Monday, January 18, 2010

Wailing & Lamentations


Listen closely. Make no noise . . .

Do you hear it yet? . . .

No? . . .

Do this. Whisper softly the words "Scott Brown." Whisper the words just once . .

Now wait . . .

Let your whisper take flight . . .

Let your whisper ride high on the winds until, falling gently back to earth, it should chance upon the ears of a Democrat far, far away.

Do you hear it now? The dim but unmistakable sound of wailing. A distant primal scream fading to tear soaked sobs . . .


The left has, on a purely intellectual level, long been aware of the falling poll numbers of Obama and his radical agenda. But it has only been with polls showing the revolt of voters in their heartland, bluest of blue Massachusetts, that the full, raw reality of their widespread unpopularity, their preacrious position, and the threat to their radical agenda has gone crashing into their consciousness with all the shock and horror of a tsunami washing over them. The far left is now going through the stages of grief, from denial to negotiation to anger and then back again. Only a very few, such as Evan Bayh, have moved on to acceptance. Those in full blown denial are still trying to trot out the "its all Bush's fault" excuse. The latest comes from the far left site Hotline, a place where biased reporting normally finds acceptance among its commenters:

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush. . . .

I won't bother to quote from the rest of this farcial piece. You can follow the link. But I will quote a few of the comments. There are 881 of them. Here are just the first few:

This is so funny!!!! They are still blaming Bush a year after he left office and four years of a Democratic controlled Congress...unbelievable! Sorry, but at this point the Democrats are responsible for the situation in this country.

HB January 17, 2010 6:59 PM

OMG! Bush tried and tried and tried to get Congress to address the problems with the housing market. It is on record and nobody seems to care.

Bush was shot down by democrats (and a few republicans) each time he tried to get congress to regulate Freddie and Fannie!

Don't get me wrong, I was NOT a Bush fan for his second term. I think he was not a good president in his second term. BUT, the economic situation is square at the feet of Democrats.

How long is the president and his party going to blame Bush rather than getting off their backsides and actually fixing things?

ChrisS January 17, 2010 7:20 PM

Let's be very specific about blame. And let's be specific on what the blame is for:

Behind closed doors, everyone who has a Nebraska zip code is given a break on Medicare, while 49 other states pay for the right of Nebraska's free ride. All for a vote. And how does that rise above the level of bribery?

The Senator from Louisianna is handed $300M for her yes vote. And how does that rise above the level of bribery?

And for union support, all union members are waived of a tax that other non-union members must pay. How does that rise above the level of bribery?

President Bush was not here for this one, folks.

President Obama, don't be surprised with Massachusetts when you have established an environment of corrupt behavior. Yoda said it best, sir. "That is why you fail."

DBC January 17, 2010 7:41 PM

Unbelievable! I was going to use this as a gag line ("Coakley loses; Obama Blames Bush") but I see that reality is TRULY stranger than fiction.

Scott W. Somerville January 17, 2010 8:25 PM

People of Earth:

Just pray your children don't grow up to be Democrats. What a pitiful example for our youth.

FAIRTV January 17, 2010 9:54 PM

LOL, this is hysterical. Satire, right? Blaming Bush?

ROFLMAO, the Dems are officially delusional now. Time to invest in straight-jackets!

Jim Tower January 17, 2010 9:55 PM


George W Bush January 17, 2010 9:55 PM

That is some decent anecdotal evidence that a good portion of America has moved on from the "you can fool me some of the time" stage to the "can't fool me all of the time" stage. When that happens, attempts at fooling start to become offensive. Thus it is safe to say that the continued use of the "it's all Bush's fault" excuse is now counterproductive for the left. Not that the far left won't keep trotting it out. But at some point, likely in the not too distant future, that excuse is going to go from "counterproductive" to "toxic." We will know when we have reached that point. It will be the day Obama opts to man up and treat us to another pro forma "the buck stops here" speech - this time on the economy - and displaying all the false sincerity he can muster.

That said, Obama hasn't yet fully given up on the "it's all Bush's fault" excuse and all its variants. In stumping in Beantown for Coakley, the most ridiculous part of Obama's speech came when he decried how Republican obstructionism was keeping him from dealing effectively with all of the problems he had "inherited." It seemed to pass right over the head of the assembled faithful that Democrats hold [Update: held] a Congressional supermajority - meaning that Republicans have not been able to obstruct a single thing that the Democrats wanted to pass for nearly a year. Perhaps Obama can get away with that in Beantown, but if he trots that one out in, say, his next State of the Union speech, even the left wing media might choke on it. Regardless, it is clear the voting public will. [Update: Even Firedoglake agrees on that point.]

Well, some of the left wing media might choke. Others would, it seems fair to forecast, adopt a pose of blissful ignorance. Newsbusters is reporting that, as of yesterday, CBS news had yet to broadcast a single report on the Senate race in Massachusetts. That is amazing. It is denial with a capital "D." It is the stuff of fairy dust and unicorns.

This 'new' reality will work a sea change in our government. How Obama and the far left will react in the near and long term to this new reality is very much an open question. Will they try to force through health care and whatever else they can using end runs around our deliberative democracy? At least as to Obama and Pelosi, I rather expect that from them because they are true left wing ideologues. Such people are fanatics, not pragmatists. One of the hallmarks of such people - besides a fundamental disrespect for democracy - is that they do not learn from their mistakes nor the mistakes of others - else why continue to push for socialism when it has ultimately been a failure whereever it has been tried? Their anwers to all the ills of society are legislation and government control. And when, surprise, that fails, then the fix is to add more legislation. Repeat ad infinitum. [Update: That was quick. Within the last few hours, we have Pelosi saying that, irrespective of the Mass. election results, "we will have health-care." And from Obama:

President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.

“This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt,” a senior administration official said. . . .

Now why should the revolt of voters in blue Mass. give Obama a reason for doubt? And does it make sense to become combative after the election? I guess this is part of his Chicago way - if the voters punch me I'll punch back twice as hard. It should be interesting to see how that philosophy works out when applied to voters at large. It seems to me he might need some of them some day, but what do I know. Indeed, this sounds more like the tantrum of a child than the measured response of a President. At any rate, could Obama and Pelosi have illustrated my points with any more clarity? There will be no move to the center from these two ideologues unless forced in that direction by their own party, kicking and screaming. Otherwise its damn the icebergs and full speed ahead for the USS Obamatanic.]

Will many of the less ideological left start moving to the center, bucking their party out of pure self preservation? We can count on that with the same degree of certainty we reserve for the rising and setting of the sun. The only questions are how many and how soon. If it is a Brown blow-out, the effect might be immediate. It if is a squeaker, regardless of who wins, we will see the same effect, just less pronounced. [Update - Brown has now won the Senate seat by 5 points. That marks a 31 point swing from when Mass. voted for Obama just a little over a year ago. The ramifications of this are huge, particularly in light of like swings in Va. and N.J. The peeling away from Pelosi and Obama has already begun. Rats, sinking ships, etc.]

That brings me to a final point. How in the nine hells did the far left ever get the moniker, "reality based community?" Was that someone's idea of a joke - sort of like calling the hulking peasant of Robin Hood fame "Littlejohn?" Indeed, reality and the far left seem to be near mutually exclusive. Perhaps "irony based community" would be more apropos.

No matter.

Now quiet please.

I want to listen to some more of this . . .

"Scott Brown" . . . .

Heh . . .

Win or lose, I'm really enjoying this.


OBloodyHell said...

> ...but if he trots that one out in, say, his State of the Union speech, even the left wing media might choke on it. Clearly, the voting public will.

I can see it now: Katie Couric shouts "You Lie!!"


OBloodyHell said...

This one is good:

It is not GW's fault. I lay the problems right at the feet of the Chester Allan Arthur legacy.
kancamagus | January 17, 2010 10:00 PM

OBloodyHell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
OBloodyHell said...

OK, here's a lovely touch for you:

From Hotline:
But the venue itself is surprisingly small for a event headlined by Pres. Obama -- supporters were turned away after the audience had reached 1.1K, according to Boston fire dept. officials.

In other words, they are saying the capacity of Northeastern University's Solomon Court, where it was held, is only 1100 people.


According to the NEU Women's Basketball team's guide, the court has a capacity of 2500 (pg3, in the left sidebar).

Perhaps there IS a valid reason for the lowered capacity, but methinks it wasn't "capacity", but turnout which had such a small crowd there, and this is just a stinky fishball of an excuse.

GW said...

Lol, hmmm, think you are dead on as to the venue. Empty seats would have been not quite the image Team Obama would want to portray. Indeed, perhaps they only had enough busses to get a thousand SEIU paid attendees to the event, so . . . .

OBloodyHell said...

General: What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women...

Here's to hearing the sound of Coakley's lamentations.