The Massachusetts Senate Race and the Need for Democrats to Grow a Pair

“It’s not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing chess. It’s that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse’s office because once again they glued their balls to their thighs.” – Jon Stewart

With the risk of sounding misogynistic, I write this to express my frustration with my party and my belief that Democrats need to grow some spine…

I do not believe that Scott Brown’s winning of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat had much to do with Obama or the healthcare debate.  It was not, as some have asserted, a liberal state rebelling against the President it voted in over a year ago.  There may have been some independents who are against healthcare reform, and that one issue inspired them to vote for the Republican, but this election was not so much about policy as it was about simple, sweet local politics.

Scott Brown was a man of the people; Martha Coakley was not.  Brown understood the importance of shaking hands (even in the cold of a New England winter); Coakley openly scuffed at the idea.  Like Obama, Brown understood the value of smiling and delivering charismatic speeches; Coakley was entirely uninspiring.  Brown had a television ad that showed he drives a pickup truck; who knows what car Coakley drives (or is driven in).  Brown displayed a grasp on foreign policy; Coakley claimed there was no al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Brown understood that Curt Schilling was a Red Sox fan; Coakley failed to understand the crime she committed by calling him a Yankees fan.

Coakley acted as if she were entitled to “Ted Kennedy’s seat.”  Brown deflated any notion of this when he proclaimed that it is the “people’s” senate seat.  Obviously, the Coakley campaign relied on the deep-blue nature of Massachusetts and assumed an easy win, despite having a weak candidate.  And this lies at the heart of the Democratic problem.

My party needs to become more assertive on various levels.  First, our consultants and political managers need to practice more “tough love” towards politicians and candidates.  Second, our politicians need to become more confident in their decisions and bold in their speeches.  Third, party leadership must encourage members to nominate candidates who can win.

Case in point: John Kerry’s 2004 Presidential campaign.  The most hated President since Jimmy Carter was up for re-election, and there was an excellent slate of competitive candidates.  A retired four-star Army General and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO; a fiery and strong-willed governor with support from young people; a suave and populist senator with a Southern accent; a blue-collar House majority leader from the Midwest; and a senator from the then-red state of Florida.  However, the guy who looks like a funeral director won the nomination.  Who let this happen?  Party leadership.  Yes, it is up to the voters across the nation (read as: Iowa & New Hampshire) to make the decision.  We are “democrats” after all; however, good leadership means not being afraid of flexing one’s persuasive muscle.  We could have used some endorsements of strong candidates early on, or perhaps some lobbying and deal-making.

It didn’t take a genius to know that Kerry was not the best candidate.  He was dry, weak, and a not-so-inspiring public speaker.  He never defended himself from verbal attacks, and barely addressed any of the criticisms hailed against him.  He often surrounded himself with long-time staffers instead of seeking out expert strategists, and would defer to his less-than-affable wife for approval of campaign strategies.  To top it all off, party leaders thought it was a great idea to hold the convention in liberal Boston, as the Republicans went to New York City.

Not to keep picking on John Kerry, but one more thing about his campaign highlights the need for the party to develop some spine: his one-on-one communication skills were lacking, and apparently, no consultant in the campaign had the gonads to offer constructive criticism.  I have shaken hands with a few politicians: Ed Rendell, Brendan Boyle, Bob Casey, Rick Santorum (not my proudest moment), Rudy Giuliani, Allyson Schwartz, Barack Obama, and John Kerry.  John Kerry has the worst handshake by far.  It was weak and he made no eye contact.

What party could nominate such a person?  Not a party that wins.  Winning hearts and minds is never fully about issues.  People dig confidence.  It is really that simple.  We need leaders with confidence and the ability to relate to people and create an enticing narrative.

One more thing: In terms of the Senate and the healthcare bill, it is appalling to think that the Democrats are now suddenly in a position to not be able to pass the legislation.  All Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts did was decrease the “filibuster-proof” senate majority.  Now, there will be 59 members of the Democratic Caucus (57 plus two independents), and 41 Republicans.  Bush never had that large of a majority of his party when he President, yet he managed to pass a lot of controversial legislation.

If Democrats are not able work with the majority they have, serious changes in party leadership and management are due.

The “Unpublished” Concurring Opinion to Philadelphia v. New Jersey

The following is a humorous concurring opinion I wrote to the Supreme Court case of Philadelphia v. New Jersey.  The actual case held that, under the dormant commerce clause, New Jersey is not permitted to discriminate against out-of-state trash by banning its importation into state landfills.  Please note that I actually love New Jersey, and spent my childhood summers at the Jersey shore.

Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978)

*** Schmidt, J., concurring in judgment. I agree with the majority’s holding that New Jersey’s blanket ban on the importation of out-of-state trash is an unconstitutional impediment to interstate commerce, and is not justified under the state’s exercise of its police power in protecting the health of its citizens and environment. The majority correctly holds that trash from Philadelphia and other cities outside of New Jersey is no more a threat to health and well being than is trash from New Jersey.

However, what the majority fails to realize is that not only is Philadelphia trash no worse than New Jersey trash, but if anything, Jersey trash is actually worse than any trash which Philadelphia may export.

Support for this notion exists amongst various sources, and is ingrained in the history of these United States: “The state bird of New Jersey is the mosquito,” Andy Warhol; “The curtain rises on a vast primitive wasteland – not unlike certain parts of New Jersey,” Woody Allen; “A jersey girl sleeps just fine with sand in her bed,” source unknown; and “What is the difference between a Jersey citizen and a comb? … A comb has teeth,” source unknown.

Therefore, the opinion of the majority should be the law, with the exception that if one day the Court is faced with a similar case, the holding should vary if New Jersey trash is specifically statutorily barred from importation into other states. If, God-willing, the day comes when Jersey trash is barred from entering states such as Florida and Pennsylvania, this Court should consider such a specific ban as the other forty-nine states’ proper use of their police power in protecting the health of their citizens. I respectfully concur in judgment.

The Torch Has Been Passed…

Many speak of the death of Senator Ted Kennedy as the “end of an era” in American politics. But I see it more as a “passing.” That is, as his brother JFK said in his Inaugural address, “Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.” Teddy died just as the fight over health-care, an issue that was his passion for most of his senatorial career, was heating up to historic levels. Although the last of the Kennedy brothers has left us, before significant change in the system took place, their legacy remains in the people they inspired and the hope they created.

The brothers – Jack, Bobby, and Teddy – were born into a life of privilege. Although they enjoyed their lives, they used their position of privilege to help those who were not as privileged. Although none of them were perfect, flawless human beings, they had a drive for public service that few of the “born rich” would ever be interested in. Although the “liberal lion” of the senate ruffled quite a few feathers, Teddy’s determination and willpower earned him the respect of people on both sides of the isle.

Senator Kennedy survived the deaths of three brothers, leaving him as the patriarch of the family. Joseph was killed in action in WWII, Jack was assassinated while serving as President, and Bobby was assassinated while running for President. In spite of these events, and the mythical “Kennedy Curse,” Teddy remained in public life. In fact, not only did he serve as a senator, but he also made a run for the Presidency himself. Perhaps the dream of achieving political ideals superseded the threat of suffering the same fate as his brothers.

The children of Joseph, Sr. and Rose Kennedy were idealists. JFK was determined the tackle the issue of civil rights, inspired by his mother’s stories of how the Irish Catholics once suffered similar oppressions. Bobby, the most humble of the brothers, was driven to action by what he saw as unnecessary domestic poverty and foreign war. Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who passed just two weeks before her brother, started the Special Olympics in her backyard. Teddy championed the under-privileged throughout his career, carrying on the tradition of his family.

The Presidential election of 2008 brought about an opportunity for Teddy to pass that torch on. The Kennedy family, including his niece and first lady of California, Maria Shriver-Schwarzenegger, hold significant persuasive authority in Democratic politics. However, much like the party as a whole, the clan was torn between two historic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. From early on, Teddy and Maria chose to endorse Barack Obama. When endorsing him, he noted the similarities between Obama and his brother; specifically, how he represents “a new generation of leadership.”

Teddy received the diagnosis of brain cancer a little over a year ago. Shortly thereafter, he delivered his last great speech, an address at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Visibly weakened by his condition, he began by proclaiming: “Nothing. Nothing is going to keep me away from this special gathering tonight!” And he closed by alluding to his brother’s inaugural address, stating that “this November the torch will be passed again to a new generation of Americans.”

So although the mystique of the Kennedy family will be no more, and future generations will not know of them, their legacy endures in the many public servants who keep their ideals and dreams for America in the forefront of their careers. As Teddy told us, “For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives on, and the dream shall never die.”

Goodnight Uncle Teddy.
Edward Moore Kennedy, 1932-2009