The biggest news of the day is undoubtedly the race unfolding in Massachusetts between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley as they vie for the Senate seat previously occupied by the late Ted Kennedy. Early reports are that turnout is extremely heavy, with some voters turning around in their cars and heading home after seeing the lines of people waiting to cast a vote.
Hanging in the balance is the filibuster-busting 60th vote for (or 41st vote against) healthcare legislation, President Obama’s signature issue.
The implications for health care are so high, that President Obama as well as fromer President Clinton stumped for Coakley, yet the visits have yet to bear fruit for Coakley in the polls. Pennsylvania Senate Democrat Arlen Specter has ordered his staff to make calls on behalf of Coakley, while Republican John McCain has also made fundraising contacts in Massachusetts on behalf of Brown.
It is easy to see today’s election as a referendum of sorts on the Obama presidency, and health care in particular, which is being hotly contested in one of the bluest of blue states. Massachusetts hasn’t elected a Republican senator since 1972, and one can't help but wonder at the irony of Ted Kennedy's successor possibly being the vote to undo health care reform in this country.
Further more, in the run up to today’s special election, Coakley -- the early and overwhelming favorite -- has completely lost what was once a 30-point lead and now trails behind Brown. Whether at the end of the day Coakley wins or loses, the cause of her dramatic plunge in the polls will surely be discussed.
One much-publicized incident that couldn't have helped was Coakley's recent interview with radio host Ken Pittman. When the topic turned to the issue of conscience freedoms, Coakley argued that Catholics who are morally opposed to abortion and contraception “probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.” The recording is below:
Even mainstream commentators took note of what seemed an extremist hostility towards religious conscience. It was a rather breathtaking dismissiveness toward people of faith, as well as the 624 Catholic hospitals in the U.S. -- not to mention Massachusett's own Catholic population. While there were certainly more factors besides that interview chipping away Coakley's lead, alienating such a significant voting block was likely not the best political move.
As the Wall St. Journal's James Taranto put it, "According to exit polls, 53% of Massachusetts voters in 2008 were Catholic. Supporting invidious discrimination against roughly half the state's voters would seem a decidedly unmethodical way of winning an election."
Poll after poll shows Americans favorable toward conscience protections for health care workers. If Coakley loses, her loss will serve, among other things, as a cautionary tale for politicians who speak and act against them.
Paul Ciarcia
Comments