Brown Victory: Democrats Once Again Fail to Seize the Moment

Republican Scott Brown's defeat of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts is both stunning and, at the same time, a scenario all too familiar for Democrats. How did it happen? The same way Massachusetts nominees lost the presidency for Democrats in 1988 and 2004, and the same way Democrats in Congress lost health reform and their majorities in 1994. They think they have all the time in the world to define themselves, to sell themselves and their policies, to respond to attacks, to dicker over bills, to win elections. And then it turns out they don't.

Over the past year, with a terminally ill senator (Ted Kennedy), a senator in his 90s (Robert Byrd), and a senator who didn't get seated until July (Al Franken), you'd think Democrats would have felt some urgency, at least enough to meet President Obama's August deadline on health reform. But no, they were counting on at least two years of a 60-vote super-majority in the Senate – the absolute minimum number of votes needed to cut off filibusters by a GOP minority hell-bent on depriving Obama and his party of legislative success.

You might also think that with 10 percent unemployment, every poll showing problems for the ruling party, and that fragile super-majority at stake, Democrats would not go on autopilot for a special election, even in a state that hadn't elected a GOP senator in decades. But they did, and the result is Sen.-elect Brown – the proud 41st "no" vote on health reform.

Brown deserves congratulations on a well-run race. It's hard to overstate the energy his success will ignite in conservatives across the land. Not only will they volunteer and vote in droves, more and better candidates may well emerge. GOP strategist Alex Vogel says many prospects are taking note of Brown's rise "out of nowhere" and realizing they, too, could "pop" if they jump in and work hard. When Democrats took over Washington, "no one wanted to run for dogcatcher for the Republicans," Vogel told me. "Now it's game on."

Brown was not only a good candidate, he looked all the better because of Coakley's bewildering decisions. She took off one-sixth of a six-week campaign, waited four weeks to start TV ads, disdained campaign events with actual voters, and ran a themeless pudding of a race. Brown even got to define himself as a populist who drives an old truck -- a neat feat on his part, considering he's a lawyer married to a TV reporter, he's backed by corporations and Wall Street, and as of last April, as the Huffington Post reported, he owned five properties -- a home near a lake in Wrentham, southwest of Boston, a second home on the New Hampshire seacoast, two Boston condos and an Aruba timeshare.

Was everyone at the White House, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee asleep while all this was going on? Should heads, or a head, roll? Democrats seem to think someone is going to take a bad hit for this, given how they began blaming other Democrats for the loss even before the polls had closed.

The more dispassionate Democrats were saying Tuesday that there's enough blame to go around. Coakley, in fact, was campaigning in an awkward stretch -- between initial passage and final passage of a Democratic health bill. "It was a bad place to be," said party pollster Mark Mellman, because it was too late to lay out her own vision of health care and too soon to say "here's the law and here's how I'd like to make it better."

On the other hand, and this may be lesson or reminder number one from this dramatic dash of a campaign, the quality of a candidate matters. Brown, a state senator, was canny and polished, while Coakley, the attorney general, came across as inexperienced, tone deaf, and not wanting the job all that much. Brown has a Sarah Palin-like aura of celebrity -- the good looks, the nervy personality, the long-ago nude photo shoot for Cosmo, the daughter who made the semifinals of "American Idol." Coakley, by contrast, brought to mind Virginia's losing gubernatorial candidate, state Sen. Creigh Deeds. Both were much praised for their work as public servants, and both were colorless and clueless as campaigners.

Which brings us to lesson two: The political environment matters and candidates ignore it at their peril. People are upset about the economy and worried about the health care bill. Brown capitalized on those anxieties and Coakley didn't make a strong case against his proposals or for the prescriptions she and Obama support.

Lesson three applies mainly to Democrats. Thinking back to former presidential nominees Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, we might even narrow it to Massachusetts Democrats and a culture of passivity or complacence. The lesson is don't just sit there -- define yourself and bloody the other guy/gal as quickly as possible. Preferably before he or she does unto you. Or, as Mellman put it to me dryly, not quite believing he had to say it, "Campaign against your opponent." That's not even Politics 101, it's remedial.

Lesson four: Beware the PC pull of a pioneering woman. A feminist first packs emotional punch with some voters, but obviously it doesn't guarantee a competent candidate or a winner. Lesson five: Parties shouldn't let top-tier candidates sit on the sidelines. We might be looking at Sen.-elect Markey if veteran Rep. Ed Markey had been pushed to make this race.

Lesson six is especially important to Democrats in light of upcoming battles on health care and when Brown will be certified and seated in the Senate. It can be summarized as WWRD -- What Would Rove Do? The right answer is whatever it takes. Remember the Rove PowerPoint instructing Republican to use the war on terror in the 2002 campaigns? And how about another health bill that started out unpopular, the Medicare prescription drug plan? Republicans low-balled how much it would cost, didn't pay for it in any way, and held open a House vote for three hours to extract the votes they needed.

I don't think Democrats should apologize for doing whatever it takes to pass their health reforms. It might even enhance their image to appear a bit ruthless, with passionate convictions. And there are good policy reasons to plunge ahead. The most fundamental is that without it, some people will continue to go bankrupt, suffer and even die because they don't have insurance.

It's undeniable that Brown was elected, in part, by vowing to block health reform. But must we interpret his win as "the will of the people" on that issue? At least one poll shows more Massachusetts voters cared about the economy than health care. Even if we do view Brown's victory as a thumbs-down on health reform, Massachusetts is just one state. Democrats will continue to have 59 votes in the Senate -- many more than 41 no matter how you slice it.

One more point on that: Why should Brown and Massachusetts voters get to kill for the rest of the country what they already have? Massachusetts is the only state that has a universal coverage plan and requires people to buy health insurance, similar to what Congress is trying to do for America. And guess what, most of them like it. Even Brown voted for it, and it was signed by a Republican governor, Mitt Romney.

Democrats agree that Brown's victory is a wake-up call. They just disagree on whether it means back off your agenda, or get something done already. That's particularly true on health care. Republicans have an argument no matter what happens -- they'll campaign to repeal the law, or they'll campaign against Democratic incompetence (couldn't pass Obama's top priority even with a 60-vote super-majority). Democrats have no real choice except to get it done, talk up its good points, and hope the economy improves enough to brighten the country's outlook and its opinion of them.