More on MassCare

It's really not looking good.

Scott Brown in his own words

The Boston Globe interviews:

How do you fit into that calculation, and the pressure to vote the Republican line.

"I already spoke to the leaders, I already spoke to them, and the whip. I told them, I said, 'With all due respect I really don't know a lot of you people and you don't know me, but maybe that's good because I'm gonna vote how I want to vote. But I'll be respectful and I'll tell you why and how and you can certainly let me know your thoughts and maybe I'm missing something, but I'm gonna just vote how I feel is important to vote. And they were cool, they said, 'OK, do whatever you want. You could probably do whatever you want right about now, Scott, so that's OK.' So they were very respectful, and they understand, they understand that all eyes are on me."

On the face of it, this is encouraging--the kind of senator I want to see. But we'll have to see how he actually votes.

You pride yourself on being a multitasker, but you can begin to answer all that mail and e-mail?

"I did already. I already answered them. And the letters, obviously, I open them, I read them, and then I give them to a staff person to respond, but I sign them all and personalize them. If somebody's gonna take the time to write me a letter or write me an e-mail I'm gonna do my very best to write them back. It may not be today but it will definitely be within a couple of days. That's what makes our office so good. When we get e-mails or phone calls, I pick up the phone and call them up. I don't e-mail them back, I don't write them, I call them. And that's what's gonna set us apart from every other office down there. We're so psyched. We're gonna have a constituent office second to none. That's our no 1 priority."

It doesn't sound like he's aiming to be a one-term senator.

Along those lines, past and present, who are your political role models?

"Well first of all, I haven't read that book, I'm looking forward to it. I said it during the debate, and during that thing when Dan Rea said, 'Give me one person,' well, I can't give you one person. You know, different decades. Obviously JFK, everyone -- he was, everybody's president. Ronald Reagan, what he did with the Iron Curtain. You know, President Bush in terms of what he did after 9/11, in terms of our security. I didn't agree with hardly anything on what he did on domestic fiscal issues. And you know Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman."

Fuck you, man. What Bush did to this country in response to 9/11 is one of the worst tragedies of the last half century.  McCain and Lieberman, ick. Can't the Northeast give us someone better than another Giuliani-style hack?

On immigration, you sounded excited about the aide you hired. Is that a big issue for you?

"It's huge, it's huge now, especially with Haiti. It's huge, it's the no. 1 issue affecting -- that will affect my office, and I have the best person in place to handle it. And I'm so honored -- I'm just like overwhelmed, I almost, like, you know, cried when she said yes, she'll stay. Especially, you know, there are a lot of single kids, kids that are being adopted, people -- Americans and citizens that are still there trying to get home, they're not getting help with the embassy. When I met with the ministers, they actually gave us some names which we forwarded off to try to find out the status. So yeah, immigration is important, but my policy hasn't changed with regard to how we deal with the immigration issue. It's just a question of, we have to immediately provide the resources to process these people quicker. It's immoral to let them wait in line so long. If we can find money for the banks, we can find money to process people through immigration quickly."

Well, I suppose that's somewhat encouraging.

Scott Brown is pivotal

538/Boris Shor explain.

Scott Brown's victory speech

Via Ambers, some excerpts:

This special election came about because we lost someone very dear to Massachusetts, and to America. Senator Ted Kennedy was a tireless and big-hearted public servant, and for most of my lifetime was a force like no other in this state. His name will always command the affection and respect by the people of Massachusetts, and the same goes for his wife Vicki. There's no replacing a man like that, but tonight I honor his memory, and I pledge my very best to be a worthy successor.

I said at the very beginning, when I sat down at the dinner table with my family, that win or lose we would run a race which would make us all proud. I kept my word and we ran a clean, issues oriented, upbeat campaign - and I wouldn't trade that for anything.

[..] This little campaign of ours was destined for greater things than any of us knew, and the message went far beyond the name on the sign.

It all started with me, my truck, and a few dedicated volunteers. It ended with Air Force One making an emergency run to Logan. I didn't mind when President Obama came here and criticized me - that happens in campaigns. But when he criticized my truck, that's where I draw the line.

We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere - and now they know it.

In every corner of our state, I met with people, looked them in the eye, shook their hand, and asked them for their vote. I didn't worry about their party affiliation, and they didn't worry about mine. It was simply shared conviction that brought us all together.

[..] In health care, we need to start fresh, work together, and do the job right. Once again, we can do better.

I will work in the Senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs, and the millions of people who need jobs - and as President John F. Kennedy taught us, that starts with an across the board tax cut for individuals and businesses that will create jobs and stimulate the economy. It's that simple!

I will work in the Senate to defend our nation's interests and to keep our military second to none. As a lieutenant colonel and 30-year member of the Army National Guard, I will keep faith with all who serve, and get our veterans all the benefits they deserve.

And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country. What I've heard again and again on the campaign trail, is that our political leaders have grown aloof from the people, impatient with dissent, and comfortable in the back room making deals. And we can do better.

They thought you were on board with all of their ambitions. They thought they owned your vote. They thought they couldn't lose. But tonight, you and you and you have set them straight.

Needless to say I disagree with the notion that captured terrorists don't have the right to a fair trial when taken outside a theater of war. We tried the Nazis at Nuremberg, and we can certainly try other despicable enemies of humanity like Al Qaeda's leaders and operatives.

Tax dollars paying for lawyers is a tiny drop in a very large bucket, and for Scott Brown to politicize such due process is unbefitting of a JAG lawyer. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

The return of Northeastern Republicans

Douthat ponders whether the endangered species is making a comeback. Money quote:

[T]he “Gingrich-Bush shield” [protected] Democrats all across the northeast for fifteen years, by making a vote for a Republican seem like a vote for the folkways of the American South. [Steve Kornacki's] argument is similar to the one advanced in Chris Caldwell’s late-1990s essay on “The Southern Captivity of the G.O.P.”, which argued that “the southern presence in the Republican Party” was becoming so overwhelming that it threatened to permanently alienate the rest of the country.

Now, of course, both Bush and Gingrich are gone, taking the shield with them, and suddenly northeastern swing voters are willing to consider “voting for a Republican candidate as a way of expressing frustration with the ruling Democrats.” Thus Chris Christie in New Jersey; thus Scott Brown in Massachusetts; thus Pat Toomey’s small lead in the Pennsylvania polls.

Yankee Doodle, folks.

(Image: Nineteenth century painting by A.M. Willard, known as "Yankee Doodle" and "The Spirit of '76". Often imitated or parodied, it is one of the most famous images relating to the American Revolutionary War. The life-sized original hangs in Marblehead, Massachusetts.)

CHART 1 + CHART 2 = CHART 3

(ht Perry)

Too close to call

Nate has Massachusetts as a tossup.

Quote of the day

"Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the agenda of a new establishment in Washington."

—Scott Brown, campaigning in Massachusetts. Ah the things pols say to be elected...

The case for Coakley

Andrew makes his.

I would agree that the GOP has largely become a party of nihilist hacks. But I despise Coakley, remain supportive of Brown, and don't think it's fair to lump one of the most liberal Republicans in the country--more liberal than Dede Scozzafava--in the same camp as the rest of the right.

Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn away all rape victims

Well of course he does. Or something. The Coakley camp is sure getting desperate.

Scott Brown for Senate

Not that anyone in Massachusetts cares about my endorsement, but what the hey. It takes some ego to blog, so I'll throw it out here.

I like E.D. Kain's assessment:

All told, Brown strikes me as the right sort of leader for the Republican party of 2010. Not exactly a social conservative, but not particularly liberal either, he represents the larger middle on social issues. On economics he is a fiscal conservative, and he doesn’t seem particularly hawkish beyond the standard, boiler-plate support for Israel. On abortion he makes a great deal of sense, and on healthcare I think he could potentially be a strong ally of some bi-partisan legislation in the future should the current bill fail.

Quite frankly – though it’s far too early to say – I think he’s presidential material. He’s good looking, confident, well spoken, with strong conservative credentials and sensible, moderate social positions. He’s certainly strikes me as more down to earth than Mitt Romney.

Andrew correctly points out that Brown's Op-Ed contains absurdities. Sure, that's political salesmanship for you. But essentially I think he can do a lot of good for moderates as a Republican senator beholden to constituents in a very liberal state.

And FiveThirtyEight looked at the numbers and sees Scott Brown is a liberal Republican...

[..] two thirds of other Massachusetts Republican state legislators were more conservative than he was. This is evidence for my claim that he’s a liberal even in his own party. What’s remarkable about this is the fact that Massachusetts Republicans are the most, or nearly the most, liberal Republicans in the entire country!

So think of Maine's Snowe and Collins...that's the sort of sensible northeast Republican senator we can expect him to be. It'll be interesting if he becomes a presidential contender eventually.

What in tarnation?!

Massachusetts's special election is now a tossup with the Republican leading 48-47 according to PPP?

I don't expect it to be that close, but this poll is actually a positive development for Democrats as it should light a fire under their GOTV efforts—obviously they aren't used to having to defend this state.

Dept. of long shots

Stop health care reform by electing a Republican Senator in Massachusetts?

Jeffrey Flier on health reform

The Dean of Harvard Medical school writes:

Health 'Debate' Deserves a Failing Grade

Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. Deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care.

Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality. But that's not true. The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform.

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system. The system we have now promotes fragmented care and makes it more difficult than it should be to assess outcomes and patient satisfaction. The true costs of health care are disguised, competition based on price and quality are almost impossible, and patients lose their ability to be the ultimate judges of value.

Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.

In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but—despite initial predictions—increased total spending.

Link blag

TMV: NROite Andy McCarthy does not understand the law. The motive of torture does not matter; the intent matters.

Keith Hennessey explains Obama's international tax proposals. Verdict: they are a form of protectionist isolationist and will actually backfire and give U.S. companies further incentives to move HQs overseas.

Megan: Why was Canada so unaffected by the banking crisis? It wasn't regulation. Its bankers are simply very conservative, and didn't trust easy money.

Ruffini sees springtime for GOP moderates. Politico reports that the party is recruiting RINOs. One can hope, but I don't see them becoming electable without the party reforming its attitudes. For the near future, having that R next to their name is a big sink.

Boston Herald: From the Dept. of Terrible Liberal Ideas, poor welfare recipients in Massachusetts are being given free cars.  Sigh.  The belief that poor won't be poor if government gives them enough free stuff marches ever on in leftopias.

Truth in economics blog headlines: "This Is Not a Post About Jessica Alba".