Will Obama Manage To Throw Away Another Massachusetts Senate Seat?

2 Iraq War supporters-- when do we get a new guard?

It appears likely that a member of the uppermost crust of the ruling elite, Senator John Kerry, will put his own ambitions to serve in the Cabinet-- either as Secretary of State or as Secretary of War-- ahead of the need of the Democratic Party to hold onto the Massachusetts Senate seat he would have to give up in order to take whichever Cabinet position he can guilt Obama into giving him as a career-capper. Wall Street spent over $2 million each on only 5 candidates this cycle, all slavish servants to their toxic, predatory agenda:

• House Majority Leader Eric Cantor- $2,044,500
• Banking Committee Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Security and International Trade and Finance Bob Corker- $2,499,065
• Presidential wanna-be and Wall Street shill Kirsten Gillibrand- $2,809,971
• Speaker John Boehner- $3,211,702
• half-term freshman Scott Brown- $4,500,026

Did Brown ever get the most-- and by a lot! He was Wall Street's #1-- and he lost. Would they bankroll him again if Kerry tosses the seat away like it was a used tissue? You bet they will! They're drooling at the prospect already. The Wall Street Journal is busily spinning its web: "The odds-on favorite in that race would be the just-defeated Republican Sen. Scott Brown-- who won his seat in a 2010 special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy."

Mr. Brown lost re-election this year to liberal Elizabeth Warren due to the president's coattails and concerns among moderate Democrats and independents that a Brown victory would give Republicans control of the Senate, a risk which Ms. Warren played up on the campaign trail and which voters consistently identified in polls as their reason for favoring her.

However, Mr. Brown never lost his popularity. A few days before the election Mr. Brown boasted a higher approval rating than both the president and Mr. Kerry, even as he trailed Ms. Warren by several points. A Democrat running in a special election couldn't flog the hobgoblin of a Republican Senate and wouldn't benefit from a high Democratic turnout for Mr. Obama.

Plus, the Democratic bench is weak. The state's liberal congressional baron, Ed Markey, would be the favorite, but he might have trouble winning over independents. Other Democrats that have been floated include Congressmen Michael Capuano and Stephen Lynch.

Mr. Brown in recent days has indicated he'd be interested in running again should a vacancy arise, and less prominent Republicans in the state have said they'd defer to him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid certainly seems to fear Mr. Brown's candidacy. Yesterday he denounced the Republican to reporters as "one of the most partisan people that's ever served here."

Although it's certainly true that the immensely unpopular Romney hurt the whole Republican ticket-- possibly helping save John Tierney's House seat from Republican Richard Tisei, after virtually every Beltway pundit predicted he would win-- Elizabeth Warren proved herself a far better candidate than Scott Brown and beat him decisively and demonstrably in each and every debate. In the end she ousted the incumbent-- the only Senate incumbent in America to lose the general-- 1,678,408 (53.7%) to 1,449,180 (46.3%).

The two Democrats with the best chance to hold the seat, Governor Deval Patrick and retiring Congressman Barney Frank, have both taken themselves out of the running, leaving two popular progressives, Michael Capuano and Ed Markey, wretched reactionary DINO, Stephen Lynch and a bunch of state pols and business leaders (including, believe it or not, Stephen Pagliuca, a Bain managing partner, who has contributed to Romney and whose wife has given Republicans over $50,000 in 2012) as the best bets for a heated primary. If Brown decides he wants to run for governor in 2014 instead, both Tisei and former Governor Bill Weld seem ready to jump in.

Presumably Patrick wouldn't wrest a pledge out of whomever he appoints as the interim senator to not run in the special and, in fact, it's more likely that the Democrats will settle on their strongest choice and that Patrick will appoint him so he can run as a quasi-incumbent. This time, though, there could be a far more serious fly-in-the-ointment. If Obama uses the Grand Bargain to damage Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid-- which looks likely-- the Special Election will be the first opportunity for progressives to declare their independence from the Democratic Party and their disdain for Obama and other Wall Street shills in the party, especially if Senator Warren is among the progressives who oppose the Obama-Boehner deal.

Handicapping the Colorado Senate pick: Has Rep. Ed Perlmutter really been winning "despite" his labor ties and relatively liberal voting record?

Ed Perlmutter of Colorado's 7th CD (center) at an alternative-fuels press conference in June (with now-Senator-elect Mark Udall at his side): Is it really not possible, David Sirota asks, that labor support and a generally progressive voting record have helped him win?

by Ken

This post is a twofer. News-wise, we have an update on the jockeying for position among possible appointees to the impending Colorado Senate vacancy. But we also get an object lesson in the habitually muddled mindset of the mainstream media.

As I noted recently, we seem to be getting more questions than answers about who exactly is going to sit in the Senate that cranks up in January. The newest question mark, of course, is Colorado, where Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter is now faced with naming a replacement for Interior Secretary-designate Ken Salazar.

Nobody seems to know what Governor Ritter will do, but the description of his situation resembles that of New York Governor David Paterson, faced with naming a replacement for Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton. Each, with his own popularity ratings not exactly soaring, will want someone who can raise enough money and make a strong enough impact on voters statewide to hold onto the seat in 2010 and ideally also give him a boost in the governor's race, since he'll also be on the ballot.

The Denver Post did a big story today running through the possibilities, and that prompted some musings from Coloradan David Sirota. (My goodness, it's David Sirota Day on DownWithTyranny!) In "Potential Differences Between Senate Candidates Could Have National Implications," David laments that "there's only passing mention of what could be the most important differences between them all - their stances on the huge national issues that will be toughest to get through the Senate: namely, health care reform and the Employee Free Choice Act." (Howie has written EFCA a number of times, pointing out, for example, that "not only will the bill help rebuild the middle class (and the economy), it will also help the Democrats politically. EFCA, Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign has said, "would make Republicans the minority party for the next 40 to 50 years.")

Perhaps the most aggressive contender, two-time loser of Colorado Senate races Tom Strickland, is, David notes, vice president of UnitedHealth, "one of the largest health insurance companies in America." He continues:

Yes, you read that right. Apparently, not only can you be the Treasury Secretary who helped deregulate the economy and still get a top White House job these days, as Larry Summers did. But you can also be a top executive in one of the most reviled industries in America - an industry at the center of one of the worst crises of our time - and yet you can still be a top contender for a Democratic U.S. Senate appointment. Obviously, Strickland's line of work strongly suggests he's probably not going to be a guy all that interested in serious health care reform.

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, whom the Post article describes as the candidate who "perhaps" best fits "the profile of the 'regular guy' moderate that has been so successful for the party in recent years," has not, as far as David knows, taken a public position on EFCA, but he has "a bit of a rocky relationship with organized labor, leading many to believe he'd be a no vote."

He's more enthusiastic about Ed Perlmutter (said by the Post to have "emerged as the front-runner among the state's congressional delegation").

We don't agree on everything, of course, but he is a fairly progressive lawmaker on most issues - and he voted for EFCA. And unlike the other top candidates, he's also a proven vote-getter in a very competitive district - a bonus for what will likely be a tough statewide reelection battle in 2010. [The Post points out that he starts with a $500K campaign war chest from his current campaign account.]

NOW WE COME TO OUR MEDIA OBJECT LESSON

Here we have candidate analysis and media commentary wrapped up in a neat package:

Interestingly - or, actually, not interestingly because it's so predictable - the media is already subtly attempting to portray Perlmutter's moderately progressive voting record as some sort of albatross around his potential appointment. Notice this passage in today's Denver Post:

And despite strong ties to unions and a relatively liberal voting record, Perlmutter has won twice in what is among the state's most competitive congressional districts, suggesting to many in his party that he could win in a statewide race with a similar voter makeup. (emphasis added)

The key word in the passage is "despite." The Post could have easily - and accurately - substituted the phrase "because of" for "despite," considering organized labor's decisive grassroots role in winning elections and considering the polls showing the mainstream public's own progressive positions on issues. But instead, the Post is saying even though Perlmutter has ties to unions and a moderately progressive voting record, he's been able to win office - as if having ties to working people and being in sync with the public should be some sort of hindrance to winning competitive races in a state that just elected a senator, Mark Udall, who has a similar voting record.

For the record, David also notes as potential contenders "former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, former Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald or current U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D), among others. Any of those three are more in the progressive Perlmutter mold on the two biggest issues, rather than the Strickland/Hickenlooper mold."

#