January 21, 2010 — vol. 45, no 24

News

Local

National

World

Health

In the News

News Notes

Opinion

Editorial

Opinion

Letters to the Editor

Roving Camera

Blog

Arts & Entertainment

Events Calendar

News & Reviews

Boston Scenes

Billboard

Dining Out

Community Resources

Church Listings

Business Directory

Links

[ COMMENT | PRINT | SHARE ]

[X]

GOP win forces review of Obama's mandate

Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, greets supporters at a rally in Wrentham, Mass., Monday, Jan. 18, 2010. In a stunning upset, Brown bested state Attorney General Martha Coakley in Tuesday’s special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat left empty by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

Charles Babington

State Attorney General Martha Coakley had a double-digit lead over Republican candidate Scott Brown but could not hold on to win Tuesday night’s election. Seen here are Coakley’s campaign posters near the Boston Public Library. (Photo by Caitlin Yoshiko Buysse)

The stunning Republican victory in Tuesday’s Massachusetts Senate race will force Democrats to fundamentally rethink the meaning of Barack Obama’s election to the presidency, especially the notion that Americans want more government help in matters such as obtaining health insurance.

Scott Brown’s win in a liberal state will do more than vastly complicate Obama’s bid to overhaul the U.S. health care system and pass climate-change legislation. It will prompt politicians of every stripe to redouble their efforts to understand voters’ anger and desires ahead of the November elections for Congress, governorships and state legislatures.

Many Americans saw the 2008 election as a repudiation of George W. Bush’s presidency, with Obama as the fresh new leader promising to harness the government to expand health coverage, discipline banks and stimulate the moribund economy.

But Brown’s victory over Democrat Martha Coakley suggests that many voters still harbor suspicions or outright resentment of the federal government, no matter who’s in charge.

Conservatives, perhaps sensing the mood better than liberals, have accused Obama of big-brotherism and even socialism as he pushes his health plan and pours billions of dollars into economic stimulus programs.

The president rightly notes that he campaigned precisely on those issues. But that’s small comfort to nervous and perplexed Democratic lawmakers who now expect stiff anti-incumbent winds in November and heightened GOP attacks against” big government.”

Even the smartest political consultants may need time to sort out Tuesday’s lessons.

American voters rejected Republican control in the 2006 congressional elections and the 2008 presidential election. Democrats widely assumed that a top priority, and a winning political issue, was to make health insurance more accessible and competitive.

But now, just 14 months later, voters are snarling at the Democrats they put in charge, leaving them to wonder how to expand services without invoking public wrath.

John Triolo, a Massachusetts independent who voted for Obama in 2008 and for Brown on Tuesday, exemplified the confusing message.

“I voted for Obama because I wanted change,” said Triolo, 38, a sales manager from Fitchburg, Mass. “I wanted change, I thought he’d bring it to us, but I just don’t like the direction that he’s heading.”

Everyone should have health coverage, Triolo said, “but I think we should take the time to look at it, but not ram it down our throat.”

Karla Bunch, a 49-year-old teacher who also voted for Brown in Fitchburg, said, “It’s time for the country, for the taxpayers, to take back their money. It’s not a vote against the president.”

Obama may be as puzzled as anyone by his party’s inability to keep the Senate seat long held by liberal icon Edward M. Kennedy. The president “was both surprised and frustrated” by developments in the Coakley-Brown contest, spokesman Robert Gibbs said while voting continued Tuesday.

Democrats were dismayed last November to see the GOP take over the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia, states that Obama had carried the year before. But Tuesday’s results are more painful and troubling.

Massachusetts is among the nation’s most liberal states, and the candidates made it clear that a Brown victory likely would kill the Democrats’ health care push in the Senate.

Democrats now must ask: Did Massachusetts voters register their discontent based on a decent understanding of the complex health care legislation? Or did conservatives do a better job of framing and spinning the debate, starting with raucous public meetings in August that caught Democrats flat-footed with bogus claims of “death panels?”

The latest AP-GfK poll showed an even split between Americans who support the health care package and those who oppose it. But Republican lawmakers say Brown’s victory proves that public intensity and momentum are on their side, and they plan to build on it throughout the year.

Jon Cowan, president of the Democratic-leaning group Third Way, said centrist and independent voters in 2006 and 2008 were lending their support to Democrats, not granting it permanently. Their message on Tuesday, he said, is “you must hear our concerns and address them seriously if you want our long-term support.” So far, Cowan said, they “still need significant convincing.”

Obama’s campaign clout also will be questioned, although he has ample time to regroup before his 2012 re-election bid.

Surveys show that many Americans hold a dimmer view of government as an institution than they do of the president as an individual. The AP-GfK poll found Obama’s approval rating at 56 percent, about the same as in October. But approval of his handling of specific issues, including health care, is considerably lower.

Underscoring the deep and persistent doubts that Americans seem to have about their government, a slight majority still thinks the nation is on the wrong track. The number ran as high as 78 percent just before Obama defeated John McCain in 2008.

But Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have been unable to keep the wrong-track number below 50 percent, according to polls that ask the question every month or so. That’s about the average finding from 2003 through 2005, and better than the results from 2006 to 2008.

If Democrats can find the tiniest of silver linings in Tuesday’s results, it’s this: Massachusetts pollsters detected a strong anti-incumbent mood among voters, which could hurt Republicans as well as Democrats. On Tuesday, it mainly hurt Coakley, because her party dominates state politics.

In November, hundreds of Republican senators, House members, governors and other state officials will seek re-election nationwide, and a big anti-incumbent wave might sweep them out with their Democratic brethren.

Associated Press writer Bob Salsberg in Fitchburg, Mass., contributed to this report.

+ Add Comment

Jan 22 22:22pm by Hilliard49 [98.217.189.159]

The Republicans are bragging about their well-built voting machine and wanting a "change" in DC. Well, the change they are going to get is more of the same. Funny how they don't remember how we got in this mess in the first place -- at least 8 years of Republicans being able to spend our money and not be called on it. Now that the well is dry, all of a sudden, it's the Democrats fault so they elect a truck driving 'cute' model to represent Massachusetts.

Blame Coakley for a lackluster campaign? No, blame the 58% of Democrats that didn't get off their "rusty dusty" (as Rev. Joseph Lowery said) and cast a vote. He said anyone who has a picture of Martin Luther King on their wall needs to take it down. Rev. Lowery also said (at the JFK Library) it's not the end of the world -- cheer up. We get another chance in November; let's show the USA, Massachusetts can vote on the issues.

Jan 21 15:41pm by JusticeSpeaks [170.170.59.139]

What is interesting is how some reporters are labelling him. They say he is America's idol. I am telling you that may be the case but we do not need an idol. We need leadership. We need leaders who will stand for change even when the public wants it but is wary or change, frightened of change and fearful of change. That does not mean that change is not coming.

Another interesting fact is that Senator Brown won just over 50 percent of the vote. It is not the end of the world, nor does it mean an overwhelming victory. What the media has decided to do is attempt to uproot President Obama. They want to destroy the confidence of the president and the American people to stand behind their leader during the change and the battle to bring it forward. There will always be those individuals who want to go backwards, rather than advance. Then there are those who are just uncomfortable with the leadership. But the exciting thing is that only means that we will grow as a people. Change does not come easy. We must continue to believe and stand for change. It does matter how the winds blow or what the naysayers speak. We believe. 52% is not an overwhelming victory. Yes, congratulate Senator Brown, but we still want a leader. We will not abandon ship at this time. Dont' we want a president who will not let go of the wheel during the storm

Jan 21 15:15pm by saltzmas [146.115.109.55]

Interested in the Massachusetts special election or Obama’s first year in office? These are the topics of discussion on the PBS show Basic Black, which you can watch tomorrow (Thursday) at 7:30 p.m. LIVE at www.basicblack.org or on channel 2 in Boston. You can also participate in a live chat at basicblack.org during the show.

Jan 21 7:14am by Corey Mondello [72.93.183.239]

The Republican and Democratic parties have been moving to the "right" for decades. This is the reason why the USA is in such a mess. Oddly, the “right" has complaining about the moral decay because of "liberal" ideology, when it has been the "right" that has been in the majority and been able to make the biggest changes when it comes to foreign relations and laws that effect all Americans.

The hatred towards the USA, Americans and all our supporters world-wide, is at an all-time high. The US government spends more money outside the USA nation destroying and building. While spouting “democracy” and monitoring elections, the US government is involved in the funding of political parties all over the globe, to end “democracy” and to install anti-citizen governments, that will do and say what they are expected to.

What happened on September 11^th 2001 was just the beginning. The more the USA moves to the “right”, the less safe we will all be.

It isn’t the “We the People” ideology (aka “Left) that is destroying America, it is not the pro-union, pro-choice, or pro-equal rights, that the “right” seems to think is bad for the country, it is the “right” themselves that are destroying the country, and the world.

Quick note in defence of the “left” ideology. Seeing as most on the “right” believe taking away their guns is a “liberal/left” goal, from what my memory provides me, it was the George W. Bush administration that ordered the unarming of private United States citizens during the Katrina disaster.

Senate candidates clash in second-to-last debate

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. - Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown used their sharpest terms yet as the two Massachusetts politicians clashed last Friday in the second-to-last debate of the campaign to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. More »

Coakley wins senate primary in a landslide

State Attorney General Martha Coakley withstood a dismal turnout and became the first woman elected from Massachusetts to the U.S. Senate seat once held by John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster and both John and Ted Kennedy. More »

Kennedy's Senate career full of civil rights history

When the Civil Rights Bill reached the U.S. Senate on March 30, 1964, it was met by a group of Southern senators determined to prevent it from hitting the desk of then-President Lyndon B. Johnson. More »

BayStateBanner.com

The Bay State Banner
23 Drydock Avenue
Boston, MA 02210

Phone: 617 261-4600
Melvin B. Miller

Editor & Publisher