Skip to content

The Post Massachussetts Election Spin

January 22, 2010

For sheer audacity, tone-deafness, and outlandish spin, nothing in recent memory quite matches some of the MSM attempts to explain away the results of Tuesday’s special election.

Proving their trademark objectivity and critical thinking skills, the New York Times unequivocally declared that the election results are neither a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor of his signature health-care “reform” efforts:

There are many theories about the import of Scott Brown’s upset victory in the race for Edward Kennedy’s former Senate seat. To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform — even though it has upended the effort to pass a reform bill, which Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his first year.

Perhaps the Times’ editorial board is genuinely unaware of the fact that A) polling indicates that health care “reform” was the single more important issue to voters in the Massachusetts special election, and B) Brown explicitly promised on numerous occasions to be the 41st, cloture-killing vote on ObamaCare.  Apparently, it isn’t enough that he was so enthusiastic at the thought of being that 41st vote that he often affixed “41” to the end of his autograph; Mr. Brown will have to walk into the Times building with a bullhorn and large blinking lights above his head shouting “I WANT TO KILL OBAMACARE” before the Times will be willing to cede the fact that maybe, just maybe, the vote was something of a referendum on the president (thus far) and health-reform measures.

Various liberal apologists have attempted to put down cover fire for congressional Democrats and the president by asserting that Brown’s election is simply a populist tidal wave of anti-establishment sentiment.  One of the more absurd examples is NBC’s Kelly O’Donnel:

It may have escaped Ms. O’Donnel’s keen journalistic instincts, but the Democrats run Washington right now.  Hence “anti-Washington” could be aptly rephrased, “anti-Democrat”.  That isn’t to say some voters aren’t upset with some Republicans, or all Democrats, for that matter.  But despite all the spin, Democrats own an overwhelming majority in the House, they had a filibuster-proof Senate until Tuesday, and they own the White House. 

For their part, many Democrats themselves are exhibiting a refreshing measure of humility and a willingness to confront reality head-on.  Evan Bayh, Jim Webb, and Barney Frank have all been gracious following the results of Tuesday’s election.  Webb exhorted his colleagues to hold off any further voting until Brown is seated, and Frank–normally known for a stubborn committment to whatever course of action he deems appropriate and necessary at the time, which also usually happens to be the wrong course of action–was firm in his assertion that there would be no trickery aimed at delaying Brown’s seating.

One Comment leave one →
  1. January 22, 2010 5:30 am

    Scott Brown’s election had more to do about Obama and the Democratic congress than it had to do with him specifically. This was a message from the Independents in Massachusetts, the ones who had voted for Obama in 2008. They voted for hope and change and instead got no hope and a lot of coins in their pockets.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: