What Will Coakley's Defeat Mean for Health Care Reform?
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger
Last night, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in the special election to fill Teddy Kennedy's senate seat in Massachusetts. Coakley's loss puts health care reform in jeopardy.
With Coakley's defeat, the Democrats lose their filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. However, as Paul Waldman explains in The American Prospect, Coakley's loss is not the end for health care reform.
Remember, the Senate already passed its health care reform bill in December. Now, the House has to pass its version of the bill. The original plan was for House and Senate leaders to blend the two bills together in conference to create a final piece of legislation (AKA a conference report) that both houses would vote on. Once the Democrats are down to 59 votes, the Republicans can filibuster the conference report and kill health care reform.
But if the House passes the same bill the Senate just passed, there's no need to reconcile the two bills. This so-called "ping pong" approach may be the best way to salvage health care reform. Some of the flaws in the Senate bill could still be fixed later through budget reconciliation. It would be an uphill battle, but nothing compared to starting health care reform from scratch.
The second option would be to get the bill done before Scott Brown is sworn in. According to Waldman, there could be a vote within 10 days. The House and Senate have already drafted some compromise legislation, which Waldman thinks is superior to the straight Senate bill. If that language were sent to the Congressional Budget Office immediately, the Senate could vote before Brown is sworn in.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said in a statement last night that Brown won't be sworn in until the election results are certified, a process that could take two weeks. Historically, the winners of special Senate elections have taken over from their interim predecessors within a couple of days. If the Republicans were in this position, they'd use every procedural means at their disposal to drag out the process. The question is whether the Democrats have the fortitude to make the system work for them.
Remember how the Republicans did everything in their power to hold up the Senate health care vote, including forcing the clerk to read the 767-page bill aloud? They were trying to delay the vote until after the Massachusetts special election. If it's okay for the GOP to stall, the Democrats should be allowed to drag their feet on swearing in Brown.
Also, remember how the Republicans fought to keep Al Franken from being seated after he defeated Norm Coleman? For his part, Franken says he's determined to pass health care reform one way or another, according to Rachel Slajda of Talking Points Memo.
Incongruously, some Democrats are arguing that rushing to a vote would be a violation of some vague democratic principle. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) wasted no time in proclaiming that there should be no vote before Brown was sworn in. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), of all people, averred last night that the Democrats should respect the democratic process and start acting like they have 59 votes while they still have 60.
All this talk of "respecting the process" is hand waving disguised as civics. According to the process, Scott Brown isn't the senator from Massachusetts yet. According to the process, you have the votes until you don't.
Talk about moving the goalposts. It's bad enough that we need 60 votes to pass a bill on any given day. Now, they'd have us believe that we also need 60 votes next week. Webb and Frank are arguing that Brown's victory obliges Democrats to behave as if Brown were already the Senator from Massachusetts. Of course, if Webb won't play ball, it's a moot point. The whole fast-track strategy is predicated on 60 votes. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly thinks that Webb effectively took the fast-track option off the table with his strongly worded statement.
Katrina vanden Huevel of The Nation argues that this historic upset should be a wake up call to President Barack Obama to embrace populism with renewed fervor. I would add that Obama was elected on a platform of hope and change. There is no better way to fulfill a promise of change than to reshape the nation's health care system and provide insurance for millions of Americans.
Ping pong, anyone?
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
I have written several times of the media's fixation with the bill that comes out of the Senate Finance Committee on health care. It's finally starting to move now, creaking its way up the track like a half-dead carcass. Traditional media will act like whatever is in the Senate Finance bill will be the bill, that the deal is done. Not even close, folks.
Here's why the Senate Finance markup that will come out next week is nowhere close to what will be in the final legislation:
1. Finance chair Max Baucus has already messed up by not consulting with a half-dozen of the more progressive members of the committee. I am hearing numerous reports, some of which have surfaced publicly, that some of them are rebelling at the awful piece of mangled legislation being thrust in front of them. Given that Snowe is the only Republican that there is even a ghost of a chance of voting for the bill, Baucus has to get all or at least most of the Democrats on board, and I believe if the committee progressives work together, they can force some changes for the better.
2. The bill that makes it out of Finance will be so convoluted, contradictory, distorted, held-together-with-duct-tape because of all the compromises Baucus is making that Democrats will have to remake it in later stages even if they don't want to- and a great many of them want to.
3. Harry Reid still needs to marry the Finance bill and the HELP committee bill. Tom Harkin, who took over the chairmanship of the HELP Committee after Ted Kennedy passed away, is from what I hear bound and determined to make a major push to have the language of the HELP bill be a major part of the package that goes to the floor, including on the big issues like the public option and affordability for the middle class. He is being supported not only by the Democratic members of his committee but by outside progressive forces.
4. The floor fight will be wild and wooly, but I suspect that progressive forces may have an advantage in adding positive amendments to the mix in the light of day in a floor fight. The Republicans will offer all kinds of goofy amendments designed to mess up the bill, but they have two problems: they only have 40 votes, and the public polling on the GOP's actual health care proposals are very bad. Given that, Republican efforts to worsen the bill have little chance to succeed. Progressives, on the other hand, want to improve the bill by doing things that are actually popular: the public option (consistently polls in the 60s and 70s); taxing the wealthy instead of middle class workers with good insurance plans; making health insurance more affordable to the middle class. All of these are going to be pretty hard to vote against on the Senate floor.
5. Finally, to return to a theme I have been rather repetitive about in recent months, it is abundantly clear that House progressives, if they stay strong and stay together, have the negotiating power to block a bad bill. If they don't wilt, if they don't let themselves get picked off one by one, they can negotiate for a good health care bill, one that has a public option, one that is affordable for the middle class, one that forces insurers and providers to do real cost containment.
The traditional media will fall all over themselves to pronounce whatever Senate Finance does to be chiseled in stone. But progressives, if they work together and negotiate tough, can write a bill that will work, a bill on comprehensive health reform that we can all look back on as one of the greatest accomplishments of the era.
It is an obvious point that the most moving part of the President's speech was the part about Ted Kennedy's letter. With Teddy's death so recent, and his family there to hear the historic speech, it was truly a special moment. And reading the full text of Kennedy's letter to the President this morning turned me into a weeping basket case. But the importance of the letter, and the point President Obama made about it in his speech, goes far beyond sentimentality. The letter was a handoff, and in his speech Obama seemed to accept the baton.
The handoff I am referring to is not mainly a generational handoff, as the youngest of his legendary Kennedy generation passing the baton to another inspiring young President. Much more than that, it was a philosophical handoff rich in history and in symbolism, not only on health care but on the broader progressive mission.
Kennedy was writing about health care, but also about more fundamental principles of the progressive philosophy.
Ed. note: The Weekly Pulse is becoming the Daily Pulse for September. Every weekday, we'll bring you highlights from the health care reform debate, including exclusive video interviews with leading experts and independent journalists each Friday. Even better, you can be a part of the conversation. Stay tuned to find out more!
A power shift is underway in Washington. Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick announced on Monday that a special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy would not take place until January 19, 2010. With Kennedy's seat empty, the Democrats no longer have the 60 votes they need to break a filibuster in the Senate. Up until this point, the White House was hoping for a compromise bill that the entire Democratic caucus, and maybe even a few Republicans, could agree on.
Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly notes that the Gang of Six has made itself irrelevant. These powerful members of the Senate Finance Committee were in charge of hammering out a bipartisan health care bill. They forgot that they were only powerful if people believed a bipartisan compromise was attainable.
Talking Points Memo reports that the White House has given up on Republican gangster Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY). They finally got the hint when Enzi told a radio listeners that Democrats wanted to kill the elderly with comparative efficacy research. The White House should have cut its losses two weeks ago when Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) repeated the "death panel" meme at a town hall meeting. Grassley has also been raising money campaigning against "Obama-care."
It's looking more and more like the Democrats will have to look to budget reconciliation, a special parliamentary procedure that could sidestep a filibuster and pass a healthcare bill by a simple majority vote.
America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's top lobby group, dispatched 50,000 employees to town halls to fight the public option. Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones took a cue from Michael Moore in Sicko. She asks AHIP what kind of insurance their top lobbyist has. Mencimer says AHIP was so standoffish you'd think she had a preexisting condition.
In Mother Jones, Ben Buchwalter and Nikki Gloudeman take a closer look at the corporate megabucks behind the town hall brawls. Corporate enemies of healthcare reform are using front groups like FreedomWorks to organize angry mobs at town hall meetings. Zach Roth of TPM Muckraker reports that "legendary GOP bamboozler" Howard Kaloogian has launched a tea party bus tour to protest healthcare reform.
Speaking of frauds, you've probably heard about so-called crisis pregnancy centers that pose as abortion clinics in order to cajole women into having babies. Ever wonder what happens to those babies? In the Nation, Kathryn Joyce goes inside the world of high-pressure Christian adoption agencies that support desperate women, as long as they promise to give up their babies.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care and is free to reprint. Visit Healthcare.newsladder.net for a complete list of articles on health care affordability, health care laws, and health care controversy. For the best progressive reporting on the Economy, and Immigration, check out Economy.Newsladder.net and Immigration.Newsladder.net.
This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder.
More than any piece of legislation, no matter how important, how significant, how life-changing, is the spirit that inspired it and made it possible. That spirit is found constantly in the American people, but only rarely in our political leaders.
"Camelot" became a metaphor for the Kennedys in the aftermath of Jack's assassination. But I always found "Finian's Rainbow" to be a more appropriate touchstone for the family, especially the song "Look to the Rainbow," with the moving lyric, "Follow the fellow who follows a dream."
That was Ted's message at Bobby's funeral. The Kennedys counseled us for half a century to be optimistic and to strive harder, to find the resilience to overcome those inevitable moments of tragedy and desolation, and to move steadily toward our better selves, as individuals and as a nation.
Ted's burial today is a perfect opportunity to remember the best that the family has given us.
The continuing tragedy of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath is the starkest possible reminder that America has lost its way from the vision of what it ought to be-a vision that Ted Kennedy articulated for almost half a century in the US Senate.
In his speech to the 1980 Democratic National Convention, Kennedy said:
It is the glory and the greatness of our tradition to speak for those who have no voice, to remember those who are forgotten, to respond to the frustrations and fulfill the aspirations of all Americans seeking a better life in a better land.
We dare not forsake that tradition.
We cannot let the great purposes of the Democratic Party become the bygone passages of history.
What happened to New Orleans with Katrina, and what has continued in the aftermath to this day is that "the least of these" have been forgotten.
Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
And it is moral certainty that America cannot rise so long as New Orleans remains fallen.
That is the heart of the Gospels, and the heart of what it means to truly be a Christian. And as Kennedy said, it is the heart of what it means to truly be a Democrat and an American as well.
Amidst a firestorm of Versailles historical revisionism, trying to reinvent Teddy Kennedy as unprincipled wheeler-dealer who'd give up anything just to pass a bill, stubborn facts on the intertubes keep getting in the way. Such as the following priceless gem highlighted over at Eschaton.
.
"'When does the greed stop?' We ask the other side."
"What is it about the minimum wage that drives you Republicans crazy? What is it?
"Something. Something."
"What is the price that the workers have to pay to get an increase?
"What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive? That you won't permit even a vote?
"Denying the Senate of the United States the opportunity to express ourselves.
"I don't want to hear anything more from that side for the rest of this session about permitting and not permitting votes in here."
Senator Kennedy's prolific career spanned nearly five decades, during which he authored more than 2,500 bills in the U.S. Senate. Several hundred have become public law. This fall we hope to add yet another bill to that distinguished list - the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Even during this emotional time when we remember Senator Kennedy's remarkable achievements, there are at least three important matters of succession we must consider. First, who receives Kennedy's Senate HELP committee chairmanship. Second, if there will be an interim Senator. Third, who the candidates will be for the special election in January. This article touches on all three areas.
Senate HELP Committee Senator Kennedy's chairmanship of the Senate HELP committee will need to be filled. Paul Kaine breaks down the likely candidates. The odds on favorite appears to be Mikulski:
A new chairman won't be formally selected until senators return from their August recess. Legislative business for the fall session is slated to begin Sept. 8.
The first Democrat in line in committee seniority now is Kennedy's closest friend in the Senate, Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who shepherded the health-care legislation through the HELP committee in June and July.
Dodd, however, already chairs the banking committee, and he would have to give up that gavel in order to take up the legislative legacy of Kennedy.(...)
If Dodd were to pass on taking the HELP chairmanship, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has the next chance to take over the panel. But Harkin already chairs the Agriculture Committee, which is of critical importance to his home state, and Harkin is not believed to be interested in the HELP gavel.
That would leave Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) next in line to chair the committee. She has already been overseeing the education portfolio of that panel in Kennedy's stead, and she led the passage of major reforms to Pell grants last year. The HELP committee is slated to consider a reauthorization of the landmark No Child Left Behind legislation that Kennedy co-authored in 2002.
Will there be an interim Senator? Massachusetts is one of only three states where special elections are held in the event of a Senate vacancy, rather than the Governor appointing a replacement. Given the details of the Massachusetts law, which was passed in 2004, that special election will take place on either January 19th or January 26th.
Elections Law committee co-chair Sen. Tom Kennedy (D-Brockton) said he and House co-chair Michael J. Moran (D-Boston) may bump up a hearing date for a bill that would give temporary appointing power to Patrick to Sept. 17.
"(The bill) was originally grouped in with the October hearing, but we're trying to take into consideration the interest of the legislators," said Kennedy.
Rep. Robert M. Koczera (D-New Bedford), who filed the bill, spoke to Moran yesterday and said he received assurances that his bill would be heard before the original Oct. 7 hearing.
Therese Murray, the state senate president, has said the state should not be without a second senator for long. And Mr. Patrick said Wednesday in radio interviews that he would sign such a bill if it reached his desk.
Whatever the current legal hurdles and unfortunate timing of this process, the ethics of the situation seem pretty straightforward. There is a moral imperative to provide health care coverage to all Americans, just as there is a moral imperative to provide equal representation to all Americans. Those values outweigh any process arguments we can expect to hear coming from the Republican Noise Machine as this effort moves forward.
Special Election The Hill has a comprehensive look at the candidates:
Just about every member of the state's 10-member all-Democratic congressional delegation has been mentioned as a potential candidate, particularly Reps. Edward Markey, Richard Neal and three others who have already banked more than a million dollars in their House accounts.
Markey, who raised his profile after shepherding climate change legislation through the House this year, has $2.89 million in the bank. Neal, whose district stretches from the Boston suburbs west to Springfield, has $2.5 million in cash reserves.
Rep. John Tierney (D), who holds the northeast corner of the state based around Peabody, has $1.29 million in reserve, and Rep. Michael Capuano (D), whose district includes northern Boston suburbs Cambridge and Lowell, would start a Senate race with $1.2 million. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D) would launch a bid from his south Boston district with $1.39 million.
Former Reps. Marty Meehan and Joe Kennedy, Ted Kennedy's nephew, also have large House accounts and are considered top Democratic contenders, as is state Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Meehan, who left Congress in 2007 to take over as chancellor of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, nonetheless has $4.8 million left in his congressional account. Joe Kennedy has $1.7 million in the bank.
Coakley has been seen as a potential Senate candidate for some time. When Kerry appeared a strong contender to lead President Barack Obama's State Department, Coakley commissioned a poll testing her chances.
On the Republican side, former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, former U.S. attorney Michael Sullivan and former Ambassador Chris Egan lead the list of potential suitors.
Massachusetts House Democrats have been hoarding money for this money for quite some time. Back in 2006, this made the Massachusetts delegation the primary targets of the Use It Or Lose It campaign to transfer Democratic money to swing districts. If you need a moment of levity today, listen to the old NPR story on the Use It Or Lose It campaign, including the part where the Lowell Sun calls it "a nasty shakedown by rotten political scoundrels." Classy!
One of healthcare reform's greatest champions died last night. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) succumbed to brain cancer at the age of 77. During his 46-year career in the senate, Kennedy's name appeared on virtually every major piece of progressive legislation from civil rights to economic justice, to healthcare. Kennedy called healthcare reform "the cause of my life."
Jack Newfield of The Nation remembers Kennedy as the senate's fighting liberal, the "best and most effective senator of the past hundred years."
We are left with weak, squabbling, visionless Democratic puppets and a President whose domestic reform policies are adrift-sliding towards the horizon with each passing day.
The loss is a blow to healthcare reform. Alex Koppelman of Salon notes that with Kennedy's passing, the Democrats have lost one of their most effective bipartisan deal-makers. Democrats will also be down a vote in the senate for the foreseeable future because Massachusetts state law doesn't allow for the appointment of an immediate replacement.
Naturally, with congress on vacation, wackos are rushing in to fill the media vacuum. Eric Boehlert asks in AlterNet why Republicans the only ones allowed to get angry about healthcare reform, or anything else. He notes that in 2003, the media decided that Howard Dean was too angry for prime time. During the Republican National Convention in 2008, SWAT teams were sent to raid the homes of suspected anarchist protesters. And yet, conservative demonstrators in Arizona are allowed to tote rifles just outside the security perimeter of a presidential event.
RNC Chair Michael Steele raised eyebrows by championing single-payer healthcare in an op/ed in the Washington Post framing the GOP as defenders of Medicare.
Odd that Steele has so much love for Medicare, but none for the nation's other leading source of government-run healthcare, the Veterans Administration (VA). This week, Steele accused America's other leading public insurance provider of encouraging veterans to commit suicide, based on a booklet published by the VA which explains living wills, advanced directives and other key concepts in end-of-life care, Rachel Slajda reports for TPM DC.
Progressives have been doing a great job debunking the death panel and death book myths, like this creative photo essay from TPM. But we're scarcely addressing the misconception that underlies them: The idea government-administered health insurance is inherently more prone to rationing than private health insurance.
Newt Gingrich and other prominent opponents of reform claim that a public option will restrict choices and deny care. What they don't say is that for-profit insurance is rationing. When your insurance company covers an old drug for your condition, but not a new one with fewer side effects, that's rationing. The company is restricting your treatment choices to improve its bottom line. When an employer or an insurer decides not to cover mental health care, that's rationing. The entire business model is predicated on charging people more and giving them less care so there's more money left over for the stockholders.
No health insurance can cover every treatment, no matter who runs it. But public insurance has two major advantages: 1) Public insurance tends to be cheaper to administer; 2) The tough choices about what to cover are ultimately in the hands of the voters, not health insurance bureaucrats with an eye on the bottom line.
The whole town hall concept is turning out to be a strategic blunder for the White House. The format makes legislators and the media sitting ducks for extremists and astroturfers who want to paint themselves as typical citizens. As Sandy Heierbacher of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation writes in YES Magazine:
[T]he town hall design sets the stage for activist groups and special interest groups to try to 'game' the system and sideline other concerned citizens in the process. As Martin Carcasson, director of Colorado State University's Center for Public Deliberation, recently pointed out, "the loudest voices are the ones that get heard, and typically the majority voices in the middle don't even show up because it becomes a shouting match."
How much more clear can the Republicans be? They are not interested in bipartisanship. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), supposedly the Senate's leading reasonable Republican on healthcare, couldn't even be bothered to rebuke a town hall participant who hinted about assassinating the president, as Raw Story reports.
If the Democrats want healthcare reform, they are going to have to go it alone. Let's hope they pass a bill that would make Sen. Kennedy proud.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about healthcare and is free to reprint. Visit Healthcare.newsladder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy. For the best progressive reporting on the Economy, and Immigration, check out Economy.Newsladder.net and Immigration.Newsladder.net.
This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder.
Even though he was a progressive champion, Senator Kennedy was also listed by Republicans as the easiest Democrat to work with in the Senate. He was living proof that "bipartisanship" did not have to be about simply giving into right-wing demands, even though that is almost always what it means these days.
Senator Kennedy's first piece of legislation may have been his most meaningful: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It changed, and is still changing, the country in profound ways. Then again, since America has commonly been made and remade by waves of immigrations during its history, maybe the bill just took us back to our transformative roots, rather than changing us all that much.
Senator Kennedy played a pivotal role in both the 2004 and 2008 Democratic nominations. In Iowa in 2004, he was a tireless surrogate for John Kerry when most other prominent Democrats were stumping for other candidates. In 2008, he endorsed President Obama eight days before Super Tuesday, generating huge press. This helped continue Obama's momentum from South Carolina, and was crucial in forcing a draw on Super Tuesday. Without this timely endorsement, Secretary of State Clinton would likely have won the nomination and the Presidency.
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the only senator to have served longer than the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), mourned his friend Wednesday, saying his "heart and soul weeps."
Byrd said he hoped healthcare reform legislation in the Senate would be renamed in memoriam of Kennedy.
Countdown to conservatives claiming Democrats are using Kennedy's death for partisan benefit in 3, 2, 1...
To fill Kennedy's seat, Massachusetts will host a special election since the governor has no appointment rights since Democrats stripped Mitt Romney's of that prerogative to ensure he would not replace John Kerry with a Republican in the run-up to the 2004 presidential contest. The law requires a special election to be called within 145 and 16o days of the vacancy. Applied to this case, I believe this puts us in a window that starts on January 18th and ends on February 1st.
Thus, mark your calendars for a Senate race either on Tuesday, January 19th or Tuesday, January 26th.
The winner of this election would through the end of 2012, when Kennedy's term was set to expire.
If you haven't already, read Adam and Mike's tributes to Senator Kennedy
Please use this thread to continue posting your thoughts and links on the passing of Senator Kennedy.
I take history very seriously, have studied it closely, and I am not given to hyperbole (as awful as George W. Bush was, for example, I still hesitate to join the many historians who call him the worst President ever, because James Buchanan was truly horrendous). But with Teddy Kennedy, I don't think there is much debate.
There were other Senators who served a very long time and have many notable achievements to their credit. There were others whose oratory and personality dominated the Senate chamber for awhile. There were others who were held in great esteem by their Senate colleagues. There were others who became a recognizable face as a representative of Senate traditions and honor. But no one in all of America's great history combined all of these things with getting more tangible things that mattered accomplished for the American people.
On issue after issue, Ted Kennedy was at the center of the debate, and he delivered one great piece of legislation after another to all of us. There was not a single significant issue that he didn't play an important role on in the past 45 years.
It saddens me beyond words that he passed before seeing health care reform finally get passed, as it had become the great passion of his life. I hope we can finally get it done for him now.
Reading the front page stories about Ted Kennedy in newspapers from around the country reminds me vividly of the nature of true bipartisanship. Ted always stated his case. Not a half way compromise either. Yes, Republican politicians found his often eloquent and always vociferous case sometimes a game changer but never a game ender.
Ted Kennedy sought common ground, real common ground, as much as any politician in America. He found partners at times from an unlikely assortment of Republicans ranging from Ronald Regan to Orin Hatch and George W. Bush. Only Bush was really false to him. Shame on him. Ted did not let W fool him again. No shame on Ted.
One of the results is that Ted left strong friendships on both sides of the aisle without compromising his ideals. In a world where politicians fled the label liberal, as the Washington Post said, Ted claimed the mantle of liberal proudly.
"Edward M. Kennedy - the husband, father, grandfather, brother and uncle we loved so deeply - died late Tuesday night at home in Hyannis Port. We've lost the irreplaceable center of our family and joyous light in our lives, but the inspiration of his faith, optimism, and perseverance will live on in our hearts forever. We thank everyone who gave him care and support over this last year, and everyone who stood with him for so many years in his tireless march for progress toward justice, fairness and opportunity for all. He loved this country and devoted his life to serving it. He always believed that our best days were still ahead, but it's hard to imagine any of them without him."
Kennedy's last big speech -- endorsing Barack Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention:
Before you start celebrating the pending passage of a healthcare bill in Congress, you might want to make sure you have enough savings to offset the huge out of pocket costs coming your way.
STATE BLOGS
