Brown and Obama......OT
Gunner Asch
106
Comments
The Meaning of Brown
by Charles Krauthammer
01/22/2010
On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election,
President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House
Democrats behind his health care reform. "If Republicans want to
campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and
for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a
fight I want to have."
The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan.
17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the
health care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don't throw her a
millstone.
After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a
generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened
in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight
years."
Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring
and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in
Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.
And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against
Obama not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running
hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was
his No. 1 campaign promise.
Bull's-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according
to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio,
McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote
was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the
Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the
Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent
resentment you expect in bad economic times.
Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don't
Mirandize terrorists. Don't raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret
backroom deals with special interests.
These deals -- the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback -- had
engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of
one-party rule. The final straw was the union payoff -- in which labor
bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption
from a ("Cadillac") health insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the
92 percent of private-sector workers who are not unionized.
The reason both wings of American liberalism -- congressional and
mainstream media -- were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic
sentiment is that they'd spent Obama's first year either ignoring or
disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement
of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With
characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests
as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist
rabble.
You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they
see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to
Obama's social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia
and New Jersey turned Republican in the year's two gubernatorial
elections.
The evidence was unmistakable: Independents, who in 2008 had elected
Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in
Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents,
who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went
3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an
expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout
elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any
nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.
Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible
candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling. True, Brown had
Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the
presidential seal -- of a man who had them swooning only a year ago --
something is going on beyond personality.
That something is substance -- political ideas and legislative agendas.
Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation
to high unemployment, to Coakley or, the current favorite among
sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate,
unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power -- even at your
liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can't even see
is in your own interest.
Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy
seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don't want it, could
they possibly have a point?
"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate
-- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no
hope of waking up."
I say: Let them sleep.
The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.
...It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474
Buerste
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:8bnkl5hkcb3mrkbge...@4ax.com...
I'll bet Obammy moves to the center just like Clinton did. It's the only
hope for the libtards to stay in power. Their big mistake was to interpret
their winning office as a mandate in favor of the radical left agenda rather
than the rejection of the Bush policies. Obammy ran as a centrist and
promised transparency, bi-partisanship and fiscal responsibility but once in
office they took a hard left to appease the nutter fringe. The Independents
that decide EVERY election are abandoning the left...but not necessarily
embracing the right. The Republicans have to be very careful to take proper
advantage without screwing up.
Burled Frau
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:8j1ll5prlknetf7i9...@4ax.com...
> Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>>After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a
>>generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened
>>in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight
>>years."
>
> Half of which featured a Democrat majority in Congress. Including
> 0bama.
So angry that they elected a Republican! LOL, more likely they were fed up
with 0'B0Zer0 wrecking everything.
Hawke
Have you seen the poll results of the popularity of republicans lately?
It's worse than that of the Democrats. Most people have not forgotten
already what the last eight years of republican leadership did for us.
Given that the republican brand is still in the toilet what makes you
think that only Democratic incumbents are going to feel the wrath of the
public. Everything I hear is that the public is out to replace
incumbents not just Democrats. If that is the case expect to see a lot
of republicans lose this November too. Which is always a good thing.
Hawke
HH&C
Too little, too late.
> Their big mistake was to interpret
> their winning office as a mandate in favor of the radical left agenda rather
> than the rejection of the Bush policies. Obammy ran as a centrist and
> promised transparency, bi-partisanship and fiscal responsibility but once in
> office they took a hard left to appease the nutter fringe.
Some have even called 0bama a war criminal for continuing Bush's
"illegal" wars.
Except for Curly...
Bush kills USA "kids" (in uniform) and Iraqis = Bad.
0bama kills "soldiers" and Iraqis = Good.
> The Independents
> that decide EVERY election are abandoning the left...but not necessarily
> embracing the right. The Republicans have to be very careful to take proper
> advantage without screwing up.
The republicans only chance is to race toward conservatism, but like
with the democrats, that may be too little, too late. Tea Party
members will be very hard to convince. The best policy is to just
vote them all out.
HH&C
Ummm, have you seen the election results since the Nov 08 general
election???
Heh.
HH&C
> Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> >Have you seen the poll results of the popularity of republicans
> >lately? It's worse than that of the Democrats.
>
> dropping like a rock. Congress are the ones at risk in 2010. The
> House has the most numerous body count and they are mostly Democrat.
>
> >Most people have not forgotten
> >already what the last eight years of republican leadership did for us.
>
> doing for us.
>
> Bush 1 took his eyes off the economy and was a one term President.
> All he did was bail out his sons S&L collapse. All 0bama has done is
> bail out the banksters. Neither did a thing for Main Street. Do the
> math.
>
> >Given that the republican brand is still in the toilet what makes you
> >think that only Democratic incumbents are going to feel the wrath of the
> >public.
>
>
> An independent conservative in NY23 damn near defeated both Rs and Ds
> after their liberal factions combined forces in a single candidate
> against him.
>
> >Everything I hear is that the public is out to replace
> >incumbents not just Democrats.
>
> on his hands in Arizona for the party nomination and then against the
> D. His opposition was dumped out of office for massive corruption but
> that was years ago and forgotten.
>
> But the statistics are that the majority of incumbents are Dems
> following their taking control of Congress in 2006. Therefore most
> losses will be D.
>
> In the last month or two a whole lot of incumbents have announced they
> are not running again. Clearly because they know they will be beaten.
> Most, not all but most, of the cut and run crowd has be Democrats. In
> effect a bunch of incumbent Ds have already lost.
They're not even waiting for the votes to be counted. They've already
ceded.
> >If that is the case expect to see a lot
> >of republicans lose this November too. Which is always a good thing.
>
> This wish/hope isn't logical. If incumbents lose and most incumbents
> are D then most of the losers will be D.
>
> Dems will come to the 2010 election having been in control of Congress
> for four years, in control of the WH for two years. They will have
> few accomplishments to crow about but they are already on the hook for
> escalating wars and doubling the deficit. There is even the
> delightful possibility that investigations will be far enough along
> see some corruption charges against the bailout boys.
>
> What's a TARP. You use it to cover things up.
Buerste
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hjgggb$99a$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Yep! The Republicans will probably shoot themselves in the foot...again.
They have no unified, clear message nor any real leaders with vision. BUT,
since the Democrats couldn't or wouldn't do what the citizens wanted they
will be replaced with---who else---Republicans. I'd like to see ALL of them
get booted and a whole new big batch of lawmakers that are small-government,
fiscally conservative and responsible, term-limited, not beholden to
lobbyists. I'll have to settle for the upset of the "Socialist Apple Cart"
and Republicans in power.
Buerste
> Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>>Have you seen the poll results of the popularity of republicans
>>lately? It's worse than that of the Democrats.
>
> dropping like a rock. Congress are the ones at risk in 2010. The
> House has the most numerous body count and they are mostly Democrat.
>
>>already what the last eight years of republican leadership did for us.
>
> doing for us.
>
> Bush 1 took his eyes off the economy and was a one term President.
> All he did was bail out his sons S&L collapse. All 0bama has done is
> bail out the banksters. Neither did a thing for Main Street. Do the
> math.
>
>>think that only Democratic incumbents are going to feel the wrath of the
>>public.
>
>
> An independent conservative in NY23 damn near defeated both Rs and Ds
> after their liberal factions combined forces in a single candidate
> against him.
>
>>incumbents not just Democrats.
>
> on his hands in Arizona for the party nomination and then against the
> D. His opposition was dumped out of office for massive corruption but
> that was years ago and forgotten.
>
> But the statistics are that the majority of incumbents are Dems
> following their taking control of Congress in 2006. Therefore most
> losses will be D.
>
> In the last month or two a whole lot of incumbents have announced they
> are not running again. Clearly because they know they will be beaten.
> Most, not all but most, of the cut and run crowd has be Democrats. In
> effect a bunch of incumbent Ds have already lost.
>
>>of republicans lose this November too. Which is always a good thing.
>
> are D then most of the losers will be D.
>
> Dems will come to the 2010 election having been in control of Congress
> for four years, in control of the WH for two years. They will have
> few accomplishments to crow about but they are already on the hook for
> escalating wars and doubling the deficit. There is even the
> delightful possibility that investigations will be far enough along
> see some corruption charges against the bailout boys.
>
> What's a TARP. You use it to cover things up.
But the public has such a short memory that the Democrats could make a mass
move to the center and make-up a new message that resonates with the voters
and all will be forgiven.
HH&C
> "Winston_Smith" <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote in message
But only if the MSM goes along. OK. That's a given.
Gunner Asch
But only if they kill Pelosi, etc etc..those Far Leftwing Extremists
have their fingers so tightly clutched around the nads of the
Democrats..they are only going to let go when the Democrat base punches
them out..or the patient dies.
HH&C
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >The republicans only chance is to race toward conservatism, but like
> >with the democrats, that may be too little, too late. Tea Party
> >members will be very hard to convince. The best policy is to just
> >vote them all out.
>
> "conservative" means. Fiscal conservative will sell in a heartbeat
> and it will sell across the spectrum. Social conservative will hit
> immediate blowback. Right now, and for a decade, fiscal will be the
> top issue. Focus on that.
Indeed. No publicly funded abortions.
> Someone here commented that 0bama ran as a moderate liberal
He ran as something very, very, very non-specific. The media allowed
it.
> and ran to the nutty left once in office.
He simply took off his cloak once in office.
> Perhaps - just perhaps - he had
> intentions of being moderate but soon found out all the Congressional
> power was in the hands of extreme wingers. That may be why he
> pronounced broad principles but didn't let himself get sucked into
> Congressional machinations on details.
Apologist attitude noted.
> I'll moderate this by conceding his life history is extremely liberal
> ranging into socialist.
Do tell.
> But he may have been bright enough to realize
> that a President has to be everyone's president and has to govern from
> the middle.
I'm just not seeing that.
> Great movements are never accomplished overnight. Sometimes they
> appear that way but there is always decades of ferment behind the
> sudden revolution. Perhaps 0bama realizes this; certainly the whack
> jobs in Congress don't.
He's partisan by choice.
HH&C
> Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a
> >generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened
> >in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight
> >years."
>
> 0bama.
So he was part of the problem before he became the problem?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The republicans only chance is to race toward conservatism, but like
>>with the democrats, that may be too little, too late. Tea Party members
>>will be very hard to convince. The best policy is to just vote them all
>>out.
>
> If Republicans are smart, they will be very careful what "conservative"
> means. Fiscal conservative will sell in a heartbeat and it will sell
> across the spectrum. Social conservative will hit immediate blowback.
> Right now, and for a decade, fiscal will be the top issue. Focus on
> that.
>
> Someone here commented that 0bama ran as a moderate liberal and ran to
> the nutty left once in office. Perhaps - just perhaps - he had
> intentions of being moderate but soon found out all the Congressional
> power was in the hands of extreme wingers. That may be why he
> pronounced broad principles but didn't let himself get sucked into
> Congressional machinations on details.
>
> I'll moderate this by conceding his life history is extremely liberal
> ranging into socialist. But he may have been bright enough to realize
> that a President has to be everyone's president and has to govern from
> the middle.
I don't think Obama's Presidency can be boxed in with conventional
terms. Yet. His foreign policy is cooperative but authoritarian in some
ways. His economic policy isn't yet clear as it has been dictated by
events. His social policy is populist.
Surprisingly, his "hands-off" policy toward congress prevents a
resolution to many issues. It does keep Obama out of the mud but a
failure to take clear stands, or pimp a position, causes debacles like
the health care bill that has tied the hands of congress for 8 months.
Or is that the plan?
> Great movements are never accomplished overnight. Sometimes they appear
> that way but there is always decades of ferment behind the sudden
> revolution. Perhaps 0bama realizes this;
=============================================
> certainly the whack jobs in Congress don't.
=============================================
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery good. Gays bad. Snakes talk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Terrell
Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> But only if they kill Pelosi, etc etc..those Far Leftwing Extremists
> have their fingers so tightly clutched around the nads of the
> Democrats..they are only going to let go when the Democrat base punches
> them out..or the patient dies.
It doesn't matter if they let go, if gangrene has already set in.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Gunner Asch
hummm....true indeed!