For all those weeping great big conservative tears of regret that Scott Brown hopped on the Harry Reid jobs bill (a.k.a Stimulus 2 (Lite)), go back and read the things he said and how he said he'd vote. It should not surprise ANYONE that he, Snowe, and Collins voted for this bill. This is the best we'll get from Republicans in New England, and that's OK. Brown never wrapped himself in the conservative mantle, rarely espoused conservative rhetoric, and proudly calls himself an independent. Keep in mind--we took Teddy's seat--but we didn't fill it with Jim DeMint. We filled it with the best deal we could get.
Brown's big problem politically is that the more he comes (over time--remember, this is one vote) to vote like a Democrat, the greater will be the argument to replace him with one.
Showing posts with label Scott Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scott Brown. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Stop the Presses!!! (forever)
Is it any wonder newspapers are on their way to the "Defunct Industries" exhibit at the Smithsonian? This article from the Boston Globe elevates an obviously life-lacking geneologist's revelation that Senator-elect Brown is a 10th-cousin of President Obama to "breaking news" status and posits that this might be a portent of increased cooperation across the aisle.
Notwithstanding the pabulum that seems to fill more and more of ALL news outlets' media (TV especially), it seems that the days of newspaper reporters doing research, checking their facts and, even using proper grammar and spelling are becoming a distant memory. But what really irks me more than anything about this lazy journalism is that if there really is such a dearth of newsworthy activity that an article like this one makes the cut, do you 1st Amendment-Cloaked Idealists think you might take a peek at, oh, I don't know, maybe ONE OF THE WARS IN WHICH WE ARE ENGAGED? Do you think you might for a minute try to find out something about what the young men and women who haven't seen their families in a year are doing while Hollywood starlets OD on cocaine and diet pills, goofy-looking evening talk show hosts engage in their best impressions of girlfighting and geneologists yearn to discover common ancestry, however distant and irrelevant?
Why is it we have to search so hard to find stories of heroism among our troops? It's not as if heroism isn't occurring. MSM--here's breaking news for you. Bush is gone. It's okay to report good news from the front again. You could even twist it to make our new Commander-in-Chief look as if he's strong on defense. It's really okay now. Go ahead, it won't hurt. I promise.
Notwithstanding the pabulum that seems to fill more and more of ALL news outlets' media (TV especially), it seems that the days of newspaper reporters doing research, checking their facts and, even using proper grammar and spelling are becoming a distant memory. But what really irks me more than anything about this lazy journalism is that if there really is such a dearth of newsworthy activity that an article like this one makes the cut, do you 1st Amendment-Cloaked Idealists think you might take a peek at, oh, I don't know, maybe ONE OF THE WARS IN WHICH WE ARE ENGAGED? Do you think you might for a minute try to find out something about what the young men and women who haven't seen their families in a year are doing while Hollywood starlets OD on cocaine and diet pills, goofy-looking evening talk show hosts engage in their best impressions of girlfighting and geneologists yearn to discover common ancestry, however distant and irrelevant?
Why is it we have to search so hard to find stories of heroism among our troops? It's not as if heroism isn't occurring. MSM--here's breaking news for you. Bush is gone. It's okay to report good news from the front again. You could even twist it to make our new Commander-in-Chief look as if he's strong on defense. It's really okay now. Go ahead, it won't hurt. I promise.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Brothers In Arms
"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." -- President Obama, on the results of the Massachusetts Senate election
I submit that there's a slight difference; one was borne directly of the other - they do not share the same parent.
I submit that there's a slight difference; one was borne directly of the other - they do not share the same parent.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Meaning Of Scott Brown's Victory
Scott Brown pulled off one of the biggest political upsets in recent memory last night, coming from 30 points down in September to a five point victory in a state where registered Dems outnumber registered Republicans 3 to 1. We heard a lot about Massachusetts' vaunted "Independents" last night, but let's not kid ourselves--they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Here are a few things to take away from last night's victory:
1. Candidates matter. Brown and McDonnell in Virginia are the leading edge of the Republican candidate template. They should be positive, upbeat and smart--but not beat you up with their intelligence smart. They should be a guy you'd want to have a beer with, a guy you would want in the foxhole next to you, and when it comes right down to it--they should be the kind of guy you'd want representing you in court if you were falsely accused of something.
2. Issues matter. Healthcare played a big part in this campaign, but so did national security. Coakley mouthed the Obama line, Brown not so much.
3. It's never as bad as it seems; it's never as good as it seems. Fourteen months ago we were a devastated bunch--beaten soundly and in control of no branch of government. Things looked dim, very dim. But now look at where we are--the Party is on its way back, we're gaining traction, we're electing good candidates, and the national narrative is beginning to question move closely the policies and politics of the ruling cabal. Great news, right? Everything's going our way, right? Not so fast. The Democrats STILL hold large majorities in both chambers. Let's also not forget that part of the celebrating last night was born of the Republican Party's ability to filibuster in the Senate--putting aside for a moment that a MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THERE would have voted for the Obama plan! We've got a TON of work to do--there is no rest, there is no victory lap, there is not gold medal. There is only the responsibility of leadership and it is its own reward.
4. The President is popular; he is not influential. He has no coattails, and his agenda is not nearly as popular as his aura. There is little penalty to be paid in defying him--as long as he continues on this big-government path. BUT--if he does what Clinton did and tack to the right--mere resistance will not be rewarded.
5. The President's program is unpopular--but what is our program? The Republican Party must begin to articulate a program for governance that it will implement when and if it takes back Congress. It's time for a new Contract!
1. Candidates matter. Brown and McDonnell in Virginia are the leading edge of the Republican candidate template. They should be positive, upbeat and smart--but not beat you up with their intelligence smart. They should be a guy you'd want to have a beer with, a guy you would want in the foxhole next to you, and when it comes right down to it--they should be the kind of guy you'd want representing you in court if you were falsely accused of something.
2. Issues matter. Healthcare played a big part in this campaign, but so did national security. Coakley mouthed the Obama line, Brown not so much.
3. It's never as bad as it seems; it's never as good as it seems. Fourteen months ago we were a devastated bunch--beaten soundly and in control of no branch of government. Things looked dim, very dim. But now look at where we are--the Party is on its way back, we're gaining traction, we're electing good candidates, and the national narrative is beginning to question move closely the policies and politics of the ruling cabal. Great news, right? Everything's going our way, right? Not so fast. The Democrats STILL hold large majorities in both chambers. Let's also not forget that part of the celebrating last night was born of the Republican Party's ability to filibuster in the Senate--putting aside for a moment that a MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THERE would have voted for the Obama plan! We've got a TON of work to do--there is no rest, there is no victory lap, there is not gold medal. There is only the responsibility of leadership and it is its own reward.
4. The President is popular; he is not influential. He has no coattails, and his agenda is not nearly as popular as his aura. There is little penalty to be paid in defying him--as long as he continues on this big-government path. BUT--if he does what Clinton did and tack to the right--mere resistance will not be rewarded.
5. The President's program is unpopular--but what is our program? The Republican Party must begin to articulate a program for governance that it will implement when and if it takes back Congress. It's time for a new Contract!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
A Nice Take-down of the Coakley Campaign
Which includes this little nugget:
"So what's wrong with her opponent? Brown, voters are constantly reminded, is a Republican—a foreign virus in the Massachusetts body politic—and his talk of tax cuts echoes rhetoric employed by those mad Tea Party rubes. When he isn't conspiring with the knuckle-draggers, Brown is spending time at one of his "five properties," which includes an Aruba timeshare valued between $10,000 and $20,000. It's more than a little bizarre to accuse Brown of being too rich, too bourgeois, to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat."
"So what's wrong with her opponent? Brown, voters are constantly reminded, is a Republican—a foreign virus in the Massachusetts body politic—and his talk of tax cuts echoes rhetoric employed by those mad Tea Party rubes. When he isn't conspiring with the knuckle-draggers, Brown is spending time at one of his "five properties," which includes an Aruba timeshare valued between $10,000 and $20,000. It's more than a little bizarre to accuse Brown of being too rich, too bourgeois, to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat."
Monday, January 18, 2010
MA Senate Race
Scott Brown continues to show improvement in poll after poll as the race winds down, and some even have him slipping ahead. I'd prefer to just be shocked and hope he wins, rather than believe ANY poll that shows him ahead in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Massachusetts. That said, a couple of things:
1. It never ceases to amaze me the way the Democratic party has turned a murdering, womanizing, boozing boor into a saint, whose memory is now venerated.
2. This party of unions, this party of "working" people (a pet peeve as you well know), seems to have a problem with Scott Brown's having been a "truck driver". Why exactly?
3. I think what we're seeing in MA, as we saw in NJ and VA, is that Barack Obama has no coattails. While he is a personally popular man, voter turnout and enthusiasm among Democrats plummets when he's not on the ballot. Implications? Dems have nothing to fear in defying him. This could be a real opportunity for Republicans.
1. It never ceases to amaze me the way the Democratic party has turned a murdering, womanizing, boozing boor into a saint, whose memory is now venerated.
2. This party of unions, this party of "working" people (a pet peeve as you well know), seems to have a problem with Scott Brown's having been a "truck driver". Why exactly?
3. I think what we're seeing in MA, as we saw in NJ and VA, is that Barack Obama has no coattails. While he is a personally popular man, voter turnout and enthusiasm among Democrats plummets when he's not on the ballot. Implications? Dems have nothing to fear in defying him. This could be a real opportunity for Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)