SocraticGadfly: Assessing blame in Massachusetts

January 20, 2010

Assessing blame in Massachusetts

Here’s some nice round numbers:

1. Barack Obama, 35 percent — For letting Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, et al, hijack health care in the Senate. For letting some of the same characters plus a drive for bipartisanship undercut the size of his economic stimulus bill and keep him from proposing a second one. He ranks as more blameworthy, because he was in the Senate for four years and knew better. (If he didn’t, he’s an even worse president than even I think.) Hearing GOP talking heads today, it’s clearer than ever that Obama should have been prepared to go confrontational earlier, and to explain their moves better. For a president who is supposedly so “articulate,” he hasn’t been at many key times.

2. Senate Democrats, 30 percent — From letting Lieberman in caucus, when on a number of issues, he’s been skittish, to not trying to reform filibuster rules at the start of session in 2009 as part of setting Senate rules of procedure, to dallying too long on health care and more, there’s plenty of blame here.

3. Martha Coakley, 25 percent. This is just a guesstimate, and could be on the low side, but I don’t want to let Obama or Senate Democrats off the hook so easily. That said, a mix of apparently lazy, lackadaisical, and clueless attitudes was inexcusable.

4. Massachusetts voters and the state Democratic party get the last 10 percent.

No comments: