Don't be fooled by White House officials blaming the loss of Ted Kennedy's old seat on Democratic candidate Martha Coakley. A lackluster candidate is not going to drive her opponent's supporters to brave wind and cold and rain to wave signs from sidewalks, street corners and parking lots, as Scott Brown's did days before the election even took place. That excitement and energy was driven by something else - something those White House staffers might find if they do a little soul-searching closer to home.
The seeds of Scott Brown's victory were planted more than a year ago when Democrats misread Barack Obama's overwhelming victory as an endorsement of their most liberal tendencies, rather than the very personal repudiation of the ineptitude of George W. Bush. Socially-moderate, fiscally-conservative Republicans and independents were essentially disgusted by the previous administration's profligate spending and flat-earth society approach to global issues. Add a financial crisis of bi-partisan making that hit the fan weeks before the election and it should come as no surprise that the party in power took a hit. In fact, if there were any surprise, it should have been that the election wasn't even more lopsided.
No, Obama's election and the ascent of a Democratic majority in Congress were not an endorsement of liberal ideals. If anything, they weren't winners so much as they were default beneficiaries of a dejected and derelict opposition. As is so often the case, the rose-colored glasses of the winning party blinded them, making it impossible for them to read the political tea leaves. In the process, they brewed themselves one heckuva a mess.
No comments:
Post a Comment