It’s almost like the scene in the movie “Pleasantville” when a whole world goes from black and white to vivid color. In this case, the world has gone PINK. Big Pink.
Ah, the power of change. Not fake change, which bamboozles temporarily, but real change which sweeps clean like a fast moving punch wave of water.
* * * * *
The lesson? After Massachusetts, permission has been granted by the “high information”, “liberals”, and “not racists” of the Bay state to politically open fire on the flim-flam scam man from Corrupt Chicago. Obama is now under attack by people he fooled, tricked, for votes. Big Media reports note that Obama will attempt to grab the anger and frustration from Scott Brown. But the old tricks no longer work. Reuters reported the story of Obama’s latest flim-flam, and Politico did the analysis:
Reuters reports that Tim Geithner may have, as it were, pulled a Goolsbee — letting bankers know that President Obama’s populist posturing is, more or less, just that:
President Barack Obama’s newest Wall Street crackdown was met with hesitation from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is concerned that politics could be sacrificing good economic policy, according to financial industry sources.
Goolsbee, during the campaign, allegedly mentioned to a Canadian official (accurately, if he did) that Obama didn’t really plan to mess with Nafta. But while there isn’t much in the way of left-wing populism inside the Obama administration, there is a strain — represented by Volcker and Goolsbee — of economic thinking that has far less affection for Wall Street, and faith in the Street’s warnings of calamity, than do the people who have run policy to date, Summers and Geithner.
They call it “posturing” we call it what it is, “flim-flam scam”. Who’s right?
Charles Krauthammer sees the flim-flam, just like we do:
After Coakley’s defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
Let’s get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.
And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.[snip]
Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don’t Mirandize terrorists. Don’t raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.
The reason both wings of American liberalism — congressional and mainstream media — were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they’d spent Obama’s first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.
You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections.
The evidence was unmistakable. Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.
One of the top Kooks at DailyKooks appears to admit we have been right about the historic mistake made by Democrats in 2008. We’ve talked about how Obama’s Dimocrats threw out the winning FDR Hillary Clinton coalition in exchange for the “situation comedy” coalition. A Kook at Huff n’ Puff, too late, now sees what we saw so long ago. Here’s what the slowly awakening Kook says:
Political observers surprised by the Democratic Party loss in the Massachusetts Senate election last night should take a second look at the trouble Barack Obama had attracting so-called “lunch-bucket” voters in the 2008 presidential primaries. The problem that once plagued the campaign of candidate Obama has now metastasized to the whole party of President Obama. It took one year for that to happen and the consequences could be dire for the Democrats.
The Kook does not want to actually acknowledge “white working class” voters. The euphemism is “lunch bucket”. But have no doubt, the white working class voters Obama purposefully snubbed in 2008, are now in full snub mode:
But remember it they should, because the story of Obama’s failures in presidential primary states like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts was remarkably similar to the story coming out of last night’s loss in the Senate race.
Reporting in March of 2008, NPR’s Mara Liason observed, “Sen. Barack Obama, who has built his string of victories with the support of upscale affluent voters, is now trying hard to win support from the so-called “lunch-bucket” Democrats.” Liason then when on to quote one voter in particular who summed up this “lunch-bucket” perspective on Obama in 2008:
“She just seems more in touch with people than Barack Obama does,” he says.
The “she,” of course, was Hillary Clinton, who won her way into the hearts and minds of white working-voters with a few shots of whiskey and a relentless focus on Main Street issues. Try as he might, Obama never managed to become a symbol that lunch-bucket Democrats took as their own. While the impact of that vote was diminished in the fray of the national election against McCain, the x-factor of the lunch-bucket Democrats remained in play.
We wrote repeated that Republicans should learn the lessons of Hillary Clinton and benefit from those lessons. That obvious fact is clear even to the Kooks:
If the right-wing should be credited with one accomplishment in 2009, it is turning the lunch-bucket albatross of one Presidential campaign into the symbol of the entire Democratic Party. That transformation was bound to happen eventually, but News Corp made it happen in under twelve months.
As a result, when lunch-bucket voters looked at Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race, they saw a symbol of elites who speak for vested interests rather than working families. They saw, in other words, the same candidate they did not trust in the 2008 Presidential primaries. And seeing that symbol, they either stayed home or flocked to the opposition’s “anti-government” anger. Either way, the lunch-bucket voters were the decisive factor in the Coakley loss.
The Kook thinks the credit belongs to News Corp which shows the limits of the “creative class” boobs to acknowledge the intelligence of the white working class. The bottom line is that the Democratic Party made an historic mistake when its establishment gifted the nomination to Obama and attacked Hillary Clinton – the champion of the working class and specifically the white working class.
The Kook prescribes more deficit spending and more, much more, publicity stunts. It won’t work. Obama snubbed the white working class and the white working class is snubbing right back.
Patrick Buchanan understands the potency of what we have been writing about for so long. Scott Brown understood what we have been writing about for so long.
What explains the white surge to the GOP?
First, sinking white support for Obama, seen as ineffectual in ending the recession and stopping the loss of jobs.
Second, a growing perception that Obama is biased. When the president blurted that the Cambridge cops and Sgt. James Crowley “acted stupidly” in arresting black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates – a rush to judgment that proved wrong – his support sank in white America and especially in Massachusetts, where black Gov. Deval Patrick joined in piling on Crowley. Deval is now in trouble, too.
Buchanan notes that Hillary Clinton “clobbered Obama in the 2008 primary, though the Kennedys were in Obama’s corner.” Buchanan then goes to our argument once again:
The Scott Brown Democrats were the Hillary Democrats were the Reagan Democrats.
But if McDonnell, Christie and Brown could roll up large enough shares of the white vote to win in three major states McCain lost, why did McCain lose all three?
Answer: In 2008, the working and middle class had had a bellyful of the Bush-McCain Republicans. They were seen as pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and pro-NAFTA, when U.S. workers had watched 5 million manufacturing jobs disappear in a decade – and reappear in China. They were willing to give Obama a chance because Obama had persuaded them by November he was not just another big-spending utopian liberal.
Scott Brown Democrats, Hillary Democrats, Reagan Democrats – also known as the FDR winning coalition.
At the Huffington Post, blogger and MSNBC analyst Craig Crawford rocked the boat with a cross posted article provacatively titled ‘What If Hillary Had Won?’
One of the comments from a PUMA: “Would it have made a difference if an inexperienced unqualified pilot had landed in the Hudson instead of Sully? Of course it would have made a difference.”
Craig Crawford asked a question he knows the answer to. Craig answered his own question:
I’ll admit it. I was a bit wimpy in posing this post as but a question. Truth is I totally believed that Democrats were utterly foolish to choose a political neophyte they barely knew.
Craig Crawford was a regular on television before the primaries, before he let on that he was not a Hopium guzzler. Craig Crawford did not guzzle the Hopium, so Craig Crawford disappeared.
Even the gossip mongers know Hillary beats Obama any day of any year:
And my political strategist, by the by, is also not only fully aware I voted for Ms. Clinton in the primary, she also appears to be seeing why I was such a fan of H.C. in first place:
“I totally agree with you. If Hillary had been elected, people could at least agree or disagree on something, because the woman makes decisions, not just a bunch of bulls–t talk and jibberish that speechwriters turn out to make him oh-so-dreamy and hopey-changey.”
The air is seeping out of the Obama balloon. He has fallen to below 50 percent in the poll approval ratings, a decline punctuated by his party’s shocking loss in the Massachusetts special election.
His promiscuity on TV has made him seem as if he is still a candidate instead of president and commander in chief. He—and his advisers—have failed to appreciate that national TV speeches are best reserved for those moments when the country faces a major crisis or a war. Now he faces the iron law of diminishing novelty.
Despite this apparent accessibility, Obama’s reliance on a teleprompter for flawless delivery made for boring and unemotional TV, compounding his cerebral and unemotional style. He has seemed not close but distant, not engaged but detached. Is it any wonder that the mystique of his presidency has eroded so that fewer people have listened to each successive foray? The columnist Richard Cohen wryly observed that he won the Pulitzer Prize for being the only syndicated columnist who did not have an exclusive interview with the president.
Poor results. But Obama’s problems are more than a question of style. There is doubt aroused on substance. He sets deadlines and then lets too many pass. He announces a strategic review of Afghanistan, describing it as “a war of necessity,” only to become less sure to the point that he didn’t even seem committed to the policy that he finally announced. As for changing politics in Washington, he assigned the drafting of central legislative programs not to cabinet departments or White House staff but to the Democratic congressional leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the very people so mistrusted by the public. Who could be surprised that the critical bills—the stimulus program and healthcare—degenerated under a welter of pork and earmarks that had so outraged the American public in the past?
One year ago Obama promised to close Guantanamo prison (during the campaign it was ‘close Guantanamo in 100 days’). Guantanamo is still open. Obama promised to meet without preconditions, anytime, anyplace, with dictators. Thanks to Hillary that naive foolishness was not accomplished.
Peggy Noonan, who did her best to destroy and libel this website, now agrees with us:
In 2008, the voters went for Mr. Obama thinking he was not a Nut but a cool and sober moderate of the center-left sort. In 2009 and 2010, they looked at his general governing attitudes as reflected in his preoccupations—health care, cap and trade—and their hidden, potential and obvious costs, and thought, “Uh-oh, he’s a Nut!”
Another Big Pink hating website, Politico, now sings the praises of Bill Clinton and sees Bill as the light and the way:
WWCD: What Would Clinton Do?
That’s not a question that President Barack Obama and his team of loyalists from the 2008 campaign are prone to ask, because they don’t much care about the answer.
It is an irony of the Obama administration — given that it is staffed with so many people with high-level experience during Bill Clinton’s presidency, including one Cabinet member named Clinton — that its basic attitude toward Clinton-style governance is hostile.
Obama and White House aides are courteous to the 42nd president when he calls, but in private many of those aides sound very much like George W. Bush’s advisers in disparaging the Clinton years.
The people around Obama are romantics. They dream of Obama as a transformational figure, looming large on history’s stage. They see Clinton as at best a transitional figure, whose poll-tested pragmatism and incremental policies loom small.
Imagine the level of stupidity that thinks of Obama as “transformational” or “looming large on history’s stage”. Pre-teens, tweens, and early teen-agers have more sense. Or maybe not, but they can be excused for youthful naive inexperience. Vote enfranchised adults cannot be excused.
The Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts has exposed the Democratic Obama foolishness in 2008. There will be Hell to pay for that foolishness in the generations of Novembers to come.