President Obama By ADAM NAGOURNEY-  Published in New York Times on January 19, 2010

BOSTON — Special elections come and go. And the party that wins the White House one year ordinarily loses seats in the next Congressional election that comes along.

President Obama spoke in Boston on Sunday at a campaign stop for the Democratic candidate for Senate.

The Democrats’ Day After

Why are the Democrats always in disarray even when they control the White House, the Senate and the House?

The mood was grim among Martha Coakley’s supporters as the results came in to their hotel in Boston.
But what happened in Massachusetts on Tuesday was no ordinary special election.

Scott Brown, a Republican state senator for only five years, shocked and arguably humiliated the White House and the Democratic Party establishment by defeating Martha Coakley in the race for a United States Senate seat. He did it one day short of a year after President Obama stood on the steps of the United States Capitol, looking across a mass of faces that celebrated the potential of his presidency.

As a result, Mr. Obama will spend the first anniversary of his inauguration watching Democrats tangle in an unseemly quarrel over who lost Massachusetts — Ms. Coakley’s pollster, Celinda Lake, called the Huffington Post four hours before the polls closed to blame Democratic leaders in Washington — and contemplating a political landscape that has been thoroughly upended in the course of only 10 days.

The implications are sure to be far-reaching, and the result leaves Mr. Obama with a long list of tough choices.

Stripped of the 60th vote needed to block Republican filibusters in the Senate, will Mr. Obama now make further accommodations to Republicans in an effort to move legislation through Congress with more bipartisanship, even at the cost of further alienating liberals annoyed at what they see as his ideological malleability?

Or will he seek to rally his party’s base through confrontation, even if it means giving up on getting much done this year?

Will he find a way to ram his health care bill through Congress quickly in the wake of the Massachusetts loss, so that his party can run on a major if controversial accomplishment? Or will he heed the warnings of Republicans, and now some Democrats, that to do so would be to ignore the message of Tuesday’s election, with its clear overtones of dissatisfaction with the administration’s approach so far?

It is not just questions of policy: for Mr. Obama and the Democrats, already worried about the coming midterm elections, the results could hardly have been more distressing. States do not come more Democratic than Massachusetts, the only one that voted for George McGovern over Richard Nixon in 1972, a fact that older residents still recount with fresh pride. By challenging the legacy of Edward M. Kennedy, the holder of the contested seat for 46 years and a liberal icon, the Republican victory could only be dispiriting to the left.

Most ominously, independent voters — who embraced Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign and are an increasingly critical constituency — seemed to have fled to Mr. Brown in Massachusetts, as they did to Republicans in races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey last November. It is hard not to view that as a repudiation of the way Mr. Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have run things.

“This is a giant wake-up call,” said Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman who lost a bid for the Democratic nomination for governor in Virginia last year. “We have to keep our focus on job creation. Everything we have to do is related to job creation. We have to do a much better job on the message. People are confused on what this health care bill is going to do.”

Even before the polls closed, the White House was suggesting the outlines of a recovery strategy, a combination of a more populist tone and an embrace of greater fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Obama has signaled that he intends to take a more populist stance on financial regulation legislation in Congress, seeking to position Democrats as defenders of the people against Wall Street, and to cast Republicans as defenders of bonus-laden bankers. And on Tuesday night, the White House brokered a deal that could lead to a bipartisan commission to recommend spending cuts and tax increases to address the nation’s fiscal condition. For months, Mr. Obama’s advisers had warned that the perception that budget deficits and the national debt were spiraling out of control was alienating independent voters already turned off by partisan battling.

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, said he did not view the results as a repudiation of the White House’s agenda, but he acknowledged that the administration needed to do a more effective job of signaling concern about the problems gripping Americans.

“We are the party in power, and as such there’s an element of responsibility assigned,” he said. “I think people need to know that their challenges and their concerns are the focus of our work every day.”
Ms. Coakley lost in no small part because of what many Democrats viewed as a stumbling campaign against a sharp and focused opponent. There is a good argument that the outcome was as much an anti-incumbent wave during tough economic times as it was an anti-Democratic wave. And there is still time before the midterm elections for the economy to rebound in a way that benefits Democratic candidates, and for Mr. Obama to make a case that the health care legislation, if he finds a way to sign it into law, will benefit the hard-pressed middle class.

Still, Ms. Coakley’s defeat could easily be seen as evidence that the Obama White House is out of step with much of the American public — pushing through a health care plan at a time when many voters are primarily concerned about unemployment.

Mr. Obama could find it more difficult to get moderate and conservative-leaning Democrats in Congress to cast politically tough votes.

It will be lost on few in the House or the Senate that the Democratic defeat in an overwhelmingly Democratic state came despite a last-minute personal appeal from Mr. Obama, who campaigned here for Ms. Coakley on Sunday. This suggests that Mr. Obama may be of limited or no help to candidates in close elections. No less important, he may not have much leverage to stop them from defying him in Washington.

“I think there’s been a misreading of where the public is at: having a health care debate when so many people were focused on their jobs,” said Joe Trippi, a Democratic political consultant who managed the presidential campaign of Howard Dean in 2004.

“The failure to understand how anti-establishment the country has become is a big part of the problem,” Mr. Trippi said of Mr. Obama and the White House. “He actually led the way on that in the campaign and didn’t recognize what was happening as he was president.”

1 Response to “A Year Later, Voters Send a Different Message”

  1. 1 Office 2

    TO AUSTRALIAN CHRISTIANS – for prayerful consideration

    Some of you may or may not be aware of a You Tube clip showing various footage of Barack Hussein Obama, who says he’s a Christian, but actually he’s a Muslim, acting as a Christian.

    If Obama is a real Christian, then why hasn’t he and his family been going to church regularly, for the past year? There could be the convenient excuse of “he’s the President” – important world tasks, security reasons, haven’t found the right church etc. All to avoid being in a real church?? Apparently, when he did visit a church, Obama asked that the name of Jesus be covered, so as not to offend his Muslim friends.

    There was a section in the 10 min You Tube clip (timed at about 3:58) which shows Obama making a speech in Cairo, on 4th June, 2009. He mentions that in the USA there are rules on charitable giving, making it harder for Muslims to “fulfill their religious obligations”. Obama quotes “ZAKAT” which is one of the 5 pillars of the Muslim faith i.e. almsgiving. Obama goes onto say that he is working with American Muslims so that this can be fulfilled. Currently Zakat (2.5% capital wealth per annum) is obtained via debt collectors or given voluntarily by Muslims. Mosques do not collect Zakat, unlike churches, which do collect tithes and offerings. Zakat is used for the poor and for propagation of the Muslim faith. Why would a so-called “Christian” president, want to interfere with this Muslim process? Well many people now are aware that Obama is actually a Muslim, acting in disguise as a Christian. In the Muslim world, this is termed “al-taqiuua” – denying one’s religion to avoid persecution. Muslims use this as a legitimate excuse to lie to non-Muslims, so as not to be found out. Obama and his Muslim colleagues, want to know exactly who and where the faithful Muslims (that pay Zakat) are located in the USA. This knowledge will help Obama and co., to have the names, addresses and bank details of committed Muslims. If a better system is set up by Obama and American Muslims, in order to obtain Zakat, then this money will significantly increase Muslim giving and be readily available to Islamic organisations. Also it conveniently identifies Muslim voters for targeting in the 2012 USA election year – useful campaign funds?

    In 2012, Obama will either try for re-election or possibly pave the way for his Muslim colleague – the first Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison. Ellison is a Black American, who apparently (?) gave up his Christian faith whilst at University (studying law) and became a Muslim. He won an easy election through the retirement of a white Democrat politician in the safe seat of Minnesota. Refer Ellison campaigned in a poor 5th district where the majority of people were Muslim immigrants from Somalia. Ellison won easily, assisted through campaign funds given to him from individual leaders of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). Ellison was fined by the Minnesota State Campaign and Public Disclosure Board in 2005 for ”unreported contributions, discrepancies in cash balances, and misclassified disbursements” (campaign finance violations), covering the period 2002-2004, where his wife, was the Treasurer. Ellison has also had a past record nonpayment of fines and taxes.

    One of Ellison’s brother’s is reportedly a pastor of a Baptist church in Detroit, Michigan. This Baptist church is listed under “”, as “Church of the New Covenant” Puritan Street, Detroit. Is has a false website link to another Baptist church, with a similar name, located in West Bloomfield, Michigan. The Detroit Baptist church using Google map is completely different from the church photo shown on the “linked” website. Some clever IT person has conveniently copied the real Baptist church website (based in West Bloomfield) and placed it on “” as a link to the so called Baptist church of Keith Ellison’s brother. This is deception. When properly investigated and identified, it will probably be explained as a human error and removed.

    Please note Ellison used the Qur’an and not the Bible when he was sworn into office – which is understandable, as he’s a Muslim. Obama used a Bible in his first swearing in, but has been televised quoting the Bible – out of context – to give mockery to the Word of God (refer other You Tube clip showing Obama “preaching”). There are still some questions as to whether Obama used a Bible in his “second” indoor swearing. Obama actually mentions in one of his speeches, that the first Muslim into congress used the “Holy Qur’an” for the swearing into office. However Obama does not mention his name. It’s Keith Ellison. Obama clearly endorses this Muslim politician and the religion he follows. USA Christians should be wary of Muslim politicians changing the government system to comply with “hidden” Islam.

    It’s interesting that Obama is visiting Indonesia in March, 2010 where he partly grew up and apparently has the largest population of Muslims in the world. Obama wants a US-Indonesian agreement to be signed, but he’s taking his family along to also visit and see his Muslim background. This will benefit him by showing many Muslim voters, his upbringing. Maybe Obama intends to “revert” back from his so called Christian faith – to the faith of his father – Islam (al-taqiuua?) Many Muslims believe he is the “Mahdi” – the Islamic Messiah. The Qur’an mentions the “sun rising from the West”. Obama’s campaign logo is part of a sun image over the stripes of the American flag. Note the American stars found in the USA flag have been omitted from Obama’s campaign logo. Note, the Israeli flag has a star (Star of David) in it. Considering Muslims have an intense dislike for Israel (the Jews), this is a convenient omission i.e. removal of stars in the Obama logo. Co-incidence? More likely intentional to align with the verse from the Qur’an.

    Obama was shown in the You Tube video (see link above), bowing low to the Saudi Muslim king. But Obama won’t do this for the British Queen. This bowing is an image of subservience – or USA/world leader bowing to Islam. Some Muslims like to be powerful and use declarations to usurp themselves and for the cause of Islam. Obama last year in Japan declared himself as the “Pacific President”. Obama is NOT the Pacific President. The Solomon Islands are in the Pacific Ocean and they do not have Obama as their President. Also the east coast of Australia is along the Pacific Ocean. Most Australians will disagree to Obama’s declared words of dominion over us. We are not under “the Pacific President”. We have a Prime Minister. Obama needs to relook at the world map. He is the USA President only, subject to proof of his birth certificate (long version).

    In relation to Obama pushing the carbon emissions scheme i.e. tax for global warming/world treaty, beware. This is a clever way of disguising “Jizra” – extra tax levied on people for Islam as a means of protection to non-Muslims. The money from this carbon tax is supposed to go to help poorer countries, like North Africa and South America. But some of these countries are run by Islamic governments. Also, a US patent was developed a few years ago to convert asset based currencies using Sharia (Islamic law) compliant technology. Follow the money. The carbon based tax, will increase the wealth of mainly Islamic countries. Australians and other countries, will be indirectly funding Islam through the emissions trading scheme. The carbon tax is meant to be imposed upon us through increased petrol and electricity bills. The Saudi (Islamic) petrol companies will do extra well with this money too. Please note, before the Copenhagen Treaty, shares in petrol, electricity and technology companies went up measurably, to the surprise of the market watchers. Many “insiders” were hoping the Copenhagen treaty would be signed, as it was a binding “forever” world government document, which had a tax levied in it, aimed mainly at non-Muslim countries, like USA, China, Australia, Britain and India. One liberal MP Secretary was advised of this prior to Copenhagen and asked, had anyone else interpreted this carbon tax as possibly being “Jizya” – an Islamic tax (in disguise).

    Considering Obama is visiting Australia in March, 2010, during our election year and to add weight to Rudd’s carbon tax/climate change policy, please can you pass this on to your Christian readers for prayerful consideration.

    Yours in Jesus,

    Watchful Prayer Warrior (Feb. 2010)

Leave a Reply

Youtube Highlights

Australia Day 2019
Click Here for 3AW Interviews


3K2 theme by Hakan Aydin