Interpreting Scott Brown's Victory
Early after last year's election, I began saying that the best hope we had of recovering some semblance of political sanity is if Obama and the newly elected democratic majorities in Congress would push their agenda too hard, too fast. Which is exactly what they have done. They have clearly been out of touch, not only with economic realities, but with the American people. In spite of polls showing a significant majority of Americans disagreeing with Obama-style health care reform and the enormous increase of federal spending on various bailouts and so-called "stimulus" packages, the libs have continued to push. And they have done so with shady backroom deals. Not only the ends but the means have been nauseating.
This is what is behind Scott Brown's victory yesterday in the Massachusetts's Senate race over Martha Coakley. Not to mention the fact that Massachusetts already has a government health care plan at the state level similar to what the dems are wanting to see implemented at the federal level. The result: the average wait-time to see a doctor in Massachusetts: 63 days. In a state like Florida, with less government intrusion in health care: 6 days. The people of Massachusetts are living with Obama-style health care lite. They don't want it full strength.
Just for the record, I'm not a big Scott Brown fan. That said, I have to say that he's clearly better than the Coakley and I'm truly happy that he won. It means the libs will have a more difficult time in successfully pressing their agenda...and not simply because Brown's victory deprives the dems of a super-majority in the Senate. A number of the more moderate democrats recognize that Brown's victory is due in no small part to the American people's rejection of our country's rapid march toward becoming a socialist state with an unsustainable rate of federal spending. Yesterday's vote was a referendum on the Democratic party in general and on Obama in particular. Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states, after all. Dems outnumber Republicans by a margin of 3-1. Obama won 62 percent of the vote in 2008. A Republican hasn't held a Senate seat there since 1972. If the old liberal lion's seat is not secure for the Democrats, whose seat is?
Moderate dems, as I said, are beginning to recognize the problem. They know they will be vulnerable in their next re-election bid if they tie themselves too closely to a leftist agenda. But the blockheads at Salon.com don't get it. The liberal/progressive ideologues there think Scott Brown won because Obama and the dems in Congress have not pushed hard enough fast enough.
Joan Walsh, after noting the interpretation of moderate dems, says,
This is what is behind Scott Brown's victory yesterday in the Massachusetts's Senate race over Martha Coakley. Not to mention the fact that Massachusetts already has a government health care plan at the state level similar to what the dems are wanting to see implemented at the federal level. The result: the average wait-time to see a doctor in Massachusetts: 63 days. In a state like Florida, with less government intrusion in health care: 6 days. The people of Massachusetts are living with Obama-style health care lite. They don't want it full strength.
Just for the record, I'm not a big Scott Brown fan. That said, I have to say that he's clearly better than the Coakley and I'm truly happy that he won. It means the libs will have a more difficult time in successfully pressing their agenda...and not simply because Brown's victory deprives the dems of a super-majority in the Senate. A number of the more moderate democrats recognize that Brown's victory is due in no small part to the American people's rejection of our country's rapid march toward becoming a socialist state with an unsustainable rate of federal spending. Yesterday's vote was a referendum on the Democratic party in general and on Obama in particular. Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states, after all. Dems outnumber Republicans by a margin of 3-1. Obama won 62 percent of the vote in 2008. A Republican hasn't held a Senate seat there since 1972. If the old liberal lion's seat is not secure for the Democrats, whose seat is?
Moderate dems, as I said, are beginning to recognize the problem. They know they will be vulnerable in their next re-election bid if they tie themselves too closely to a leftist agenda. But the blockheads at Salon.com don't get it. The liberal/progressive ideologues there think Scott Brown won because Obama and the dems in Congress have not pushed hard enough fast enough.
Joan Walsh, after noting the interpretation of moderate dems, says,
I think Webb, and centrist Democrats like Evan Bayh, are wrong to blame this loss on Democratic overreaching. In fact, the problem has been under-reaching, and failing to deliver on campaign promises.I hope dems across the board will listen to Walsh and push all that much harder. Doing so will translate into more conservative gains.
Comments