunity to come up with a focused bill that addresses discrete issues with broad-based support (e.g., tort reform, interstate insurance purchases), rather than a giant tax-and-spend scheme and a recipe for rationing care to the oldest and sickest Americans. In doing so, Obama might regain his political footing and preserve many of his congressional allies’ seats.
The choice seems like a no-brainer for Democrats. But given the hubris and ideological fervor of this crowd, I wouldn’t bank on their reversing course to spare themselves a political wipeout.
