My, my. What a year will do to the political landscape in America.
One year ago Barack Obama was inaugurated as the first black President of the United States, bringing with him a message of hope and change.
On Tuesday, change came about in a way no one could have ever dreamed.
For only the second time in my life, a Republican won a U.S. Senate seat in the state of Massachusetts.
The bluest of blue states elected Scott Brown over Democratic nominee Martha Coakley, winning the special election to fill the vacated seat of Ted Kennedy.
Even with a visit from Mr. Obama on Sunday, Coakley couldn’t muster enough support to salvage an admittedly poorly managed campaign.
Following the election, liberals – mostly progressives – attempted to explain the reasons why Coakley couldn’t win in an overwhelmingly blue state where Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one.
Offering excuses would more aptly describe the views from the far left.
Watching the election returns on MSNBC, progressive commentators Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews all had a “deer in the headlights” look on their faces as the night wore on.
Instead of recognizing the real reasons Brown defeated Coakley, Olbermann said the Senator-elect was an “irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”
Progressives at the Web site Daily Kos suggested the reason Coakley didn’t win was because the democrat-controlled Congress hadn’t gone far enough in pursuing its ultra liberal agenda.
Olbermann and progressives in general just aren’t getting it.
According to polls, Mr. Obama’s health care proposal played a prominent role in Brown’s victory. Adding to voters’ anger were the “deals” involving Nebraska senator Ben Nelson, Louisiana senator Mary Landrieu and the unions.
Voters across the nation were left wondering why Nebraska, Louisiana and the unions all received bribes that would effectively increase the tax burden for most Americans. Those deals have alienated people across the political spectrum, which isn’t an easy thing to do.
Mr. Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have lost the support among independent voters that helped elect Obama and other Democrats in 2008.
As opposed to seizing the opportunity to address the nation’s most pressing issues – namely the economy – the Democratic leadership began listening to the strident, purist, elitist progressives who prefer an all or nothing approach to government.
Mr. Obama seemed to be oblivious to the election results in Massachusetts as well, claiming on Wednesday that voters were angry because of government incompetence over the past eight years.
Granted, the Bush administration failed Americans, but blaming the former President one year into his administration makes Mr. Obama seem clueless.
Progressives need to resonate some understanding quickly or all of the gains made in 2008 will have been for nothing. Attempting to place blame where it isn’t warranted causes harm to those who want a moderate form of government.
Former President Bill Clinton learned in 1994 that America doesn’t want government that leans dramatically to the left or right.
After Republicans gained control of the House and Senate that year, Clinton shifted his policies toward the center. In doing so, he became the first Democrat re-elected since Franklin D. Roosevelt.
People like me with conservative fiscal views and liberal social opinions are being left out of the process in Washington, that is until it’s my turn to vote.
If Pelosi and Reid force an unpopular health care bill through Congress, the recent surge in voter anger towards Democrats will prove to be their undoing in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Progressives can offer all the excuses they want why Coakley didn’t win, but the real reason rests squarely within the extreme left of the Democratic Party that they occupy.
