Althouse: Brown wins!

January 19, 2010

Brown wins!

By a lot. Coakley has conceded. Astounding. What does it mean? What will the Democrats in Congress do now? What will Obama do?

Poor Obama! It's the eve of the anniversary of his inauguration. The State of the Union was supposed to be very grand. And now what? He has been repudiated! He made this election a referendum on the Democrats agenda, and the people of Massachusetts, the most liberal state, gave him a resounding no.

Now, I think that could be good for Obama. He's a man of change. Let him change. I hope he becomes the President I thought he could be when I voted for him. With the midterm elections looming in the fall, he can readjust, set himself apart from Congress. Take the people seriously.

236 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 236 of 236

Shanna said...: I thought it would be fun if this happened, but I'm shocked it did. Wow.; 1/20/10, 6:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Can President Obama, the former Alinskite radical, recast himself as a moderate in deed as well as image?

No.; 1/20/10, 6:53 AM
Anonymous said...: ...but Sen. Jim Webb has suddenly re-found his Fi.

He, an even bigger disappointment going along to get along.; 1/20/10, 7:00 AM
Anonymous said...: It is obvious that Althouse is no doe-eyed acolyte of Obama. I think she realized a long time ago that he wasn't the reasonable pragmatist she imagined him to be. But she realizes that he has another three years in office, and is trying to make the best of it.

I wouldn't get my HOPE!s up, though.; 1/20/10, 7:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Ric Locke: Great comment. As I say, Obama is more likely to grow green, gauzy wings and fly to the moon than show any real flexibility.

BTW, that is also an excellent blog you've got there. I probably don't agree with everything, but it's smart and very well-written. Please keep it up. I don't have any money to send you, being in some fear for my own job, but I weren't, I would.; 1/20/10, 7:57 AM
kjbe said...: I'm late, here, and haven't read any comments, but would say that I stand in agreement to the original post in that this is a chance to reboot or course correct. I'm not so sure the his agenda is what's the problem, so much as how poorly it's been pursued.; 1/20/10, 8:02 AM
DaveW said...: Now, I think that could be good for Obama. He's a man of change. Let him change.

I'm pessimistic.

Obama appears to not understand the difference between being king and being president. Trying to ram through major system overhauls without a single opposition vote is not how effective presidents operate.

Reagan cajoled Tip O'Neil, Clinton compromised, Bush let Kennedy write his education bill. All presidents have to do this, this is what being president is all about.

So far I have seen zero willingness from Obama to engage his opposition in order to pass his agenda. As far as I can tell he just doesn't have the experience or temperament.

Maybe that's why governors seem to make better presidents. They have experience having to compromise with their political opponents.; 1/20/10, 8:09 AM
Big Mike said...: @Florida, I didn't see a comment by you in this thread (sorry if you did comment and I missed it).

The charity of my choice is the Scott Brown reelection committee. I'm sure they'll take your check.; 1/20/10, 8:30 AM
Big Mike said...: @DaveW, or if our sitting President had paid his dues as a US senator, he might have figured it out.; 1/20/10, 8:31 AM
Mick said...: Ann, I thought you were a lawyer. How could you vote for a Non Natural Born Citizen (father was never a citizen) President.; 1/20/10, 10:00 AM
Robert Cook said...: It's astonishing the radical misperception here of Obama and of the Dems and their problems.

"Hard left; radical; socialist with Marxist leanings;" etc.,etc.

WTF??!

The problem with Obama and the Dems is that they have betrayed their base by governing as Republicans Lite, by serving the corporate interests and not the public. Voters are disenchanted with Obama and the Dems because they expected a change in SOP with Obama's election and they're just getting more of the same of what they suffered through for 8 years under Bush, (if served without the bellicose rhetoric). If Obama and the Dems want to hold on to their support, they must try to govern as the alternative to the corporatist Republicans, as progressives, as the party determined to help the suffering citizenry and not the wealthy plutocrats.

In other words, to paraphrase Horace Greeley, they must "go Left, young man." Go Left.

It won't happen, of course, because there aren't any true lefties in Washinton, one or two oddballs like Dennis Kucinich aside.; 1/20/10, 10:05 AM
Mitch said...: I voted yesterday. In Massachusetts, that usually doesn't matter very much, but I'm smiling today. For those who are blaming Coakley's ineptitude and relaxed approach to campaigning, I would like to remind them that the Democratic primary is usually the big event here, with the general election largely a formality. (The exception is the governor's race; the state legislature is overwhelmingly Democrat, and it makes people a little nervous to have complete unanimity in the state's government.) Many statewide offices have only one candidate. Some have a token unknown Republican, and occasionally a microscopic third party candidate. Coakley could have expected to win as easily as Kerry or Kennedy in normal circumstances. The problem was that these are not normal circumstances, and she did not figure that out until too late.; 1/20/10, 10:09 AM
RebeccaH said...: I hope he becomes the President I thought he could be when I voted for him.

Don't you get it yet? Obama was never the President you thought you were voting for.; 1/20/10, 11:23 AM
Sheila said...: Never assume that people work on the basis of logic and self-interest.

Think of Hollywood: it's a proven fact that R rated movies do not make as much as G rated movies. Family movies tend to be more successful than other movies. Movies that display patriotism make more money than those that do not.

But Hollywood keeps churning out movies that few want to see, even though creating some of these other ones would make more money, because they are ideologically opposed to doing anything else.

So yes, it would make sense for Obama to re-evaluate and backtrack if he wants to be successful. That has absolutely nothing to do, however, with whether or not he will do so. It all depends on how ideologically wedded he is to his positions, and I fear that he is very ideologically wedded indeed.; 1/20/10, 11:28 AM
former law student said...: that just means the economy is allocating labor more efficiently which means the economy, workers and consumers will be better off.

Sure. The economy allocated American labor from production to retail. Retail jobs pay much less than production jobs, but that doesn't matter unless you need to pay for shelter.

being in some fear for my own job

The more secure one feels in his own job, the more free trade appeals. But if theo gets laid off, the invisible hand will find something more important for him to do.; 1/20/10, 11:34 AM
Robert Cook said...: "So yes, it would make sense for Obama to re-evaluate and backtrack if he wants to be successful. That has absolutely nothing to do, however, with whether or not he will do so. It all depends on how ideologically wedded he is to his positions, and I fear that he is very ideologically wedded indeed."

Yes, correct; Obama is temperamentally as well as ideologically wedded to a center-right, corporate friendly position, and this is the crux of his failure. He must cast aside--though he will not--his policies favoring the same special interests as were served by George W. Bush, (and Clinton before him, and George H.W.Bush before him, and Ronald Reagan before him), the wealthy corporations, individuals, war profiteers and private institutions who own America. Obama, to succeed, must determine to serve his base--though he will not.; 1/20/10, 12:05 PM
Miriam said...: I don't want Obama to change. Too much change could get him re-elected (God forbid). Let him stay the arrogant pr*ck he is and keep digging himself deeper. This won't hurt the people, on the contrary, it will galvanize them more than if he put on sheep's clothing and started to bleat.; 1/20/10, 6:07 PM
Miriam said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/20/10, 6:08 PM
Miriam said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/20/10, 6:10 PM
Miriam said...: I don't want Obama to change. Too much change could get him re-elected (God forbid). Let him stay the arrogant pr*ck he is and keep digging himself deeper. This won't hurt the people, on the contrary, it will galvanize them more than if he put on sheep's clothing and started to bleat - that would be more dangerous.; 1/20/10, 6:12 PM
Nichevo said...: The problem with Obama and the Dems is that they have betrayed their base by governing as Republicans Lite, by serving the corporate interests and not the public.

So, Cook, he's not Left enough for you? You really want a communist government? SRSLY? What do you want exactly? (please keep your answer to 25 words or less); 1/20/10, 9:04 PM
Revenant said...: Sure. The economy allocated American labor from production to retail. Retail jobs pay much less than production jobs, but that doesn't matter unless you need to pay for shelter.

When did this alleged drop in American wages take place?; 1/20/10, 10:37 PM
Robert Cook said...: "So, Cook, he's not Left enough for you?"

Well, given that Obama's not left at all, I guess my answer is no.; 1/21/10, 5:53 AM
Nichevo said...: Progress. Now please answer the rest:

You really want a communist government? (Or perhaps communism isn't left to you?)

SRSLY?

What do you want exactly? (please keep your answer to 25 words or less); 1/21/10, 9:42 AM
Robert Cook said...: Here is Glenn Greenwald, and he quotes Andrew Sullivan:

"Noting that even reasonable conservatives like Stephen Bainbridge are saying things like: "Obama and the Congressional Democrats (especially in the House) governed for the last year as though the median voter is a Daily Kos fan," Andrew Sullivan writes:

"This must come as some surprise to most Daily Kos fans. But if one had traveled to Mars and back this past year and read this statement, what would you assume had happened? I would assume that the banks had been nationalized, the stimulus was twice as large, that single-payer healthcare had been pushed through on narrow majority votes, that card-check had passed, that an immigration amnesty had been legislated, that prosecutions of Bush and Cheney for war crimes would be underway, that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be commencing, that no troops would be left in Iraq, that Larry Tribe was on the Supreme Court, that DADT and DOMA would be repealed, and so on."

Exactly. Of course, none of those things has happened, precisely because the Democrats under Obama (and before) have been doing everything except "governing from the Left." But our political discourse, as usual, is so suffuse with blinding stupidity that this clichéd falsehood -- Democrats have been beholden to the Left -- will take root as Unchallengeable Truth and shape what happens next. That's already happening."

That about says it, except to say that Obama would have to travel far to the left just to get out of the sandtrap of center/right. "Communism?" Hah!; 1/21/10, 11:14 AM
Nichevo said...: Cook, can you read?; 1/21/10, 11:16 AM
Robert Cook said...: Yes, but I don't feel compelled to answer someone according to their dictates.; 1/21/10, 12:05 PM
Nichevo said...: "Dictates?" Really?

I don't blame you, though; the answers would not be flattering, I'm sure.

Of course you could always lie. But given your lack of skill, staying nonresponsive is your best option - put more ink in the water. At all events, you're wise to avoid saying anything using your own words.

Just remember - if you're posting here to get your ya-yas out, keep on the way you're going. If you seek to interact and possibly to convince, you need to up your game.; 1/21/10, 12:39 PM
Robert Cook said...: I have little expectation I will convince anyone here of much, but I do feel I should contribute commentary contrary to the prevailing hard right dogma. There are others here who offer corrective remarks as well.

However, I did respond to your question, perhaps not so much what "I would like to see," but in quoting Andrew Sullivan, I presented a succinct presentation of some of the things I would expect a truly "left" administration (or even a moderatly progressive one dedicated to the rule of law) to have initiated.

I would certainly like to see the elimination of the insurance companies from the delivery of health care in this country, and a change to universal health care similar to that seen in Canada, Britain, and elsewhere. I would like to see a termination of our illegal aggressive wars of mass murder, and prosecution of those in the Bush administration (as well as those now in the present administration) who have helped plan or carry out these wars, (as well as all those who have participated in the planning or execution of our torture regime). I would like to see strict regulation of the banks and financial houses, of course. That would be a good start, and we could go from there.; 1/21/10, 1:46 PM
Nichevo said...: Seeing how tender you are about your conversational prerogatives, I didn't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth. But let me put it in the form of questions.

Do you want the banks to be nationalized?

Do you wish the stimulus was twice as large (whether that would be $1.58T or a larger sum)?

Would you prefer that single-payer healthcare had been pushed through on narrow majority votes?

Do you wish that card-check had passed?

Were you looking to see that an immigration amnesty had been legislated?

I know you want prosecutions of Bush and Cheney for war crimes, I don't have to ask, do I?

But you desire that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be commencing?

You think that no troops should be left in Iraq?

You prefer that Larry Tribe was on the Supreme Court rather than Sotomayor?

You want DADT and DOMA repealed?

"and so on." What else?

And can you explain what overarching form of political philosophy informs these wishes?; 1/21/10, 4:44 PM
Nichevo said...: Finally,

Would you accept that (would you accept it if you believed that) the will of the American people were not your will? Or...?; 1/21/10, 4:46 PM
Nichevo said...: TW: shnit. What Robert Cook will say when he doesn't get what he (but not everybody else) wants.; 1/21/10, 6:26 PM
Robert Cook said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/21/10, 9:50 PM
Robert Cook said...: Yes for some of those, not necessarily for others. Again, I'm merely pointing out that such things are the kinds of things a "leftist" administration could be expected to have initiated...as opposed to the continuation (with more mealy-mouthed rhetoric) of the wretched policies of the Bush/Cheney administration that has been Obama's path.

As for what "the will of the people" may be...Obama is not losing support for being "too left." He's losing support among those who were suckered into supporting him in the belief he would end our wars abroad and somehow fix many of the grievous blows to the country inflicted by his hated predecessor. They were fooling themselves as much as being fooled; it was obvious before he took office that he would be and do nothing they hoped for.; 1/21/10, 10:02 PM
1775OGG said...: Robin Cook: Well, let's Nancy Reid and Harry Pelosi double down then and push Obama Care through as soon as possible. What the heck, per your analysis, that's the only way to fly!

wv: ingsz have NHS!; 1/21/10, 10:25 PM
Robert Cook said...: OldGrouchyDougWright:

No, "Obamacare," so-called, is a terrible bill, and was going to be so from the start given his compromised position at the outset, as well as the secret deals he has made with the pharmaceutical companies. It does absolutely nothing to "reform health care." I'd like it to be defeated, in hopes that, if not during the feckless Obama's administration but at some time in future, we might see actual reform of the our health care system that will offer availability of quality care to all Americans without bankrupting them in the process.

"Obamacare" is simply another example of how Obama is not a "leftist." Obama's plan, as with so much of his agenda so far, continues to favor the corporations at the expense of the public.; 1/22/10, 5:40 AM