Fallout

More Senate seats to lose:  We spoke to a handful of party strategists last night in search of a list of who to keep an eye on. Among the names: Reps. Ike Skelton (Mo.), John Murtha (Pa.), Alan Mollohan (W.Va.), John Dingell (Mich.), John Spratt (S.C.), and Leonard Boswell (Iowa) -- among others. Yes, we know some of these Members have said recently that they plan to run for re-election. We also know that an event like a Republican victory in Massachusetts can change a lot of minds in a hurry. On the Senate side, the two names that come up as potential retirements in the wake of the Coakley mess are Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Harry Reid (Nev.). ...While he remains personally popular -- over 60 percent in the Suffolk University poll -- he was not, ultimately persuasive to undecided voters in this race. Internal polling done for both parties suggested that the Obama visit had helped drive excitement among the most committed Democrats but his presence in the state did almost nothing to change the horse race numbers. That marks a major change from the 2008 campaign when Obama's great electoral gift was not only his ability to energize the party's base but also to connect with independent voters.... Cillizza, WaPo

Blame Baucus first, then Emanuel, then Coakley: The United States Senate should take a lot of blame for taking forever to pass a health-care bill. The Senate Finance Committee in particular delayed and delayed, failing to produce a bill before Congress’ August recess. This allowed the raucous conservative protests to dominate the late summer news and prevented Congress from passing a bill this fall, which is when it should have been sent to the president. The longer Congress took, the worse the process looked. The ugliness of the process badly tarnished the bill itself. The excessive time consumed by health care prevented Congress from acting on other issues. And having still not passed it, Democrats now have to figure out how to get it done without that 60th Senate vote. ...Dionne, WaPo

Fight over financial regulation: President Obama on Tuesday stepped into the middle of a fierce lobbying battle by reinforcing his support for an independent agency to protect consumers against lending abuses that contributed to the financial crisis. The president’s move also signaled a tougher line and a more direct role as Congress weighs an overhaul of banking regulation.
The financial industry and Congressional Republicans have singled out the administration’s proposed consumer agency in particular, hoping to greatly weaken if not kill it. With liberal Democrats and Web commentators fighting just as hard for a strong independent office, the issue is becoming the central flashpoint in the debate over regulation... Coming days after Mr. Obama proposed a new tax on the nation’s biggest banks to recover taxpayer losses from the 15-month-old financial bailout, the meeting on Tuesday suggested the White House would become more active in taking on industry lobbyists who have gained the upper hand in the Senate, winning support from Republicans and some moderate Democrats.. ...NYT

An ambitious but centrist leadership may be the problem: Today’s Congressional Republicans have made the strategically reasonable decision to describe President Obama’s health care plan, like almost every other part of his agenda, as radical and left wing. And the message seems to be at least partly working, based on polls and the Massachusetts surprise. But a smart political strategy isn’t the same thing as accurate policy analysis.
The better way to describe the Obama agenda, I think, is that it’s ambitious (even radical) in its scope and sharply different in direction from the Reagan-Bush era, but mostly moderate in terms of how far it goes on any single issue.
Mr. Obama wants to undo George W. Bush’s high-income tax cuts, but would keep the basic Reagan tax structure intact. The administration is trying to re-regulate financial markets, but has rejected the sweeping ideas favored by the former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, British regulators and many liberals. The pattern is especially clear on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, a centrist approach isn’t necessarily the best one — no matter how good it may sound to call yourself a centrist. ...David Leonhardt, NYT