Tea-Partiers are "right wing extremists" and "radicals"

[Kythas]

According to John Kerry and other Democrats who are mailing letters to Massachusetts Democrats, if you were involved in any of the tea-parties this summer, you are a "right wing extremist" and a "right wing radical".

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... itics%2529

[boomerang]

That's especially true of the one on December 16.

1773

[The Annoyed Man]

That is just going to blow up in their faces. Brown is fixin' to clean Coakley's plow, and MA dems just can't get their mind around the fact that the more they open their commie mouths, the more they cement Brown's lead. I'm enjoying the show.

Massachusetts democrat voters outnumber their republican counterparts 3/1 (39%/13% of all registered voters). However, 48% are independents, and they are overwhelmingly repudiating Coakely and government managed health care.

[marksiwel]

That is just going to blow up in their faces. Brown is fixin' to clean Coakley's plow, and MA dems just can't get their mind around the fact that the more they open their commie mouths, the more they cement Brown's lead. I'm enjoying the show.

Massachusetts democrat voters outnumber their republican counterparts 3/1 (39%/13% of all registered voters). However, 48% are independents, and they are overwhelmingly repudiating Coakely and government managed health care.

You get some Right leaning folks once you get out of Boston Proper, like all of Western Mass. Ugh cant believe I lived in that state for 2 years.

[The Annoyed Man]

More dirt on Coakley:

• Martha’s Greatest Hits: The Things the Democrats Would Like You to Forget About Candidate Coakley
• Martha’s Greatest Hits II: Candidate Coakley and the ‘Pedophile Priest’
• Coakley and the Curling-Iron Rapist, Part II: Why Did it Take So Long to Press Charges?
• Martha Coakley's Convictions

Of course, none of this is getting any traction with the lamestream press. Maybe they'll do a little post-election day butt whuppin' introspection....

...Naaaaaaah....

[flintknapper]

According to John Kerry and other Democrats who are mailing letters to Massachusetts Democrats, if you were involved in any of the tea-parties this summer, you are a "right wing extremist" and a "right wing radical".

I guess I "made the team" then.

[The Annoyed Man]

What's happening in Massachusetts is just the tip of the iceberg — visible there because it is so remarkable. But that election, as other writers have pointed out, has effectively been nationalized, and it is as much a referendum on President Obama's agenda as it is on democrat party over-reaching both in Congress and in Massachusetts.

Charles Krauthammer has written an excellent article about it:

Real Clear Politics

January 15, 2010
The Fall of Obama
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama's approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent -- and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president's second year.

A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health care reform.

A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing -- even among erstwhile believers.

Liberals try to attribute Obama's political decline to matters of style. He's too cool, detached, uninvolved. He's not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He's contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.

These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today's vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he's too left.

It's not about style; it's about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society -- health care, education and energy.

Then began the descent -- when, more amazingly still, Obama devoted himself to turning these statist visions into legislative reality. First energy, with cap-and-trade, an unprecedented federal intrusion into American industry and commerce. It got through the House, with its Democratic majority and Supreme Soviet-style rules. But it will never get out of the Senate.

Then, the keystone: a health care revolution in which the federal government will regulate in crushing detail one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By essentially abolishing medical underwriting (actuarially based risk assessment) and replacing it with government fiat, Obamacare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators. The public option was a sideshow. As many on the right have long been arguing, and as the more astute on the left (such as The New Yorker's James Surowiecki) understand, Obamacare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally "private" insurers.

At first, health care reform was sustained politically by Obama's own popularity. But then gravity took hold, and Obamacare's profound unpopularity dragged him down with it. After 29 speeches and a fortune in squandered political capital, it still will not sell.

The health care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people -- disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized -- have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.

Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.

It's inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel -- of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.

Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn't just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something -- to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America's deeply and historically individualist polity.

Perhaps Obama thought he'd been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success -- twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress -- was a referendum on his predecessor's governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy.

Hence the resistance. Hence the fall. The system may not always work, but it does take its revenge.

I highlighted my favorite quotes in red.

[extremist]

According to John Kerry and other Democrats who are mailing letters to Massachusetts Democrats, if you were involved in any of the tea-parties this summer, you are a "right wing extremist" and a "right wing radical".

I resemble that remark

James

[Oldgringo]

What's happening in Massachusetts is just the tip of the iceberg — visible there because it is so remarkable. But that election, as other writers have pointed out, has effectively been nationalized, and it is as much a referendum on President Obama's agenda as it is on democrat party over-reaching both in Congress and in Massachusetts.

Charles Krauthammer has written an excellent article about it:

Real Clear Politics

January 15, 2010
The Fall of Obama
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama's approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent -- and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president's second year.

A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health care reform.

From the depths of my Sr. Citizen heart, I hope TAM and Charles Krauthammer are right.

A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing -- even among erstwhile believers.

Liberals try to attribute Obama's political decline to matters of style. He's too cool, detached, uninvolved. He's not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He's contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.

These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today's vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he's too left.

It's not about style; it's about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society -- health care, education and energy.

Then began the descent -- when, more amazingly still, Obama devoted himself to turning these statist visions into legislative reality. First energy, with cap-and-trade, an unprecedented federal intrusion into American industry and commerce. It got through the House, with its Democratic majority and Supreme Soviet-style rules. But it will never get out of the Senate.

Then, the keystone: a health care revolution in which the federal government will regulate in crushing detail one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By essentially abolishing medical underwriting (actuarially based risk assessment) and replacing it with government fiat, Obamacare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators. The public option was a sideshow. As many on the right have long been arguing, and as the more astute on the left (such as The New Yorker's James Surowiecki) understand, Obamacare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally "private" insurers.

At first, health care reform was sustained politically by Obama's own popularity. But then gravity took hold, and Obamacare's profound unpopularity dragged him down with it. After 29 speeches and a fortune in squandered political capital, it still will not sell.

The health care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people -- disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized -- have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.

Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.

It's inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel -- of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.

Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn't just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something -- to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America's deeply and historically individualist polity.

Perhaps Obama thought he'd been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success -- twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress -- was a referendum on his predecessor's governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy.

Hence the resistance. Hence the fall. The system may not always work, but it does take its revenge.

I highlighted my favorite quotes in red.

From the depths of my impecunious Sr. Citizen heart, I hope and pray that TAM and Charles Krauthammer are right.

[The Annoyed Man]

From the depths of my impecunious Sr. Citizen heart, I hope and pray that TAM and Charles Krauthammer are right.

Well, now the dems are trying to distance Obama from Coakley. According to THIS ARTICLE, If Coakely doesn't rebound in the polls, he will cancel his trip to Massachusetts to try and rescue her. Now they are starting to acknowledge that she's going to lose, and are trying to spin it as something other than a referendum (relevant parts in red):

Massachusetts: 'Bottom has fallen out' of Coakley's polls; Dems prepare to explain defeat, protect Obama
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/15/10 7:10 AM EST

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. "With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.

Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

With the election still four days away, Democrats are still hoping that "something could happen" to change the dynamics of the race. But until that thing happens, the situation as it exists today explains Barack Obama's decision not to travel to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley. "If the White House thinks she can win, Obama will be there," the Democrat says. "If they don't think she can win, he won't be there." For national Democrats, the task is now to insulate Obama against any suggestion that a Coakley defeat would be a judgment on the president's agenda and performance in office.

The private talk among Democrats is also reflected in some public polling on the race. Late Thursday, we learned the results of a Suffolk University poll showing Brown in the lead by four points, 50 percent to 46 percent. That poll showed Obama with a 55 percent approval rating. Also on Thursday, two of Washington's leading political analysts, Stuart Rothenberg and Charlie Cook, each changed their assessment of the Brown/Coakley race from a narrow advantage for Coakley to a toss-up.

Again, they are completely blind to the notion that it's not about the Coakley campaign, but rather it is a repudiation of policy. And that is why they are going to lose — because they refuse to acknowledge that they overreached and are out of step with the values of the nation.

[bdickens]

According to John Kerry and other Democrats who are mailing letters to Massachusetts Democrats, if you were involved in any of the tea-parties this summer, you are a "right wing extremist" and a "right wing radical".

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... itics%2529

I really regret not going to one, now.

[flintknapper]

Forgot to mention that I am also an INFIDEL.

[quidni]

Aaand.... another one being tossed under the bus.

What exactly do they mean by "running a good campaign?" If they're referring to just putting on a good show to wow the audience (i.e. voters), any circus performer would be a good candidate.

[Liberty]

Again, they are completely blind to the notion that it's not about the Coakley campaign, but rather it is a repudiation of policy. And that is why they are going to lose — because they refuse to acknowledge that they overreached and are out of step with the values of the nation.

This election isn't as much about liberal vs Conservative or even about the aproval or disaprovel of Obama or Obamacare.

Massachusetts is still a very liberal state. The people there have bought into Obamacare yerars ago. The one they fear though is a one party government. They do recognize that no good can come of the Democrats having absolute power. This is why they have voted for certain Republican Governors such as Romney and Weld. The chart here might prove interesting to some.