"Obama himself grimly faced a need to regroup on Wednesday, the anniversary of his inauguration, in a White House shaken by the realization of what a difference a year made."
"The local election played out against a national backdrop of animosity and resentment from voters over persistently high unemployment, Wall Street bailouts, exploding federal budget deficits and partisan wrangling over health care."
Why?
- The Progressive can not state their political ideals out loud, "Statism", because if they do, the ideas are rejected.
- The progressives dismissed the Tea Party "A bunch of Nuts". This can not be further from the truth. The Teabaggers are a mix of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and others that strongly believe that the Constitution is actually a real document that limits our government; and that the Constitution is being ignored and our liberties debased. These Teabaggers are actually constitutionalists that see the big picture. The
KennedyMartha Coakley campaign and the Progressive administration did not and could not run against this. To run against these "Teabaggers"would be to admit their existence, give credit to their ideas, and that is the last thing the progressives can afford.
- The present administration ran and won a campaign on the premise of "We are not George Bush". This worked, but it is a tactic and not a strategy. Tactics may win battles, but they don't necessarily win wars. Tactics must be coupled with sound strategy, and in the political sense, strategy means a sound philosophy. "I am not Bush" is not a philosophy. Statism is a bankrupt political philosophy. Adherence to the constitution is a sound political philosophy as well as promoting Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Brown ran on this,
KennedyMartha Coakleydid not.
A quick note to the RINOS out there. "I am not a Democrat" is not a philosophy. Statism is a bankrupt political philosophy. You will loose also.
Posts
Your disagreement with the Massachusetts Democrats is very focused and eloquent - but to think that most Mass. voters share these views is projection. Yes, voters are angry ... but a minority share your political philosophy. Concern over jobs, a mercurial and underperforming stock market, and a sense of unfairness regarding Wall Street profiteers are big components of the anger, even if you pretend otherwise.
ReplyDeleteJB
JB,
ReplyDeleteThis post was not an analysis on the voters views but an analysis on the political tactics, strategy. The Democrats campaign did not address concern "over jobs", an "under-performing stock market", or "Wall Street profiteers" as well as did not offer any solutions. Brown did, and he did it in the context of a limited and constitutionally just government.
What the Dems did is they relied on the tactic of "Branding" ,( "Not republican" "Not George Bush", "Go Blue Team" ), and blew a 30 point lead in short order; rather than openly debate ideas. Why they never discussed their political philosophy? You tell me.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Dems didn't address those critical concerns - Coakley acted entitled to the position, which only made the reaction against her stronger. But again, all that is really tactical ... anyone who runs positioned as an insider is going against the tide, and anyone who runs as an 'insurgent' or outsider has a distinct advantage. And I don't think that is based on party or philosophy as much as the stylistic element ... as I said before, neither party is facing up to the big problems.
JB
JB,
ReplyDelete"anyone who runs positioned as an insider is going against the tide, and anyone who runs as an 'insurgent' or outsider has a distinct advantage."
I disagree. Incumbents have a distinct advantage in most cases. Though technically not an incumbent, Coakley had a distinct advantage from the very start with major support from the Mass. Majority Democratic organization, as well as support on a national level including the President, and majorities in both houses. Coakley had a 30 point lead two weeks ago. Many would consider this a huge advantage. Brown had none of this and had to win an electin in a state that containes a relitively small number of like party voters. This I would call a disadvantage.
"And I don't think that is based on party or philosophy as much as the stylistic element..."
So are you dismissing political philosophy (Strategy) in total for both all parties as irrelevant to the voters? Do you mean Brown had more "Style" so he won? (A tactic by the way)
It may be true that "neither party is facing up to the big problems", but as this election proves, the American voters are waking up, regardless of party, and in my opinion it because of political philosophy rather than in spite of it.
No, not dismissing strategy in all races, but it is less important sometimes, especially now.
ReplyDeleteGlen Beck is attacking Brown, warning us that the new senator is some sort of pervert and that we might end up with a dead intern linked to Brown. Love that 'big tent' atmosphere in the Republican Party, even when it seems like a 3 ring circus! Is that a strategy or a tactic??
JB
"Glen Beck is attacking Brown, warning us that the new senator is some sort of pervert and that we might end up with a dead intern linked to Brown."
ReplyDeletePlease send me a clip or transcript of this.
Please! Please! Please!
I would love to know If Beck said this and in what context.
In the absence of that though I will interpret the quoted above as a "Baseless Smear" designed to both deflect truth and avoid honest debate.