Obama '08?

You sound like a nerd.

So, a Republican has convincingly won Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat. After opposing health reform. And supporting the waterboarding of terrorists. And appearing as a nude centerfold. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by three to one. And where Republicans haven’t won a Senate election since 1972. After a high-profile visit by President Obama. Who won the state by 26 points last year. But who now carries no political weight in the bluest state in the country. With vicious, public recriminations starting among Democrats even before election day. Following major losses in Virginia and New Jersey.

All of which led one popular Democratic blog to argue: “Why Massachusetts doesn’t matter.”

Well, it does matter. It means a president who no longer inspires political fear. It means moderate Senate Democrats -- such as Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln -- who now feel nothing but fear from angry voters. It means that cap-and-trade legislation and immigration reform are on life support. It means that Rahm Emanuel’s “big bang” theory of legislative liberalism is the most foolish political strategy in recent memory. It means that spending political capital on health reform instead of economic recovery and growth was a dreadful error. It means that a crisis that Obama didn’t want to waste has largely been wasted.


The response of prominent Democratic thinkers? "Since Americans think we are arrogant, let’s cram health reform down their throats, employing legislative trickery."
There is only one explanation for this remarkable turn of events. Americans thought Obama was a moderate. He certainly sounded like one. But now he is attempting to remake one seventh of the economy in a quick march of party-line votes. In the process, he has alienated independents in large numbers -- even in Massachusetts.

Obama now has the highest disapproval rating in the history of Gallup polling for a president entering his second year in office. He has been handed a series of political humiliations. If he takes all of this as motivation to “stay the course,” the humiliations have only begun.

By Michael Gerson | January 19, 2010; 10:54 PM ET

Obama didn't listen to the people, and he lost. That's what Bush did, and the country almost died.

I gather that the GOP platform is a return to Bush economics.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Obama didn't listen to the people, and he lost. That's what Bush did, and the country almost died.

Well finally you admit--or rather, logically imply-- Obama's amplified emulations of Bush's errors, if continued, will cause the country to finally die.

Excellent! Congratulations!

Advocate wrote:

I gather that the GOP platform is a return to Bush economics.

I gather the GOP platform will evolve to that which Palin, Brown and the Tea Party advocate be the new GOP economics.

Palin, Brown, and the Tea Partiers have no economic plan, except for the failed Bush policies.

Which principles of the Tea Party, pray tell were consistent whit those held by Washington, Adams, and Jefferson?

Marching on Washington to protest the government? Nope
Lying about legislation? Nope
Not understanding even the most basic ideas in the Constitution? Nope

Adams would have been all for trying terrorists in US courts. Adams might have even been willing to be their defense attorney. Where are the Tea Party leaders on that principle?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.