Mass. Loss = ABC (Another Bad Candidate)
I do not live in Massachusetts, but like every other would be political observer, I have been paying attention. Mike Allen over at Politico wrote that President Obama plans on being combative if Martha Coakley loses the special election for the Mass. Senate seat today. The consensus is that Obama’s mid-term swoon has begun and the health care bill is going to be the first casualty.
I think it’s too early for Republicans to start dreaming of a rout in November and the Democrats for envisioning a nightmare that will make 1994 seem like a bump in the road. How about we put the cause of this loss firmly on the people who caused this to happen? The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) DSCC and Martha Coakley.
The DSCC never even approached the possibility that a Republican could win the seat held by the late Ted Kennedy. Kennedy was elected to that seat a month after the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Democrats thought they could run anyone for that seat – they were wrong. The point is: Martha Coakley was a bad candidate and bad candidates lose.
In 2002, after running Maryland for decades, Democrats were in a similar position. The party thought they could run anyone and win the Governor’s mansion so they nominated their Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and they lost to Republican Bob Ehrlich.
Obama needs to be careful here. If he chooses to overreact, he may fan the flames of dissent higher and help to cause the Republican landslide he fears. Instead of alienating voters, and motivating Republicans, Obama and the DSCC should spend their time finding better candidates to run for office.
30 Responses to “Mass. Loss = ABC (Another Bad Candidate)”
Yup, like Brown said, it was not Ted Kennedy's seat, it was the seat of the people of Massachusetts, the democrats forgot that.
If a loss ended up encouraging the dems to start playing hardball, then it might be worth it, but how many wakeup calls they need before they stop hitting the snooze button?
Will the Dems learn their lesson elsewhere in the USA? They have tried go too far left, too quickly for the mainstream's comfort (if the mainstream accepts much of what is being sought at all). While the fringe is unhappy that the Dems aren't extreme enough, and the Dems are in this predicament from the mistake of extremism and overreach, there's still a chance that a few of them will show at least some intelligence, and the ability and willingness to reason. They don't want to continue to the point where they effectively are handing offices as well as power to Republicans routinely in the future, do they?
The problem the Dems are having right now is they are believing their own spin. Such as bad candidates lose elections anything to protect the delusions they have built up about themselves. Let us throw Marcia under the bus its her fault not Obamas Health Care. Her opponent, evidently the good candidate, turned this into a referendum on the Health Care Bill. If the Dems continue to be asleep and refuse to listen to what people are saying it will be their own fault that the Republican's realize their dreams in November.
Yeah lets turn this into a game of hardball. Obama already tried this with the Fox News network and got the bat stuck in his you know what. I have got to go now and buy a Boston Red Sox cap. Something about that big red B that I like.
“it was not Ted Kennedy's seat”
Those libs and Dems who viewed it as such were not only imperious but showing the typical lib-Dem lack of reason — Ted Kennedy no longer exists! This is stasis, and a stellar example of not only reactionary behavior in some places since 1980 by libs and Dems, and stasis (and the fringe likely to hold this view misuses “progressive” to describe itself — [snicker]) associated with rigid PC conformity.
I don't agree that the democrats have been too far left. In fact I believe the democrats, more pointedly Obama has tried to be too moderate. The GOP has been highjacked by the far right, anyone left of them is considered a liberal, McCain was too liberal for them and they blame him and his liberal ways for losing the election. They don't want moderate, they want right, very right.
The democrats need to stop playing nice, nice and trying to win those people over, its not going to happen. The GOP is very adept at painting the oppostion as less than american, less patriotic and flat out trying to ruin all that the heartland holds dear. They paint a false picture but their base believes it.
I am a fairly moderate liberal, only a bit to the left, I can appreciate what Obama is trying to accomplish but being the nice guy is not going to cut it. The GOP has demonstrated that fully, they will not work with him in any manner. The democrats might as well live up to what the right is saying and go ahead and push through their agenda. The right did what they wanted, the people be damned. I do think what is sad is that the moderates in this country and I believe they are real majority are the losers.
“The GOP has been highjacked by the far right”
This has always been false. There are social conservatives (that “base”) influencing it, but few of these are truly “far right.” (The same is true for the Religious Right.)
“The democrats need to stop playing nice, nice and trying to win those people over, its not going to happen.”
Hopefully you'll learn what's really happening sometime. The Dem leadership needs to learn, certainly.
A point that is obvious . . . . . to anyone who isn't far right to begin with.
This has always been false. There are social conservatives (that “base”) influencing it, but few of these are truly “far right.” (The same is true for the Religious Right.)
I have to disagree with you, DLS. I think this is a topic where both parties have the proverbial logs in their eyes. The GOP willingly let go many fiscal conservatives and moderates in the Bush era while the Democrats currently demonize the moderates in their own ranks. Both parties have become rigid and intolerant.
I have to wonder how long the GOP excitement over Scott Brown will last once he casts a vote that doesn't toe the GOP line. He still has a constituency to keep happy (assuming he wins of course) and I can see him being in the Collins/Snowe/Chafee mold.
Wow, the votes aren't even counted yet and the liberals are already conceding defeat and scapegoating poor Marcia Coakley. Errr… Martha Coakley.
No more Mr. Nice guy is it. First the Democrats lock the doors and now try to blame the Republicans as obstructionists. That is not even logical. I'm not that conservative, only a bit to the right, and for that I have been called every name in the book by Mr. Nice guy's internet thugs. Bring it on. Wake up he has been playing Hard Ball all along. His really nice supporters were just too enthralled with his carisma to notice.
The liberal Democrats have hijacked the right to speak for the people. Today is a referendum on who will have a right to speak for the people. Only 20% of the population of the United States identify themselves as liberals. Only in arrogance can they claim to speak for the people. “We're doing this for the good of the people, who are obviously too stupid to know what is good for them” is the only message I'm getting from the left.
“the votes aren't even counted yet and the liberals are already conceding defeat”
What, wait for a close race actually to be decided?
You don't expect them to be logical this time, any more than any other time?
Or patient?
Well, look at how they rush to “spin” everything, like the earlier crack-up of the health care “reform” effort and what they had to say about the later legislation, dancing to affix a good image on it.
In this case, the Massachusetts race, they weren't prepared, it seems, to employ traditional Dem “XtraVotes” in the cities.
Now it'll be even funnier if somehow Coakley wins and they have to reverse themselves to present their “spin” on “the miracle of Massachusetts” without admitting why it would now be a miracle.
[chuckle]
“I have to disagree with you, DLS. I think this is a topic where both parties have the proverbial logs in their eyes. The GOP willingly let go many fiscal conservatives and moderates in the Bush era while the Democrats currently demonize the moderates in their own ranks. Both parties have become rigid and intolerant.”
It's in no way “far right” simply because (to me) the GOP has suffered at the popular level from favoring the traditionalist conservatives (which might make concessions to Big Government in law enforcement or security) at the expense of “fiscal conservatives” (the libertarian types like me, who want Washington downsized to constitutional dimensions and neutered — limit its functions to its true core functions, and do these well, but efficiently).
“I have to wonder how long the GOP excitement over Scott Brown will last once he casts a vote that doesn't toe the GOP line. He still has a constituency to keep happy (assuming he wins of course) and I can see him being in the Collins/Snowe/Chafee mold.”
Just now I thought about Father Time's remark about filibustering and thought — what if Brown gets to be the guy who speaks at the GOP's first filibuster after this election? Hope he doesn't blow it. Note that the filibuster made me think about the problem with the GOP still in effect — it has to offer a good, clear alternative to the Dems (something it did the reverse of in past years, which why is why it was given no-confidence votes in 2006 and 2008). All the predictable largely-bogus wailing by liberals about “the Party of No” (obstructionists) doesn't negate that there actually is a concern with that, and opposing the Dems isn't enough for the party to define itself and present an alternative.
Sadly, I see the GOP is merely a lesser of two evils with not much if anything truly to recommend it, otherwise, indefinitely, at this time. They're a good anti-Dem choice on the ballot box, but that's it.
Actually if you remember the Brady Bunch DaMav the name Marcia is a pretty good fit.
If Brown had to face some social legislation, you would be correct. Remember, however, Obama sets the agenda and he has to set it to try and save his own bacon first. That means economy to the point of sending cap and trade, immigration, DODT, Cardcheck and any further healthcare manipulation into the midterm crapper.
Brown and all the other NE Republicans can politically afford to be ficons in this day and age if Obama goes too much into more big government spending solutions.
The more interesting conundrum is the likelihood that Obama copycats Sarah Palin and goes populist. How the Rs vote on populistic measures will be have more potential pitfalls.
Bottom line—so cons have to sit the rest of the term out. They may make noise and TMV editros will write about it as if it some sort of consequential matter, but just like they've been clueless this past year, they will likely remain so.
Funniest one I've read all day.
Don't mistake the rhetoric you read online for actual slogging in the trenches. If the D's have been playing hard ball all along, then they might as well disband the party.
Anyway I agree with you DLS the Republicans must learn from past mistakes. The is not an election to return the GOP to its past glory as the “Contract for America”didn't turn out so good in the end. If the Republicans win big in the fall they better become a younger smarter GOP, with room for everyone. For it a much better situation for the Republicans to be able to argue with themselves than to be sitting out in the hall and peeking in through the keyhole.
I am enjoying this election now that I am an Independent. Since I don't really have a dog in this race I see things from a different perspective. All I hope is that good will come to our Country from this election. That we will stop bickering with each other and stop labeling and stereotyping everyone else with a differing opinion. We must really listen to what others are trying to communicate in order to actually understand them. After all these years I am still an idealist at heart; but I sometimes fall into cynicism at times especially when it comes to politics.
Amusing to see such heartfelt concern for bipartisanship and communications standards being confessed to one of the most cynical and gratuitously insulting commenters in this forum. In your defense New Cat, you probably haven't been here long enough to appreciate the irony.
“I have to wonder how long the GOP excitement over Scott Brown will last once he casts a vote that doesn't toe the GOP line.”
I thought about this election again while on the road (it was amusing listening to what the “progressives” on Thom Hartmann's show had to say in their alternative universe) and I wonder what hopes or plans the GOP really has for Brown other than for him to displace a Dem and make news voting No on health care legislation, if it comes up for a vote (or possibly they'll herald him as the Man Who Stopped the Health Care Takeover, though Mass voters technically would deserve credit for that). His term in that office is limited and I suspect many believe he's already going to be replaced with a Democrat next time.
Call me stubborn, but I remain reluctant in being convinced of any GOP movement. The public is sick of the Dem overreach (and ineptitude), but it's not adoring of the Republicans. (If the Dems chose both to muzzle their dippy left wing, and start making sound decisions, that substantial increase in sensibility might convince voters to stay with them in November. Can or will they learn and act accordingly, though?)
“The is not an election to return the GOP to its past glory as the “Contract for America”didn't turn out so good in the end.”
In fact, you identify a problem. The past two elections (2006, 2008) were not pro-Dem but anti-GOP. And, in fact, they were in large part anti-GOP because the GOP was behaving the way Dems have been known for behaving (in general since the 1930s, and notably since the 1960s), happy with Big Government, happy to grow and expand and reach into where the feds don't belong, and spend, spend, spend (the most important thing). And that, in turn, points back to what you have stated. In fact, the public in 1994 loathed the lunge to the left that the Clintons attempted (even their mere rhetoric was highly inflammatory or toxic to the mainstream), compounded by other misconduct. The Contract with America (slandered by the sewer) was a great public relations strategy — not merely a tactic, but a strategy, at pushing back not only at the post-1992 lurch but at tasks left far from finished in the 1980s.
But what happened then? The “revolution” proved to be nothing of the kind. Once in power, the GOP lost their desire for reform as they enjoyed the possession of power. Gingrich — book contract (which was a lousy seller, and the book had unpleasant details in it that revealed more, not less, government power over us). Since then, the GOP gradually has been more and more like the Dems, favoring a different set of special interests, but happy to spend and happy with excess size and power in Washington.
It's that which has turned off many of us to them. They are a lesser evil than the Dems, but that doesn't constitute a “seal of approval.”
I think this race, as well as the comments on it (both on the net and from the pros) demonstrates a problem often faced by hard core partisans on either side as well as living in one party states.
I saw Ed Shultz today lamenting that 'he couldn't understand' how independent voters could have shifted from Obama to Brown. I've seen similar comments from many on the left who seem sincerely unable to conceive that people of intelligence and good intentions could actually disagree with them (to be clear, this is also a plague of many on the hard right, but most of the comments right now are understandably coming from the left).
When you adopt that kind of a view it's easy to see where you can lose touch. If it is totally beyond your mindset that your side could be wrong or that you could have made mistakes, etc then it's very hard for you to correct those mistakes. The GOP faced a lot of that during the later Bush years and I think now some on the left are facing the same problem as they are in power.
In Coakley's case, it's even worse because given the partisan nature of the state (I know most voters are independents but Democrats dominate the state, they run 90% of the seats in the legislature) she's never actually had to work for a vote so now she's befuddled.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, PostRank – Politics. PostRank – Politics said: Mass. Loss = ABC (Another Bad Candidate) http://topblo.gs/73q9Hq #postrank #politics [...]
“After all these years I am still an idealist at heart; but I sometimes fall into cynicism at times especially when it comes to politics.”
Just wait until you get older and wiser, and more experienced in life. You'll be more cynical, as well as almost certainly more conservative. (Possibly not traditionalist or authoritarian, but more libertarian.)
Word already coming out of the Coakley camp about 'voter fraud' and how they may need to investigate.
Sounds to me like bad exit polling
[...] Mass. Loss = ABC (Another Bad Candidate) (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
I couldn't agree more. It's time to fight fire with fire. The GOP, or extreme right, as they're both the same, has been vehement and aggressive in their tactics and it's time those of us who are not “far right” to band together as the majority we are and stop the momentum before it becomes a bigger train wreck than it already is. America is NOT property of the right…it is the right, the left and everything in between. It's time American was really taken back, not handed on a silver platter to the right with a kind nod and smile.
LOL. The wiser part will probably never happen with me. Also I am 61 when can I expect the cynical to kick in? Honestly though I have become much more conservative over the past few years. I am also cynical in regard to politicians. I expect the worst from politicians while at the same time I hope I am wrong.
” I expect the worst from politicians while at the same time I hope I am wrong.”
That's what's known as real Hope, not a vague Feeling Better as in Obama's campaign, or wanting to back to the New Deal, back to good, old-fashioned Keynesnian economics (the stimulative part, that would never end), and other romantic-regressive goals the lefties are expressing on Randi Rhodes's show and elsewhere (Thom Hartmann's) right now — they still believe the problem is that the Dems are too timid and not leftist enough. (“Put all the bankers in jail…”)
Incidentally, I view very cynically, for example, the proposal now being exposed by Obama to have a bi-partisan Deficit Panel, to determine how to reduce the deficit, which Obama and the Dems have grown to gargantuan proportions. To me the bipartisan cover is just political cover for the new taxes and the higher taxes that they want, to support even more spending (and help reduce the size of what would be even larger deficits). I have no confidence in such a thing at all, and consider it either just a stunt for PR or cover for “discovering” a “need” for more taxes, naturally to be favored over spending controls and worse, reductions.
I would be hopeful that this might be an opportunity to reform Social Security and Medicare, which are unsustainable in their current forms, and of course will cause all kinds of worse problems for the federal government once redeeming the “trust fund” bonds begins. But by today's standards, that would be hopelessly idealistic — though it's the perfect opportunity. (Maybe this is cover for “discovering” the need to reform these programs. But Obama publicly stated many months ago there was a need to do this, and he and the Dems never did this, which with health care in particular was bad, for logically the Medicare program should have been reformed prior to expanding federal health care for others, not to mention taking money from Medicare to pay for the expansion.)
I guess I am not conservative enough to think that to “Put all the bankers in jail…” is a necessarily a bad idea, maybe throw in a few lawyers to boot. Hope you are not a banker or a lawyer.
On the deficit I'm right with you (I think). Fix the deficit + encourage job growth = good economy. Also don't punish the job creators with regulation with will discourage job growth such as Cap and Trade. It is a global economy the job creators can just more to China; where they can blow smoke out of their chimneys like they did in the 19th century. Good idea and then our workers can just sit around collecting their unemployment checks. By the way I've been a union member since 1973 and every one I know would much prefer to have a job than take the dole. Green jobs my arse lets see them first.
Power to the people, except bankers! ?
“Hope you are not a banker or a lawyer.”
I'm neither.
“Fix the deficit + encourage job growth = good economy. Also don't punish the job creators with regulation with will discourage job growth such as Cap and Trade.”
The Dems can't be trusted with a carbon tax in place of Cap and Trade, either. There actually could be a use for such a tax, but the Dems would let their politics override reason, again, and want to punish all non-PC energy use with cripplingly excessive energy taxes. (Exempting themselves and their favored interests, PC or not PC, that is.)