Jan 20 2010

Best Post Election-Earthquake Reads

Published by at 2:04 pm under 2010 Elections,All General Discussions

I have been scanning some of the post mortems on the MA Special Election earthquake, and I have pulled a few as the ones I see as the most important. Many on the right and left will not be comforted by these observations, but that is what happens when we learn from upheaval.

First, I think Victor Davis Hansen precisely rounds up all the national factors which played into the rising outrage with the DC liberals. It covers the water front and concisely catalogues why Americans of all political persuasions are rightly fed up and grabbing their electoral pitchforks. This is the Rosetta Stone as to what is happening.

Second, I find there are some surprisingly (and refreshingly) sane democrats coming out today saying their party needs to stop the madness. From Barney Frank and Jim Webb to Evan Bahye and Lanny Davis, these people understand what Hanson has put his finger on, the Democrats are heading off a cliff and need to find a new, more centrist direction.

Finally, reader botnet pointed me to this excellent piece at AT by Steve McCann on why conservatives need to proceed carefully so they can ride the wave of anger and frustration, instead of becoming another target of it.

As I noted earlier, there are a lot of seats now in play in regards to this wave of anger which began in NJ and VA and has grown to epic proportions as we see now in MA. The liberals are now the target of this political tsunami, but in reality the entire political industrial complex is in its cross hairs. Those who recognize and respect the forces behind this wave can survive it. Those who don’t will be consumed by it.

Update: McCann is close to right, except he wants this to be a conservative only led opposition. This cannot be. Conservatives come in many hues and flavors. If the litmus test is how conservative you are the Dems will win due to the internal fractures between the center and the far right. There is no ‘taking over’ – there is only working together.

Update: More cautionary words from Ed Morrissey and Glenn Reynolds.

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “Best Post Election-Earthquake Reads”

  1. Redteam says:

    I think McCann makes many good points. I knew you would disagree with this:
    “In order to overcome the Democrats’ misuse of “community organizations” and biased election laws and officials to skew close elections, the members of the conservative coalition must turn out in massive numbers to vote and support one political party.

    Everyone must stop the absurd belief that one should vote for the person and not the party. The lesson of the passage of the Health Care Reform Act in Congress should never be forgotten: There is no such thing as a “conservative Democrat” once installed in Congress. There is a major difference between the parties. Conservatives can influence what happens in the Republican Party; they cannot do so in the Democratic Party.”

    I believe he is correct, maybe for a different reason though.

    The media will remain far left, the far left will remain far left. They are Democrats, so everyone else has to be Republican if they don’t want the far left running things. No independent party is going to win, no new party is going to ‘spring up’ and win. Either the Democrats or Republicans are going to be running things.

    I see more evidence that the far left will jettison Obama if he abandons them (kinda like the far right abandoned George Bush for his betrayals of strong conservatism).

    The country is not ready for wholesale government paid for abortions, gun control, amnesty, rights for illegal aliens at the expense of taxpaying Americans, Gov run health care, socialism vs capitalism and these are things the Democrats want. So since there is no “Independent Party” you have to choose to favor the things pushed by Dems or by Repubs. You can claim to be independent but it is, for most people, a copout. It’s because they don’t favor the Dems but want to be able to sway the Repubs by saying they have to ‘earn’ their support or they will side with the evil Dems. So, I think McCann is saying we have to quit playing these games and decide whose side you are on and support it whole hog.
    That’s kinda the way I see it.

  2. kathie says:

    The “tea party” movement is a collection of ordinary citizens who said stop and they called us every name in the book. Did they listen, no and then came along Scott Brown. We felt the federal Government intruding into our lives with every proposal and throwing away our hard earned dollars willy nilly to special groups deemed special by the President and a few will oiled politicians. Sarah Palin seemed an ordinary citizen, who John McCain picked out to be his running mate, as MSM loves to ram down out throat, she isn’t much of a politician. But Sarah Palin was ordinary like all of us sitting at home watching our “politicians” screw us royally. I think Sarah gave the citizens of America the courage to stand up for ourselves. If she could make a difference so could we. Scott Brown is not that different then Sarah, he has an internal feeling for right and wrong, for strength and compassion, he is plain spoken, a non-politician politician. He is one of us. He has a very interesting biography, single mother, lots of step fathers, a small brush with the law, an athlete, and lots of energy.

    So if politicians want to join the “independent movement” they must recognize that we don’t accept “politicians” as usual. Say what you mean, mean what you say, don’t over promise, and don’t take away the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans. A safety net is fine as we are compassionate, and generous, but you also need to help yourself too. This is what the people are saying. This is the “tea party” movement, we put you there and us can take you away.

  3. OLDPUPPYMAX says:

    In addition to being aided by the ubiquitous contempt of actual Americans for the Marxist/fascist thuggery of Obama and his cronies, Brown won because he presented a strong, unmistakably conservative agenda and belief system to the voters of Mass. No wishy-washy, limp-wristed, “I must not offend anyone” McCain sort of cowardice. Brown stood firm, stated what he believes and promised above all to be the 41st vote against Obamas plan to enslave the American people. Now is NOT the time to retreat with the likes of Mitch McConnell to the comfortable confines he and other spineless RINOs have carved out under their office desks. Stand up as a conservative, speak of and FOR American exceptionalism, deride those hyper arrogant, self important political thugs whose agenda calls for the destruction of the US and the trampling of our Constitution. That will win in November.

  4. oneal lane says:

    I think the terms “moderate” “centrist” and “independent” are being used interchangeably and they do not necessarily equate.

    An independent can hold any set of views from Marxist to moderate or anything else, as long as they hold no particular allegiance to a party and think and vote “independently” A moderate or centrist might be independent but the reverse is not cecessarily so.

    This is my understanding of the term.

    Any other views.


  5. Redteam says:

    “Brown won because he presented a strong, unmistakably conservative agenda and belief system to the voters of Mass. No wishy-washy, limp-wristed, “I must not offend anyone””

    It’s strange to me that people can see it so apparently as you do, and others see it as he won because he is a ‘centrist’, not wanting to offend anyone.

    From what i’ve seen, his bent is to be as conservative as he can be in Mass.

    But, he won, and that’s what’s important. I think everyone just sees him as the ideal candidate to do what he did when he did it.

  6. the botnet says:


    the botnet agrees with you. since reading in a previous AJ post mentioning NY-23 as a debacle, the botnet has done much head scratching. Was it a debacle since a RINO was the (R) candidate, or given AJ’s seeming disdain for right-wingers presumably the debacle was the loss due to the “righty-right-winger”.

    If the latter, it is a great indicator that, yes, the R’s LOSE when running RINO candidates.

    Conservatism is a winner, and RINOism is a loser. Why vote for the Maine sisters, or the detestable Spectre? Why enable those who would sell us out on the basic ideals of less gov’t intrusion, and fiscal irresponsibility that in the private sector would be criminal? Scott Brown from last night: “Across this country, we are united by basic convictions that need only to be clearly stated to win a majority.”

    the botnet stands by the assertion it is just fine to include RINOS in the movement, but they have no place at the helm.

  7. AJStrata says:


    NY-23 was a string of errors. One was anointing a liberal just like Coakley was anointed. But the second mistake was going too far right, allowing the democrat to take the middle ground.

  8. AJStrata says:

    LOL! Only losers use the term RINO. Very frustrated losers.

    See how it feels to be belittled??

  9. crosspatch says:

    How did Brown poll in Barney Frank’s MA04? Maybe it is time to begin promoting a fellow named Earl Sholley who is running for Barney Frank’s Congressional seat.


  10. crosspatch says:

    What needs to happen is to elect Republican legislatures at all levels so that we can get judges in place that are more interested in abiding by the law rather than creating law.

  11. the botnet says:

    AJ: Agreed that NY-23 was a cluster####.

    The intent behind the statement was not to belittle any individual. The statement was an observation that meeting the enemy half way concedes ground, and in the bye and bye there comes the inevitable cliff at your heels.
    What was once a moderate is now a “right winger”, and the Overton window is no way to win a war.

    It seems there is a lack of common definition of RINO.

    Surely the DOI is the bedrock statement for conservatives. Life, Liberty, the right to Property. While others worry about building a coalition of 50%+1, the goalposts are moved so that the philosophy is watered down.

    the botnet humbly suggests this notion of a RINO: One who acquiesces on the basic tenets of conservatism (small government, personal responsibility and the preservation of the civil society). Is there a better description?

    There must be a lesson to be learned from “moderation” when the last R nominee for President could not get the vote of the Brooks’s, Powells, and Chris Buckleys of the world. It would be a safe wager even Meggie Mac did not even vote for him.

    Once again there was no intent to throw stones (and no intent to get personal), as there must have been a lack of common definition of the term.

    Best regards,
    the botnet.