The Curse of 60 Seats

The thing Democrats seemed to desire most after the election of Obama was a 60 seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. What looked good on paper has turned out to be a curse for the party and one which is leading to their destruction. Michael Barone has more:

The very real possibility that the Democrats may lose their 60th seat -- and in Massachusetts, the only state George McGovern carried in 1972 -- suggests that it was perhaps not such a happy accident for them in the end.

Barack Obama got 62 percent of the vote in Massachusetts in 2008. His percentage was lower in 42 other states. With the Massachusetts seat in jeopardy, no Senate seat in those 42 states can be considered utterly safe for Democrats in today's climate of opinion.

That climate might have been different if Democrats had never gotten that 60th seat. In that case, they would've had to bargain with Republicans to pass a health-care bill and might even have proceeded on the genuine bipartisan approach that Obama promised in his campaign.

We might have been spared the spectacle of the Louisiana purchase ($300 million for Mary Landrieu's vote) and the Cornhusker hustle (Ben Nelson got Nebraska exempted from Medicaid increases). Or at least the onus of such spectacles would fall on Republicans as well as Democrats.

But with 60 seats, the Democratic leadership took the partisan path and the Obama White House supinely went along. They ignored the abundant evidence that most voters increasingly opposed their government-directed health-care bills.

The 60th seat was a temptation, and like Oscar Wilde, the Democrats were able to resist anything except temptation.

The good news is, if the Dems can't hold Teddy Kennedy's seat, there's a good chance they can't hold Barbara Boxer's seat in California either. Every Dem running for re-election in either House must be considered in danger, and that's gotta change some thinking in Washington.