House of Eratosthenes

There’s something glaringly missing from this story which speculates on the response from democrats in general, and the White House in particular, should the Massachusetts race not go their way. Can you spot it? Read top to bottom. Go on, I’ll wait. It starts out like this…

President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.

“This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt,” a senior administration official said. “It more reinforces the conviction to fight hard.”

A defeat by Martha Coakley for the seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy would be embarrassing for the party — and potentially debilitating, since Democrats will lose their filibuster-proof, 60-vote hold on the Senate.

A potential casualty: the health care bill that was to be the crowning achievement of the president’s first year in office.

The health care backdrop has given the White House a strong incentive to strike a defiant posture, at least rhetorically, in response to what would be an undeniable embarrassment for the president and his party.

There won’t be any grand proclamation that “the era of Big Government is over” — the words President Bill Clinton uttered after Republicans won the Congress in the 1990s and he was forced to trim a once-ambitious agenda.

“The response will not be to do incremental things and try to salvage a few seats in the fall,” a presidential adviser said. “The best political route also happens to be the boldest rhetorical route, which is to go out and fight and let the chips fall where they may. We can say, ‘At least we fought for these things, and the Republicans said no.’”

That last one kind of got close to what I was trying to find…not quite there. What I’m looking for, you don’t find anywhere in it. Not a single mention.

And this is really, really remarkable.

It is the reason democrats are going to fight so hard after being handed this plate of shut-the-fuck-uppery. The ostensible reason. Our poor, our disenfranchised, the uninsured, the homeless people the Republicans keep stepping on when they walk down the street. The little old ladies being forced to choose between proper treatment of their malignant hangnails and another tin of cat food for them to take home for supper now that they’ve eaten the cat.

The ritual snow-job that, supposedly, what the democrats want is only what’s good for “all of us.” Something about, no matter how many Republicans are in the Senate, there are still some decent folks out there who can’t get health care, and dammit they’re entitled to it! (Slam fist down on table here.)

You don’t hear that quite so often the last few days, do you? It’s all about how awesomesauce the democrat party is, and how they win even when they lose.

Not that this proves anything. Sure, it’s logically impossible for them to have the country’s interests at heart when they behave this way…but that isn’t news to you if you think critically about this stuff. Nevertheless, there are seasons to this. On even numbered years right before Election Day, it is clearly to their benefit to take the sad-sack approach and talk about “workers” being forced to lick the mud off their boss’ boots because our labor laws aren’t up to snuff, or “undocumented workers” who are being overworked just so they can send a few piddly dollars back home to their fifteen kids who all have leprosy, or the guy who is willingly selling his last kidney so his daughter can get a bone marrow transplant because she used up all her benefits…whatever.

During “special” elections all that shit goes away. It becomes more like a coach’s speech in a locker room. Minus the sportsmanship. We’re so awesome, those other guys suck so much. In this particular case it’s supposed to be about health care. And saving the planet. Not a single peep about the supposedly awful ramifications in store for “all of us,” or “the least among us,” should they fail. Nothing about who stands to get hurt. Even snail darters and spotted owls…something like those…nowhere to be found.

Very, very, very strange. What exactly does it mean? Wish I knew.

“The response will not be to do incremental things and try to salvage a few seats in the fall,” a presidential adviser said. “The best political route also happens to be the boldest rhetorical route, which is to go out and fight and let the chips fall where they may. We can say, ‘At least we fought for these things, and the Republicans said no.’”

Oh, you just go right on ahead and do that, Democrats. And watch the tables turn still more dramatically in November, and the effects will last for a decade at least.

Never in my lifetime has an administration and Congress overreached to such an extent. It’s astounding.
- philmon | 01/19/2010 @ 08:53
Listening to Beck this morning, and he pointed something out. He’s right, too. I read ?Rules for Radicals”.

If you’re following the Alinsky book — the win at all costs, ends justify the means playbook… when you’re surrounded you accellerate your strategy. You damn the torpedoes and stomp on the gas.

So it’s pretty clear now — the rise of the Alinskyites culminated in the 2008 election (thanks in no small part to a huge effort during the Bush years to many local and global leftist groups who organized the Anti-Bush, Anti-War rallies) — and they occupy a controlling interest in the seats of power in this country, including the White House.

If this doesn’t scare the sh*t out of you, you’re in denial.

What is the Democrats and Obama’s response to popular backlash? Push harder.

Case closed. Vote ’em out!!!!!
- philmon | 01/19/2010 @ 10:26
I think they’re fucking insane, Morgan.

The arrogance is mind blowing. These thugs have the temerity stand around with their fingers in their ears humming “I can’t hear you” while more than half of the country is screaming at them to stop.

I am so hoping they get their blue balls kicked in hard tonight. It might not make a difference in their attitudes, but I’ll enjoy watching it.
- Daphne | 01/19/2010 @ 12:30
Ditto, ditto, ditto and Ditto, Daphne. Phil nailed it with the playbook remark, that’s exactly it.

They are extremists by their very nature, so long as they follow Alinsky. The tenor & tone of his advice is to never ever apologize for or back down from any one part of your agenda. So if any one from among them says something like “you know, I can think of SOME nice things about capitalism” he’ll get booted out of the club.
- mkfreeberg | 01/19/2010 @ 12:35
I think they should all be arrested and set on fire. I feel a level of rage towards the dems that’s bordering on murderous. How dare they treat this country like it’s their own private mad house.

I think they’d like our land to be a third world cesspool where most of the people are pathetic, powerless and completely dependent on our liberal overlords in Washington.

…and I haven’t even started cocktail hour. 😉
- Daphne | 01/19/2010 @ 13:04
Ooh, Daphne, cocktail hour with you would be a blast. Throw in Morgan and some of his regulars and ….

Woah. Maybe not. As Mr. Beck puts it …we’d run out of missiles. 🙂
- philmon | 01/19/2010 @ 13:35
Count me in! Would y’all be wearing your bike shorts?
- Daphne | 01/19/2010 @ 13:51
No, no. Just Phil. You’ll recognize him in his screaming yellow jersey, ordering a cosmopolitan. Morgan will be ordering two of them at a time. One, quite naturally, for his purse dog. I’ll be the guy in the corner furiously chomping his nails, wondering whether he is worthy of the gathering. And thinking “man, they got some balls, ordering cosmos.”
- Andy | 01/19/2010 @ 13:59
For you, Daphne, sure.

I’d even bring treats for the purse dog. I’ll bet it’s a miniature rottweiler.

Heh. It DOES take balls for a guy in spandex shorts to order a cosmo in public if he’s not gay. Cosmos taste fine and dandy, but they’re not on the top of my drink list. In the spandex, and especially in front of Daphne — I’d be forced to go with bourbon, neat. A double. And a fat cigar. Maduro. Just to be sure.

This is outside, isn’t it? Are we hittin’ the range before hand?
- philmon | 01/19/2010 @ 14:26
For the record, I think it’s illegal to hit the range in spandex.

If it’s not, it should be. It’s in some article of the Constitution, I’m sure.
- philmon | 01/19/2010 @ 14:28
I’ll be ordering bourbon neat and wearing my levis. Spandex never made it into my wardrobe, neither have purse dogs.

I’ll say many nice things to you Andy in order to bolster your confidence. If that doesn’t work, I’ll get you drunk.
- Daphne | 01/19/2010 @ 14:28
I want a cigar too!

Spandex at the range is just so wrong, you’ll have to bring some pants if we’re going there first.
- Daphne | 01/19/2010 @ 14:36
Put spandex on the targets, and we’re in business.

Nice things never worked much for me – I shrink from them. I’ll be drunk well ahead of time, though, you can be sure of that.
- Andy | 01/19/2010 @ 14:51
I typically bring a few spares (‘gars, that is), Daphne. And I guess you’ll have to go straight to the alcohol for Andy. Either that or it’ll have to be a roast. In which case I’m gonna have to learn a whole lot more about Andy to come up with material.
- philmon | 01/19/2010 @ 15:50
Whoa. Time to make the blog private.
- Andy | 01/19/2010 @ 15:53
I’ll be at the range tomorrow, if the creek don’t rise. Spandex may be worn underneath, as it’s cold here in flyover country. Haircut, then to the ballet with Mother. It is an eclectic life I lead, from time to time.
- chunt31854 | 01/19/2010 @ 16:45
HAH!

Obama takes one right in the nads!!!!!

Way to go Massachusetts!

Drinks are on me, boys.
- Daphne | 01/19/2010 @ 20:07
[…] history. And every time it’s mentioned, I’m going to immediately think of Daphne’s comment: […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/19/2010 @ 20:32

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Obama Will Be CombativeTuesday, January 19th, 2010

Obama Will Be Combative
Tuesday, January 19th, 2010