Ignore Christine O’Donnell. She is either a wonderful heroic woman or a tawdry nutjob. She is either a sure loser (like Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, Sharon Angle, Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell), and a Tea Party/Palin mistake or a possible winner. None of that really matters.
What matters is the people. It is very possible, as many historians assert, that Marie Antoinette is a misunderstood historical figure. But the “real” Marie Antoinette does not matter. What matters was the tumult in the streets of Paris, not what was happening in the castle.
After last night if we are to lament, if we are to question, our lamentation and question should be “where are the Dimocratic carcasses hanging from the lampposts of revolutionary America?” In revolutionary France during the 1700s priests hung from streetlamps like Christmas decorations on a Macy’s tree. Where are our decorations? It’s only Republicans with the joy of such ghoulish decorations these days.
In New York last night, Republican streetlamps were heavy.
“Carl P. Paladino, a Buffalo multimillionaire who jolted the Republican Party with his bluster and belligerence, rode a wave of disgust with Albany to the nomination for governor of New York on Tuesday, toppling Rick A. Lazio, a former congressman who earned establishment support but inspired little popular enthusiasm. [snip]
“We are mad as hell,” Mr. Paladino said in a halting but exuberant victory speech in Buffalo shortly after 11 p.m. “New Yorkers are fed up. Tonight the ruling class knows. They have seen it now. There is a people’s revolution. The people have had enough.”
Referring to criticism from what he said were liberal elites, he added: “They say I am too blunt. Well, I am, and I don’t apologize for it. They say I am an angry man, and that’s true. We are all angry.”’
Paladino overwhelmingly crushed the Hillary hater Rick Lazio. Lazio was a sure loser to the $24 million dollar bankrolled Andrew Cuomo in New York, the last bastion of Obama Dimocrats (deep blue Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy and deep blue California leads a Republican resurgence).
Paladino is a likely loser in deep blue New York but that outcome is less a certainty with Paladino than with Lazio.
“Mr. Paladino’s platform calls for cutting taxes by 10 percent in six months, eliminating cherished public pensions for legislators, and using eminent domain to prevent the construction of a mosque and community center near ground zero. Those proposals could make Mr. Cuomo’s farthest-reaching reform ideas seem meek by comparison.”
In deep blue New York the loser was the Republican establishment and the overly public pensioned corrupt part-time legislators, both Democrats and Republicans (think Bell, California), which rule the state and loot the people’s treasuries. In Delaware the loser was the Republican establishment and those, like the Republican establishment FreedomWorks, who want to put a saddle on the Tea Party activists.
The Republican Party establishment is in retreat as the Tea Party “peasants with pitchforks” take to the streets and the ballot box. After last night’s peevish assaults on the results in Delaware, today the national party heads faced with a dripping red Guillotine, backtracked. After at least eight races in which their nominee was defeated the Republican establishment had better wake up and smell the brewing Tea.
Quisling Mark McKinnon knows it is indeed a revolution:
“Voters grabbed their pitchforks Tuesday night and came over the ramparts. The revolution has arrived. Republican primary voters Tuesday night in key contests in Delaware and New Hampshire and New York sent a clear message, in case anyone had missed it up until now: If you are part of the establishment, you better grab your goodies and get out of the castle while you can. [snip]
The attacks on O’Donnell were personal; she was “nuts.” The attacks on Castle were on his record; he was too liberal for some. The bitter GOP battle in Delaware for the Senate seat vacated by Vice President Joe Biden was a doozy. But it was a proxy war between the Tea Party and establishment GOP writ large in this small state. [snip]
The sound and the fury in Delaware are not signs of a party in disarray — they are signs of an engaged electorate who want to make a statement. GOP voter turnout was much higher than expected. While a RINO head mounted on the wall may be a trophy, a RINO seated in a chair in the Senate could have helped make a Republican majority. But voters were unwilling to settle.
By electing O’Donnell, voters in Delaware proved the Tea Party is now more than a movement — it’s become the driving force and voice of Republican voters.
Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen know it is a revolution. And as we have stated before it is a legitimate movement worthy of respect whether you agree with the aims or not. The mocking of the Tea Party movement by Obama Dimocrats has been foolish and alienates these activists even more. That the so-called “creative class progressives” cannot muster a movement with this much energy and accomplishment is what riles them into a frenzy of mockery and hate against the Tea Party. Rasmussen and Schoen explain the significance of the Tea Party movement:
“The Tea Party movement has become one of the most powerful and extraordinary movements in recent American political history.
It is as popular as both the Democratic and Republican parties. It is potentially strong enough to elect senators, governors and congressmen. It may even be strong enough to elect the next president of the United States — time will tell.
But the Tea Party movement has been one of the most derided and minimized and, frankly, most disrespected movements in American history. Yet, despite being systematically ignored, belittled, marginalized, and ostracized by political, academic, and media elites, the Tea Party movement has grown stronger and stronger.
The extraordinary turnout on April 15, 2010, at rallies across the country speaks volumes to the strength, power, and influence of the Tea Party movement, with more than 750 protests held across the country, demonstrating a level of activism and enthusiasm that is both unprecedented and arguably unique in recent American political history.”
Not able to understand a genuine grass roots movement when it bites them, Obama Dimocrats mocked and sniffed in derision. The mockery was especially loud from the Democratic establishment that gifted Barack Obama the nomination of the once great Democratic Party:
“In an April 15, 2009, interview, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “This initiative is funded by the high end — we call it Astroturf, it’s not really a grass-roots movement. It’s Astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.”
“[They are] evil-mongers” spreading “lies, innuendo, and rumor,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
When the elite looked, their first reaction was to say: “Well if it was real (which we really don’t believe it was), it is a one-time occurrence, it is no big deal, and it is worth neither our time nor attention.”
This was evidenced in the findings of an April 2010 study conducted by the Media Research Center, which found that ABC, CBS and NBC aired 61 stories or segments on the anti-spending movement over a 12-month period, and most of that coverage is recent.
“The networks virtually refused to recognize the tea party in 2009 (19 stories), with the level of coverage increasing only after Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts” in January, the report said, referring to the Republican’s win of the Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy.
The first reaction from political and media elites was that these were insignificant gatherings, just small numbers of people inflated by the media.
“It’s incredibly stupid,” said former Atlantic Monthly writer Matthew Yglesias on the early Tea Party movement.
“It can be expected from the margins, but it’s troubling to see it [The Tea Party movement] embraced and validated by more mainstream entities,” said writer Stuart Whatley in a post on the Huffington Post, April 14, 2009.
Next, they said that these protests were by no means spontaneous, that the Tea Party movement was not a legitimate grass-roots movement. Rather, it was being fed and fueled by conservative talk radio and cable television.”
Obama Dimocrats are rightly upset with the Tea Party movement because it is indeed a movement. David Kuhn today makes the point we have repeatedly made in our “Mistake In ‘O8” series that Barack Obama was a product of a singular economic event, not the product of a mass movement:
“The crash of our time came two years ago today. We know the economic story well. Lehman Brothers fell. The markets went with it.
But the political story of September 15 is barely known. That it made Barack Obama’s majority. That, two years later, it explains why the Democratic majority is on life support.
Recall the Obama hyperbole of November 2008. Talk of an enduring progressive majority. New York Times’ columnist Paul Krugman typified a corps of liberal analysts at the time. “We’ve had a major political realignment,” Krugman wrote. “[The] presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.” Krugman won a Nobel Prize in economics that same year. Yet even he disregarded how the economy made Obama’s mandate that day.
By March 2009, liberal analyst Ruy Teixeira wrote a report on the “New Progressive America.” It dissected the presidential electorate. How white, brown, black and educated voted. Everyone but bicycling Norwegians. Yet, as I noted then, the nearly 50-page report ignored the economy’s role. The lapse was, again, typical of the time and type.”
Obama Dimocrats want us to forget 2008. They fear the repercussions and consequences if our analysis is the correct one. And if we are right in our analysis, then indeed 2008 when Democrats ignored primary voters in order to gift Obama the nomination, was a tragic monumental Mistake of multi-generational proportions. In short, it was the the economic events of late 2008 that saved Obama, not a mass movement.
“We are now in another political time. The Democratic House could collapse in less than 50 days. Obama lost the majority long ago. And liberal analysts are running to economic explanations. Krugman has led the chorus. “It really is the economy, stupid,” he wrote this summer.
It’s an analysis that seeks to have it both ways. The economy is blamed in bad Democratic times. It’s ignored in good. This cognitive dissonance deceived Democrats most. It brought hubris when they were on top. It now brings denial. If Obama first won his mandate on progressivism and now lost it with the economy, then the “professional left” does not have to consider where its ideas went wrong.
Democrats 2008 victory was credited to a great politician, a great campaign and a greatly changing nation. Yet it was the economy that made Obama’s majority. Not necessarily his victory. But it’s in majorities that presidents claim mandates.[snip]
‘Many forget, after all, where McCain stood before the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. Gallup measured McCain ahead for 9 straight days until September 15. After that day, McCain never again led Obama. Obama had only won a majority once before September 15th. And that was at the peak of his convention bounce. After the stock market first crashed, Obama surpassed or met that 50-percent threshold 33 times.'[snip]
‘By the Gallup Poll’s tracking, Democrats were winning about 55 percent of the Hispanic vote before the first stock market crash. McCain was winning the college graduate vote. By September’s close, Democrats were winning roughly 65 percent of the Hispanic vote and college graduates.
Obama won nine states Bush took in 2004. But in six of those states, including Florida and Ohio, John McCain was ahead or tied prior to the first stock market crash on September 15. Nearly to the day of the dive, Obama rose in all nine states to soon sustain a national majority for the first time.”
It was not a mass movement but an economic crisis and a Big Media manufactured mass delusion that elected Barack Obama. It was an illusion:
“Perhaps Democratic leaders bought into the thesis of Teixeira and Krugman et al. Perhaps they ignored the fragility of Obama’s mandate. Disregarded Americans’ long tension with government. Believed Obama changed the electorate. September 15 reminds us that this was an illusion. And the whirlwind of this illusion is coming in November.“
Last night, as Republican voters burned the castles, Dimocratic leader Tim Kaine announced a “major announcement” to come which would delight the party faithful. Today, the announcement turns out to be a redecorated website.
At the center of the
Oval Office website redecoration is the new logo for Obama Dimocrats – a big “O” surrounding a little “D”. No doubt this is some sort of Maoist paean to Barack Obama and now the once great Democratic Party of FDR is the “O”bama Dimocratic Party.
To us however it is a call for Obama Dimocrats to continue to OD on death dealing Hopium peddled by an addled flim-flam con artist from Chicago.
Revolutions are messy things with setbacks and even foolish moves along the way. The Republican Bastille has been taken and the Republican Revolution is lopping off heads. On November 3, 2010 Democrats will rise up and swing their establishment priests from the lampposts or face never-ending deserved defeat and doom.
The Revolution started by the grassroots (which includes Independents and even some Democrats) to take back the Republican Party is on the march. Democrats who want the Party of FDR resurrected and who deplore the Cult of Personality of the OD Party better sharpen the pitchforks. “We have got to get it together.” The Revolution is here.