Rutledge holds local fundraiser

On Wednesday those who are interested can meet U.S. Senate candidate Jim Rutledge as he holds a coffee fundraiser in Berlin.

Billing his candidacy as a chance to “Restore, Cherish, and Defend our Constitutional Rights,” Jim will hold court at the Ocean City Golf Club at 11401 Country Club Drive in Berlin beginning this Wednesday (the 24th) at 6:30 p.m. The RSVP can be directed to Kimberly Fernley at (443) 513-6542.

Perhaps most interesting is the fact that there’s no suggested amount. Obviously the campaign is looking for funds but there’s nothing which prohibits you from paying a dollar (or any amount up to $4,800 per Federal campaign guidelines – $2,400 for the primary election and $2,400 for the general.) Maybe that’s an omission on the part of whoever put together the flyer but it is curious.

They didn’t forget to say that checks should be made payable to “Rutledge for U.S. Senate” though.

Unfortunately, I can’t make it since I have another commitment (next week is really busy for me!) But those who would like to hear what one of the leading GOP contenders has to say about his views and goals for Congress should attend.

Vote on the Contract FROM America

Earlier today I commented on the newly-minted Mount Vernon Statement, which to me is a noble gesture but seems to fall short on actionable items. After all, most conservatives are America-first, limited-government types who simply want Washington to get out of their way and allow America to continue to be the greatest country on earth – the “shining city on a hill” as it were.

In 1994 Newt Gingrich took similar principles and, with the help of dedicated conservatives, created the Contract With America for Republicans seeking seats in the House of Representatives. The success was obvious as the GOP took over the House for the first time in 40 years and all but one of the ten principles spelled out had some kind of Congressional action (term limits being the exception.) By nationalizing the election, Gingrich and his allies created the impetus for voters to look beyond their district and support a principle of governance.

This time, Newt is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the game, and it’s a coalition of conservative groups (including a large number of TEA Party organizers) which are spearheading the effort. And instead of a select cadre determining each planks, this contract is based on input from the grassroots. Ten of these 22 planks will be inserted into the Contract From America.

  1. DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.
  2. STOP THE TAX HIKES: Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011.
  3. COMMIT TO REAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY: Every bill, in its final form, will be made public seven days before any vote can be taken and all government expenditures authorized by any bill will be easily accessible on the Internet before the money is spent.
  4. PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
  5. PASS REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM: Greatly improve affordability of health insurance by permitting all Americans access to all health insurance plans sold anywhere in the United States through the purchase of insurance across state lines and allow small businesses and associations to pool together across state lines to buy insurance.
  6. ENACT FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the Internal Revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution.
  7. END RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
  8. LET US SAVE: Allow all Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account they own, control, and can leave to whomever they choose.
  9. PROTECT INTERNET FREEDOM: No regulation or tax on the Internet.
  10. GIVE PARENTS MORE CHOICES IN THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN: Improve American education by reforming the broken federal role through eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs, giving parents more choices from pre-school to high school, and improving the affordability of higher education.
  11. PASS AN ‘ALL OF THE ABOVE’ ENERGY POLICY: Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition.
  12. PROTECT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in any form, including requiring “localism” or “diversity” quotas.
  13. RESTORE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY & CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states.
  14. PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS: Block state and local governments that receive federal grants from exercising eminent domain over private property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.
  15. REJECT CAP & TRADE: Prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.
  16. STOP THE PORK: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the process is fully transparent, including requiring a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.
  17. NO CZAR REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION: All “lawmaking” regulations must be affirmatively approved by Congress and signed into law by the president, as the Constitution requires for all laws.
  18. AUDIT THE FED: Begin an audit of the Federal Reserve System.
  19. NO MORE BAILOUTS: The federal government should not bail out private companies and should immediately begin divesting itself of its stake in the private companies it owns from recent bailouts.
  20. STOP CAREER POLITICIANS & CURB LOBBYIST POWER: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require Congressional term limits. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice or to the House of Representatives more than four times.
  21. SUNSET REGULATIONS: All regulations will be “sunset” after ten years unless renewed by Congressional vote.
  22. LET US WATCH: Broadcast all non-security meetings and votes on C-SPAN and the Internet.

Talk about your tough choices! Most of the lot is good, but right off the top I would say that items 7, 20, and 21 would be my favorites.

Number 7 is a slightly adapted form of TABOR laws, with TABOR standing for Taxpayers’ Bill Of Rights. This provides for necessary increases in government but not excessive ones. Yes, there is the weakness of not requiring cuts which should be made (since the natural tendency would be to budget to within a gnat’s eyelash of the limit) but the principle is sound.

I would only change number 20 to a 12+12 rule (6 House terms and 2 Senate terms.) However, the one thing missing from this plank is to restore the states’ voice in the process by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. The idea of popular election of Senators has shifted the balance in Congress and federalized the government, when the intent was to create tension between states and Washington.

Number 21 might just have been my suggestion from three years ago, back when I did my ’50 year plan’ series. My argument now is the same as it was then – if Congress is busy justifying the renewal of old laws, they may be too busy to think of new ones.

I could probably vote for 10, but it’s likely I’ll only vote for a few to strengthen their position. Bullet voting may be a good practice in this case. In any case, here’s a chance for the people to decide what they think is most important and what they’ll vote to change come November.

Taking the rumor seriously

On Monday, a slow news day in the nation’s capital because of the President’s Day holiday, a fellow Maryland blogger made a sensation by posting a rumor from an “impeccable source” that longtime Senator Barbara Mikulski was soon going to announce her retirement and not seek another term. (No, surprisingly the blogger was not Joe Albero.)*ahem* While I remain in the camp of “I’ll believe it when I see it,” I’d still like to see her days in the Senate come to an end soon, and preferably not feet-first.

It appears that one of those seeking to oust her is going to have some fun with the concept and provide another imaginative campaign tactic which shows he’s not going to stick with politics as usual.

On March 4th, the “Barbara Mikulski Retirement Party” will occur online. Borrowing a concept employed to great advantage by supporters of GOP Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts – nice to be able to write that phrase – the campaign of Dr. Eric Wargotz will be setting off their own “money bomb” where they hope huge contributions will roll in from across the country.

Occurring as this rumor did on the heels of the surprise retirement of Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, the Maryland situation is different than Indiana’s. Bayh’s last-minute decision not only shocked Democrats, but left them with no one on the ballot – state Democratic Party officials will decide the nominee as the one candidate who attempted to secure signatures against Bayh was short of the number needed in at least one of the nine Indiana Congressional districts. (One name floated as a possible candidate is musician John Cougar Mellencamp.)

However, Maryland’s late primary would give Democrats an easy opportunity to gear up a campaign should Mikulski call it a career before our filing deadline July 6th. 

And while Indiana Democrats might enjoy the lack of a contested primary while several GOP contenders compete for their nod, the Maryland rules make it much easier for candidates to get on a primary ballot – over the last several Senate cycles 2 or 3 minor candidates have popped up as opposition to an entrenched incumbent. Moreover, in 2006 Democrats had 18 primary contenders for an open U.S. Senate seat vacated by former Senator Paul Sarbanes, with just two (eventual winner Ben Cardin and former Congressman and NAACP head Kweisi Mfume) getting more than single-digit percentages in that year’s primary. It promises to be another free-for-all should Mikulski step aside.

In the meantime, Wargotz and his campaign attempt again to conjure up some of that Scott Brown magic – a shrewd step from perhaps the leading GOP contender.

In the department of “I’ll believe it when I see it” – Mikulski out?

Update 3 8:45 a.m. – Sean O’Donnell of the Baltimore Examiner cites Cillizza and two other sources to quash the rumor – for now. Certainly this is a case study on the power of the internet – now the question becomes who the original source was.

It’s also worthy of noting that The Vail Spot, which had just over 200 readers in the previous week, has had over 20,000 readers since 2 p.m. yesterday when the rumor was picked up. (He has an open Site Meter – for now.)

Update 2 7:30 p.m. –  Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post tweeted earlier this afternoon: “Rumors that Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) is retiring are NOT TRUE, according to informed D source.”

We’ll see. This means it’s the word of an “impeccable” source vs. an “informed” source. More below.

Update 1 5:45 p.m. – I spoke briefly via phone with fellow candidate Dr. Eric Wargotz who agreed with me – he’ll believe it when he sees it too.

Senate candidate Daniel McAndrew notes that this rumor isn’t really new, but “if true, then the next question will be who, in the Democrat party, will have the better chance trying to keep the seat from flipping. This is likely to be very interesting given the rash of others retiring.”

Another source who preferred to be unnamed cautioned me that Mikulski looked healthy and was getting around fine at the recent MACO conference, so the foot injury has apparently healed.

I’ve also been told that there’s a high possibility Rep. Chris Van Hollen may jump in if Mikulski quits – he’s been “gearing up” for a Senate run. Obviously if the Democrats lose dozens of seats in the House Van Hollen could be a fall guy as DCCC head.

Main story:

A blogger heretofore unknown to me by the name of Rich Vail may have dropped a bombshell on Maryland politics and created a gamechanger movement by citing an “impeccable source” who says Senator Mikulski will not seek another term.

His post on The Vail Spot, if true, sets a lot of machinery into motion.

Obviously having another open Senate seat (a second in four years) could convince a number of prominent Maryland Democrats to leave the safety of their offices for a run – one name mentioned in the comments was Attorney General Doug Gansler, with another being Governor O’Malley. This could also convince any of Maryland’s seven Congressional Democrats to move up as well.

If you go back and look at the 2006 race for the seat eventually won by Ben Cardin (to replace the retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes), Cardin’s main competition came from onetime NAACP head Kweisi Mfume – no other Democrat secured double-digit support. But Mfume has laid low politically since his 2006 defeat, making it questionable whether he would try again.

Most of the Democrats’ Senate seat bench, then, comes from the ranks of already-elected Congressman and state officials, with only Gansler, O’Malley, Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, and Comptroller Peter Franchot haviing run statewide. Of that group, Brown might be most likely to make an attempt, perhaps couching it as a bid to place a black person back into the ranks of the Senate (Roland Burris of Illinois, who was appointed to succeed President Obama, did not stand for election this year.)

While the Democrats’ bench isn’t the largest one around, the side with an even more shallow bench is the GOP. Their group of elected officials who have run statewide is exceedingly small: former Governor Bob Ehrlich and the man who ran against Mikulski last time, State Senator E.J. Pipkin. Pipkin could well decide to go again if Mikulski retires and not worry about the First Congressional District race which he’s been rumored to consider entering.

The more intriguing possibility is Ehrlich, who’s not officially entered the GOP race for governor but has had the field essentially cleared for him by the withdrawal of three people previously interested, most recently onetime Congressional candidate Larry Hogan. Since the latest polls have Ehrlich trailing a governor in Martin O’Malley who’s only marginally popular statewide and Ehrlich doesn’t want to be placed in a position where he’s likely to lose, the open Senate seat could pique his interest.

Obviously that prospect would dim the hopes of the five people who have already entered the Senate race and would get a boost from not having to run against an entrenched incumbent. I’m going to ask them for comment and update the post if I get any.

However, before we get too far along and despite the fact Vail has laid out a good case for Mikulski’s retirement, it remains to be seen whether this is rumor or scoop. Yet given the other political news of Senate retirements (with the most recent shoe to drop being Mikulski’s fellow Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana) it’s not out of the question that Mikulski may feel it’s her time to go. On the other hand, though, Bayh faced a much tougher potential re-election fight than conventional wisdom pegged for Mikulski – so the health issues she’s faced lately may indeed be taking their toll.

Obviously this is a developing story I’ll stay on top of.

Upping the ante

Well, isn’t this conveeeeeeeeenient (spoken in a Church Lady voice).

Last week I talked about Organizing For Against America wanting 1 million volunteer hours to spread the lies about Obamacare – no surprise they got that goal, which I thought was a little weak considering there’s 13 million on the e-mail list. Here’s their breathless announcement:

In just the last 3 days, OFA volunteers like you have pledged an incredible 4,000,000 (and counting!) hours to support members of Congress and candidates who fight for real health reform.

We can prove to Congress that health reform is good policy and good politics, but we need to go as big as possible. So today we’re setting a new goal: 5 million hours pledged.

If we hit it, the country will know. We’ll be running an ad with the final tally in USA Today, the nation’s largest newspaper. And to make sure your voice is heard where it matters most, we’ll run radio ads in critical states and districts, featuring local voters announcing the pledge total from their area.

(snip)

Beginning soon, we’ll talk to voters state-by-state, district-by-district, about why it’s important to stand with those who fight for progress and reform — and reject those who stand with big insurers to protect a status quo that is devastating our economy, families, and businesses. (Emphasis in original.)

We can rewrite that last sentence to say: Beginning soon, Organizing Against America will go back to lying like a rug to promote our takeover of 1/6 of the national economy by wiping out private health insurance companies. 

That and I’ll be listening for those radio ads around here since we’re represented a Democrat who’s been reticent to join the rest of his party, believing (correctly) to do so would be political suicide.

Bet the TEA Partiers can log 10 million hours, but we’re not going to pay for an ad in USA Today to crow about the accomplishment – we’re just going to get to work.

Friday night videos episode 23

This will be a somewhat abbreviated version which focuses less on politics and more on other fun stuff. I just have to remember to set these up to the proper format for my revised site.

Jim Rutledge is among five Republicans running for the United States Senate seat in Maryland. This is one of several videos he’s placed on his website to explain his views. (In the interest of fairness, I looked on his main competitor’s website and he has no videos – if I find he has a Youtube channel I’ll put his up.) This is called “The Bankrupting of America.”

A much more famous former (and future?) candidate graces the spotlight here. After the commercial (since this comes from the CBS News site) you can watch the entirety of Sarah Palin’s address to the TEA Party Convention in Nashville.

Since Palin’s speech was so long, I’m going to shift gears and add a couple local music videos I stumbled across. Each week I make an effort to be near my radio at 9 p.m. Sunday to catch the show “Local Produce” (it’s on 93.5 the Beach.) One of the hosts is Bob Daigle and in replaying my Semiblind video I featured last fall (“Right As Rain”) I found they did the same song acoustically at the 93.5 the Beach studios. Here’s that video.

And the original, plugged version I had from last October. The sound’s not as good but it’s interesting to hear the difference.

The solo which comes in about 2:30 works much better plugged in.

Lastly, this band is a local band called Vivid Season who’s taking time to help a good cause (as you’ll see in a post tomorrow. This is called a “tease.”)

Since the song is from their website, I don’t think they mind sharing.

Hope you enjoyed the extra music after the politics. If I can find enough good stuff from local bands I may make that a larger part of future FNV episodes – I figure I deal with politics five or six other days a week (depending on time of year) so why not let my hair down – what little I have – on the weekends, right?

Hit back twice as hard!

Well, well, well…even the folks at Organizing For Against America sound worried about election prospects. Think our side has an effective strategy going or what? Mitch Stewart must:

As we head into an election year, the new strategy for killing reform is claiming that members of Congress who vote for it will suffer at the polls.

For months, our opponents have spread lies about reform to scare voters away. But the simple truth about what reform would actually do — save jobs, guarantee all Americans affordable, stable coverage, and significantly reduce the deficit — is something most Americans strongly support.

The question is, come November, will the voters know the facts?

OFA supporters have asked for a way to show every member of Congress that if they fight for reform now, we’ll back them up this election season.

That’s why we’re launching “You fight, we’ll fight” — a volunteer pledge bank where you can commit your time to back up candidates and officials who fight hard for health reform.

We’re shooting for 1,000,000 hours pledged to spread the word to fellow voters. And if we get there, we’ll publish the total hours pledged in USA Today, so there will be no doubt that health reform is both good policy and good politics.

(snip)

President Obama has made it crystal clear that he has no intention of walking away from health reform — and this movement has made its desire to fight on just as clear.

And many members of Congress are already working hard by his side to get the job done. But for those on the fence about whether or not to proceed, knowing you are there to back up a courageous stand can make all the difference.

Your volunteer hours can have a huge impact no matter where you live. You can make calls into critical districts where health reform champions are in jeopardy, write letters to the editor, volunteer for nearby campaigns, or even just talk to friends, family, and neighbors to help cut through the special interest spin.

We’ll offer lots of ways to get involved between now and the elections in November, and you can decide which are right for you — the important thing right now is to publicly show your commitment to fight for those who make health reform a reality.

(snip)

We’ve certainly faced setbacks in this fight. But as President Obama told OFA supporters last week, that only means we need to work that much harder. (Emphasis in original.)

The problem for Mitch and his gang is that Americans DO know the facts, and they don’t want the significant changes threatened in the legislation. By the way, the legislation won’t save jobs, doesn’t cover everyone (even proponents agree that millions would be left out) and isn’t deficit-neutral because no Congress has the guts to cut Medicare payments to make it even out. Those aren’t lies – sorry, Mitch.

Anyway, I happen to recall that the Organizing Against America database reaches about 13 million e-mail addresses, so they only need a small percentage of them to pledge to reach 1,000,000 hours. Doesn’t really seem like that ambitious of a goal when you compare it to the number of hours TEA Party volunteers and participants have put in. I’m sure it took the million-plus in Washington on 9-12 last year more than an hour to express their views.

But it’s interesting I received this e-mail and it may be because I happen to live in a district where a Democrat went against his party to vote no on reform. I don’t recommend hanging your Congressman in effigy to get the point across, but something in the pro-liberty tactics worked and Frank Kratovil just said no. Naturally he left his opposition open to change based on factors within the bill, but for now he’s on the right side of the issue and the reason is he’s not suicidal when it comes to re-election.

While polls may suggest that Americans want some sort of health care reform, this solution isn’t what they desire. If it were truly popular, why would most of it not be adopted until 2013?

I’m curious to see when the ad will appear in USA Today, although I suspect it may be awhile. But I’ll bet TEA Party activists can easily top whatever the (probably made-up) figure Organizing Against America comes up with. When the Democrats have to come up with trickery in order to pass this bill, the message should be like the new third rail of American politics: touch that “yes” button when Obamacare comes up for a vote and you’re dead at the ballot box.

I can commit some time to helping make sure foes of freedom are defeated in November; how about you?

The Senate survey says…

Over the last couple weeks I’ve ran a survey of who readers prefer to face Barbara Mikulski this fall. Here are the results of my very non-scientific poll.

Out of over 100 responses, Dr. Eric Wargotz had 49% of the vote (with 58 votes), with Jim Rutledge being his closest competitor. Jim garnered 37% of the vote with 44 supporting him. Corrogan Vaughn trailed with 15 votes (13%) while Daniel McAndrew had 1 vote for him.

It was interesting how the count transpired as Wargotz, Rutledge, and Vaughn started out fairly even through the first 40 to 50 tallies. But once each competitor had about 12 to 15 votes apiece (aside from McAndrew), the Wargotz total started surging to a point where he had a significant lead (over 60% of the total) before Rutledge came on at the end to even things out somewhat.

In truth, though, this survey may have been a little premature as word has leaked out of a fifth competitor, former Delegate Carmen Amedori of Carroll County. Since Wargotz seems to be the frontrunner, it would appear that he has the most to lose from her candidacy, but he noted that it’s “not for me to judge ones qualifications. Others will do that. May the ‘best’ candidate prevail.”

I’m thinking this will be a three-way race if Amedori gets in, but it’s anyone’s race among the three with Wargotz as the frontrunner. Since I’m not aware of any scientific poll on the race yet, mine could be the closest idea of just how the candidates are faring with campaign organization and name recognition.

Is David Plouffe Obama’s Karl Rove?

After orchestrating Barack Obama’s victorious Presidential campaign, David Plouffe took his share of the credit, paused to write a book about the 2008 campaign, and continued his work for a D.C. based media firm.

But an Obama administration stung by a series of electoral losses has put out the call for Plouffe to come back on board to a more active role, placing him in charge of stemming the red tide of GOP victories. The Democrats are pinning their hopes on a political veteran whose role isn’t clearly defined; in many respects he is the counterpart to Republican political advisor Karl Rove.

Yet Rove was constantly vilified by the left as a sort of puppetmaster. Obviously he was fairly successful for a time as President Bush garnered enough electoral votes to win in 2000 and was re-elected with a clear majority.

But the Rove magic wore off in 2006 and 2008 because the message being portrayed didn’t square with actions of the Republican Congress or the Bush White House, and John McCain opted to use a different set of advisors.

According to an article in today’s Washington Post by Chris Cillizza, Plouffe’s view on the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was that, “everyone would agree that the definition of Brown should have happened a lot sooner and a lot more clearly.” In other words, they didn’t lie, obfuscate, and smear Scott Brown enough to assure Martha Coakley could win despite her terrible campaign.

The disadvantage Plouffe has, of course, is that millions of those who voted for Obama expecting “hope” or “change” have been smacked in the face by the terrible recession and the handling of health care reform which goes farther than a majority of Americans wish to see. It will also be more difficult to have a compliant media covering every single Congressional race rather than focusing on one overriding contest – while Plouffe can do his best to control the overall message, each election can turn on local issues.

But it’s obvious that the selection of Plouffe to help run the Democrats’ campaign is their answer to the Republicans’ nationalizing a local election, as they did with Scott Brown in Massachusetts. And since the new Obama agenda seems to be one of placing him back in campaign mode (as opposed to a leadership role) it’s apparent the Plouffe influence has already been placed into play.

How one man killed Obamacare

As most of America has presumably learned, Republican Scott Brown was elected to take over the “Kennedy seat” in the Senate, dispatching Democrat opponent Martha Coakley handily in Massachusetts’ recent special election. Thus ended Democrats’ filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate and prospects for ramming Obamacare through on a strictly party-line vote.

Yet had the House and Senate concurred earlier on a health care reform bill agreeable to both Brown’s election wouldn’t have mattered nearly as much. Instead, each body designed legislation to pass their own side and in the end the differences were irreconcilable. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally threw in the towel, saying the one chance Obamacare had – passing the Senate bill as it was in the House – couldn’t draw the required 218 votes. A main sticking point was that the Senate bill lacked the prohibition on the federal government paying directly for abortions. That provision allowed the House to pass their bill with just two votes to spare and gave it the barest bipartisan fig leaf as GOP Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana was the lone Republican in favor.

Undeniably, part of Brown’s appeal was the prospect of killing Obamacare by being the 41st Republican vote and denying Democrats their supermajority. In the election’s aftermath, petulant Democrats threw losing candidate Martha Coakley under the bus for running a terrible, gaffe-prone campaign and openly spoke about changing the filibuster rules to allow Democrats to maintain their hammerlock, perhaps needing just 55 votes instead of 60. Decades ago, a compromise measure lowered the limit from a 2/3 majority of 67 Senators to the current 3/5 majority.

Cooler heads prevailed, though, and now the consensus on health care reform is to deliver it in a piecemeal fashion by removing some of the most objectionable portions and focusing on areas where broad agreement exists, such as eliminating the right to deny coverage for preexisting conditions. But gone will be the ability for Democrats to fashion closed-door deals such as the one exempting union workers from a tax on so-called “Cadillac” health insurance plans.

While Republicans were pleased about picking up a Massachusetts seat for the first time in nearly 40 years, the prospects of becoming the majority party in the Senate this fall are fairly slim. Of the 36 Senate seats up for consideration (there are special elections to fill unexpired terms in Delaware and New York), 18 of the seats are Republican and 18 are held by Democrats. To even things out, the GOP would have to sweep the seats they’re defending and win half the available Democratic seats – a tall order to be sure. The prevailing conventional wisdom at the moment pegs GOP gains of 2 to 4 seats, which would leave them still significantly in the minority.

But an enhanced Republican presence in the Senate would curb the radically statist agenda thus far presented by President Obama, creating a similar effect to the 1994 midterm election which tempered President Clinton’s ambitious plans for health care reform. In order to win his own reelection, President Clinton tacked to the center and the strategy paid off in 1996.

Given what Obama has proposed and already enacted, though, moving to the center may be a little much to expect out of him. The 2012 Presidential election will likely see Obama run for a second term against two opponents: the Republican nominee and a “do-nothing” Congress which thwarted much of his ambitious agenda to remake America.

For that, we can thank Scott Brown and Massachusetts voters who hoped for a better change.

Michael Swartz, an architect and writer who lives in rural Maryland, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

This latest effort for LFS cleared back on January 27th.