Posts Tagged ‘Brown’

Obama Actually Blames Massachusetts Voting Republican ON GEORGE BUSH

January 20, 2010

It turns out that there is absolutely nothing that Obama won’t blame on George Bush.

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama said the following:

Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.

Here’s my assessment of why Camelot just flung out the Kennedy legacy and voted Republican for a seat that had been in Democrat hands since 1952: it’s Bush’s fault.  People are angry at the failure of George Bush, and so they punished him by voting for the party of George Bush.  Don’t blame me; I just work here.”

That’s right.  George Bush is so evil, and did such a terrible job, that the voters of the most liberal state in the nation voted for a Republican.  That’s your failure-in-chief’s “assessment.”

Kind of explains why everything the guy does has failed.  He’s a rigid ideologue who thinks purely in terms of demagoguery.  He lives in a little tiny black box and nothing gets in or out of that box.

In a way Obama is insulting his own campaign.  Why did he win?  Because people were angry.  And the same sort of inchoate, unthinking, unreasoning anger that propelled him to victory is now propelling Republicans to victory.

It also ties into the historical narrative often played by the lamestream media: when Republicans do well, there has to be some dark reason for their success.  The Republican Revolution was re-cast as “the year of the angry white male.”  It’s hate.  It’s anger.  It’s racism.

What about the other liberal narrative, that Bush destroyed the economy, and even now, a year later, Obama is just being blamed for Bush’s failed policies?

When Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took control of the House and the Senate back in 2006, unemployment was only 4.7%.   Democrats demagogued their way to power in 2005 on the basis of screaming about Iraq and Hurricane Katrina; the economy was humming along.  But once they took the House and the Senate, they got right to work destroying the economy with the same socialist big government garbage that they’re playing now.  And then again after the economic meltdown of 2008, Democrats and their propaganda allies in the lamestream media pitched the demagogic narrative that the economic disaster had to have been George Bush’s fault because it happened during his watch.  But didn’t it happen on Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s watch, too?

What’s the unemployment rate now exactly three years after Democrats took over Congress?

And since Barack Obama took over from Bush, we have lost more jobs under Obama than ANY president has lost in ANY year since 1940.

Believe you me — there’s all kinds of reasons to hold Democrats responsible for the economic meltdown.  Maybe it’s long past time you began to reconsider who really exploded the economy, Republicans or Democrats?

But as long as there is one slack-jawed, drooling imbecile in the country dumb enough to believe the Democrats’ demonizations, George Bush will keep getting blamed.

Hey, Obama, are you hoping for a little reverse psychology in November, that people will be so angry at the total failure otherwise known as Barack Hussein that they’ll vote for Democrats?

It is long past time that ordinary people realized that every single time Democrats try to blame Bush they are acknowledging their own failure to lead.  They are openly admitting, “Don’t ask us to solve any problems.  We’re just demagogues.  All we can do is blame someone else.”

Change We Can Believe In: Obama Turned Camelot Republican

January 20, 2010

I think there should be a new rule: when you write a title this good, you shouldn’t even have to bother writing the rest of the article:

Barack Obama’s change we can believe in: he has turned Camelot Republican
By Gerald Warner World Last updated: January 20th, 2010

Exactly one year ago today Barack Obama was inaugurated as President of the United States amid scenes more appropriate to the enthronement of a Pharaoh than the initiation of a democratic leader. Remember the hysteria, the gushing sycophancy of the liberal media, the Disneyland hype? One year later, it is all over for the Messiah. Obama has finally provoked change we can believe in: he has turned Massachusetts Republican.

Camelot has turned bright red. It is comfortably in the hands of the GOP. From early in the count Republican Scott Brown established an unassailable 5-point lead over Martha Coakley, the arrogant Democrat candidate who epitomised the sense of entitlement that characterises the members of the liberal establishment. She was a caricature of Democrat prejudices, down to being a cradle Catholic who championed abortion – like her rebarbative predecessor Edward Kennedy. At 2.15am (our time) the Boston Globe reported that Coakley had telephoned Brown to concede defeat. That historic conversation effectively called time on the Obama administration.

It takes a real mental effort to come to terms with the notion of a man named Brown being an effective and worthwhile politician, but in Massachusetts that is the reality. Brown created an electoral insurgency. He articulated all the resentment of decent Americans against the liberal establishment. In doing so he has overturned the Democrats’ 60-seat presence in the Senate which until last night made them invulnerable to a Republican filibuster and made it possible for them to railroad Obama’s insane, statist, totalitarian health care “reforms” through Congress.

No more. If the Democrats even attempted to use procedural tricks to rush the healthcare dog’s breakfast through before Brown takes his seat, America would not stand for such a blatant evasion of the popular will on so controversial a measure. It simply isn’t going to happen. Nor is any of the rest of the Obama fantasy. The Republicans are now poised to take control of the House in November. Obama has had his year of power, but now he is a busted flush.

And what a year it was. Retreat, abasement and blunders in every area of foreign policy, from North Korea to sell-out to Russia on nuclear weapons. This blog always insisted Obama would be a one-term president. Even I, however, had not counted on his being a one-year wonder. Even Anne of the Thousand Days had a longer run than that. Americans have proved they can spot a phoney in 12 months. That shames Britain’s record: the deluded electorate here voted three times for the Great Charlatan Blair.

To see the pricking of the Obama balloon is delightful. Congratulations, America. Happy anniversary, Mr President.

To paraphrase Dr. Phil: “How’s that hopey and changey thing working for you?

Here’s to hoping for the change of a Republican landslide, courtesy of Barack Hussein and his destroy America agenda.

Coakley ‘Imploding’ In ‘Freefall’ With ‘Bottom Falling Out’ AFTER Obama’s Help

January 18, 2010

Here’s the trifecta: “the bottom is falling out.”  “This candidate is in freefall.”  “This race is imploding for her.”

These views from a chief pollster on a poll taken AFTER Obama’s campaign visit.

About the only thing that could go worse for Martha Coakely is if a divinely-originated lightening bolt were to strike her down.

I admit it: I love to quote myself being right regarding Obama’s campaign visit for Martha Coakley:

I hope they get Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to cut videos, too […]

I DO know that Obama has proven that he – to quote Dennis Miller – “has smaller coattails than a naked midget.”

It was started to rain on Martha Coakley.  And then Barack Obama came a’campaignin’.  And then the skies opened up in a “Noah’s Ark-level” deluge:

New poll: Martha Coakley ‘in freefall’

A new InsiderAdvantage poll conducted exclusively for POLITICO shows Republican Scott Brown surging to a 9-point advantage over Martha Coakley a day before Massachusetts voters trek to the ballot box to choose a new senator.

According to the survey conducted Sunday evening, Brown leads the Democratic attorney general 52 percent to 43 percent.

“I actually think the bottom is falling out,” said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery, referring to Coakley’s fall in the polls over the last ten days. “I think that this candidate is in freefall. Clearly this race is imploding for her.”

The numbers show males and independents overwhelmingly breaking for Brown, who has married his GQ looks with a populist tone in a pick-up truck on the campaign trail.

Brown holds a 15-point lead among males and crushes Coakley by 41 points among self-described independents, a group that’s been steadily inching away from the Democratic party over the last year due to growing apprehension with government spending, bailouts and health care reform.

Men are not going to vote for Coakley at all. You have a very angry male voter who’s repudiating whatever is being said in Washington and they’re taking it out on this woman. And independents are clearly going to the Republican in droves. What’s left are the Democratic voters,” said Towery, who is a former aide to Newt Gingrich.

And the survey shows almost a quarter of Democratic voters lining up with Brown.

A DailyKos/Research 2000 poll released Monday painted a much tighter campaign, showing the race knotted at 48 percent each.

“We’re about to learn whether Obama can deliver electoral votes,” wrote DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas on his Twitter page.

But that three-day survey was conducted between Friday and Sunday, whereas the entire InsiderAdvantage phone survey of 804 likely registered voters was completed Sunday night.

Towery noted his polling indicates President Barack Obama’s Sunday visit to the Bay State for Coakley won’t be enough to pull her over the finish line.

“When there’s a nine-point difference, it’s awfully hard to shave off enough to win,” Towery said. “The older voters are even tied.  And the youngest voters have turned against the Democrats,” he said, pointing to Brown’s 61 to 30 percent lead among voters 18 to 29 years old. (Voters 65 and older, typically a key Democratic constituency, are divided between the two contenders, 48 percent a piece).

InsiderAdvantage’s polling pool was made up of 20 percent Republicans and 43 percent of Democrats, though estimates show that independents make up just over 50 percent of all Massachusetts voters. “It’d be even worse for (Coakley) if we weighed it towards more independents,” Towery said.

Other election eve polling is also tracking towards Brown. The Republican pollster, American Research Group, pins Brown’s lead at 7 points, 52 to 45 percent, in a three-day survey released Monday. And Suffolk University’s polling of three bellwether counties had them all breaking towards Brown by double-digit margins. Public Policy Polling’s final survey put Brown up 51 to 46 percent, a lead that falls within the margin of error.

A third-party independent candidate Joe Kennedy, who some feared would confuse voters by siphoning votes through the power of his name, is now seen as less of a factor. He captures just 2 percent of support in the InsiderAdvantage poll.

“If this race were to tight up, he might make the difference,” said Towery. “But this is a disaster (for Democrats),” he said.

The margin of error for the InsiderAdvantage poll is +/- 3.4 percent. About three percent registered no opinion.

If anything, Obama rushing to help Martha Coakley (who is apparently in even more desperate condition than the people of Haiti, given Obama’s and Haiti special envoy Bill Clinton’s aid) merely further proved the point that Coakley is a tool of the big government status quo.

Obama, you are a giant stinky turd and a loser, and even the people of Massachusetts – the most liberal state in the nation -know that you are a turd and a loser.

And even Democrats don’t want to take the long fall off the steep cliff you and the Democrat Party are determined to rush the country off of.

For what it’s worth, I believe Obama has hurt national security even more than he already had by spending his last 2 cents’ worth of political capital he had left on fellow disgrace-of-a-politician Martha Coakley.  Our enemies now know for certain that we have a failed leader, and that the country won’t bother to pay attention to our loser-in-chief.

Mind you, there’s always hope for Democrats, because liberals have no moral values, and would rather cheat gracelessly than lose gracefully:

ED SCHULTZ, HOST: I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts, I’d try to vote ten times. I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right, I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.

No, Schultz, you goon, that’s exactly what YOU are.  And the American people finally realize it.

Confronted by his words, Schultz kept going:

On Monday, he kicked off his show with a mock apology. “I misspoke on Friday. I’m sorry, I’m sorry,” he said. “I meant to say if I could vote 20 times, that’s what I would do,” calling those who complained “right-wing nut jobs” and “idiots.”

Because smart people like liberals are moral idiots who don’t understand the principles of decency or fairness.  They’re too smart for that kind of garbage.

So all we have to beware is liberals being liberals (by which I mean, liberals being dishonest).

Even the whole “Kennedy support” thing is crashing apart.  Ted Kennedy’s son Patrick Kennedy, proving he has no freaking clue (which doesn’t stop him from endorsing Coakley, however), repeatedly screwed up Martha Coakley’s name — and three times referring to her as “Marsha.”

As in “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!”

The Backlash Is Coming: An Informative Analysis Of The Brown-Coakley Senate Race

January 17, 2010

From the Wall Street Journal:

JANUARY 15, 2010, 6:25 P.M. ET

The Backlash Is Coming! The Backlash Is Coming!
People in Massachusetts think they’re at the leading edge of politics. That’s not good news for Democrats.

By  JON KELLER

With characteristic hubris, people in this state like to think they’ve been at the leading edge of American politics since the “shot heard ’round the world” in 1775. And in the past few years, we’ve given the nation a preview of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign with Deval Patrick’s successful 2006 bid for governor; provided a critical boost for Mr. Obama’s candidacy in the form of an endorsement by Edward Kennedy; and enacted a health-care law that is a template for ObamaCare.

But hubris has yielded to shock here at the possibility that the next political trend the Bay State might foreshadow is a voter backlash against the Democratic Party.

After Kennedy’s death in August, few imagined there would be any problem replacing him with another Democrat in the U.S. Senate. It’s been 16 years since Massachusetts elected a Republican to a congressional seat, 31 years since the last Republican senator left office. Gov. Patrick appointed a former Kennedy aide as the interim senator, and Democratic primary voters chose the well-regarded state Attorney General Martha Coakley as their nominee for the special election.

That election, which will be held on Tuesday, was widely seen as a formality. Ms. Coakley coasted through the holiday season while the GOP challenger, little-known state Sen. Scott Brown, scrambled for traction.

The new year, however, brought polls showing the race tightening. This week a Rasmussen Reports poll gave Ms. Coakley a slim 49% to 47% advantage; a Suffolk University survey has Mr. Brown with a narrow lead. Independents are breaking for Mr. Brown by a three-to-one margin, Rasmussen finds. And many people do not realize that independents outnumber Democrats—51% of registered voters in the state are not affiliated with a party, while 37% are registered as Democrats and 11% as Republicans.

“Around the country they look at Massachusetts and just write us off,” longtime local activist Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government told me. “But people around here are really not happy with the extremes in the Democrat Party.”

Those extremes are cropping up as issues in this race. One is giving civilian legal rights to terror suspects, which Ms. Coakley supports. Mr. Brown, a lieutenant colonel in the Massachusetts National Guard, hammered her for that even before Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day. That incident has tried the patience of an electorate normally known for its civil libertarianism. Rasmussen’s most recent survey found that 65% of them want Abdulmutallab tried by the military.

Another issue is taxes. Mr. Brown has scolded Ms. Coakley for supporting a repeal of the Bush tax cuts, for entertaining the idea of passing a “war tax,” and for proclaiming in a recent debate that “we need to get taxes up.” Ms. Coakley says she meant that tax revenues, not rates, need to rebound. Nonetheless, Mr. Brown’s critique resonates with voters who are smarting from a 25% hike in sales tax last year.

Gov. Patrick’s approval ratings have also crashed, fertilizing the soil for Mr. Brown’s claim in a radio ad that “our government in Washington is making the same mistakes as our government here in Massachusetts.”

But nothing excites Mr. Brown’s supporters more than his vow to stop ObamaCare by denying Democrats the 60th vote they would need in the U.S. Senate to shut off a GOP filibuster. The Rasmussen and Suffolk polls report that once-overwhelming statewide support for the federal health reform has fallen to a wafer-thin majority.

Support for the state’s universal health-care law, close to 70% in 2008, is also in free fall; only 32% of state residents told Rasmussen earlier this month that they’d call it a success, with 36% labeling it a failure. The rest were unsure. Massachusetts families pay the country’s highest health insurance premiums, with costs soaring at a rate 7% ahead of the national average, according to a recent report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund.

Doubt about the Massachusetts health-care reform “does not necessarily translate into opposition to the federal bill,” cautions veteran local Democratic strategist Stephen Crawford, who is not working for any candidate in the Senate race. “I don’t think opposition to the plan is going to be a make-or-break issue.” That’s a far cry from the once widely-held belief here that the Democratic nominee would be hustled into office by voters eager to pass ObamaCare. But it reflects a conviction among local Democratic elites that antitax and anti-big-government politics are “a tired strategy, the same old Karl Rove playbook,” as Mr. Crawford puts it.

On Tuesday, we’ll have a reading on whether that complacency is justified. It may not be definitive; barely two in 10 voters voted in the primaries, and turnout, especially if it is short on independents, could render the outcome a road test for each party’s get-out-the-vote machinery. Here that’s akin to a drag race between a Democratic Cadillac fueled with high-octane labor support and a GOP go-kart driven by pedal power. But the long-range weather forecast for the Election Day is clear. There are anecdotal reports of brisk absentee voting, a practice often driven by the state’s small but aggressive pro-life faction. And the polls show a sharp enthusiasm gap in Mr. Brown’s favor.

Tellingly, the usually-demure Ms. Coakley has been scorching Mr. Brown with a tired strategy out of the Obama campaign playbook, linking him to “the failed policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.” Mr. Brown counters by linking Ms. Coakley to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Deval Patrick—people actually in power.

Are we in for another shot heard ’round the world? Perhaps. More likely, listen for the sound of horse hooves on the pavement, and a modern-day version of Paul Revere’s historic warning—the backlash is coming.

Mr. Keller is the political analyst for WBZ-TV and WBZ Radio in Boston.

This was the most informative analysis of the Brown-Coakley Senate race I have seen yet.

The bottom line is this: a high turnout of voters, particularly independents, very likely spells doom for Martha Coakley and the ObamaCare agenda.