Let’s make sense of the Brown versus Coakley U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts, the
Democratic Dimocratic Left “Creative Class”, Mark Halperin’s latest book “Game Change“, the Tea Party Movement’s return to Boston after a few hundred years, and the growing NObama Coalition we talked about in January 2009.
In the wake of our article on the Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley race in Massachusetts (Victory In Massachusetts – Brown Versus Coakley) we have been accused of being “Libertarians”, “Republicans”, “stupid”, along with other nonsense assertions of non-fact. The “Libertarian” accusation was particularly humorous because it would have made sense IF we had endorsed the Libertarian Joe Kennedy in the Massachusetts race, and/or if we did not believe in the good sensible government can do (that’s why we supported Hillary Clinton’s HOLC and Universal Health Care Plan). The “Republican” accusation is also silly for anyone that has read this website for the past several years. Indeed, we considered ourselves left-of center Democrats. But stupid, we have never been.
“Stupid” is what now passes (we call them PINOs – Progressives In Name Only) for the Democratic Left. These modern day Leninists love to call themselves the “creative class”, in a paroxysm of egomania matched only by airheaded class “D” celebrities. The current Obama loving Dimocratic Left is “stupid” – very “stupid”.
These stupid creatures are really latter-day Leninists. These stupid creatures believe they, the comic book superhero style “creative class”, are the “revolutionary vanguard” sent down by celestial choirs to lead “the masses” and be adored by the proletariat. These stupid boys – and they are mostly boys and men who are terrified of women (with some Left Talking women who desperately want to be one of the boys) are extremely in need of self-reflection and a rational, and reality based, analysis of American politics.
How stupid is the “creative class” Dimocratic Left that loves to mock the Tea Party movement as “dumb redneck hicks” and “teabaggers”? The “creative class” is so stupid that they whored themselves for Barack Obama, thinking he was the “change” candidate. Now as they sit down and listen to audio tapes of the Mark Halperin book “Game Change” they realize they actually backed the establishment candidate. Self-styled revolutionaries whored themselves for the establishment – how dumb is that?
Our series of articles Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part I, Part II, and Part III discussed the big flaws in “Game Change” as well as the lessons to learn. While we doubt the speculations and bias in “Game Change” what cannot be denied is what is self-confessed by participants, now that the book is out: the Democratic Party establishment was the chief sponsor of Barack Obama’s candidacy and what forced him to run.
The public excuses in “Game Change” for gifting the nomination to Barack Obama and destroying Hillary Clinton is that Hillary could not win the election because she could not win men and the white working class.
Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination. He argued that Obama’s lack of experience might not be crippling; it might actually be an asset, allowing him to cast himself as a figure uncorrupted and uncoopted by evil Washington, without the burdens of countless Senate votes and floor speeches. [snip]
Obama had heard these arguments before from other senators. His friend and Illinois counterpart, Dick Durbin, was urging him to run, but that was to be expected. More intriguing were the entreaties he was receiving from New York’s Chuck Schumer. Schumer’s relationship with Hillary had always been fraught with rivalry and tinged with jealousy; though she was technically the junior member of the New York team in the Senate, she had eclipsed him in terms of celebrity and influence from the moment she arrived on the Hill. [snip]
The political handicapper in Schumer was fascinated by Obama’s potential to redraw the electoral map, a capacity Clinton surely lacked. In conversations with other senators and strategists in 2006, Schumer would make these points over and over. He made them to Obama as well, and repeatedly; in one instance Schumer even double-teamed him with Reid. Although Schumer was careful to signal that home-state decorum would prohibit him from opposing Clinton publicly—“You understand my position,” he would say—he left no doubt as to where his head and heart were on the question.[snip]
These were not the only senatorial voices importuning Obama. Daschle, too, was on the case, and so was a coterie of senators close to him, including Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, both of North Dakota. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Barbara Boxer of California, and even Ted Kennedy—all were nudging Obama to take the plunge. Their conversations with Barack were surreptitious, a conspiracy of whispers. They told him that 2008 was going to be a change election and that he uniquely could embody transformation.
Add Pelosi, McCaskill, Dean, Kerry, and the Democratic organizations to the anti-Hillary mob. Bamboozlement! A clan of corrupt and coopted establishment figures knew Obama could be MARKETED as a candidate of “transformation”. Bamboozlement! Inexperience became an asset. Not voting became a defense. A stooge was marketed as a leader.
The real Game Changer of course was Hillary Clinton who could unite African-Americans and the White Working Class Men and Women and Latinos and Women Independents and Republicans and truly transform the Democratic Party into a majority party for a long time. Hillary Clinton who won in Southern States with the enthusiastic support of men and who, according to exit polls, would have gotten more Republican votes in the general election and a bigger margin against John McCain than Obama was blocked BY THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT for their own power purposes.
Ted Kennedy, the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur, who had backed Obama for years and was a secret power (mocking Bill Clinton in secret with “hick” imitations and laughed because few knew that he, Ted Kennedy was no “neutral” but instead the power behind the stooge), gifted Obama the nomination and as part of the strategy smeared Bill Clinton as a racist. The establishment did their sleazy job well and the “creative class” dupes and dimwitted stooges went right along. How dumb is that?
* * * * *
Hillary Clinton supporters are the spearhead of the NObama coalition because we better than anybody know the content of Obama’s character. The main body of the spear, the lance, is the Tea Party movement. While Hillary Clinton supporters and the Tea Party movement have issue differences of some gravity, we are united in the NObama coalition. That cross-ideological merge is a necessary response to the manipulations, sexism, misogyny, deceptions and plots of the Democratic “leadership” stooge-masters who gifted unqualified stooge Barack Obama the Democratic nomination thereby imperiling the nation for their own cynical benefits.
The Tea Party movement, mocked as “rednecks” and “hicks” and the sexually leg-rubbing term “tea baggers” by the boys of the “creative class” has proven to be smarter than the stupid “creative class”. The Tea Party movement has not only removed a pro-Obama on healthcare Republican candidate in New York’s 23rd congressional district. The Tea Party movement almost carried a non-telegenic bore and skeleton fright Tea Party candidate to victory in that race.
In Florida, the Tea Party candidate is about to smash the popular ex-governor who was the Republican establishment candidate for U.S. Senate. In Massachusetts, the Tea Party candidate has moved a sure loss of a seat held by Ted Kennedy and John Kennedy for more than half a century into an historic, truly earthquake level race.
The Tea Party movement is what the “creative class” imagine themselves to be. The Tea Party movement is a powerhouse movement of grassroots citizens that is imposing its will on the Republican Party establishment and effectively opposing Barack Obama. The Tea Party movement is actually accomplishing its admittedly still inchoate goals. If Scott Brown wins, the Tea Party movement will have effectively written the template for all Republican candidates this November (and even some smart Democrats) as well as effectively control the Republican Party – whether the Republican Party establishment agrees or not.
The Tea Party movement, if Scott Brown wins, will be true and reborn to its inspiration, in the city of the first Tea Party – Boston. We saw the Tea Party movement as “strong” back in April (Weak Obama, Strong Tea). We understood the force and significance of the Tea Party movement back then too (The Meaning Of The Tea Parties: No Taxation Without Representation). The “creative class” of Dimocrats were too busy tittering and rubbing their legs with teabag jokes to recognize what was happening. The “creative class” is the “clueless class”.
In Massachusetts, the Hillary Clinton movement is meeting the Tea Party movement. What happens in Massachusetts will shape the still growing NObama coalition.
In our article Victory In Massachusetts – Brown Versus Coakley we posited that whatever the election results, next Tuesday, Hillary Clinton and her supporters will emerge victorious. Every day brings new evidence that only “lonely” and “racist” Bill Clinton can possibly save Martha Coakley. Whether Coakley is worth saving remains to be seen. A Coakley win will bolster Bill Clinton in his war with Big Media and Barack Obama and his thugs.
A victory by Scott Brown will effectively destroy Barack Obama’s useless administration and short-circuit all the plotters which gifted Barack Obama the Democratic nomination.
In our earlier article we gave some advice to Martha Coakley and her campaign. Today it is Scott Brown who deserves advice.
We have researched many websites and news sources to monitor the election in Massachusetts. We have noted one ugly note sounded by Scott Brown supporters on a few websites. Scott Brown is not the one to blame nor is his campaign. But we have noted that some Scott Brown supporting websites are engaging in ugly sexism and misogyny against Martha Coakley. Again, Scott Brown and his campaign are not to blame in any of this. The website owners are mostly not responsible for the sexism and misogyny directed against Martha Coakley. But the sexism and misogyny is oozing out in comments and in whispers. This has got to stop.
First of all, the sexism and misogyny is wrong and stupid and is more in line with the mindset of the “creative class” PINOs. The worse stereotypes of men as “mouth-breathers” and neanderthals is reinforced by some of the ugly sexism and misogyny we have read on some websites. The women who engage in calling Martha Coakley ugly names, from the worst of the world of rap music, demonstrate the lack of self-respect these women have towards themselves. This has got to stop.
Second of all, the sexism and misogyny hurt Scott Brown and Republicans and the Tea Party movement and alienates Hillary Clinton supporters. The sexism and misogyny hurt Scott Brown because he is not responsible for any of it and he does not need to go down that dirty Barack Obama road. If Scott Brown supporters want to be called right of center Barack Obama’s then keep up the sexism and misogyny.
Further, the sexism and misogyny will hurt, not only Hillary Clinton but Sarah Palin as well. The same whisper campaigns and stupid sexism and misogyny utilized to hurt Martha Coakley has been used against Hillary Clinton and will be used against other women candidates such as Sarah Palin. We have all, left and right, witnessed the sexism and misogyny employed by Dimocrats and Republicans against Democrat Hillary Clinton. We have all, left and right, witnessed the sexism and misogyny employed by Dimocrats and Republicans against Sarah Palin. It is time for all of us to recognize common interests. So, stop the sexism and misogyny. Stop it.
* * * * *
Martha Coakley to her credit has denied that Scott Brown will be prevented from immediate recognition as a Senator if he is elected. Coakley’s denial was not immediate and it has not been strong or repeated enough. That is hurting her whether her supporters and she like to hear it or not. For her own self interest she should vigorously denounce such a ploy. We wrote about this enough previously so we won’t belabor it, but this is hurting her a lot. The story is not going away and even Big Media outlets are reporting this sensational side line. This is not the only mistake she is making.
Martha Coakley is making mistakes and Scott Brown is taking full advantage of them. In the recent debate Coalkey declared Afghanistan to be free of terrorists. We doubt most Americans or even those in Massachusetts believe Al-Qaeda is not operating there. In advertisements Coakley allies and the Coakley campaign are tagging Brown as “pro-torture” because he wants military imprisonment for terrorists, not trials in civilian American courts. Whatever the merits of those positions as policy issues, the reality is that most Americans, even those in Massachusetts agree with Scott Brown. Why is Coakley’s campaign making this an issue? Is it to get out the alleged Democratic base? How does that work when a sufficiently significant part of the base too agrees with Brown? How does that help? The Coakley campaign needs a refresher course in the Paul Tully message box.
On terrorist trials 65% of Massachusetts voters agree with Brown. How does that help Coakley to make this an issue?
Scott Brown is also making a strong appeal in person and in advertisments to independent voters, which number more than Democrats or Republicans in Massachusetts. Coakley is pursuing a “base vote” strategy. This is at best confused and an abandonment of a huge amount of voters.
Whoever gets elected next Tuesday will be in office for two years only, then they will have to run for election again. That will be a presidential election year. But after next Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts there will be a nationwide contest this November. Coakley has clarified the situation for Dimocrats who are still thinking Barack Obama’s (non-existent) popularity will save them. Coakley recently said at a fundraiser:
“If I don’t win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats . . . Every Democrat will have a competitive race.”
Her defeat was also described as “Waterloo for health care.“
About that fundraiser, it was not exactly a sharp political move. Coakley, like Obama attacked lobbyists, but then went to Washington to take their money. Is this wise? Does this help?
Many groups are now spending money on the Massachusetts race. SEIU is spending $700,000 on advertisements which trashes Scott Brown’s “values”. Americans for Responsible Health Care is spending $200,000 in advertisements to trumpet the news that Scott Brown can be the 41st vote to stop Obama’s health scam. The DNC and DSCC are spending more that a million dollars to help Coakley. It’s all flim-flam because the race is Brown versus Coakley and healthcare scam versus a “NO” vote.
Frankly, the best outcome for Republicans would be for Scott Brown to win the election; the Dimocrats via trickery and chicanery to prevent Brown from his rightful place in the Senate; and via this snub of the voters Dimocrats pass the Obama health scam. This would mean the Republicans get the 41st vote against Obama; they run on “repeal” in 2010; they get no blame for blocking Obama and his scam; and the American people will be so furious at the skulduggery to pass the scam that Dimocrats will be decimated. Everyone will be happy but the American people and America goes further into Obama Hell.
Machinations by Republicans and Democrats is what has the country so fed up. This disgust felt by the American people is being exploited by a wily Scott Brown.
Scott Brown is even utilizing his daughters to exploit the fed up attitude the Tea Party movement represents.
Scott Brown is a wily politician who is ripe for the moment America faces. Above all Scott Brown, more so than Martha Coakley, understands the disgust Americans feel. Scott Brown is taking advantage of the moment and he is leading the NObama Coalition right now with a smile not a scowl. Americans understand now, the cynicism of Barack Obama, at some level. Americans know Obama proposes a debased version of plans he attacked – after making big deals with Big PhaRma and Big Insurance. Obama attacked McCain for having a better version of what Obama now proposes:
Obama attacked McCain for having a better version of what Obama now proposes:
Scott Brown is seizing the moment. Martha Coakley is letting the moment slip by. The Obama health scam which transfers vast amounts of wealth from Americans to Obama’s Big Money pals must be stopped. If Martha Coakley does not understand that simply fact, Scott Brown does.