The Search For Meaning

I've become fascinated by today's special election in Massachusetts. This is for the seat Ted Kennedy held since he took over for the guy who took over for his brother. JFK won it from a guy named Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., which sounds made up, but it isn't. Apparently, that was just one in a series of electoral ass kickings the Kennedys dished out to the Lodges. OK, this doesn't really sound that fascinating so far.

Actually, I'm not fascinated by the election so much as by the coverage. Fox is in the middle of some kind of teabagging orgy right now (wow, that must sound super dirty to anyone who doesn't follow politics and doesn't know what I'm referring to). MSNBC is in full panic mode, if this doesn't go well for them, Ed Schultz might set the building on fire.

I find myself asking one question. Why? Come to think of it, I find myself asking my TV some variation of that question quite a bit lately? Like this weekend when I was flipping around and wound up watching about 10 minutes of MTV's Jersey Shore. Why aren't those people in prison? Or at the very least, exiled to Saint Helena like Napoleon? I have no idea. Or, if you prefer something more related to today's topic, last Friday I heard Sean Hannity refer to the possibility of the Republican winning this special election as a "political earthquake, magnitude 9.9". I don't think Hannity was trying to offend anyone, it's a pretty widely used figure of speech, and I've got plenty of better reasons to call Sean a bad guy, but damn dude.

Let's meet the candidates first. The Democratic candidate is Martha Coakley. As far as I can tell, she was trying to become, possibly, the first U.S. Senator to win her seat without campaigning. If a bad campaign is a train wreck (hello John McCain!), the Coakley train didn't even leave the station until sometime last week. I've seen her make one speech, on Sunday. It was awful. The only thing I learned about her platform is that she likes applause. On top of that, her campaign apparently spelled Massachusetts wrong in an ad. At this point, I wouldn't vote for her if she was running against a plate of nachos, because at least the nachos would be delicious. She doesn't even have a good Boston accent. It's like the Democrats were trying to win with a degree of difficulty. Also, I think her campaign slogan "Red Sox suck, Coakley for Senate" may have been a mistake.

The Republican is Scott Brown. It seems like he emerged a few months ago from a laboratory that creates politicians. I know he owns a truck and plans to vote against the health care bill. Seriously, how bad have our politics become that a guy can become incredibly popular and exceed all reasonable expectations by pointing to one thing and talking about how he has no intention of doing it. I've seen him standing in front of signs that say "jobs", but I have yet to see evidence that he has a plan for how to create jobs. Except, of course, the Republican magic of tax cuts. People say every problem looks like a nail to a guy with a hammer. For Republicans, every tax cut looks tax cut a tax cut. TAX CUT!

Democrats will have you believe this election means next to nothing (I mostly agree with them, but it's funny how every political defeat is so meaningless if you ask the losing party. If Coakley was up by 30 points, something tells me Democrats would be squawking about how this is a firm endorsement of their agenda). Well, the one Martha Coakley speech I saw, she was introducing the President. He went to Boston on Sunday to campaign for her. By the way, this was a good move by the President. You could say if Coakley loses he'll look weak. But the truth is, if Coakley loses, he is weak. So I'm not really buying the Democrats' whole this isn't that important line when they're bringing the closer out of the bullpen. "Oh, this election isn't a huge deal, Barack just really wanted to see Boston in January".

Meanwhile, Republicans will tell you the fate of world rests on this election. Scott Brown will kill Obamacare and end socialism once and for all. If Scott Brown wins, then every Republican will win in November, all of them, no matter what. I was looking forward to what Barack Obama was going to do with the next three years, but apparently a Brown victory will force him to immediately resign in shame. Tough break. Especially since it would leave us with President Biden. I'm not sure what a Biden Presidency would look like, but I feel like we'd start blowing more stuff up.

What this election really means, of course, is that both parties, Democrats especially, can't take anything for granted at this point. Midterm elections are all about turnout, and turnout is all about energy. Democratic energy is pretty low right now, because even when we elect the people they want, they still don't get anything done. Republican energy is high right now, I'm not sure why. I think it has something to do with socialism, or death panels, or tea. I really don't know. I mean, I like tea, but I don't think I'd vote for Scott Brown.

More than anything else, I'm struck by what seems to be a desperation for every little thing to have meaning. In November, two Gubernatorial races and one upstate New York House seat were the end of the political world. Back then, the Republicans lost the House seat because the original Republican wasn't conservative enough for the teabaggers, so some empty vessel third party guy jumped in and the Democrats took a seat they had no business winning. Simultaneously, the Democrats had two awful candidates who ran two awful campaigns and they lost two Governors, as they should have. What we learned then, and what we're learning now, is simply that bad candidates make bad candidates, and they often lose.

Some say this Senate special election is more important because it's the 60th seat. Scott Brown can kill health care. Really? The leadership won't just find some other way to buy the 60th vote from someone? Olympia Snowe's always been on the fence, maybe we can give Maine 100 million dollars for lobster subsidies. Honestly, I'm not super worried about health care, especially since the bill's pretty crappy by now anyway.

What happens today isn't a referendum on the President or his agenda. It isn't a valid indicator of what will happen in November. I don't think it'll even have a great deal of policy impact. It's not like the Democrats knew what to do with 60 votes when they had them. All today's election means is that it's important to find good candidates who run solid campaigns. If both parties didn't know that already, I don't know what to tell you.