Posted on 01/22/2010 4:12:14 AM PST by Kaslin
Scott Brown arrives in Washington driving his famous truck, and he looks like a million dollars -- Jimmy Stewart playing Mr. Smith. President Obama polishes his State of the Union Address and suddenly he's looking discounted to more like a few thousand dollars. The two events are not unrelated.
The president will speak to the joint session of Congress next week as his approval ratings have fallen from a high of 70 percent a year ago to less than 50 percent, proving once more that in politics nothing recedes like success. At this time last year, Obama was President Possibility, with everybody cheering his promises and expectations. This year, he's President Impractical, exposed as the Pied Piper who suddenly can't seem to squeeze a note from his dented musical pipe.
Only a month ago, Scott Brown was trailing state Attorney General Martha Coakley by 20 points, headed toward the oblivion of returning to the state senate. His five-point triumph was all the sweeter for it, the accomplishment of the impossible dream of election to the U.S. Senate as a Republican in Massachusetts.
Democrats in Washington are trying to spin the upset as merely the work of an inept candidate running a poor campaign, but nobody in the Democratic spin dryer actually believes that. Brown kept his eye on the prize, driving his message of lower taxes, smaller government, cutting spending and above all squashing the monstrosity of ObamaCare. He tapped into anger at an administration in Washington that has grown arrogant and out of touch in only 12 months. Scott Brown won the argument in Massachusetts, but the message, like the buck, stops in the Oval Office.
How could such an outlandish upset happen? Let us count the ways. First of all, the gap between what the people expected Barack Obama to be and what he became has widened into a canyon, and the rhetorical flourishes that so mesmerized so many have become a form of self-mockery. The empty vessel the voters filled to overflowing with summer hopes and winter dreams could not withstand the weight of radical ideology, and he has suffered for it.
To the tea drinkers on his right, the president lacks the moral conviction they seek in comparisons to Ronald Reagan. To the left, he's been unable to assert the passionate intensity required for expanding the government to the taste of liberals -- or "progressives," as they now call themselves. To the swelling numbers of disaffected independents, he shows none of the finesse of triangulation that Bill Clinton mastered in compromising with Republicans over welfare reform. The Obama center cannot hold.
Then there's the transparency issue, which voters across the ideological spectrum crave -- the transparency which Obama said would be the clear glass through which we could watch how his policies were made. Transparency turned out to be as ephemeral as a campaign slogan written on a balloon floating in the rafters at Convention Hall.
Keeping the congressional health care debate off C-SPAN turned off the millions of political junkies who regard Brian Lamb's network as the source of knowledge. Democrats blame Republicans for making bipartisanship impossible, but it was President Obama who handed over leadership on health care "reform" to the congressional tyrants whose approval ratings are worse than his. He put out the fire and turned out the Blue Dogs. They were left to fend for themselves.
The president was aware in last year's State of the Union how his economic recovery agenda could be received with skepticism. "Here in Washington we've all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending," he said. "And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right."
He promptly got it wrong. The health care that would "bring down our deficit in the years to come" promises instead to increase the deficit. It raises costs for Medicare for those he said would see not their medical costs rise. The "Cadillac tax" was unfair business as usual in Washington.
Reminding Massachusetts of this was catnip for Scott Brown. "The people do not want the trillion dollar health care plan being forced on them," he said. Indeed. Voters everywhere don't want backroom deals and payoffs to Nebraska or a new "Louisiana Purchase."
The schedulers for the State of the Union have taken care not to conflict with fans eager to watch the three-hour premiere of ABC's "Lost." The president's address precedes "sweeps" week, so we can watch without distractions to see whether the president understands what the Scott Brown phenomenon was about, and whether he's rethinking how to "get it right." If he doesn't, he can still watch the premier of "Lost." The title alone should make a painful point.
I’m happy to say I voted for Scott Brown, all he had to do was show up in Washington and the health care bill died that day.
Now I know I’m going to get flamed for saying this, but I think it needs to be said.
The Health Care bill wouldn’t of died if Scott Brown wasn’t elected, and the reason he ran to begin with was that he was asked to run for the senate seat by Mitt Romney.
If you take a look at the names of the people who worked on Brown’s campaign you’ll see many are the same as the team that ran Mitt’s, that’s because Mitt sent his team to Scott Brown and gave him logistical support, yet stayed in the background.
So many of you on here hate Mitt, you have to give him credit and thank him for using his resources and helping to find a candidate that he knew would win in Mass, and then showed him how.
Like him or hate him, we all have to thank him.
If Mitt’s team helped Scott, that is great. I don’t ‘hate’ Mitt, I just don’t agree with him on different topics. Any vote by me FOR Mitt would only be AGAINST what ever dim he was running against. As for Scott, I am glad he won, but he ran as more conservative than I think he is. That will show later in his votes.
great picture
You won’t get no flame from me. Mitt Romney was my first choice and I wished he would have gotten the nomination. We would not have the p o s that sits in People’s House, had he won the elction
I just hope he knows there are many things he must stop.
“The Health Care bill wouldn’t of died if Scott Brown wasn’t elected”
Agreed. Brown was the spike in the heart of the blood sucking democrats. But there was a lot of things that came together to make this happen:
1. Ted Kennedy with all his vanity, held onto the seat until death.
2. Mass democrats changing the law so the governor could appoint a democrat to take his place immediately.
3. The Teaparty demonstrations — HUGE IMPACT!
4. The grassroots conservatism at the townhall meetings.
5. Mitt’s support of Brown.
6. Congress’s latest deal with the unions — that just angered a lot of people and IMO put the Mass voters over the edge.
A perfect storm???
“As for Scott, I am glad he won, but he ran as more conservative than I think he is. That will show later in his votes.”
I hope he is a true conservative. Even if he is not, he is not the ultra-liberal senator that MA usually places in the senate. Also, he has served a great service already — he was the spike in the heart of the health care monstrosity.
I’m sorry, but the photo of Scott Brown standing next to that insane turncoat McCain, with McCain promising to “reach across the aisle” for a “compromise” on the “Health Scare” bill, and promising amnesty for tens of millions of illegals, I just wanted to VOMIT!
I fear that Scott Brown will be taken “under the wing” of the Repubilcan “moderates” and the resident “Maverick” and sell us out.
God help us all....
Our reversal of fortunes is absolutley stunning and can only be attributed to Divne Providence. Thank God!
Because it’s kinda hard to figure out if you don’t have it written down)
1. Mitt Romney is EEEEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLL! (But his buddy Scott Brown, his
ideological twin, is super-keen!)
2. John McCain is EEEEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLL! (But Sarah Palin and Scott
Brown, who not only endorse McCain but are actively campaigning for him,
are the hope and future of the GOP)
The above doublethink is VERY IMPORTANT to instill in your mind if you
don’t want to lose it when reading FR.
__._,_.___
” Lexington, Concord and Brown.”
Which is sweeter, which is more impossible, a Republican in the vacated "lion of the senate's" seat or a black man in the oval office?
bttt
Scott killed obamacare.
Someone else will kill romneycare or any offspring of it.
Massachusetts Patriots need to help us to help them stop this.
there’s no denying that Mitt has strengths which - had he run against and defeated obambi - would be much better today for America than what we actually have.
But I humbly submit to you that there is a greater struggle for the soul of Republican virtue and for America. And No, Republican virtue is NOT what runs through the mainstream Republican party today.
Mitt would likely have continued dimmi-lite economic and social policies which would have left us with a still-too-big federal government holding yet-too-much (Dept of Education, EPA, etc) sway in our lives.
Frankly, that flash movie linked often times here showing Mitt - when governor of Mass - defending abortion in such easy terms, without barely a hint of the moral dilemma which a man who truly follows God in his life must surely feel... well, that just tells me that we cannot have a leader, certainly not a leader for the Right, who does not have a moral spine from which to hold true to principle and conservative values. In short, Mitt’s good, but not what we need.
We need to get the federal government OUT of our lives, and restrict it as our Constitution intended. Having Bill Clinton lite does not further that goal.
Anyone who thinks Mitt Romney had little to do with Scott Brown’s campaign should read this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-17/mitt-romneys-man/full/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.