Some More Reflections on the Massachusetts Miracle

It’s been, shall we say, interesting to watch the reactions to the election last night.   It seems that everyone is attempting to put a spin on this, and the gyrations border on the comical.

First up is MSNBC, the “objective” network, at least in the opinion of Anita Dunn.  After seeing the coverage of the events, I turned on Maddow, and saw guest after guest essentially saying, “nothing to see here, just move along.”  My guess is that, of course, they are providing cover for the administration, and trying to convince their viewers that the left’s agenda has nothing to do with the loss by Coakley.  I wonder, given that Massachusetts is a Democratic stronghold, if Democratic voters were sending a message?  If they were, you’ll never hear about it on MSNBC.

Of course, Coakley ‘s team has been blaming the national party for not supporting her until it was too late.  The national party is blaming her for running a horrendous campaign.  The truth lies somewhere in between.  Coakley did go out and insult Brown, as well as anyone who supported him.  Of course, making the race personal backfired, as Brown is a likable guy by any standard, and insulting the electorate, or a large part of it is asinine.  Not to be outdone, she then made a caricature of herself by the many gaffes she made.  Then again, the Democrats didn’t support her.  They initially saw no reason to do so.  Massachusetts is a Democratic bastion, and her election was taken as a given.  Of course, when they did decide to support her, they sent a goon who roughed up a reporter, paid union goons to show up a rallies, and the POTUS went in, who has been demonstrated to be the kiss of death for campaigns.

By the way, the truck insults just came off as petty and elitist

Let’s see, what else is being said….

The Politico has decided that the overwhelmingly Liberal/Democratic constituency in Massachusetts is sexist.  Yup, anything except the people being displeased with the administration and the Democratic agenda.  Could not possibly be at all about that, could it?

Olbermann is spewing more and more hate.  But it’s OK when the left does it.   I’m sure all three of his viewers were very impressed.  Do people just watch him for the fail factor?  I really want to know.

The NRSC is trying to take credit for Brown’s win.  OK Republicans, this is the exact sort of foolishness that I like to warn against.  You spent more on the RINO in NY 23, and Brown raised more money from the grassroots in one day than you sent in the last week.  Get over yourselves, and recognize the base!

Now, the Dems are actually afraid of the filibuster.  What a difference one vote makes!  The spin?  We have to get rid of it because it makes the country ungovernable.  Given what the Democrats consider to be governing, I have to say that I agree with Redstate’s Erick Erickson.  It is supposed to be that way.  The founders made it that way to stop anyone from doing what the Democrats are proposing.

Then, MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch decided that it’s racism.  (The day of the election)  Well, if you disagree with anything Obama does, you must be a racist.

Now, I do visit the Huffington Post on a regular basis, but I never link to them.  However, I did see a piece that I actually agree with, by Peter Dauo, so here is an excerpt.

The case by progressives that Democrats are undermining themselves with faux-bipartisanship and tepid policies gets much closer to the heart of the problem. I’ve written a number of posts arguing that it’s all a matter of values and ethics. In essence: when you fail to govern based on a morally sound, well-articulated, solidly-grounded set of ideals, you look weak. All the legislative wins in the world won’t change that. People gravitate to people who exude moral authority. The vast majority of voters lack the detailed policy knowledge that would enable them to make an accurate assessment of policy differences, but they do have a visceral sense of when a candidate or an elected official believes in something and fights for it. It’s why campaigns are laden with moral arguments; politicians ask to be elected because they’ll “do the right thing.” The right thing in the current administration’s case was to be the anti-Bush, nothing more, nothing less. The ethical antidote to a radical administration. It was both politically smart and morally right. And it worked wonders for Democrats as the entire subtext of the 2008 campaign.

When I read through it, I was struck by the fact that this is how many Conservatives think of the Republicans.  In the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” they ran on the “Contract with America.”  This was exactly what Mr. Dauo is talking about.  The Republicans told the people, “this is what we want to do, here is why, and this is why we think it will benefit you.”  They presented a clear, moral, and consistent message, and the voters responded.  However, over time, the Republicans did exactly what Daou also points out.  They played the game; too many compromises, too many deals, too many scandals, and too many contrived or compromised victories.  In so doing, they lost the moral authority to govern, allowing the Democrats to retake the House in 2006, and to win supermajorities and the White House in 2008.  The Republicans would do well to learn from this.

I would actually recommend giving Dauo’s article a read.  I can’t say I agree with all of it, but it is well thought out.  Actually, it reads somewhat like any of my posts about the Republicans ignoring the base.

And then…

My head nearly imploded when I read what the POTUS said to ABC News.

“Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,” the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

That was a unexpected observation, not that it hadn’t been made, but that is was spoken openly.  Of course, he still tried to tie Bush to it.  However, Mr. President, you’ve had the ball for a year.  You’ve broken campaign promises, and tripled Bush’s worst deficit in one year.  I could go on, but let’s just say that I don’t think that this was what the people were expecting when they voted for “hope and change.”

Come to think about it, Conservatives are still angry at the Republicans, but I’m not so sure that this is what the POTUS meant.

“Here’s one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn’t try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated,” the president said. “People in Massachusetts spoke. He’s got to be part of that process.”

“I think point number two is that it is very important to look at the substance of this package and for the American people to understand that a lot of the fear mongering around this bill isn’t true,” Obama said.

Again, the POTUS makes duplicitous statement. He sounds dignified and reasonable when saying that the debate should stop for now, but then takes a shot at his critics.  I would also add that how in the hell would we know what is in the current bill?  The Democrats are debating it behind closed doors!

We also must consider that the bill, as far was we know, is an overly compromised mess that no one wants, and having Brown in the way will only make it more difficult.  The question is, does the POTUS fear an electoral bloodbath for his party if they pass it?

This also goes back to the summer.  When the public found out what was in 3200, there was a backlash. To avoid that in the Senate, the entire process was done outside of the public’s view.  There was barely time to read the Senate bill when it was released, just as the Democratic leadership planned.  Now, does the POTUS expect us to believe that the Dems will be open and deal fairly?

Obama also said it was important for the American people to take a look at the substance and details of the health care reform legislation that Congress is considering.

Great, put the debate on CSPAN, and we’ll know what is in it, and how it is being crafted.  I know that you probably haven’t thought about that before…have you???

Look Mr. President, you just can’t do a 180 and expect us to believe a single thing you say.  You can try to change the game, but we already know you don’t follow the rules.  We’ll be watching.

So, this has been an eventful day.  It’ll be fun to watch how this continues to unfold.