The Democrats’ Massachusetts Meltdown

· Wednesday, January 20, 2010

By early afternoon on Tuesday, several hours before the polls closed on the special Senate election in Massachusetts, the Democrats had already thrown in the towel and started throwing punches. At each other. There was more finger-pointing among Bay State and Beltway Democrats than in a “Three Stooges” marathon. More backstabbing than all of the “Real Housewives” combined.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs confessed that President Obama was “frustrated” and “not pleased” by the closeness of the race after his salvation mission to Boston over the weekend. Operatives lashed out at Democratic candidate Martha Coakley’s listless, gaffetastic campaign. Capitol Hill buzzed with rumors that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was blaming the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and liberal pollster Celinda Lake for ignoring electoral alarm bells.

In response, Coakley’s team leaked a memo blasting national Democratic brethren for failing to aid them “until too late.” Another Democratic Party official counter-jabbed to Politico that Coakley had “been involved in the worst case of political malpractice in memory.”

On the sidelines, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank took to the airwaves to call for sabotaging Senate rules and ending the filibuster in anticipation of losing the magic 60th vote for the government health care takeover plan. Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer trotted out the old blame-the-GOP card -- incoherently arguing that GOP candidate Scott Brown’s surge among conservatives, independents and once-reliable rank-and-file Democratic voters in the deep-blue state of Massachusetts was a backlash against Republican obstructionism.

"I think what the public is angry about is they see, first of all, an opposition for opposition's sake," Hoyer told reporters in D.C. If Democrats continue to cling to that outer-space nonsense, the shock they will suffer in the November 2010 elections will make January 19 look like a spa day.

As I write, the polls are still open. But win, lose or draw, Brown’s surge is an unmistakable victory for Tea Party activism. Online fundraising over the past few weeks buoyed the campaign and put Brown in the national spotlight. Buzz over a possible “Massachusetts Miracle” persuaded national Republican organizations to belatedly transfer funds for phone and mail get-out-the-vote operations targeted at independent voters.

There was nothing particularly “clever” about Brown’s election strategy, as White House senior adviser David Axelrod put it, or “radical,” as hysterical Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry put it. Brown ran a simple mainstream Republican campaign aided by nationwide grassroots support. The Tea Party movement once derided as “tiny” and “fringe” reportedly filled Brown’s coffers with small donations totaling $1 million a day for the last week, according to TheDailyCaller.com. He didn’t have to solicit their support. He earned it by reflecting the mood of Massachusetts voters who have turned against the Demcare scheme and its backroom deals.

An Army National Guardsman, Brown also drew sharp contrasts between his support for a robust, proactive national security stance and Coakley’s law enforcement approach endorsing civilian trials on American soil for jihadi suspects. Her cluelessness about the presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan didn’t help her soft-on-terrorism image.

In short, Brown ran on core issues of fiscal responsibility, limited government and a strong national defense, while appealing to a broader swath of voters by emphasizing integrity, independence and a willingness to stand up to machine politics. After a year’s worth of Democratic stimulus giveaways to cronies, reneging on transparency pledges, and Cash for (fill-in-the-blank) bailouts, voters have had enough of the enablers and water-carriers.

Brown channeled the energies of taxpayers of all stripes who are disgusted and angry -- yes, ANGRY! -- with the culture of corruption in Washington. That is how Brown has struck common ground with his insurgent center-right-indie coalition: by stepping up to oppose the Dems’ plans to rig the game and undermine representative government, instead of sneering at “Teabaggers.”

While a self-satisfied and entitled Coakley vacationed or partied with D.C. lobbyists, Brown drove around in his GM truck, shaking hands in the cold outside Fenway Park -- earning the scorn of Coakley and Obama, who mocked Brown’s truck six times at the Boston rally this weekend to the delight of blue-nosed Democrats.

Rep. Frank griped at the Coakley-Obama rally that Coakley “let it become a personality contest and that was a mistake.” The supreme irony in hearing Beltway Democrats snipe at Coakley over her effete, out-of-touch attitude is that their commander-in-chief at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. suffers the same fatal flaws. Exactly one year after Obama was inaugurated, the Massachusetts meltdown mirrors the White House meltdown. For the sake of their political survival, Democrats need to stop promising change and start promising self-correction.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Brian

Typical response, not just of the liberal lift, but most politicians: Things didn't go my way, but it's someone else's fault. It certainly isn't my fault. The (insert opposition here) don't play fair. My (insert affiliation here) didn't provide the help I needed. Whine, whine, whine. I sincerly hope Mr Brown is victorious, and I hope the Dems don't try to delay, interfere with, or outright block his taking office, nor refuse to accept the results of the election. To Mr Brown, I say this: Remember the platform you campaigned on, because if you turn your back on your electorate, become corrupted, go along to get along, you will become no different than those you opposed, and you will do your constituents and this country a great disservice. 'Nuff said

Posted January 20, 2010 at 1:01:55 AM


Jeff C

Probably not too many saw the interview of Howard Dean on MSNBC last night since no one really pays any attention to him any more, but during a discussion of the reasons for Coakley's loss, including whose fault it was, Dean said, "Anyone who blames others for their problems is a loser." I wonder if he was possibly referring to Obama, who blames Bush for everything.

Posted January 20, 2010 at 2:32:04 PM


Jimmy D

Just an anecdotal report...maybe I was too excited and pushing the wrong buttons, I dunno...but when Greta and Karl were gabbing away through the intro's to our newest Senator (and rudely refusing to listen to me shouting Shut up and get out of the way!)I said let's go see how the Commies are handling this and I thought Oh what fun and I went surfing around and found....NOTHING!

MSNBC was rehashing Haiti, CBS and NBC had local stuff, ABC had a weather babe on the screen.

Not that I'm planning on rushing out for a copy of the NY Times but...do you think they'll mention it!!!

Posted January 20, 2010 at 4:15:54 PM


Alex Torello

Just wish to say that Michelle's post a while back alerted me and others to the Coakley problem. This is what journalism SHOUD be. Thanks Michelle.

Posted January 20, 2010 at 5:27:42 PM


Alex Torello

To Jimmy D:

My wife and I did the same exact thing while Greta and Carl were babbling. And to the same effect. Olbermann's rambling rant attacking Brownie is a must-see. Hope it's on YouTube.

Excuse the misspelling of the world "SHOULD" in my previous post.

Posted January 20, 2010 at 5:40:41 PM


MichaelSSEC

Six hours before the polls even closed on Tuesday, the White House was already blaming Coakley for losing. Never saw anything like it in 30 years of following politics here in Massachusetts.

The MSM and Leftist scribblers wasted no time blaming everything under the sun -- Bush, Coakley, MA Governor Deval Patrick, the Haiti disaster, astrological alignments, the Mayans and their silly calendar, carbon dioxide, global warming, and Glenn Beck, plus who knows what else. Anything and anyone, so long as it wasn't President Obama.

Just one problem. Obama WAS the cause of Coakley's defeat. Oh sure, all the problems cited with Coakley's campaign were true. But MA thinks nothing of electing murderers, proprietors of gay prostitution rings, indicted felons, and the looniest Liberals you ever saw to high office. Martha had the backing of SEIU (which MA voters actually consider a PLUS), the teacher's unions, state employee unions, the MSM and of course the usual crazy groups like LaRaza. She could have announced her candidacy and gone into a coma and they would have elected her. In fact, that's exactly what she expected, and for good reason.

But Obama was busy screwing everything up. All those campaign promises about putting the health care debate on CSPAN, transparency, bipartisanship, and listening to Americans were coming back to haunt him. Then there were those bizarre reactions by Obama to TWO Islamic terrorist attacks. And the economy continuing to tank while Obama continued to do the worst possible things a leader can do during a recession -- spend money like it's water and scare the crap out of businesses.

So Obama came to Boston the Sunday before the election to "rescue" Coakley's campaign. He gave a weird speech mocking Scott Brown for getting out and meeting voters face to face and connecting with them, as though that should be beneath a United States Senator. He gave his speech and fled. And the next day Martha's polling numbers fell another 4 points. Clearly Obama's campaigning didn't help. If anything, it hurt her standing with voters.

NJ, VA and now the most solidly reliable Liberal state in the country -- Massachusetts -- all went very hard to the Right in mid-term elections. Granted they were special elections, but they spell disaster for Democrats in November. It can't get here soon enough.

You'd think Liberals would learn from these failures. Not a bit. They're still arrogantly running around blaming Bush for everything. Barney Frank wants to scrap the filibuster altogether, which is odd considering he's not even a senator. So the best thing for America at this point is for Liberals to KEEP TALKING. KEEP TALKING, LIBERALS! You're talking yourselves to death. Speak up!!

Posted January 21, 2010 at 8:47:25 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund