Blame Obama

EDWARD M. Kennedy has been gone less than five months, but in political terms he is already ancient history. For 47 years he represented Massachusetts in the US Senate; in his home state, no one wielded greater influence or cast a longer shadow. As recently as a few weeks ago, it was taken for granted that the race for the seat he occupied for so long would be shaped unmistakably by his legacy.

But that’s not at all the way this campaign has worked out. As Tuesday’s special election approaches, Massachusetts voters are not being driven by their esteem for Kennedy’s memory or by affection for his family. Indeed, far from advancing what Kennedy called the cause of his life - universal health care - hundreds of thousands of Bay State voters are fired up in supporting a candidate who promises to derail it.

For the first time in two generations, the outcome of a US Senate campaign in Massachusetts is not a foregone conclusion. Whatever happens on Tuesday, this much is clear: Democrat Martha Coakley will not win in a cakewalk, and Republican Scott Brown will not be a sacrificial lamb. Heading into the final weekend, two of the country’s most respected political handicappers - Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook - pronounced the Bay State Senate contest a “toss-up.’’ A new Suffolk University poll showed Brown surging into the lead, with 50 percent of likely voters supporting him vs. 46 percent for Coakley.

How can this be happening? This is the bluest state of them all - a state without a single Republican in Congress or in statewide office, a state Barack Obama won in a landslide. How can the Senate race be too close to call?

FDR a great President?

Look up unemployment when he came into office.

Then, look it up as America entered WWII — unemployment was higher than when he became President.

He managed to keep America in the depression for 9 years, and it was a miserable time for most Americans.

I have just returned from a repellent foray through the sewers of DU. Yecch. But I bring good news.

Folks, it is meltdown central over there, with recriminations and accusations at least as bitter as we had here the morning after McCain lost to Obama. It is hilarious. Everyone from Bill Clinton to Howard Dean is throwing their own brand of gasoline on the fire. Only a tiny fraction of their posters think Coakley will win. They are throughly demoralized and disgusted.

Now is the time to kick them when they’re down. Even if you’ve already donated to Brown, go back and give him just a little bit more. Phone bank. Talk to your friends and relatives who live there. Link to him on Facebook and Twitter. Join the avalanche of pro-Brown sentiment in the comments at places like boston.com. But most of all, give him another $10 or $20 to drive the stake into the heart of that witch once and for all.

Victory is nigh, amigos. The momentum is ours. Brown hasn’t put a foot wrong and Coakley is absolutely useless (and this is something pretty much everyone at DU agrees on.) We can WIN this!

It will crush the spirit of Democrats across the country if our guy gets to fumigate the seat once fouled by that Kennedy vermin. It will kill health care meddling for another 20 years. It will kill cap-n-tax. It will kill card check. It will kill amnesty. It will kill Obama’s entire agenda and reduce him to lame duck status for the remaining three-quarters of his term. It will go a long way towards sweeping him out the door of the White House in 2012.

Please, even if you can’t afford it, even if you’ve donated three times already like me, even if you’ve never donated to a political candidate before, go right now to brownforussenate.com and give as much as you can spare. It may be the most effective money you ever parted with.

Whatever success a Kennedy has had, politically, can be traced to an association with JFK. Dems in general and Massachusetts Dems in particular have been searching for another JFK since 1963.

The strange thing is if another Kennedy were to be found who espoused the exact same values (political) as did JFK, he would more comfortably fit in the Republican party of today then the Democrat party, who I believe would not have him.

The gleam is wearing off but maybe not for the reasons you think. My guess is they may be turning on him because he has not been liberal enough, has not fought hard enough to socialize the entire economy, been to quick to back off on his agenda (not the one he ran on, the REAL one we have been seeing after he was inaugurated).

Also the media, in sensing a public ready to revolt against this Administration probably does not want to be in the sights of the people when it happens and by distancing themselves from him hope to avoid getting blood on themselves when pounding begins in earnest.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.