Why would Rick Perry stay in the race? To those who watched a candidate who seemed to have everything going for him—long-time, big-state governor with a record he could tout, money, attractiveness, appeal to the base, never lost an election—fall apart in the most embarrassing, slow-motion way, through serial debate flops and dumb statements, and then flop in Iowa, it may seem puzzling, stubborn, impulsive, and quixotic.
Here is another possible explanation. As I noted in an earlier post, the choice of a not-Mitt Romney conservative alternative went through several stages of infatuation and disappointment, from Bachmann through Cain, then Perry and Gingrich. All emerged, went through tougher scrutiny, and faltered. Santorum was the last one standing, and so far has escaped any serious look at his plans, his past record (remember the K Street Project?), and his history of highly charged statements (remember “man on dog?”). There is a reasonable chance, over the next two weeks, that the press and his opponents will subject Santorum to the same scrutiny that caused others to stumble—and that he will, leaving yet another vacuum in the battle to choose a not-Mitt. Gingrich will still be around, but his path, as he goes after Romney with a viciousness parallel to what Romney’s cohorts did to Newt—but lacking the super PAC resources, Gingrich will have to do it directly—is a tough one. So if Perry just hangs around, maybe he can pick up the not-Mitt torch if it is dropped by Santorum. Not likely, to be sure. But not entirely implausible, given the wacky horse race so far.
The contest I was watching most closely was the Pennsylvania-12 special election to fill John Murtha’s seat. Democrats have had a long string of special election victories, one which will be broken in Hawaii because two well-known Democratic candidates will get 60 percent between them but let a Republican prevail with the remaining 40. But the tough, blue-collar, conservative swing district in PA was another matter. There, a Republican victory would suggest that the sharp turn against the Dems was continuing and intensifying, as was the intensity gap, making a loss of 40 to 50 House seats in November more plausible. In the short run, it would have been another psychological blow to the Democrats, possibly hurting fundraising at a critical time. The fact that Democrat Mark Critz won does not mean that Democrats have turned the corner — rough times still lie ahead, and they will undoubtedly take a major hit this fall in both houses. But the win also suggests that Democrats may well be able to take advantage of improving economic conditions and a continuing strong financial and organizational infrastructure, and that it could keep the losses to more manageable levels. The other contests also show that the strong anti-Washington mood, while clearly aimed more at Democrats, will be a potentially vexing problem for both parties.
Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.” That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld). Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration. I don’t like self-executing rules by either party—I prefer the “regular order”—so I am not going to say this is a great idea by the Democrats. But even so—is there no shame anymore?
Scott Brown’s victory leaves Democrats with very difficult choices ahead on healthcare overhaul. Some House Democrats I have talked to want to drop the issue and turn their focus to jobs, starting tomorrow. But to do so would be to concede defeat on a signature issue into which every top Democrat in Washington has poured heart and soul for ten months. Shades of Clinton and 1994. But to go forward means either trying to jam a bill through in the next ten days (the time it might take to get absentee votes counted and certified in Massachusetts) and to keep all 60 Senate Democrats on board; convincing House Democrats to accept a Senate bill that for many would be the equivalent of the Pope and his cardinals accepting the Koran; doing a reconciliation bill that would be incomplete, disjointed, and time-limited; or some combination of two and three, trying to use reconciliation to move the package closer to the House bill. An alternative might be to continue forward with the regular order—get a conference report together that is actually on track to improve the House and Senate bills, pass it through the House, and bring it up in the Senate. If all 41 Republicans decide to filibuster a bill that has passed the House and has far more than a majority of senators in favor, Democrats should turn it into an old-fashioned filibuster, go around the clock, and use the opportunity to convince skeptical and angry Americans that healthcare overhaul is better than the status quo. Making that work is a long shot—but it may be the best shot they have.