What Brown's Election Win Really Means

Investors.com ^ | January 21, 2010 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

[Kaslin]

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 overhaul.

"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 Sunday 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% of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78% 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.

[GonzoII]

" 78% of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop ObamaCare. "

Cold, hard facts.

[bigbob]

“When your candidate is sinking, you don’t throw her a millstone”

Bam’s gonna need bandaids after this article!

[PaleoBob]

It was a vote AGAINST Marxist health care in the most Marxist state in the union but for maybe two. What’s that tell you? Exactly. Americans don’t want Marxism.

[acapesket]

Boston is / or was the medical Center of the world.
How deaf, dumb, and blind can the Dem’s be?
We just saw it on Tuesday!

As if a third of the citizenry aren’t going to turn out to save their jobs?

Obamacare and the MA election are the ultimate response in complete stupidity and the whole world knows it now.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The “fight I want to have,” is now with the banks...

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

I find it quite remarkable (and for today, confusing) how many congressites suddenly backed off their support for 0bamacare....like a bunch of elementary schoolkids caught in a prank.

And thus I find it the *easy* thing for them to renounce their former assiduous support. But I do NOT trust them to stick to this or any other position over time. I believe they are going to insert a strategic pause in the game and once they believe the impaired attention span of those idiot Americans they they so detest has lapsed, they will be back at it again. 10 days, 2 weeks, while the intentional misdirection towards the phony populism of this suddenly declared “war on banks” (which IMO leads utterly nowhere) runs its course.

When this is all settled, only the most brain dead will see 0bama as anything but embarassingly feckless, ineffective, and utterly unqualified for anything near the Presidency.

Nevertheless, there is going to be a “cornered animal” effect with this collection of motley idealogues, and what is likely to emerge out of that condition bears careful monitoring. These pukes ain’t done yet. They do not renounce their indoctrination this quickly, it simply cannot be done.

[Semperfiwife]

I believe they thought that after their having a lock on the education system teaching only socialistic principles and worship of the earth, they perceived the masses as more than ready for their version of Utopia with them in control of our bodies and wallets. Unfortunately for them, most Americans, and especially those who just immigrated here from other socialists/tyrannical nations, bleed red, white and blue and still believe America is the greatest place on earth and we don’t want any pantywaist lawyer/organizer dissing our country and telling us what we have to do to help him make history (being the first since FDR to implement a blood sucking government giveaway known as a social program). We are the USA not the USSA and Mr. Obama does not believe in our country at all. As he said on his campaign trail, he wants to “fundamentally change” this country. He is definitely bankrupting us back in to the Stone Age.

[Interesting Times]

Cold, hard facts.

Kryptonite to leftists...

[PGalt]

Very good analysis. BTTT!

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

“The “fight I want to have,” is now with the banks...”

You’re a trader kind of guy, IIRC, do you think this jawboning against the banks has any depth to it? Any chance of being turned into a reality? I think it is total misdirection, it is a feint to renew & recharge the populist sentiment “we’re the party against those evil corporations and their immoral profits”.

It would be quite in character for these guys to launch this fake-out to destabilize the focus from the Brown win. To change the subject in a conversation, as it were. They do this with the mistaken idea that “populism is popular”, that the sentiment against the banks and the drug cos and the ins cos they drummed up in the runup to health care can be reignitied and harnessed. They of course truly do not understand the Conservative reactions they have triggered.

[matt1234]

Clever and amusing line by Kruathemmer: “You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. “

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

It would be in character, without a doubt, for them to overreach; to overestimate their own importance, and to overestimate the readiness of the American people for the realization of their gilded vision for us peons. It is only out of a state of having tossed out Conservative principles that they could make these bonehead moves, and being in the Wash DC bubble helps.

[ZOOKER]

I believe what shocked them the most (it even shocks me) was the utter lack of coattails Ted Kennedy left behind. The fight was over his most favorite cause, healthcare, on his own ground (NH), a stronghold of his favorite philosophy, liberalism.

The voters seem to have turned their backs on Ted, his principles, and his party. Could it be that the voters endured the embarassment of one too many of Ted's drunken escapades, or should we blame the whole family? Ted was the party boy with millions of friends and admirers, as long as he was buying. Now he's gone, and with it the billions in pork he slathered all over the state. Camelot has came and went, and Ted killed it.

[FreeStateYank]

“Kruathemmer: “You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. “”

Reminded me of last year when Nancy Regan joined Zero at a signing statement. As he dashed off his signature, she exclaimed for all to hear, ‘Oh, you’re a LEFTIE!’ I think she referred to than the hand used to sign, lol.

[Liz]

Healthcare, yes......but Sen-elect Scott Brown also tapped into America's disgust with this admin's coddling of terrorists.

EXCERT FROM BROWN"S VICTORY SPEECH "And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them."

Nice how Brown slapped down an arrogant SOB posing as a president who appointed Eric Holder---the dumbest USAG America has ever seen.

HEY, SCOTT GET A LOAD OF THIS VERY DISTURBING GOVERNMENT MINDSET INSIDE OUR WHITE HOUSE Obama-Incompetano pulled out all the stops to go after Americans few months back but are coddling bombers and terrorists. No more proof is needed than Obama-Incompetano's profiling Americans as “rightwing extremists.”

On April 7, 2009, the admin's hatred of Americans spewed full force as DHS Incompetano's Office of Intelligence and Analysis sent out a nationwide alert to US L/E to act against "evil" conservatives. DHS identified “rightwing extremists” as a "danger" and defined “rightwing extremists” in a footnote, as follows.

EXCERPT--- DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis nationwide alert to US L/E. Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

DHS later said that the report was not an attempt to squash First Amendment Rights for conservatives----only "hate groups"---- but, there was NO attempt to exempt anyone from these broad generalizations. Obama/Incompetano's report paints EVERY ASPECT OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM as "suspect."

This is indicative of a very disturbing government mindset. Obama-Incompetano's documented hatred of Americans, and their ordering L/E to surveil and supress Americans......contrasts sharply with their kid glove handling of terrorists bent on violence and destruction.

[Liz]

MA voters seem to have turned their backs on Ted, his principles, and his party. Could it be that the voters endured the embarassment of one too many of Ted's drunken escapades, or should we blame the whole family?

You got that right.

News clip showed voter exiting polling place---tells reporter he was a diehard Dem, planned to vote Coakley UNTIL she brought in the Kennedys.

"No way they're going to let them run our lives," he said.

[Tolik]

Charles Krauthammer:

... 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 against Bush.

... 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.

... Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to dis 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 senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, “there’s no hope of waking up.”

I say: Let them sleep.

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.)

I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention.

You are welcome to browse the list of truly exceptional articles I pinged to lately. Updated on January 13, 2010.  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

 

[Tolik]

Krauthammer's Take   [NRO Staff]  

On the election of Scott Brown:

The Democrats, starting with the president, want to explain it all away. . . . [as] the result of some kind of anger. . . .

Every time the Republicans succeed, it's all about anger and irrationality. When you had the Gingrich revolution 16 years ago, it was called "the year of the angry white male" and Peter Jennings declared on the evening news that the country had thrown a tantrum — as if when conservatives win it can only be an expression of irrationality and emotionalism.

Of course, when Obama wins in '08, it's hope and change and peace and light and all the goodness in the American soul.

This was an election about substance and the Democrats lost on substance.

On the homeland-security hearings on Capitol Hill on the treatment of the Christmas bomber as a civilian and the lack of interrogation by the HIG:

On Day One, literally a year ago today . . . the president signed an executive order ostentatiously against torture. And involved in that was establishing a way to interrogate important detainees.

And that was established in midyear — this HIG [High-Value Interrogation Group], which is in the FBI, but the oversight is provided in the White House.

Now, we learned — now a half a year later — that the HIG isn't even in place. And secondly, what we just heard [that the HIG was intended to be used abroad only], that nobody had even thought of what happens if you capture a terrorist in the United States. . . . This is absolutely unbelievable.

The real scandal here is not that a guy with a bomb got on a plane. It can happen in any bureaucracy, [any] administration. But the scandal is what happened after — treating him as an ordinary criminal.

01/21 04:11 PM

[StatenIsland]

Gotta love the Hammer:

"With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble."

Main Entry: ex·cres·cence

Function: noun

Date: 15th century

1 : a projection or outgrowth especially when abnormal

2 : a disfiguring, extraneous, or unwanted mark or part : blot

3 : by-product 2