Nominated for Best New Political Blog of 2009

Weblogawards.Org

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

What Does the Election of Scott Brown Mean?

After a two week absence, so much has happened that I barely know where to begin. I suppose an obvious place to start would be the election of Scott Brown to the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy. This Republican victory overshadowed both the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races for several reasons. First, the “Liberal Lion”, Ted Kennedy had held that seat for nearly fifty years and the White House felt secure that a Democrat would have no problem capitalizing on Kennedy’s legacy. Second, Massachusetts is well known to be one of the most Liberal states in the union, consistently sending the left of the left to Washington and third, without the 60th vote in the Senate, the President’s healthcare reform initiative would be all but dead, something Massachusetts Liberals would want to avoid; at least that is what everyone thought.

Scott Brown campaigned on the idea that his was the vote that would finally put the brakes on the President’s agenda. There was no doubt that this election would determine if the healthcare reform act, as well as many of the President’s other ultra-Liberal programs, would ever see the light of day and the Democrats responded with as vicious a campaign as had ever been seen. Even after all the stops were pulled including a last minute Presidential visit to try and garner support for Coakley, the voters would elect Republican Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy by a tidy margin.

To most reasonable people, this was a wholesale rejection of not only the healthcare reform bill but of the openly corrupt tactics that were being used to force it through the legislative process. Congressional Democrats had defied the will of the people and those people were given an incredible opportunity to send a message that could not be ignored. Well, it could not be ignored unless you were a hopeless ideologue that intended to pursue your agenda regardless of the consequences. Moderate Democrats heard the message loud and clear but our Progressive friends and their President seem to have missed the mark entirely.

According to the President, they were so busy handling the fiscal crisis that he inherited from Bush that they…get this….”failed to adequately speak to the American people about what their core values are”. After the 1994 mid-term elections, President Clinton faced the nation after a massive Democratic defeat and said quite eloquently “We hear you”. Not this President. Instead of admitting that the defeats in Virginia, New Jersey and finally, Massachusetts, were the revocation of the mandate that he only imagined he had, Obama would rather believe that he didn’t explain his ideas in terms that we could understand. How condescending can one man be? Obama apparently believes that if the voters rejected his plans, it was only because he didn’t speak slowly enough or didn’t use the little words that we idiots would understand.

Obama added that the anger of the voters that prompted them to vote for Scott Brown was the same anger that had swept him into office a year earlier. A psychologist on one talk show panel said that this displayed what could only be called, narcissistic tendencies; that this statement was as foolish as a man that would say his wife filed for divorce to be with her new lover not because she was rejecting him, but as a different manifestation of the same love for her new man that had first brought him and his wife together years earlier. I know that sounds foolish but think of what is being said here. Obama believes, or at least he says he does, that the recent Republican victories are just an extension of anti-incumbency anger and that is really only a rejection of previous Bush era policy, not his. The only problem with that argument is that Coakley is not an incumbent that supported Bush policy; she is a Democrat that supports current Obama policy.

Even more bizarre than Obama’s statements are those of the Progressive Democrats in Congress. They are blaming the defeat of Coakley on their failure to push harder for a healthcare reform bill that contained a strong public option. Howard Dean, former DNC Chairman and failed Presidential candidate, absolutely refuses to accept that this is in any way a rejection of Obama’s Socialist agenda and instead believes with all his heart that the Massachusetts’s voters were punishing the Democratic Party for not being Liberal enough. Let me get this right. Massachusetts’s voters were so upset that healthcare reform hadn’t passed that they elected the only credible roadblock to the passage of the healthcare reform bill? He is crazy, isn’t he?

Democratic Strategists are even funnier as they weasel their way around questions about these three major losses for Democrats. The first thing they have all done was to point to the special election in New York’s 23rd district where the Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman was narrowly defeated by Democrat challenger Bill Owens. The results had Owens winning with 49% of the vote to Hoffman’s 45% with Republican Dede Scozzafava still holding 6% of the vote a week after she dropped out of the race, throwing her support behind Owens. Unfortunately, the race was close enough to fall pray to the “ACORN affect” as ACORN focused their “get the vote out” campaign solidly behind Owens. Considering the indictment of ACORN employees for voter fraud in other states, I would guess that if Doug Hoffman had persisted, there would probably been a sufficient number of suspicious ballots found in a comprehensive recount to have shifted the election in his favor.

The race in Massachusetts was lost in part because of the perception of the American people that we are not only being ignored by Congressional Democrats and the President but that since we are resisting this push towards socialization, we are not even worthy to see what they voting on; that even the discussions of the bill are to be hidden from the ungrateful masses that don’t understand that the President is doing this for our own good. The message was certainly clear but the intended recipients are still ignoring it. They have already said that they intend to force this legislation through in true Saul Alinsky form…by any means necessary. The difference between politicians and ideologues is that politicians can be swayed by the threat of losing an election. Socialist ideologues will sacrifice themselves to progress their agenda for the good of the collective. This message of “full speed ahead” only serves to tell us who these people are. Their intent is clear…to bring about massive social change that cannot be reversed no matter who is elected later. There are already provisions in the healthcare bill that will prevent the repeal of certain key portions of the reform act should the “wrong” Party gain power in the November elections.

The election of Scott Brown may be the single most important electoral race in the past 100 years and the only hope of defeating the nefarious plans of the Progressive movement. What must be watched very closely now is how long they will attempt to delay the certification of the election results. Obama spoke out against delaying the certification process but I fear that is just to get his voice on record as opposing that dirty little trick to distance himself from something that he knows is already in the works.

The State of the Union address is coming this Wednesday and I will bet now that it will be another hour long stab at blaming Bush for the economy, the recent attempts by Al Qaida to inflict more damage on the United States and the anger of the American people. Once he is confident that everyone remembers Bush he will make another pledge to have healthcare reform back on the table as a dire need of a compassionate nation. Lenin never took no for an answer and neither will his protégé, Barack Hussein Obama.

Paul

No comments:

Post a Comment