Archive for January, 2010

Replacing Ted Kennedy was supposed to be a slam dunk for Massachusetts Democrats. They should have been able to run a cocker spaniel and still walk away with a double digit victory. In a state that is arguably the bluest in the Union, Ted Kennedy had been a permanent fixture in the U.S. Senate since the Pleistocene age, in a state that’s as liberal as they come. Well, stuff happens.

Enter Scott Brown, a virtual nobody who had the upstart temerity to challenge a political establishment that until now, was as immovable as the northern star. How did this happen? That depends largely on whose explanation you’re buying into.

The White House is blaming Democrat candidate Martha Coakley for running a weak campaign, while the Coakley people are blaming the White House for their lukewarm support. And Democrats in general are all over the map blaming anyone they think will put some distance between themselves and what they claim was a flawed campaign.

There are plenty of valid reasons why Coakley lost, and the specifics will certainly be the subject of discussion among media pundits and politicians alike. But looking at the bigger picture will give political strategists a map of the political landscape for the coming elections in November 2010 and 2012.

Democrats did an incredibly inept job of assessing the strength of Scott Brown and his supporters. Along with their liberal media pundits, they did little more than mischaracterize, ridicule and vilify Brown, Republicans, conservatives, the Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin—anything to minimize the opposition. Their over-the-top attacks showed such arrogance and gross negligence of sound political tactics that purposeful self-denial may be the only logical explanation.

As any true strategist knows, victory over an opponent is usually the result of a thorough understanding of your own strengths and weaknesses, as well as those of the opposition. How the Democrats respond to this defeat will show us whether or not they’re prepared to face political reality. GOP strategists better be paying attention.

All we know is something happened in the dark of night under the cloak of secrecy. What exactly it is, they won’t tell us. But Harry Reid has assured Americans that whatever it is, we’re going to like it. I think that’s what Mark Twain had in mind when he said, “If you don’t get what you like, you have to like what you get.”

So what are we talking about here? Incredible as it may seem, not even Harry Reid knows for sure. But he insists that whatever it is, it won’t cost much. With a sales pitch like that, it’s no wonder that so many people are concerned about what we might get stuck with in the end. And I do mean, in the end.

No one in their right mind would buy a car the way Congress is trying to sell their health care legislation. It would be like buying an automobile sight unseen, not knowing the model, the year, or the price tag. And if you don’t like those terms, tough luck; you have to buy one anyway. And by the way, even though you’re going to love driving it, there’s no warranty.

I don’t think I have adequate words to describe our current administration’s approach to health care. Phrases like “Feeble-minded,” “insanely warped,” “autocratic power grab”—all words that fall a bit short of the reality of this tyrannical lunacy. And the lunacy may have only just begun.

Now that the House and the Senate have each approved their own version of health care reform, Congress has to come to an agreement as to what bill they’re going to submit to the President to sign. Whichever version prevails, or even if it becomes a hybrid of the two, the final result will be a little like being given a mysterious venereal disease. Even if you don’t know what you have, you know you’ve been screwed.