So Coakley might lose Ted's seat and there goes the 60 vote filibuster proof caucus in the Senate. Is that necessarily a bad result? Sure the corporate media will be all over it as a huge slap in the face to the Obama agenda, Reid is toast, Jeb Bush making a comeback, 24 hour Palin on Faux News, and the end of health care reform. Or is it? What are the real consequences of losing that 60 vote? Is it really a bad thing for progressive legislation?
I submit it might be like throwing a glass of ice water on each Democrat in Washington, including our glorious leader, stop the facade of bipartisanship once and for all and acutally turn out to be a good thing for true health care reform.
At the very least it would light a fire under the negotiations currently progressing at a glacial pace. It might also give Ben Nelson the nudge to come straight out and say he made a mistake voting for the Senate bill and now won't vote for any compromise whatsover.
I think it also might result in both caucuses realizing that reconciliation is the only way to get true reform done and go back a to a much simpler drawing board: a Medicare Part E option for everyone that is subsidized like crazy by a massive tax increase on the top 1%. Forget all the exchanges and the maximum percentages of profit for health insurers. Just drive them right out of business.
Would that be the definition of irony? AHIP should be running ads right now for Coakley and for the Senate bill. It guarantees their profits for many years to come. Yet they'll rejoice in her loss. Why not turn the tables on them? Coakley loses but we all win. No more Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln, and Landrieu.
Pass real health care reform. Have the EPA issue draconian (at least as it appears to the major polluters and forget about Cap and Trade.) And pass every other necessary bill through reconciliation rules. Or better yet, get rid of the filibuster altogether.