A Slam Dunk In Massachusetts
Truth be told, a chimpanzee of no particular political persuasion could have scored more votes than either Brown or Coakley in Tuesday’s election.
For all the wild speculation going on in the world of American politics regarding Scott Brown’s surprise victory over Martha Coakley in Tuesday’s Massachusetts special senate election it appears that both the Republicans and the Democrats are struggling in their effort to spin what they clearly do not understand, meanwhile, Scott Brown, the newly elected Republican senator from Massachusetts is looking to inflate the victory to its fullest capacity and avoid the very plain and simple fact that his victory had nothing to do with the fact that he is just another elitist political hack of a different brand.
Many Republicans are claiming that Brown’s victory is a referendum on President Barack Obama. They seem to be operating under the delusional belief that what happened yesterday in Massachusetts was a demonstration of the American people’s anger at the Obama administration and their belief that the Republicans have something better to offer. The Democrats are still in a state of shock, and their preliminary attempts to force a perspective on the situation are still all over the road. Some of them are obviously fearful of having pushed the American voters too far and too fast, some of the more dense liberal legislators have offered the opinion that the people of Massachusetts were demonstrating their impatience with the inability of congress to get the health care bill passed and a few have already decided to turn tail and run in the hope that they can retain enough salvageable image to get re-elected later this year. We have to give them a bit more time than the Republicans; eventually they will get their stories in line, corral the would-be deserters and come out in a more cohesive manner. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were busy early Wednesday morning trying to solidify the liberal’s position on the loss, and before 9:00am they had both made statements to the effect that the Democratic Party has gotten the message from the Massachusetts” voters and that message was not to drop the health care legislation but to hurry up and get it done, a good indication that both of them are a clueless and out of touch as ever.
As far as the health care legislation is concerned, some analysts are now saying they don’t believe it will pass now that Brown has been elected. Many of the potential major beneficiaries of the proposed legislation have seen their stocks take a nosedive this morning as Wall Street reacted to the news. UnitedHealth’s shares dropped 1%, Aetna went down by 0.7%, Humana slipped 2.3%, Tenant Healthcare Corporation dropped 3.3%, Health Management stock fell 2.7%, and the amid the pharmaceutical companies, Novartis AG fell by 0.5%, Merck & Co. dropped by 0.8% and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. lost 0.7%, however, Wall Street is fairly confident that the losses are temporary and has been urging investors to not get too excited. Some of the major investment firms have upgraded the three pharmaceutical companies to a “buy” status while they are down because they are historically strong performers and will recover quickly because of the enormous profit margins they pull in and because they are well connected politically to the current administration and because they have most of the Democrats and Republicans in congress safely tucked away in their back pocket.
Despite the glee of one side and the fear of the other, both have missed the message sent to them by the voters of Massachusetts and that fact is made apparent by the speculative news reports that are falling out of the sky like a heavy winter rain.
Sure, the voters in Massachusetts were pissed off about the health care legislation, but it had nothing to do with the inability to get the job done. The people of Massachusetts already have universal health care coverage so the message was clearly not a referendum on health care.
Comparatively speaking, other than their political affiliation, there is little difference between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown. Coakley would have provided the constituents with the same pathetically disconnected level of representation that Kennedy gave them. In what may be one of the nation’s most politically lackadaisical states, a state whose population pretended not to notice the cloying stench of corruption emanating from Hyannis Port while they put Ted Kennedy in the US Senate nine consecutive times in a row, the people certainly couldn’t hold Martha Coakley in that much disfavor. Actually, until a week or so ago, Coakley was the front runner in the race and Scott Brown was still an underfunded nobody Republican state senator in a historically liberal part of the country. What changed and what, if anything, does it mean?
I honestly can’t speak with any authority for the voters of Massachusetts and I am not going to play the spin game and try to convince you that my opinion holds any particular merit over anybody else’s opinion, but I will say that it could be the result of a few things that seem to be pissing folks off more than usual. The list is long so I’ll just scrape the scabs off of six of them and leave the rest for another day.
1. It could be that because Martha Coakley is your standard shrew-faced evil witch who feels that divine intervention tagged her specifically as the one person on the planet qualified to tell others what they should and shouldn’t do and it is very possible that the voters in Massachusetts feel that they are doing the nation a favor by keeping her home.
2. The lack of support by Coakley’s potential constituents could be related to the role she played as the grand inquisitor in the Amirault witch-hunt. If you can’t abuse your authority by locking up entire families of innocent people what fun is there in holding a high public office?
3. Many of the voters in Massachusetts cast their ballots for Obama in 2008 because they wanted to see the changes he promised. Instead of change they got 12 months of Bush bashing, finger pointing and a heaping dose of more-of-the-same. This could be their way of telling the omnipotent one that he needs to either wake up and smell the coffee or start working on his resume.
4. Having endured Coakley’s embarrassing campaign strategy of lies, character assassination and personal attacks, the voters might have felt that if she needed Obama to come to the state and pull her ugly buns out of a fire she started and then threw herself into, then she wasn’t worth saving.
5. It might be that the people of Massachusetts have began the long painful process of realizing that, like the rest of the American people, they’ve been conned by both political parties and for the time being the best we can do is keep them busy fighting with each other while we figure out how to get rid of them all.
6. There is a distinct possibility that while many people in Massachusetts were willing to buy into some of the liberal’s quirkier characteristics, they did so under the commonly held belief that what the American liberals wanted was in the best interests of the nation as a whole and benefitted the American people. The current leaders of the Democratic National Party and the presidential administration of Barack Obama appear to be going above and beyond what would be considered necessary to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that they want to marginalize the influence of the U.S. by agreeing with the biggest and most out-spoken critics of America’s foreign policy, furthermore, their policy decisions and legislative proposals are exceedingly destructive towards the welfare of the American people. In simple terms, the people of Massachusetts might have been willing to support the DNC’s liberal agenda insofar as it strengthened the nation and benefited the American people, but the current trend is to shove a noticeably Marxist agenda down the throats of everyone and it is very difficult to make that appear beneficial.
While the precise reasoning for Tuesday’s surprising political switch in Massachusetts might be open for debate the relevant facts associated with the outcome of that election are clear and irrefutable. The facts alone speak far louder and with greater accuracy than any of the speculative news articles offering an explanation for Brown’s victory. Clearly, the facts indicate a significant change in the voter’s perception regarding the Democratic Party.
- After 46 years of supporting the extremely liberal Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy the people of Massachusetts filled that office with a Republican.
- The Senate seat that Scott Brown won on Tuesday has been in Democratic hands for more than fifty years.
- Health care reform was the centerpiece of Senator Ted Kennedy’s 46 year long hold on that Massachusetts Senate seat
- Massachusetts hasn’t elected a Republican senator since 1972.
- The governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat
- Both houses of the Massachusetts’ legislature are solidly Democrat
- Massachusetts’ entire congressional delegation were Democrats (until Tuesday).
- Two weeks prior to the election Martha Coakley was the undisputed front runner and her outspoken support for health care reform was consistent with Kennedy’s position on the issue.
- Scott Brown’s primary political stance during his brief campaign was to oppose Obama’s health care reform effort.
- The people of Massachusetts were very aware of the fact that a victory for Scott Brown would end the Democratic Party’s 60-seat Senate supermajority needed to overcome GOP filibusters and thereby derail the Obama administration’s established legislative priorities.
- Barack Obama easily won the support of the Massachusetts voters during his 2008 presidential campaign.
- Massachusetts has only voted Republican for president twice in history and both of these exceptions were overwhelming landslides nationally.
- In Massachusetts the Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1.
- Tuesday’s special election in Massachusetts marked the first inaugural anniversary of Barack Obama.
If there is one clear and significant message for the Democrats from Tuesday’s upset that message would be,
“Warning! Extreme danger ahead, Proceed at your own risk.”
Technorati Tags
Republican Party, 
Democratic Party, 
health care, 
Barack Obama, 
Scott Brown, 
Martha Coakley, 
Massachusetts