Interesting post from Another Black Conservative today.
While talking to Dem insider/journalist George Stephanopoulos Obama has this to say:
"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.
"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.
"I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on."
This seems a far cry from the "combative response" that Politico was reporting on Monday. From the article by Mike Allen:
"President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.
"'This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt,' a senior administration official said. 'It more reinforces the conviction to fight hard.'
"A defeat by Martha Coakley for the seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy would be embarrassing for the party — and potentially debilitating, since Democrats will lose their filibuster-proof, 60-vote hold on the Senate.
"A potential casualty: the health care bill that was to be the crowning achievement of the president’s first year in office."
Huh... And I thought the $787 billion "Stimulus" Package (does anybody remember that little bit of legislation) was going to be his crowning achievement-- oh wait, no it was the 10% unemployment rate.
Anyway, after making snarky remarks about Brown's truck, et al, and threatening to turn up the heat on Republicans, Obama's suddenly talking bipartisanship. In fact, the White House is now claiming that Obama and Brown are practically cut from the same cloth. As Michelle Malkin pouts it, "Gibbs asserted with a straight face that the same kind of 'anger' that brought Obama into office also buoyed Brown’s candidacy."
Again huh... So the dissatisfaction that brought Obama to office is the same dissatisfaction that brought Brown to be elected to the Senate in Massachusetts? One of the bluest states in U.S.? Into a seat held by a Democrat for the 58 years? After a year of ambitious Leftist agendas? So was it Bush's fault that Coakley lost the election?
After writing off any opponents as ignorant, racist, angry, gun-clinging, Bible-thumping, reactionary Nazis for so long, it any wonder that people reacted and voted this way?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As I am new to your blog, I have not really gauged your point of view but I just would like to say this. The Democrats are like hyenas. When they kill and savor the prize, they get so involved and selfish with their takes just like the kickbacks, paybacks and vote buying incentives for special senators like Nelson and Landrieau. Then something goes wrong and soon the kill is diminished, they start turning on each other just like they do blaming each other after Brown's win.
ReplyDeleteThey were so over themselves with their hope of overturning America and implementing their leftist and socialist ideas, taking down the financial industry, everyone who makes money is an enemy yet they want their money to support the entitlements they use to demagogue their voting base.
Well, it did not take long for America to tire of the Democrats' and liberal's rhetoric. They are arrogant in their belief that what they think and believe is the best way.
Politicians cannot arrogate for the people. I love America, we give people chances, even the fools who claim they can solve problems just because they are who they are. Obama looks good but he found out that looking good is different from doing good, he actually had to govern and he does not know how. He owns the presidency, not man up and stop blaming Bush. Get to work and listen to the people.
Yeah, the hyena analogy isn't unfair, but I don't think it's necessarily an exclusively Democratic thing. It's working out that way this particular time, but the Repubs have turned on each other and torn themselves apart as well after significant political victories in the past.
ReplyDeleteI think these collapses have much to do with the myriad of political beliefs and flash fire/hot button issues that make up the political parties. In the US, the term "conservative" is used to describe a wide range of political beliefs and value systems-- many of which can be anti-thetical to one another. This was something I tried to highlight with a quickie history of conservatism in one of my previous posts.
Meanwhile the US's Left (I don't like to use the term liberal as today's implied meaning of the word is so far out of step with its meaning from 50 or 60 years ago), underwent a radical but popular shift toward socialism some time in the 60s (most likely during Johnson's watch but I have a lot more reading to do)-- with much of the long-term effects just now beginning to be both effective and realized. This creates self-destructive pressure within the Dems (for instance Maxine Waters' public rant against Blue Dog Dems).
The result of both is a mixed-bag of political agendas under two large umbrellas, and two political parties constantly attempting to tear themselves apart from within. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Tha particulars of the current (likely) Dem collapse are rather fascinating. If the stakes weren't so high and the potential results of all this so frightening (a nuclear-armed Iran, a collpased Pakistan, a worldwide economic depression, etc.) , it would be fascinating to just sit back and observe for a year or two.