Free Markets, Free People

Coakley Losing? It’s Bush’s Fault

Let’s start our week of with the irony impaired. In this case it is Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), explaining why Democrat Martha Coakley – or as he referred to her, “Marcia Coakley” – is in trouble in the Massachusetts Senate Race:

“If you think there’s magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown,” Kennedy said. “If you don’t, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole … then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president’s in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that.”

On to the irony:

“One thing the Democrats have done wrong? We haven’t kept the focus on this disaster on the Republicans who brought it upon us. We’ve tried too hard to do that right thing, and that’s to fix it, as opposed to spend more of our time and energy pointing the finger at who got us [here] in the first place.”

You can’t make this stuff up, folks. Of course one of the reasons this election is a referendum on Democrats in general is because the public at large mostly thinks they haven’t focused on that which is important – employment and the economy – but instead squandered their time on the less important, such as health care reform and cap-and-trade. As for the irony of claiming they haven’t spent any time and energy pointing the finger at others, blaming George Bush is a cottage industry among the Democrats, who spend days finding new and more entertaining ways to blame him for all their woes.

Whether or not Scott Brown ends up winning in Massachusetts on Tuesday, this is as obvious a wake-up call for Democrats as one can issue. Even the NY Times recognizes what’s going on:

This weekend, Democrats are struggling to hang on to a seat held by Mr. Kennedy for 46 years in one of the most enthusiastically Democratic states in the country. Conservatives are enjoying a grass-roots resurgence, and Republicans are talking about taking back the House in November.

As Mr. Obama prepares to come here on Sunday to campaign for the party’s beleaguered Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, Democrats across the country are starting to wonder aloud if they misjudged the electorate over the last year, with profound ramifications for the midterm elections this year and, potentially, for Mr. Obama’s presidency.

The most certainly did misjudge the electorate, because the nation’s situation changed late in the campaign. When it became clear that the economy was in trouble and unemployment was rising, that and not the liberal Democratic agenda, should have become priority one. But it wasn’t. They consciously chose to place the party’s agenda before the nation’s needs and have blindly pursued that agenda in the face of a continuing economic downturn.  That has placed them in the position they now occupy – out of touch, running out of time and facing a political bloodbath in November. It was a calculated risk, counting on swift passage of the agenda items, which hasn’t materialized. And, no matter how persistently and consistently they attempt to blame everything on Bush, that opportunity expired many months ago.

This is now about the Democrats and Obama and whether they like it or not the Senate race in Massachusetts is a referendum on their performance to date.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

25 Responses to Coakley Losing? It’s Bush’s Fault

  • I still can’t believe that Coakley will not pull this one out somehow.  It’s just difficult to think that a Republican would win that seat, under the circumstances (solid blue state, seat vacated when beloved liberal icon passed away).  It is a testament to just how different the two campaigns have been run.  If Brown wins, you’d have to think that Coakley’s political career is finished.  At this point, her career is probably as good as done even if she wins…

  • “If you think there’s magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that…” Kennedy said.

    like Barack Obama?

  • My oatmeal boiled over this morning. It’s Bush’s fault.

    • I am glad to see you are eating a heart-healthy diet. That is probably the only medical care you will be able to get in the near future.

  • The biggest mistake of the Democrats was not trying to coopt the “Tea Party” movement early on .. by turning it into a “anti-Bush” thing.  Instead they did the worst thing possible .. they ridiculed it.
    Now they will get a reenactment of the Boston Tea Party .. from Boston.
    Pelosi, Reid and Obama should brush up on their “bipartisan skills” .. they will need them shortly.
    In that vein, I can’t believe that Reid made comments last week that the time they spent with Olympia Snowe on healthcare was a “waste of time.”

  • pedro is too tired to write in pidgin spanglish today.
    It is Bush’s fault.  It’s also Harry Reid’s fault. And John Kerry’s.  And many more.  A fiasco this large is never the work of one person.  The spineless National Democratic Party is as much to blame as anyone.
    Martha Coakley is very much a product of that spineless party.   I disagree with much of Scott Brown’s platform.   Does that mean I therefore agree with Coakleys?  No.  How could I agree with her platform?   She can’t even give a simple yes or no to the ‘is waterboarding torture’ question,  she has no core beliefs.     Thanks,  but we already have one of those in John Forbes Kerry.    The fact that a vote for Brown is a vote for Gridlock seals the deal for Pedro.

    • I’m with you, Pedro.

      • Also,

        This is now about the Democrats and Obama and whether they like it or not the Senate race in Massachusetts is a referendum on their performance to date.

        Really?  You know this, how?
        Fact is, there is a whole lot of reasons not to like Coakley.  None of them may necessarily be cause for referendum.

        • None of them may necessarily be cause for referendum.

          Yeah… then again, they may be.
          I’m curious as heck to see what my Congressman, John Salazar (D-CO3) does this year.  He voted against Cap and Trade and for Health Insurance Reform – likely was protected in the former.  If Brown wins, I doubt Salazar will vote for C&T or HIR irrespective of Pelosi’s demands.  John, unlike his younger brother SecInt Ken Salazar, still hangs his Western Colorado roots with pride.
          Oh, and former SecInt Gail Norton is leading (appointed and sitting) Senator Bennett by double digits.
          If it is no referendum, as you suggest, then the left is running an awful lot of stupid candidates, with out of touch messages, in winnable districts.  Seems it would be wizer to admit to the referendum angle rather than to running, and supporting, stupid candidates.

          • But of course, that would require the left admitting that they are wrong.  Given the gullibility of the US voters, perhaps it is better to acknowledge flawed candidates rather than flawed ideology…
            Gotta fool enough of the people some of the time after all.

        • Really? You know this, how?

          By reading polls, looking at the internals, listening to interviews with likely voters, etc. Picking up such facts as 20% of Dems in MA don’t like the MA health care system and are leaning heavily toward Brown (because he will vote against the fed plan).

          And you?

          • When democrats lose, it’s ALWAYS because they ran an unlikeable candidate.

          • This is a special election.  In an off year.  With a motivated opposition party.
            Against a Democratic candidate with far more problems than virtues.  With the Republican candidate being anything but far-Right… (he’s for Roe v. Wade for example.  Brown is a New England Republican who has been elected in Mass. before.)
            And 20% ?!?
            Wow!  A whopping 20%!!  Well why didn’t you say so before?  That obviously spells referendum.  20%.
            None of this points to – whether you like it or not – as a referendum against anything.  It’s usual Right-wing spin to suggest otherwise.
            Coakley sux. Why does it have to be anything more than that???
            Oh, and shark?  Your point is that unlikable candidates win!?!?
            Well that’s just stupid.

          • 20% of Democrats. Democrats. Got that yet? Here: Democrats. In blue Mass. Democrats going for a Republican in Massachusetts. Let that sink in.

            Then look at VA and NJ. Blue NJ elects a Republican governor in a close race. Purple VA blows out the Dem. All went for Obama in a big way less than a year ago.

            Play all the silly rationalization games you wish, but when Dems in any percentage and indies in huge percentages desert a party in less than a year, it isn’t about state politics.

          • @PM
            Individually, the past series of elections you may be able to dismiss.
            Collectively you cannot.
            But good luck with your rationalizations.  I want Democrats pushed so far out of office that Republicans gain a filibuster proof majority to undo their damage without compromise.  But if Democrats regain some sanity, you might blunt that effect.

  • The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The millenium is at hand!
    El Pedro actually said something I can agree with!

  • Perhaps the Mayans were Democrats … 2012 will be the end of the world

  • The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.

    Which planet does Paul Krugman live on ?

  • I really strongly advise the Dems to follow through on this “blame Bush” strategy for the mid-terms.

    I also advise Baracky to use it as the centerpiece of his re-election strategy.

  • Play all the silly rationalization games you wish

    Right back atcha.
    Shorter McQ:  Laugh at the Dem because he believes it’s Bush’s fault when really it’s OBAMA’S fault.
    Yes, never mind the fact that Brown is a good looking candidate running as a moderate New England Republican in a State where the governor’s office was recently held by a Mormon Republican.  Never mind that Brown has won in Mass. before and is running against a pathetic Coakley.
    NO!!  It’s Obama’s fault.

    • Never said it was Obama’s “fault”. I said the vote is a referendum on the Obama agenda. Coakely is vote 60. Brown is vote 41. Mass is a solidly Democratic state – and indies usually line up with the Dems. Not this time.

      See if you can figure it out from there.