January 19, 2010

The Punk President’s Repudiation

Filed under: Economy,Environment,Health Care,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:30 am

In electing Scott Brown to what the elites believed was Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat one day shy of the anniversary of Barack Obama’s inauguration, Massachusetts voters have delivered an irrefutable repudiation of the president, his agenda, and the people in Congress who support him on behalf of themselves and the rest of the nation.

Make no mistake. All the attempted post-election distancing in the world won’t change the fact that this election was all about Dear Leader, who has seemingly done everything he can to earn the “punk” moniker I applied to him and his administration on Election Day in 2008, and a Congress that has rubber-stamped so many of his wishes, so often without even reading the bills his acolytes have presented. Fox’s Charles Krauthammer noted that the Brown campaign succeeded in making the election “a referendum on the Obama agenda and also on single party rule in Washington.” Obama’s last-minute decision to appear in Massachusetts on Sunday in an attempt to stop the bleeding only confirmed the obvious.

Only fourteen months after his Bay State defeat of John McCain by 26%, Barack Washington’s favored U.S. Senate candidate failed by a greater margin than Walter Mondale lost to Ronald Reagan in 1984. That year, Reagan carried Massachusetts by 2.8% on the way to his 49-state reelection landslide.

The 30-point swing from November 2008 and the comparison to Reagan’s win are both important metrics. They demonstrate just how resounding the following rejection notices sent to Barack Obama and Congress by voters in what is still virtually the most reliably liberal state in the union really are:

Voters in the often wayward Cradle of Liberty looked danger in the eye, stood up and said “enough.” Tuesday’s takeaway is this: If Obama & Co. can’t sell their agenda there, it’s an epic fail everywhere.

So now what?

On Monday, I wrote that a Brown victory “may prevent” the forward march of what that now-famous “Massachusetts Miracle” video called a “tyrannical government.” The operative word is “may,” because there are valid concerns about Scott Brown, one of his major backers and his party that cannot and should not be ignored.

While he’ll never pass the Emily’s List litmus test, any experienced pro-lifer can tell from the relevant language on his Issues page that Brown is not a movement supporter. Additionally, as a legislator he voted for the creation of state-run Commonwealth Care. Besides imposing a dreadfully costly, punitive, and potentially care-rationing health care regime on its citizens, Commonwealth Care formally legalized government-subsidized abortions in Massachusetts for the first time.

On marriage, Brown’s Issues page says that states should “make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.” If he really believes this, he was remarkably silent during the mid-2000s when his own party’s governor unilaterally imposed same-sex marriage on his state without the benefit of either the popular vote or the legislative statute the 2003 Goodridge ruling itself said was required. To this day, same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has not been legalized as its Constitution mandates.

The governor who did this, and who thereby made himself objectively unfit to hold future public office, was Mitt Romney. Romney also championed the aforementioned CommonwealthCare, aka “RomneyCare.” Brown continues to defend RomneyCare, even though it has often and in my opinion fairly been described as the model for ObamaCare, which Brown claims to oppose. As the possibility of statist nationwide health care looms, Brown’s stance raises legitimate concerns about his reliability at ObamaCare crunch time.

The worries about Brown’s vulnerability to selling out only grow when one learns, as Politico reported on Monday, that Brown’s campaign was “filled with staffers who once worked” for Romney. Expect Romney, who I believe is the only potential GOP presidential candidate guaranteed to lose in 2012 if nominated, to take major credit within party circles for Brown’s win in an attempt to revive his flagging viability, and to quietly attempt to minimize the importance of Tea Partiers and others on the ground and throughout the country who did the dirty work. Sadly, top-echelon Republican leaders are still enamored of Romney based on his money and supposed charm. They don’t call it the Stupid Party without reason.

But for all his potential faults, the fact remains that Scott Brown and his campaign made a game-saving tackle on fourth-and-one at the goal line on Tuesday, turning the tide against our Punk President at a most crucial time.

Forget about savoring the win. In true punk fashion, Barack Obama and his apparatchiks appear poised to double down on the very things voters in Massachusetts and elsewhere in this great nation have now proven they so bitterly oppose. To truly appreciate what he’s up against, Scott Brown would be well advised to devour the content of and adopt the principles contained in Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny on his way to Washington.

Lickety-Split Links (011910, Morning)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 7:24 am

From Althouse:


While we’re invoking the memory of Ted Kennedy, here’s an item that should not be forgotten about the late Senator’s sense of “humor.”


Good: The Associated Press’s Jim Kuhnhenn, despite the administration’s wishes, is referring to Obama’s $90 billion, 10-year “Bank Responsibility Fee” as a “tax.” Because it is.

Not-so-good: Kuhnhenn claims that the administration’s thinly disguised plunder of others’ financial resources is “populism straight out of Frank Capra’s ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.’” I missed the part in that movie where Jimmy Stewart ran to the government to get it to extract money from Potter’s bank.

Update: Also see this related NewsBusters entry.


Marciaer, Martha — Coakley has called in John Kerry to help salvage her campaign. Because Mr. Teresa Heinz is so in touch with average voters’ concerns.


Mark Steyn (“The Scott Heard ‘Round the World”; internal link in original):

On Sunday, the President veered between dull and really, really lousy. He did what he did with his Olympics pitch in Copenhagen – he took the extraordinary step of flying in to save the day, and then when he got there thought he could wing it. He, or at any rate his minders, should know by now that his rhetoric is seriously underperforming – “incoherent without his teleprompter and a bore with it“. Yet his staff allow him to stagger around as the last believer in his own magic. What sort of functioning pol would be so careless as to say “Everybody can own a truck”?

The answer to Steyn’s question: “The same guy who almost blows an election by making fun of a plumber.”

Continuing with Steyn:

Very foolishly, Obama both underlined the regal hauteur of the Massachusetts machine – and simultaneously nationalized the election by portraying it as a referendum on the Hopeychange. If Martha now loses, he can’t plead it’s nothing to do with him.

Now it’s ALL about Him (Obama), Them (Pelosi, Reid, and the Democrat-controlled Congress), and this: