Well, at least now we’ve found one thing that Barack Obama is good at. He can spin a story like nobody else. After Democrats lost the special election in Massachusetts, President Obama went on ABC to attempt to make the upset loss look like Bush’s fault.
Obama told George Stefanopoulos that “the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.” Yes, it is the same thing. Frustration and anger directed at President Bush allowed Obama to win the presidency, though things were made easier by the fact that he faced a terrible alternative in John McCain. In Massachusetts, frustration and anger directed at President Obama helped Brown win the Senate seat, though things were made easier by the fact that he faced a terrible alternative in Martha Coakley. So I guess Obama was right. Where Obama’s theory goes astray, however, is in his next sentence. “People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
Ah, now I see. In 2008, the people of the Massachusetts were so angry with Bush that they voted for the Democratic candidate, Obama, over the Republican, McCain, by a landslide of 26 points. Now that everything that was bad in 2008 got worse in 2009, the people decided to change their mind and vote Republican because they were still mad at Bush?
The Campaigner in Chief also claimed that the loss was the result of people not getting to see him enough, because Obama was “so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people.” Seriously? The only way Obama could be more overexposed is if he installed Telescreens in everyone’s home a la 1984 and forced people to listen to him. Obama’s theory is also hurt by the fact that no one seems to be able to think of any “stuff” that he has gotten done.
Make no mistake about it. Brown’s victory is a sign of anger and frustration, and it was directed at the party that controls the White House and has huge majorities in both chambers of Congress yet has been unable to accomplish anything good for the American people. It’s anger and frustration that the administration is spending more money than anyone thought was humanly possible and that unemployment is at the same catastrophic level (10%) that Obama said it would reach if they didn’t pass the “stimulus” bill. It’s directed at an administration that is more interested in pushing their radical agenda than fixing our economy. It’s the reason that the healthcare bill is now dead. It’s the reason many Democrats in Congress are going to lose their jobs. It’s the reason we will have a new Commander in Chief in 2012.
The Democrats have downplayed the protests, tea parties, town hall meetings and all other signs of discontent, sure that they can still do whatever they want and keep their jobs, but this is a wakeup call. The Democrats can’t even keep a Senate seat in Massachusetts anymore. These are the people who constantly vote for Kennedys, despite the fact that the family of “American royalty” is made up of alcoholics and whoring drug addicts – Teddy didn’t even lose his seat after killing a woman!
The Democrats losing to the Republicans in Massachusetts is like Tim Tebow losing a popularity contest in Gainesville to Charlie Ward. I realize that Martha Coakley wasn’t exactly the best candidate in the world. Voters would have preferred a candidate who isn’t too good to meet her constituents, who knows how to spell Massachusetts and is aware that Curt Shilling – the most beloved of all Red Sox pitchers, who once said about playing at Yankee Stadium that “nothing is better than making 55,000 New Yorkers shut up” – is not a Yankee fan. Even so, this is Massachusetts we’re talking about. The Democrats should have been able to run Pauly Shore out there, stick a “D” after his name, and win easily.
Ironically, this only came about because of dirty politics played by Democrats years earlier. Prior to 2004, the governor of Massachusetts would appoint a replacement to any empty seat in Senate. However, that year John Kerry, the pride of the Baked Bean State, was running for president and the state’s governor was a Republican, Mitt Romney. Ted Kennedy was afraid that if Kerry won, Romney would appoint a Republican to the seat, which would be particularly advantageous for the GOP if the replacement didn’t inherit Kerry’s tendency to skip out on work and avoid voting.
If he had been sober, Kennedy likely would not have bothered wasting time worrying about what would happen if Kerry was elected President (I mean, he was easily defeated by Bush of all people). As Kennedy’s health continued to deteriorate this year, though, he began to worry about his own seat and wanted to make sure that if he died another Democrat could immediately step in and vote for Obamacare. For that reason, he had the state legislature once again change the rules so that the governor would appoint a temporary replacement until a special election could take place. I’m sure that had nothing to do with the fact that this time the state had a Democratic governor, Deval Patrick. In the end, though, his plans were derailed by something no Democrat could have fathomed: voters choosing a Republican in the special election.
If the Democrats can’t count on Taxachusetts, then they can’t count on anyone. Even ACORN and Al Franken’s friends couldn’t help with this vote. During all of the protests on healthcare reform, spending, and every other bad liberal idea, Democrats comforted themselves with the idea that it was only those crazies in the Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, and those big states with tiny populations that were practically Canada who were against them. The New England area, they were sure, was on their side, and who really cares what the rest of the country thinks, anyway? Now it turns out that New England isn’t even on their side anymore. Well, at least you still have Hollywood (for now).