Search Box

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

This is a mea culpa?

President Obama sounded a grace note today after Scott Brown's election. Sorta.

He said Congress should not jam through a health care bill before Brown is seated.

Then he added, "Here's my assessment of just not the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but because of what's happened over the last eight years."

The last eight years? If Obama's assessment of the electorate's anger and frustration was accurate, Massachusetts voters would have voted in Martha Coakley. But his assessment was wrong. Which is why the voters elected Scott Brown.

Obama seems unable to mention a problem without blaming George W. Bush for it.

It was just the other day Obama said that the buck stopped with him. It sounded good when he said it.

But what he seems to have meant was, the buck stops here, for a moment, until I figure out how best to pass it along to Bush.


Anonymous said...

I heard a lot of Dem strategists saying that they hadn't done enough to pass the blame to Bush. I say they all desperately need hearing aids - the message from the electorate couldn't be louder or clearer.

John Craig said...

Guy --It's telling that they would say that. They are constitutionally unable to accept blame of any sort.

Anonymous said...

Great Post...perfectly correct, along with Guy's comment. These people should have learned at a young age what the term responsability means. They are unable to " Man Up" when they're wrong and find it easy to pass the blame onto someone else. Do they really think were that stupid to believe the spin ??
Mad Dog

John Craig said...

Tom --
Thank you; well, 47% were dumb enough to believe it.

Anonymous said...

Coakley (or the DNC) did run radio ads painting Brown as another Bush.

So we follow Obama's logic: people were angry with eight years of Republican G W Bush, so they voted for Obama (and more Democratic House and Senate seats). One year later the voters are angry so they voted for the Republican guy that Coakley painted as another G W Bush.

And Obama gets credit for being a smart guy. ( Obama can't claim this is an ongoing 'throw the bums out' phenomenon since in this case both candidates are new faces).

I am thrilled at Brown's victory, and hopeful that large scale health reform is dead.

I am a little puzzled by what happened in MA. This is the state that voted to keep their state income tax not long ago.

In the late 1980's there was a referendum on the prevailing wage law that assured people doing things like mowing lawns were paid several times the market rate. MA voters said 'yes, keep it'. At the time a friend (an engineering PhD) told me he voted for the prevailing wage law because he had a relative that benefited from it. I've always assumed that this was largely responsible for what went on in MA - so many were benefiting from the system, either themselves or friends and family, that they kept voting for the high tax, big government policies.

MA has already adopted a form a universal health care - were voters turning on the Democrats because Obama and the Democrats wanted to get as close as possible to national universal health care?

What part of the Obama / Democrat agenda did MA voters get so riled up about? Or was it Brown's charisma, or Coakley's gaffs and underestimation of Brown?

Whatever it was, I'm glad it happened.

- Ed

John Craig said...

Ed --
My take is it was both of those things, plus being fed up with what the Dems are doing in Congress.