The disciples of Barack Obama can’t get their story straight in the wake of the election in Massachusetts that sent a conservative to succeed Ted Kennedy in the Senate.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told the corps yesterday the President was surprised and frustrated over Scott Brown’s victory. Later in the press conference Gibbs said it was no surprise voter anger stretching back eight years ushered Brown forward, as if anger directed at Republicans generally and Bush specifically explains the election of the first Republican from The Bay State in decades, an excellent rejoinder made by Fox’s Brit Hume last night.
The Gibbs Spinalysis was repeated by Senior Advisor David Axelrod yesterday. Axelrod claimed the message from Massachusetts is multi-dimensional and certainly not a repudiation of the President’s policies on healthcare, the economy, jobs, taxes, spending and terrorism.
I think there’s a general sense of discontent about the economy and there’s a general sense of discontent about this town. That’s why we were elected.
BHO disciples were obviously coached to spin their post-election remarks to deflect criticism and shield Martha Coakley even as many other Democratic leaders barbequed her as a weak and disconnected Brown opponent.
However, for Axelrod and others to claim Brown’s popularity is explained by the same “discontent” that gave them success in ’08 is to suggest LSD is a mental health vitamin. The only connection is a massive mean-stream media that crucified Bush for six years before it worshipped Obama for two.
Furthermore, to blame the political culture in D.C. for Brown’s dramatic victory is self-condemning since it can be reasonably asserted the vicious partisanship and impotence in the face of horrendous problems should be credited to the Democrats’ account.
Does Axelrod really expect us to believe the voters in Massachusetts who voted for Brown also voted for Obama for all the same reasons even though the two men disagree on every major policy issue?
For Gibbs and Axelrod to attempt these ridiculous spins (translation: lies) is to see their real attitude toward the general population. They think most people are so stupid (translation: tea baggers) they’ll buy any ludicrous explanation issued by the White House.
For example, look at the most-lame explanation by Mitch Stewart, Director of Organizing for America, “a project of the Democratic National Committee.”
Yesterday’s disappointing election results show deep discontent with the pace of change. We also saw what we knew to be true all along: Any change worth making is hard and will be fought at every turn. While it doesn’t take away the sting of this loss, there is no road to real change without setbacks along the way. We could have simply sought to do things that were easy, that wouldn’t stir up controversy. But changes that aren’t controversial rarely solve the problem. (*)
There’s that word “discontent” again. Interesting how these guys mistake OUTRAGE for discontent.
So, according to Stewart, voters are saying the way to accelerate change Obama style is to elect conservative Republicans? Right.
Translation of Stewart: we are the champions of change, we predicted setbacks, change is hard, Brown’s success indicates people want us to move faster and work harder to achieve our objectives. Right.
Mr. Stewart, can it be the real message from the people is they reject Mr. Obama’s idea of change, judging his entire agenda hopeless?
This is the conclusion of many Democrat leaders who are stating the obvious: the result from Massachusetts is a wake up call. The people there and across the country, if polling data is to be believed, are saying clearly they are fed up with this government, the experiment in radicalism is over, this is not what they bargained for, they want real change, they want traditional Americanism.
Axelrod can spin this by insisting healthcare reform was not the central issue but the polling data says otherwise. Rasmussen surveyed 1,000 voters after the election and found 56% said the way Congress and the President have handled the issue motivated them to vote for Scott Brown.
The second most important issue to voters in Massachusetts? The economy. Lower on the voters’ radar but significant, national security and taxes.
Rasmussen reports: “Brown clearly had the edge on both. Among those who named national security as most important, Brown won 67% to 29%. For those who saw taxes as number one, it was Brown 87%, Coakley 13%.”
Obviously, given the rush from Democrat leaders to assure people Brown will be seated quickly and all healthcare deliberations halted in the meanwhile, prudent politicians are heeding the clear message, finally, that the political tide has shifted dramatically, although few expect radicals to suddenly don sheep’s clothing.
Despite all the WH spin, the truth is the unmistakable message from Massachusetts is a repudiation of Obama’s radicalism. This is best articulated by liberal Democrat and HRC supporter Lynn Forester de Rothschild.
In 2008, voters believed that they were electing a person who would focus on the economy with laser intensity and lead in a bipartisan and principled matter. What they have gotten is a deeply divisive President committed to transforming America into a European-style social democracy… He has broken the trust of the people, and voters are taking the only action available to them: Electing a candidate who can stop the Obama agenda.
Axelrod, Gibbs, Stewart and others want us to believe this is only a temporary setback and that hope and change lives, that the Obama magic will snatch victory from defeat if only politicians will embrace the vision in a bipartisan fashion.
But the reality is the force of the majority of voters is having its way and the writing is on the wall.
Wise politicians will understand the people want traditional Americanism, not socialist radicalism, and the people, not the politicans, are defining traditional Americanism: smaller central government, a renewal of states’ rights, lower taxes, less government spending, no nationalized healthcare, strong national defense, an offensive posture in the war on terror, and a balance between the three federal branches, instead of what they perceive, too much power in the Executive.
Voters across the country are telling Obama and his disciples: govern from the center or prepare to clear out.
The only remaining question is, will they listen and submit to the will of the people, or continue sowing the seeds of their own demise?
(*) Problem-solving, to be effective, must be controversial and divisive? Sounds like Saul Alinsky. However, this statement is true if your political orientation stands in opposition to the majority of the voters. At that point so-called problem-solving is simply stirring up controversy in a self-defeating manner while problems remain unsolved, precisely the place Mr. Obama occupies at the moment.
Can’t wait to her the State of the Union speech in a week. What a spin, spin, spin that will be.
GREAT ANALYSIS HERE BY LARRY ELDER
Today, in 1985, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated for a second term.
Yesterday, in 1981, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated to start his first term.