The Democrats were blindsided yesterday in Massachusetts, and they have nobody to blame but themselves. They have badly misjudged the mood of the American people for months, stringing out the health care debate ad infinitum while ignoring the growing anger over the slow pace of the recovery, the loss of jobs, and the obscene unfairness of the Wall Street bonuses. I don’t know what happens to people once they get to Washington, but they seem to lose the ability to understand anything that goes on outside the beltway. Health care reform is a must, but the long dither and the increasing complexity of the bill, not to mention the pork, special favors and lack of cost controls in the current bill have made it unpopular with the public. I don’t know that people actually oppose the bill so much as they have come to view the single-minded attention to it as an unwelcome distraction from more important things–namely easing the economic pain of so many millions.
The irony of the two-party system is that if the electorate has buyer’s remorse, they have only one place to go–back to the party that created so many of the problems to begin with. The Republicans smell blood in the water, but they shouldn’t be complacent, either. So far they’ve offered nothing but total opposition to anything Obama proposes. It’s still a long way to November, and the mood could shift again if they have no program other than more of the same.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ed Stein, Kimberlee Kruesi. Kimberlee Kruesi said: RT @edsteinink: New blog post: Unnatural Disaster http://edsteinink.com/2010/01/20/unnatural-disaster/ [...]
I couldn’t agree with you more. I will add one thing, however — the Democrat in Mass. ran one of the worst campaigns in history — to your point, not understanding the electorate, jabbering on about women’s issues when even women are concerned with the economy right now. A different Democrat would have seen the problems and the opportunities and squeaked out a victory. Yes, there is buyer’s remorse and the Republicans are making hay while the sun shines, but also Brown out hustled his opponent — it was a shameful race by Coakley. Come November there will be more bloodbaths for the Democrats, and I can’t think of a better place to look than right here in Colorado: All McInnis has to do to beat Bennet is to keep his mouth shut. The Democrats need better candidates, and I haven’t seen anything in Bennet to think he’s the one; the Republicans will retake the Senate by default.
Great cartoon, Ed! I still don’t think President Obama gets it. If he continues to go against the will of the people, it will be an even greater disaster for the Democrats.
I doubt the party shift will be as strong as it was in either 1994 or 2006, but it seems pretty clear at this point more “change” is on the horizon in DC. Amazing how it ultimately becomes detrimental to either party when they control the White House and Congress. Whether it is overplaying the hand, corruption from power, fickleness of the American people, or a combination, one party rule is short lived. I won’t say that is not a good thing.
President Clinton was in office for two years before he got the message, moved toward the center and engaged in bi-partisan politics. As a consequence, the last six years of his Presidency were very successful pertaining to the economy, balancing the budget, etc.
I think President Obama could have a one year headstart if he chose to follow that course and could also have a successful Presidency. Frankly, I doubt this will happen as his mindset seems to be much different than that of President Clintons. Also, the people in the White House with whom he has surrounded himself, would make it far more difficult.
I crack up every time I read or hear the phrase “the will of the people”. What in the heck does that mean?
You’re smarter than that, Jerry. When 71% of the people were against”Obama Care” and he kept trying to get it passed, that is going against the “will of the people”.
Sorry, Don, I’m really not.
I was asking about the phrase “will of the people”, not any specific issue. What “people”? How do we know their “will”? Do we just poll 500 folks to represent the 308 million? Should the President never go against the “will of the people”? Like, what if “the people” wanted to put all the people with the last name of Johnson in a detention camp?
On the specifics: Where does the 71% come from, what people are we talking about and what does it have to to with the Mass election? Wherever it comes from, we all know that “the people” are a very fickle lot. One year ago we had an election. 69 million people voted for Obama (10 million more than McCain). What was their “will”? I do know that a Gallup Poll in July, 2009 found that 71% of “the people” wanted health care reform. When it dies, 71% will complain that it didn’t get passed.
Without specific issues, there would be no “will of the people”. I want to correct my statement on the percentage of people opposed to Obama Care. Nationwide, it was 62%, the 71% was the state of Massachusetts only.
P.S., if the majority of the “people” wanted to put all people with the name Johnson in a detention camp, I would think there must be a very good reason.
LOL, you are a kick – and there must be a very good reason.
Given our 200+ years of history, I too just can’t imagine any time when the will of the people was somehow in favor/against something for other than than a good reason.
My understanding would be something like this: The “people” are the American populace. When the “will of the people” is being spoken of, it is refering to the desires of the majority of that populace, what they would do or want done. The will of the people is discerned through polling, whether it be by survey or at the voting booth. Regarding surverys, they are a fairly reliable indication of what the will of the people is, if done correctly, as they often turn out to be reasonably close to actual election results. When sworn in, the president swears to uphold the constitution. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there could be plenty of scenarios where that could go against the will of the people, if their desires were anti-constitutional.
So yes, I would say it is the will of the people that Obama was elected, just as the Massachusetts election was an indication of the will of the people being against what is going on in Washington as they voted in Scott Brown. If one of the bluest states in the nation votes that way, it stands to reason that it is an expression of the majority of the nation.
Mr. Johnson was not refering to people being against health care (insurance) reform – he said Obamacare was what the majority was polling against.
BG, don’t take this personally, but I just find your comments to be total nonsense.
We didn’t have an election of the American populace in Mass. I don’t care how blue they are, Mitt Romney was elected Govenor, right? Anyway, 1.1 million voted for Brown and 1 million voted for Coakley. The state population is 6.5 million. Coakley thought Curt Schilling was a Yankee fan and you believe that “it is stands to reason that is the expression of the majority of the nation”. Duh!
Let’s see, “one of the bluest states in the union” has 51% registered independents but their state election (and 100,000 more people voted for Brown vs Coakley) speaks for the “will of the people, which as I mentioned earlier, 69 million voted for Obama.
P.S. There is no such thing as “Obamacare” and that was not the issue for the people of Mass as a priority in their election. Also, if you hadn’t noticed, Massachusetts already has almost all of the elements of the federal Health Care plan in law and practice. I believe that Romney signed that legislation.
You’re just watching too much Fox “News”.
Nonsense! I don’t watch Fox News as I don’t have cable TV. It is completely valid to think of Massachusetts as one of the “bluest” states if you look at their representatives and history. If a candidate wins in that state, running largely on his desire to defeat the proposed healthcare reform in its current form (i.e. Obamacare) it is not unreasonable that the thoughts of the nation are much the same. I’m not saying that the election is the will of the American people, but likely a reflection of it. I also said that the 69 million that voted for Obama meant the will of the people was for him to be president.
I appreciate you taking the time to condescend to my level, but I am aware of Massachusetts’ health care system, and that Romney signed it. What’s the point?
Don’t watch Fox News? Then, I apologize. It was completely valid and not unreasonable for me to think that it was likely that you weren’t making up facts on your own while ignoring actual facts and it stood to reason that you had been influenced by the folks that give us news, fair and balanced. You know, the folks that tell us that there wasn’t a domestic terror attack under GW’s tenure but now there has already been one under Obama.
I actually thought it would be condescending to think that you would not know the point that MA had recently elected one of the reddest of the red Republicans as Govenor or that it had already been the will of the people of MA to have health care reform for themselves.
You could help me, though, to understand what “current form” of health care reform you are referring to? I didn’t realize there was one form, yet.
P.S. I live in the state that elected Tom Daschle to Congress for 26 years and I can guarantee you that it is not known for being blue.
The Dems have been blowing it for the past 3 years. This past year is an example of squandered possibilities shot to Hell. The Dems have no one to blame but themselves, and they have no right to complain and against the Reps who have been quite clear all along – FAILURE for the president.
But then, king georgie, too, blew a major opportunity following the 9/11/01 attacks. For the past 10 years, Congress has been AWOL. Barely can they manage to work the 2 days or so per week they schedule to do any Congressional work. Too much time to blown shuttling around and pandering to bozos and accepting bribes and blackmail (excuse me, lobby back and forth) and campaigning and committing their litanies of sins. They never did their job at all during the reign of georgie and dickie the darth, only acquiescing to the hate and divisiveness and fear mongering of karlie. Bipartisan, to a Rep, is Republican, while partisan only can be Dem. Really neither side can complain; both sides are cooking their own gooses while trying, feebly, to cook the others. It is up to us, the people, to take back the reins of government to re-create the democracy, which would include back to what capitalism was, not the robber barons of today. thank you.
Hey Jerry, you just used the term “will of the people” in your last comment and you previously stated you didn’t know what it meant. Is it possible that BG and I explained it correctly and that you now know?
Excuse me, I am going to go watch Fox News and learn the truth about what is really going on.
Don, please make sure to fill me in on what Fox News is saying so I don’t have to make up my own facts anymore. Takes too much time.
BG, I’ll be happy to do so.
Actually it is not reasonable or valid. It’s a sophistical statement that doesn’t accomplish anything, like accusations of making up facts. Just saying as I sometimes do the same thing.
Fact: Scott Brown ran primarily on derailing the healthcare proposal in its current form, as in the version produced by the senate. He also ran on reducing deficits. Fact: Polls taken of people who were willing to go to the voting booth show the major issue to the Massachusetts voters was health care. Fact: Scott Brown won the race in a state that typically votes democrat in presidential elections, has John Kerry, had Ted Kennedy (RIP), as its Senators, and currently has every congressional representative as a democrat as well. Mitt Romney has recently tired to show himself as a conservative in order to gain favor with that faction of the Republican party. Shall I say that you make up facts by calling him one of the reddest of the reds? His signing of the Massachusetts health care hardly qualifies, as so called “reds” would oppose such legislation.
I don’t understand where the vitriol comes from as I initially offered an explanation as to what my understanding of the will of the people means. I was not trying to politicize anything.
Wow, BG, I looked up vitriol and I certainly didn’t think that I have been bitterly abusive but if you feel that I have, I apologize for that too. Sardonic, maybe. All I am trying to say is that I disagree with both you and Don that the Senate election results in Mass. has anything to do with the Obama going against “will of the people” of the US. I also think that polling the “will of the people” is fickle,changes almost daily and can be manipulated. Just look at the polls on health care that I mention below. Who really knows what the “will of the people” is except for elections. You both brush off the 69 million that voted for Obama one year ago when one of his major issues was health care:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/index.php
Anyway – to facts:
1. According to Scott Brown, heal care was not his primary issue, it was the economy: http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues
2. I cannot find a poll that shows health care was the major issue. My source shows that it was Taxes, jobs, the economy. Interestingly, though, health care was the #1 issue for Coakley voters.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com
3. True, True, True and True. RE: Romney, I’ve only been going by what he says his stances are on issues: http://www.freestrongamerica.com/speeches/
I waited a day, hoping that BG or someone else would make this reply.
You just don’t get it and I cannot understand why you don’t get it. President Obama doesn’t get it either. He stated that the overwhelming defeat the democrats suffered in Massachusetts was due to the people being mad at the previous administration. Let’s see, a senate seat previously held by a democrat for fifty seven years in a state that has 3 and 1/2 times more registered democrats than it has republicans, goes overwhelmingly to a republican because the voters are mad at a republican. Give me a break! I’m not a rocket scientist but I’m not an idiot either.
I bashed the Bush Administration for eight years and I, too, was ready for a change. The reason I didn’t vote for Obama was his past associations worried me, primarily Reverend Wright, Ayers and several others. President Obama campaigned that he would govern from the center and that is why he received the 69 million votes that you referred to. If that election was held tomorrow, how many votes do you think he would get?
Massachusetts reflected the mood of the entire nation (the will of the people). The people didn’t vote for, nor do they want out of control spending, government take over of private industry such as G.M., dirty politics such as the offer of special deals like was offered to Louisiana, Wisconsin and exemting union members from their cadillac insurance plans being taxed, while non-union members plans would be. This is what has outraged the majority of Americans and this is why there was the Massachusetts disaster that Ed described in this cartoon.
Mr. Obama can still have a successful presidency by listening to the wishes of the people and governing accordingly. I want my children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy the same freedom and have the same opportuities that I have had in this wonderful country. I want President Obama to do such a good job in the next three years that I will vote for him in 2012. I hope that happens – no, I PRAY that happens.
You are right, I don’t get it and we will just have to agree to disagree. I’m trying very hard to not sound too vitriolic but you do really make it tough. The reason I don’t get it, is that I actually do a little thinking on my own and I use sources with different views to get my news. I also check out further statements that just seem out of whack. Paradoxically, I do understand why you don’t get it.
It would be nice, though, if you are going to paraphrase the misinformation of a right-wing pinhead, at least change a few more words or better yet, actually spend some time looking up the real facts. Sort of like Massachusetts having 3 and 1/2 times more registered democrats than it has republicans without mentioning that 51% of the registered voters are independents.
As someone once said, it’s time to take a break. I’m starting to feel like I’m debating with my kitchen table.
Sorry, I was out of the discussion over the weekend as I do not have internet at home. Don, thanks for taking the time to paraphrase the misinformation of this right-wing pinhead. It is too bad that it is difficult even for typed conversations surrounding politics to stay civil, but Jerry, if it bothers you so much that you can’t get your message of JerryTruth through our thick skulls, then just don’t spend the time. You should be happy that we are on the site to give you ample opportunity to feel vindicated and tell others about the irrationality, stubbonness, and vindictiveness of the crazy right wingers. Heck, you may even get to learn a new word or two (see vitriol.)
I was going to take a break from this blog but I didn’t want to leave with you getting a big head thinking you were my right-wing pinhead. Sorry, it was one of the several who make millions spreading misinformation on the radio. I had just read a commentary that was virtually point by point identical except it mentioned Nebraska instead of Wisconsin.
In retrospect, though, it could just be that great minds think alike.
I didn’t intend to make another comment but you made a statement hat has me curious. I mistakenly said Wisconsin when I meant Nebraska, but where did you read a commentary that was “word for word” for my comment? I would like to read it and how about a straight answer for a change.
The Kitchen Table