White House Quakes

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Jan..20, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                    

              Shaking the White House to its core, 50-year-old Massachusetts’ Republican Sen. Scott Brown upended conventional wisdom beating Democrat Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley 52%-47% for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s sacrosanct senate seat.  Brown stunned Massachusetts’ Democratic Party, where the party enjoys a three-to-one voter registration advantage, making the victory all more significant.  While Coakley faired poorly in their Jan. 11 debate, Brown rallied Democrats, Republicans and independents opposed to Obama’s health care reform, telling voters he’d vote against the controversial bill.  “People are angry, and they’re frustrated,” Barack told ABC News, blaming the defeat on the same discontent that swept him into office Nov. 4, 2008.  Barack’s chief political strategist David Axelrod, on whom some of the blame falls, credited Brown for a “clever” victory.

            Obama can run but he can’t hide from a shocking result coming from among the nation’s three most liberal states, the other two being New York and California.  White House, Senate and House Democrats put all their eggs into the health care basket, ignoring the more pressing national issues of unemployment and jobs creation.  “The president ought to take this as a message to recalibrate how he wants to govern, and if he wasnts to govern from the middle we’ll meet him there,” said Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kt.), throwing a genuine olive branch, unlike gloating GOP pundits on the radio and TV.  Minimizing the political fallout doesn’t help Democrats heading toward this year’s midterm elections.  “If there’s anybody in this building that doesn’t tell you they are more worried about elections today, you should absolutely slap them,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

            Obama needs to sit down with his White House strategy team a figure out what went wrong.  If they look the polls, they’ll find abundant proof that the obsession with health care reform backfired.  With 60% of Americans of all stripes opposed to the president’s health care plan, it made no sense politically to push the issue.  Brown’s election, specifically promising to oppose Barack’s health care bill, speaks volumes of what the public really wants.  Most polls show the public wants Obama to focus on the economy and jobs creation.  Barack told ABC News that the same events that swept Brown into office, “swept me into office” in 2008, “not just because of what’s happened in the last years or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years,” said Barack, blaming Tuesday’s results on the dismal economy he inherited from former President George W. Bush,

            White House officials know that Bush is no longer at the helm.  Whatever problems Barack inherited, it’s now his responsibility to fix.  Tuesday’s results reflect public frustration with Obama, not Bush.  Barack came to power with great expectations, perhaps unrealistic, for improving the atmosphere in D.C. as well as fixing the economy.  Since inaugurated one year ago, Barack launched his $687 billion Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act, promising to improve the nation’s economy and growing unemployment.  One year later, the unemployment rate jumped from 7% to 10%, shedding 7 million jobs since Dec. 2007.  When December’s unemployment report showed the nation losing another 85,000 jobs, it damaged Barack’s credibility.  “That anger is now pointed at us because we’re in charge. And rightly so,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, explaining Brown’s victory.

            All fingers point to the White House not because the public seeks a scapegoat but because they see no tangible results from Obama’s Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  Public polls are all about what-have-you-done-for-me-lately, no longer able to blame the last administration.  Signaling that the president has already shifted shift gears, he warned the Senate not to ramrod health care reform.  “The Senate certainly shouldn’t try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated.  People in Massachusetts spoke.  He’s got to be part of the process,” Obama told ABC News, backing off from his past urgency for health care reform.  Getting the 41st vote, Brown breaks the Democrats’ supermajority, giving Republicans the opportunity, if necessary, to filibuster health care reform.  Barack knows that it’s a whole new ballgame requiring bipartisan compromise and negotiation.

            Barack’s right that voter anger propelled Brown to victory but not the same frustration that swept him into office and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.  Voter frustration now is about the slow pace of economic recovery directed toward him.  Whatever happened during the Bush years is no longer relevant.  Barack must go back to the drawing board, reconsider the advice he’s received and change directions before it’s too late.  He must recommit himself to a bipartisan economic plan that’s pro-business and Wall Street. Bashing Wall Street or the banking community does nothing to stimulate the economy or create jobs.  Today’s economic realities place health care reform on the back burner, giving full priority to working with Wall Street and the business community to create jobs.  Changing directions can only help Democrats as they make their case before November’s midterm elections.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.