What a difference a year makes! This time last year, President Barack Obama had just been inaugurated, coming off a beautifully executed campaign and resounding victory in the presidential election. He wasn't the only Democrat who had a huge victory that year either - a number of other Democratic politicians jumped on the Obama bandwagon and used the excitement he created to get elected. The 2008 election was clearly the result of a combination of the public's disgust with the direction the country was taking and the excitement of a candidate who would hopefully bring fresh ideas to Washington. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were becoming more and more unpopular, and the economy was beginning to go seriously downhill.
With super-majorities in Congress and a Democratic president, it seemed like nothing could stop the Democrats from accomplishing all of their goals for the country. Now, in 2010, the Democrats have still not been able to pass a healthcare bill. The issue is now compounded by the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate seat Ted Kennedy had previously held for 46 years. That he was elected from Massachusetts, a generally very blue state, leads us to one basic question: What in the world happened?
Scott Brown's victory is obviously about a lot more than just Scott Brown. Regardless of what you think of him, however, you still have to give him credit for getting elected to the United States Senate from Massachusetts as a Republican. His campaign was able to tie his opponent to the current Democratic leadership in Washington. It seems a monumental task to be able to alienate the American public in such a short period of time, but Washington Democrats have been able to do it. Brown took advantage of Obama's falling approval rating and growing disapproval over the healthcare bills, just as other Democratic candidates used Obama's star power in 2008 to take control of Washington.
One of Brown's best qualities as a candidate was that he wasn't going to be the 60th vote in the Senate for the Democrats. To voters, he represented congressional gridlock, which means that now it will be impossible for the Democrats to pass their agenda without some Republican support. Even after Brown's election, some people are calling for Congress to basically ignore the results in Massachusetts and pass the Senate bill as-is. This would send it straight to Obama's desk for him to sign into law, thereby eliminating the need for the Democrats to garner sixty votes in the Senate to avoid a Republican filibuster. Not only would it be difficult to get enough votes in the House to accomplish this, but it would also be political suicide. Each day this bill is becoming increasingly more unpopular and this type of political maneuvering would not go unnoticed by the American people this November. More importantly, Brown was legitimately elected by the people of Massachusetts, and it is only fair that their voices be heard by seating the senator-elect immediately. To his credit, Sen. Jim Webb from Virginia called on his colleagues to do just that, saying that it would "only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on healthcare legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated."
After swearing in Brown, Congress must take a step back and reexamine controversial issues that are not very popular at the moment, such as the healthcare bills and cap and trade legislation. Legislators should perhaps even consider starting over. The major parties must also look at the significance of Brown's election. Democrats must realize that the honeymoon is over and that they have lost a lot of support over the past year. Republicans must realize that they still have a lot of making up to do with the American people and should not take Scott Brown's victory to mean that Americans have forgotten the last eight years. The 2010 election is less than a year away, and though certainly a lot can change in a year, it is clear that both parties have plenty of work to keep themselves busy.
Megan Stiles's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at m.stiles@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 7 hours agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 23 hours agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
