Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Reading Into The Massachusetts Results

Even in the late hours (while the voting was still going on) we saw the hacks scrambling to assign blame, for the poor showing of the Democrat nominated to fill the former seat held by Ted Kennedy.

Coakley's camp must have known something wasn't looking good, they had this to say:

National Dems Failed to Aid Coakley Until Too Late

— Coakley campaign provided national Democrats with all poll results since early December

— Coakley campaign noted concerns about "apathy" and failure of national Democrats to contribute early in December. Coakley campaign noted fundraising concerns throughout December and requested national Democratic help.

— DNC and other Dem organizations did not engage until the week before the election, much too late to aid Coakley operation


It is being reported that the national Democratic machine said this in response to that memo:

"This memo is a pack full of lies and fantasies - The DNC and the DSCC did everything they were asked and have been involved in the race for several weeks not just the last one -The campaign failed to recognize this threat, failed to keep Coakley on the campaign trail, failed to create a negative narrative about Brown, failed to stay on the air in December while he was running a brilliant campaign.

As the days follow, it is highly likely that many more will jump in and point a finger or two. Deflections, projections, and generalized excuse-making will likely be the order of the day, as the "powers that be" analyze the outcome of this very important election. But in the reflections and unending analysis that is bound to follow, I don't suppose many would want to admit that it just might be the agenda that is being rammed down Americans' throats.

No, sir. It can't me that, can it?

It's not like there haven't been massive numbers of tea parties to communicate this dislike of the present course, or contentious town hall eruptions protesting it before the elected officials who dared to have them. I guess the elections in New Jersey, Virginia and now Massachusetts will not render a message to the establishment, either.

No sir.

None of this will have any effect on Pelosi, Reid, or Obama. No doubt it will likely be full speed ahead, with absolutely no regard for the will of the people.

In this article, we read of a democratic official who just couldn't resist taking a swipe at Bush.

Democratic responses to Brown’s victory ranged from muted to combative, with Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) pledging House Democrats would be prepared to make a more aggressive case for their party in the 2010 midterm elections.

“After winning five straight competitive Special Elections, the DCCC knows first hand how difficult they are and we are not taking anything for granted this cycle,” Van Hollen said in a statement. “President George W. Bush and House Republicans drove our economy into a ditch and tried to run away from the accident. President Obama and congressional Democrats have been focused [on] repairing the damage to our economy.”

This isn't the least bit surprising when you think about it. The entire year has been focused on Bush and what he left them to work with.

Still, others (like a Democratic Senator from a traditionally blue state that has flirted with the red) offered a more practical answer, without actually coming out and pointing the fingers at the policies being dictated to the people.

From the same article:

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who chairs the Senate Democrats’ campaign committee, released a more subdued statement saying: “I have no interest in sugar coating what happened in Massachusetts. There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now. Americans are understandably impatient. The truth is Democrats understand the economic anger voters feel, that’s in large part why we did well in 2006 and 2008.”


This is partially true, voter anger did drive the Democratic victories in 2008. This was especially true of independents. They were sold a bill of goods and they believed the reckless promises.

But in 2009, it became apparent that this government misread their mandate. They saw it as a blank check. They saw it as a pass to do whatever they wanted. And when the people tried to make their cases, they were vilified. They were ridiculed and demonized as right wing racist reactionaries. Now, the people are even madder.

Truth is, the politicians in power will probably never get it. It will take a mandatory return to the private sector for them to even consider that they may be the problem here. And even then, what will you bet they will still blame George W. Bush?


14 comments:

Chuck said...

I agree that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will continue to push their agenda. I think they will get resistance from their rank and file, but they will forge ahead.

LASunsett said...

Chuck,

For them not to push forward would be to say they were wrong. And we rarely if ever here a politician say they were wrong.

Rocket said...

“President George W. Bush and House Republicans drove our economy into a ditch and tried to run away from the accident.

I'm a little confused when you are at the end of the legal mandate, how you can run away from the problem, unless you call out the military and appoint yourself President for life. As far as House Republicans weren't they voted out of office during the last general which shifted the balance of power.

From the little I am reading it seems that the leadership of the Democratic party is crying victimization and I only say this through my experience living in a country which has made victimization a national pastime.

LASunsett said...

//As far as House Republicans weren't they voted out of office during the last general which shifted the balance of power.//

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is yes. The Dems were in control of both houses after the 2006 midterms. This means they have had a little over 3 years to implement things that could/should/would make it all better. They haven't, they have only made it worse.

//From the little I am reading it seems that the leadership of the Democratic party is crying victimization and I only say this through my experience living in a country which has made victimization a national pastime.//

If anyone would know the manipulation techniques of those who see themselves as victims, you would know. Good point and an even better observation..

Greg said...

It's a referendum on Obamacare, and Baystaters spoke loudly: No Thanks! Obama came up here and said, "Vote for Martha "Buckner" Choakley to save my health care bill." Mass voters said, "No Thanks." Scott Brown said, "Vote for me, and I'll try to kill this so-called 'reform'." Mass. voters knew what they were voting for.

Also, Curt Schilling is NOT a Yankees fan. That didn't help, "Marcia."

Heh.

Now don't embarrass us, Scott!

LASunsett said...

//Now don't embarrass us, Scott!//

Getting elected is the easy part. Doing the job the way the people of Mass. want it done may prove to be a bit tricky at times. He has six years to prove he deserves another chance. I hope he does it right.

Mary Ellen said...

Obama just said today that he plans on going forward with his agenda. Axelrod just said that they will push through the healthcare bill. They don't give a rats ass about anything but themselves. Obama wants one thing, to say he passed a healthcare bill that Hillary couldn't. He doesn't care what it does to the country. He's insane...totally insane.

I'm wondering how much longer it will be before the rest of the party finally tells him to shove off. It's their jobs on the line this November and so far, the last three Dems he supported in elections have lost their jobs. Whatever happened to "three strikes you're out"?

Greg said...

Actually, I think he only gets to serve out Ted Kennedy's term, LAS. I think that means he has to run in 2012. I bet John Kerry's mouth was a little dry last night. He's safe until 2014, though.

A note on economic policy: if Bush's economic policy was so bad, why has Obama doubled down on it? No, tripled down on it? TARP and 'stimulus'? Absolutely! Give me 10, please!! Spend and borrow? Print money as fast as possible, inflation be damned! Bush spent like a liberal, and Obama is several factors worse. That's the problem!

Greg said...

M-E: I guess that's not surprising, considering the Prez apparently is willing to sacrifice a second term for so-called health care 'reform'.

http://tinyurl.com/ychdnuu

But you are right that Dems in Congress are probably not so willing to sacrifice themselves for a crappy bill.

Greg said...

Also, M-E, my work blocks your blog. :( Must be some good stuff on there. ;) Will have to check from home.

LASunsett said...

//I think that means he has to run in 2012. //

I forgot this was a special election. This means he is on an already warmed up hot seat.

A.C. McCloud said...

I love Obama--Bush was the reason for the anger that got Brown elected. Yeah, I guess they'll be blaming Bush in November as more Repubs flood into Congress.

Mary Ellen said...

Greg- My blog is blocked? I must be doing something right! :-)

LASunsett said...

//Yeah, I guess they'll be blaming Bush in November as more Repubs flood into Congress.//

And 2012, 2014, and even 2016. Pretty soon there will be a generation that will say, who is Bush and why would a guy who makes baked beans have anything to do with anything?