The pragmatism of voting your conscience for US Senate

"The debate basically cemented my extremely reluctant vote for Coakley, with hopes that either she grows into the job or that someone better beats her in the Democratic primary in two years."
- David Yamada 1/12/2010 9:46AM

I suspect a lot of liberals feel the way David Yamada does. I do but I come to a different conclusion about how I should vote. Follow me on this, I’ll explain.

A lot of liberals are extremely reluctant to vote for Coakley and they do so only by holding out hope that she would become a much better Senator than we have any evidence of or reason to believe. Yes ‘ouch’ but true in my estimation.

If its important to you that Coakley grow into the job or be replaced, I'd like to suggest you're choosing to vote for a less than satisfactory candidate and that you choose to vote for an unsatisfactory candidate because of concerns about the bigger picture, namely a filibuster-proof Senate and how losing one Democratic Senator would affect the Democratic Party agenda for the next two years ... as Democrats try to tackle health care reform, jobs, climate change, renewable energy, wall street regulatory reform, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, domestic terrorist attacks, campaign finance, DOMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, education, etc.

But we have already seen the filibuster-proof Senate play out and it’s not pretty. It puts power in the hands of the most conservative, least progressive Democratic Senators and produces watered down crappy legislation. Ask yourself; has Democratic control of the WH, Senate and Congress produced a public option, Medicare expansion or Wall Street regulatory reform? No.

There is another phenomenon that contributes to the problem and that is the GOP abuse of the filibuster. They are disciplined in obstructing Senate legislative business every step of the way by using procedural votes on cloture, which require 60 votes according to current Senate rules, to end debate and move to a vote on the measure. The consistent disciplined obstruction means the Senate needs 60 votes to pass anything, not 50 plus the Vice President, as was intended by the framers.

So? So make the Democrats fix the problem of GOP filibuster abuse that is rendering our country ungovernable, and send a message to the Democratic party that they need to move to the left ... or 2010 will be hell for them. How do you do that? Don’t vote Coakley, instead write-in the name of your preferred more progressive Democratic candidate.

Part of my thinking on the issue is my concern about the nature of the reform we have been getting from the Seante. It's grossly watered down and that is a result of Democrats embracing the influence and wealth of corporate lobbyists in ways Obama eschewed during his campaign. It appears Democrats are just as shameless as Republicans in taking the lobbyists' campaign donations and giving lobbyists undue influence in writing policy and legislation. I have been watching closely during the health care insurance reform debate.

Your vote puts the candidate in office. The lobbyists’ money keeps them there every election cycle and buys policies that benefit for-profit industry not citizens. Take for example in health care reform the individual mandate, the anti-trust exemption, no public option, no Medicare expansion, greater insurance coverage including 31 million more people but affordability for only 80% of the people forced to buy insurance ($8000/year) but who can’t afford necessary medical procedures due to high deductibles and co-pays.

If Coakley wins, she is stepping into a lifetime appointment. How do I know? Look at who is funding her campaign, industry lobbyists from health insurance companies, Pharma and Wall Street. Also, If the past is prologue, a Democrat elected Senator in Massachusetts is a lifetime appointment. Don't assume she will "grow into the job". Instead, assume what you see is what you get. Assume her performance over the last 20 years, and her performance in this campaign is the best indicator of her future performance.

If Coakley loses, the US Senate at the beginning of the 112th Congress will be under severe pressure to reform filibuster rules that are being used to obstruct progress. That would be a good thing. Among other effects, the power of the line-item veto used so effectively by President Joe Lieberman and President Ben Nelson would be revoked.

Whoever wins this Senate seat will have to run again in 2012. If the winner next Tuesday is Coakley, she will win as an incumbent 2012 whether or not she has become a good Senator, and she would be our Senator until she retires. If Scott Brown wins, he will lose in 2012 to a better Democratic nominee produced in a regular campaign cycle that last many months and ends on Election Day. Instead of voting for an unsatisfactory candidate like Martha Coakley (that is if you find her unsatisfactory), cast a write-in vote for your preferred progressive Democratic candidate from the primary.

Martha Coakley has a big fundraiser in Washington this evening, $1000 a plate for guests. The “hosts” for the event are people who have raised $10,000 each for Coakley:

"Of the 22 names on the host committee–meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley–17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there’s also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation."
"Coakley in trouble? Pharma and HMO lobbyists to the rescue",
Washington Examiner, By Timothy P. Carney

Here is Martha's "show me the money" invitation ... and something to think about.

Sincerely, Neil