The message should be clear: the Scott Brown victory in the Massachusetts special election for the Senate is a repudiation of the radical direction in which the Obama administration has tried to steer America.
Some will argue that what happened in Massachusetts last night is not a referendum on the president. The administration’s spokespersons will do their best to create a dichotomy between their leader and what they will call a “terrible” candidate on the Democratic side.
They will be partially correct in that assessment—but only partially. Martha Coakley was probably the worst choice the Democrats could have anointed for this run. Her mistakes and misstatements were legion almost from day one. But that was only one factor. Flawed candidates have run continually in Massachusetts. The seat she wanted was held by Ted Kennedy practically forever, but he was as personally flawed as a Senator could get. His only salvation in the state was his last name.
Yes, she was not a good candidate, but she was also running uphill against a popular revolt over big-government policies. She also faced a Republican who made it abundantly clear from the start that he would be the vote that would halt the healthcare monstrosity threatening to emerge from Congress.
The most odious thing about Coakley for me was not her tin ear toward Red Sox fans [which got a lot of airplay], but her arrogance and extreme views. This was exemplified by her comment that even though people have freedom of religion, it might be better for those who object to abortion on religious grounds not to work in emergency rooms. Appalling.
What next? Will Democrats now try to delay Brown’s certification for the seat so they can push through a vote on healthcare before he arrives? Will they change Senate rules to ensure they can impose it on the American people? Or will they back off now that they realize the magnitude of the outcry against it?
I don’t believe this president will back down at all. Neither will Speaker Pelosi nor Senate Majority Leader Reid. They are ideologically bound to their position. They will do everything they can to overcome resistance to their plans. They are not Bill Clinton, who tacked to the center after he suffered the loss of both Houses of Congress in 1994. He was a political survivor. He was more of a practical politician who wanted to stay in power, not a true believer. The current crop of leaders are true believers in their nanny-state dreams.
In other words, the battle is not over. I rejoice in this victory, but the journey continues.