The remarkable Republican victory in Massachusetts demonstrated convincingly that the deep populist anger fueling the Tea Party movement has migrated from the political fringe to the mainstream, forcing both parties to confront how to channel a growing mood of public resentment to their own ends.
"Democrats are beginning to understand that this is the center of American politics and not the far right," said Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader who has been instrumental in helping organize the conservative grass-roots movement. I doubt it, but this in the NY Times.
But it was impossible to judge whether the manner of Mr. Brown's win would become the rule or an exception. National Republicans and the grass roots could easily find themselves in clashes over conservative dogma that ultimately weaken general election candidates.
The divide between the party establishment and grass-roots conservatives already cost Republicans a House seat in New York this year, complicated the battle for the party's Senate nomination in Florida and is threatening to erupt in other races. Members of the Tea Party movement pride themselves on a willingness to take on Republicans who do not embrace what they consider proper conservative standards.
"If you are a Republican in a red state, don't think this can't happen to you," warned Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, referring to Ms. Coakley's humbling defeat and the delicate relationship between the political class and the expanding grass roots network.
Amid the day's gloom, Democrats saw opportunity as well. They view the financial regulatory overhaul taking shape in Congress as a way to appeal to Americans angry about their own economic struggles at a time when bankers -- widely viewed as the culprits in the financial meltdown -- are again reaping huge bonuses. Many Republicans have been resistant to tighter oversight of Wall Street and big banks, setting up a clear contrast between the parties.
But the dance with disaffected Americans is clearly trickier for Democrats. As the party in power -- granted by some of the same angry voters in 2006 and 2008 -- Democrats are by definition the establishment that voters seem to want to punish. Moreover, there is a deep divide between liberals, who are increasingly arguing that President Obama has been too timid and too quick to fold on matters of principle, and moderates, who think the White House and Congressional Democrats need to move to the political center.
Still, incumbency and control of Congress grant Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats a big stage from which to make a case, and they seem to be settling on a two-pronged strategy.
First, they seem intent on striking a more populist economic tone, mainly by taking a hard line against Wall Street. In the last week Mr. Obama has sought to impose a tax on big banks to recoup the costs of the financial bailout. He is also trying to thwart efforts to kill a proposal for a new agency to protect consumers from financial excesses and fraud.
Second, they are starting to take steps to show independent and centrist voters that they will do more to attack the budget deficit and national debt. Not even after pigs fly.
Members of both parties agree the electorate is unsettled and unhappy. Many Americans see themselves as people who play by the rules but struggle to keep their heads above water while the government devotes its attention to saving those who made bad or irresponsible decisions, like bankers and auto executives. Financial distress is compounded by security fears worsened by the Christmas Day bombing attempt. Yep.
"That is a pretty potent combination," said Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania. "We have to constantly remind folks that we are working on their problems and we are focused on jobs." And you were trying your best to create a zillion jobs - in government.
Other centrist Democrats said the results in Massachusetts could become a blessing in disguise by forcing Democrats to rein in their legislative agenda and focus on less expansive policies than the health care overhaul now teetering with the loss of the Democratic majority's crucial 60th vote. Maybe they'll rethink their 'leadership'.
"The loss in Massachusetts should serve as a wake-up call to the wing of the Democratic Party that wants the federal government to overreach and overspend," said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. "We need to get back to the basics." One of the more conservative dems, it seems
Even Republicans privately acknowledged that the redrawn Congressional landscape could hold benefits for the most vulnerable Democrats in November by easing pressure on them to vote as part of a united 60-member Democratic bloc and sparing them from providing decisive votes on contentious issues.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/21/2010 08:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Heard on Fox that 71% of the vote for Brown were independents. That should be a message to both parties to straighten up.
#2
Typical of the MSM that they go to one of the old gaurd for the commentary.
They totally misrepresent the NY Scozzafava election and they insist on trying to pin their definition on conservatives. Scuzzie is a big government tax and spend type NOT a conservative. 'pubs could have ridden the conservative horse to a victory but they went with the system insider. System insiders are anathema to a true tea party type.
Teapartiers are motivated by fears in the areas of Taxing, spending, loss of freedoms and safety.
That's about it. Individual tea partiers are all over the map on the much, much less important "social" issues of gay marriage or the war on drugs or abortion.
As long as the 'Pubs understand that and become the party of fiscal conservatism and defense they will enjoy grass roots support. As soon as they revert to caring more about the sanctity of marriage then the sanctity of the budget (i.e. DON'T give in to the rent seekers and corporatists) they will lose any traction.
after an extensive quote of Obama backpedaling on HealthCare
Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership. Barney Frank seems to have thought better of his initial defeatism. But I have to say, I'm pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.
Posted by: lord garth ||
01/21/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
“Progressives are desperately in need of leadership; more specifically, House Democrats need to be told to pass the Senate bill…”
As nauseating as it may seem for some, right now is a time to listen closely to the words of the Progressive elite. Those that dismiss “Progressives” as mere liberals or Democrats may want to take a closer look. When the Progressives’ plan is working the elite tend to speak in platitudes and doublespeak. However, when they start to see cracks in their agenda they tend to panic and expose their strategies – and ultimately their motivations. Krugman, who always believes he is the smartest person in the room, pulls no punches here. He makes no bones that he doesn’t view US representative democracy as a model but simply as a vehicle. It’s important to note that Progressives have no real party allegiance. Krugman plainly reveals this when he flippantly states, “I'm pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama”. That’s quite a shot across the bow from one Progressive elite to another.
#2
Talk about blather. This turkey actually says about Tom Friedman: "Thomas L. Friedman, who knows more about the world affairs, especially the Middle Eastern affairs, than anybody in the world,
#6
other than his idiotic statement about Tom Friedman and his bizarre arithmatic he does make a good point
muslims identify themselves as muslims to an extent which prevents them from honestly and fully criticizing the goofy, the terroristic and the mysogynistic among other muslims. Instead all such criticism is half hearted, apologistic, etc.
Posted by: lord garth ||
01/21/2010 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Nothing. Islam works for them---just like being a rat works for rats. The question should be "What's wrong with us?"
#8
muslims identify themselves as muslims to an extent which prevents them from honestly and fully criticizing the goofy, the terroristic and the mysogynistic among other muslims.
There are haddiths (ie quotes from Muhammad, the pefect man every Mulim is supposed to imitate saying: answer the call of the amirs (for wrring infidels), even if they are bad, unjust and corrupt men. Not exact wording but you get the idea: no matter how bad the Muslim help him against non-Muslims.
President Bush deserves our respect not our scorn.
It's almost hard to believe but Wednesday, January 20 marks exactly one year since President Bush left the White House.
During his last public ceremony as commander in chief, he was booed by thousands of Americans who simutaneously cheered for Barack Obama as he was sworn into office on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.
Except for a June 17 speech in Erie, Pennsylvania in which Bush defended his policies and criticized Obama's, the former president has been remarkably silent about his successor. He has not fired back at Obama despite the new administration inappropriately blaming Bush for all of their failures.
One year after taking office however, Obama has done a total reversal on his isolationist, non-interventionist foreign policy, and is now pushing President Bush's neo-conservative philosophy as a justification for starting a new war in Afghanistan. What the Democratic Party once criticized as an over-simplified good vs. evil argument has become the cornerstone of Obama's reasoning.
"Evil does exist in the world," Obama recently admitted. "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of man."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/21/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Surely it's Bush who betrayed America by.
(i) Misdirecting Counter-Jihad into "Nation Building"?
(ii) Ignoring the signs of the coming economic crisis as long as it didn't interfere with his Iraqi program?
(iii) Appointing a personal sycophant to the second highest position in US government?
#6
Had W been more articulate and if he had some fire in his belly to stand up to moonbattery and BDS, he could have accomplished so much more.
The next conservative who gets into the oval office has to be someone who takes no prisoners and exacts retribution, someone who will get on TV when a Barney Frank accuses him of racism merely for wanting to do something about an impending mortgage crisis and tell the American public that wanting to fix the problem isn't racism, it's common sense, and that evil people like Frank lie about motivations for political reasons.
He would use the bully pulpit of the presidency to blister anyone who accused him of wanting to put old folks out on ice floes as a result of his efforts to reform social security.
W could have set the tone for the Republican party with vigorous public and articulate defense of the good that conservatism is.
W did not do things like this and the result was President Obama and a conservative movement on the outside looking in. For all of his good points, this was a great failing on the part of W.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/21/2010 8:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Everyone has some limitations, maybe some big faults. Your wife for instance.
As for George W. Bush...if you wanted a man at your back in a close fight would you want Obama or George W?
I admired George W. he stood for something. He kept his word. He took all that abuse and carried the war...and where IS Mookie Sadr and Zarquawi today? Where are the two flaming prances, Kerry and Edwards saluting and standing up for honor and duty? Breck Boy and Mr. five medal for nothing.
Fine upstanding men like that, the very best the Democratic Party had to offer.
George W, wherever you are now, you did a good job. You kept the country safe....not like Hussein Obama who pansyed PC and allowed three attacks inside the US in less than a year when George kept us in the clear for six years..AND won the war.
Anybody realize how mean a fight it was in Fallujah? Those Marines stood up and CHEERED when George W came into the auditorium and stood among them. You can hear the silence when Obama comes to speak to a room full of soldiers.
The American people let a good man like George W down.
I dont think history will.
#8
Bush's detractors should be embarrassed having arrogantly thought they could do it better, and those Republicans who abandoned Bush when he needed them most should take a moment to reflect on their fortitude or lack thereof.
The money quote for me. I had occasion to meet and talk with Cheney in the early 90s. Cheney did not seem to me to be a Machiavellian prince plotting in the background. He seemed to be a smart, straight-up guy. I think he was a pretty good VP--probably more involved than most. He seemed to also have a great deal to do with keeping the U.S. safe. However, I would not go hunting with him.
#9
I disagreed with his policies on amnesty and immigration, with his bailout of gamblers in the financial arena, some of selections for various offices and departments, and trade offs he made with a Democratically controlled Congress. I do, however, understand why he did those. If the republic does survive, it will be not just because of his conduct of the WOT but because of his vilification most Americans came to know that the MSM was nothing more than an extension of the Democratic Party that accepted no limitation in bearing false witness against him, and therefore cut its own throat among so many citizens.
#10
Bush had Integrity and he had honor. He didn't lie and he did what he thought was best to defend America. Contract that with Obama, Kerry, or Al Gore....
The fact that he wasn't the 'best he could be' doesn't distract from the fact that he was a good president in a hard time. Sure he 'could have - should have' been more forceful - but that doesn't distact from the things he got right.
Would you rather have our current president? Can you imagine that the hip-bowing affirmitive-action president would have done? (And still might do if it happens again?) How about John Kerry or Al Gore?
And don't forget that the media absolutely *HATED* Bush with a passion. A lot of what we know about, and just about everything which has been reported about, his presidency has been tainted by that hatred.
Yes he did (though I cannot list an example at the moment.) It is essential to doing the job. To his credit, he did not seem very good, or comfortable at it - unlike so many.
Did you know that the "Duke" (John Wayne)also peppered a fellow shooter with birdshot and said,
"Damn I know it hurts, but I wish you could see the perfect pattern this gun throws".
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/21/2010 14:56 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Spike Snubnose and Crazyfool:
Of course I think W had integrity and honor. Of course I'd rather have him watching my back than Obama. Yes, many Americans let W and other great Americans going back to the Foounding Fathers down. Yes, history (if they start allowing people with center-right politics to be history professors again some day) will look back and see that W was the first president since WWII to directly address radical Islam as an existential threat to the West.
I am grateful he was president after 9/11.
Doesn't change the fact that, like his father, his one failing - the inability to communicate forcefully, effectively, and articulately - is a fault that hamstrings a leader in an age of mass media. In a pre-TV, pre-internet age, W's deficiency in this area would have been irrelevant.
Sadly, nowadays it is crucial.
Redneck Jim
Always remember, for steel shot use one less choke........
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/21/2010 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
Whittington was left behind to recover his bird. He rejoined the line unannounced and walked up next to Cheney. A bird flushed, Cheney pivoted and got off the shot, and there was Whittington. An accident, equally shared, I think.
#16
Grom, I often wondered whether you have an unique perspective or rather you are full of it
Asking g(r)om about US leadership is like inviting my sister-in-law out to dine.
No matter what restaurant or what cuisine, she runs the staff ragged, verbally abuses the rest of family, and never hesistates to find something to bitch about.
#19
Actually, I'd go hunting with Mr. Cheney as well. I'd just make a point of staying well back when it was his turn to shoot, just like I would for anyone else.
#20
I grew up in Arkansas, hunting with Dad and brothers. Married into a hunting Texas family, and I'd go hunting with Mr. Cheney --- It's not only part of the job of your hunting partners to know where you are -- but you got to know where they are..... some partners don't always know where they are (at least that's how I heard part of that story)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
