Politics
Massachusetts Miracle: Scott Brown – The Male Version of Sarah Palin
Scott Brown’s stunning victory in Massachusetts on January 19, denying the 60-vote stranglehold in the US Senate and possibly dooming the government takeover of health care, is the secular progressive’s worst nightmare.
That’s because Scott Brown is the male version of Sarah Palin–and that doesn’t bode well for their desired future for America.
Let’s remember for a moment why the liberal media tried to destroy Sarah Palin.
Since Governor Palin joined Fox News team, she has been asked repeatedly why she was so viciously and unfairly attacked in the 2008 presidential campaign and why the hatred persists. She says she’s not sure, but that it has something to do with her “common sense” solutions to the nation’s problems.
That answer is true–but it goes much deeper than that. Sarah Palin’s emergence on the national state in 2008 was an absolute nightmare for those who want to change America. Here are some of the reasons:
1. She was the wrong kind of woman–a conservative female. After the liberal establishment’s desire for an African American president (Barack Obama), their second choice would have been to nominate a liberal woman (like Hillary Clinton). The left in this country loves diversity of color and gender–but is completely intolerant of diversity of worldview. For a conservative woman like Sarah Palin to become Vice President of the United States–and then possibly run for president–was absolutely unthinkable. Hence the all out assault on her family, beauty, clothes, intellect, and governorship which eventually led to her resignation from Alaskan politics and “re-loading” of her career and influence. Secularists love feminism–but only women with statist views.
2. She was an evangelical Christian. The battle for America future is actually rather simple. On the one side is the historical Christian worldview which is America’s political, economic, and religious foundation and the reason for American exceptionalism. The United States has played a unique role in history because we have chosen to honor the God of the Bible in our political structures, economic system, individual liberties, families, and social life. The US is a Christian expression of civics–certainly not a complete one–but a unique role model in history. The competing worldview in America is secularism (now taught almost exclusively in our government-run schools)–a belief that there is no God, truth, absolutes, and thus man becomes God through an ever-increasing and all powerful State (read “government takeover”). In the 2008 election, Barack Obama ran on the secular platform. Sarah Palin, even more so that John McCain, symbolized America’s Christian heritage and future. Thus Sarah Palin had to be chopped down to size by those who long for a secular progressive socialist vision.
3. She was a common person with everyday common sense. This was her preferred answer to the liberal slander, and it was true. Most Americans related to her Cinderella story and working class background. She was one of us–thought like us–valued our same traditional (i.e. Christian) values–and wanted to bring those common sense solutions back into American political life. Statists really don’t respect the common person though they talk incessantly about policies that will “help the people.” But they really believe they’re smarter than their subjects, know what’s best for us, and tend to rule with elitist demagoguery. Classic example: the present health care bill which the American people oppose but that the liberals nearly crammed down our throats via bribes, kick-backs, sweetheart deals, and Chicago-style politics.
Which brings us back to the Massachusetts Miracle–something the secularists should deeply ponder and should lead them to faith. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 3-1–where a Republican senator had not been elected in forty years–in a seat held by far left senator Teddy Kennedy who was the strongest advocate for nationalized health care, Scott Brown decisively and providentially ran away with the prize.
The Massachusetts Miracle was stunning. Historic. Unbelievable. Exhilarating.
And he won, partly, because Scott Brown is the male Sarah Palin. The secularists were stopped in their tracks in the bluest of blue states by the male version of the former Alaska governor. What is this nation coming to?
The answer: It’s coming back to its senses and roots.
The comparisons between Sarah Palin and Scott Brown’s are numerous:
- They both come from normal, working class American backgrounds.
- She drove her SUV all over Alaska meeting the people and relating to their concerns. Scott Brown drove his now famous “200,000 mile” truck into every corner of the Commonwealth to meet and greet the people of Massachusetts.
- She was a popular gal from the small town of Wasilla. Scott Brown was well-liked in his hometown of Wrentham, Massachusetts.
- Both were star basketball players with Sarah leading her team to a state championship and Scott being a star at Wakefield High School (where he also ran track and still holds a school record). In her basketball career, Sarah was known as “Sarah Barracuda.” Because of his shooting ability, Scott Brown’s nickname was “Downtown Scotty Brown.”
- Sarah won some beauty contests and Scott worked as a male model, even appearing in Cosmopolitan magazine at the age of 22.
- Both are strong on the military and the need to keep America safe from terrorism. Sarah’s son has served a tour in Iraq and Scott has served for over thirty years in the Army National Guard.
- She was a pit bull with lipstick; He ran as a Doberman with mousse.
- Both are big on freedom and the need to lower taxes. Sarah follows the tax-cutting principles of Ronald Reagan. Scott agrees with the tax-cutting values of John F. Kennedy (the fiscal conservative of Camelot).
- One’s from a Red State–and one’s from a Blue State. Parties don’t matter much to either and both are loved by Independents.
- Both attend evangelical churches. Scott’s home church is Grace Chapel in Franklin, and he also has ties to a Catholic order in Wrentham.
- Both Sarah Plain and Scott Brown are pro-life and pro-family. Brown’s stance is weaker than Palin’s on various points, but that would be expected due to the difference in their home states.
To state it simply, both Sarah Palin and Scott Brown are average Americans who are people of faith, hard work, common sense, believe in limited government, strong defense, and traditional values. They’re also articulate, good-looking, down-to earth, and want to represent the rights and opinions of the people of the United States.
The Secular Left should be scared to death of them because they appear to be the future.
In 2010, we need to find to find 535 Sarah Palins and Scott Browns for the US House of Representatives and thirty for the the United States Senate. We need to work and vote for other everyday, common sense, traditional value people for mayor, councilmen and women, state reps and senators, and governors across the land.
And in 2012 we need one of them–or someone like them–to run for president of the United States to lead this nation back to common sense greatness.
Can the Massachusetts Miracle become the Washington, D.C. Miracle?
Yes it can.
It’s His Rubble Now
Peggy Noonan is a gifted writer who worked in the Reagan administration and has written voluminous political commentary since. She has an amazing ability to bring an issue down to its simple basics. In this article she rightly gauges the Obama presidency and calls him to responsibility. I hope this article made it to his desk. It could save his presidency–if he is willing to “change.” RB
It’s His Rubble Now
And the American People What Him to Fix it
By Peggy Noonan
At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency—all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them—was his. The American people didn’t hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it. This is part of the reason the image of him standing on the rubble of the twin towers, bullhorn in hand, on Sept.14, 2001, became an iconic one. It said: I’m owning it.
Mr. Bush surely knew from the moment he put the bullhorn down that he would be judged on everything that followed. And he has been. Early on, the American people rallied to his support, but Americans are practical people. They will support a leader when there is trouble, but there’s an unspoken demand, or rather bargain: We’re behind you, now fix this, it’s yours.
President Obama, in office a month longer than Bush was when 9/11 hit, now owns his presidency. Does he know it? He too stands on rubble, figuratively speaking—a collapsed economy, high and growing unemployment, two wars. Everyone knows what he’s standing on. You can almost see the smoke rising around him. He’s got a bullhorn in his hand every day.
It’s his now. He gets the credit and the blame. How do we know this? The American people are telling him. You can see it in the polls. That’s what his falling poll numbers are about. “It’s been almost a year, you own this. Fix it.”
The president doesn’t seem to like this moment. Who would? He and his men and women have returned to referring to what they “inherited.” And what they inherited was, truly, terrible: again, a severe economic crisis and two wars. But their recent return to this theme is unbecoming. Worse, it is politically unpersuasive. It sounds defensive, like a dodge.
The president said last week, at a San Francisco fund-raiser, that he’s busy with a “mop,” “cleaning up somebody else’s mess,” and he doesn’t enjoy “somebody sitting back and saying, ‘You’re not holding the mop the right way.'” Later, in New Orleans, he groused that reporters are always asking “Why haven’t you solved world hunger yet?” His surrogates and aides, in appearances and talk shows, have taken to remembering, sometimes at great length, the dire straits we were in when the presidency began.
This is not a sign of confidence. Nor were the president’s comments to a New York fund-raiser this week. Democrats, he said to the Democratic audience, are “an opinionated bunch.” They always have a lot of thoughts and views. Republicans, on the other hand—”the other side”—aren’t really big on independent thinking. “They just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, y’all thinkin’ for yourselves.” It is never a good sign when the president gets folksy, dropping his g’s, because he is by nature not a folksy g-dropper but a coolly calibrating intellectual who is always trying to guess, as most politicians do, what normal people think. When Mr. Obama gets folksy he isn’t narrowing his distance from his audience but underlining it. He shouldn’t do this.
But the statement that Republicans just do what they’re told was like his famous description of unhappy voters as people who “cling to guns or religion.” (What comes over him at fund-raisers?) Both statements speak of a political misjudgment of his opponents and his situation.They show a misdiagnosis of the opposition that is politically tin-eared. Politicians looking to win don’t patronize those they’re trying to win over.
But the point on the We Inherited a Terrible Situation and It’s Not Our Fault argument is, again, that it is worse than unbecoming. It is unpersuasive.
How do we know this? Through the polls. In all of the major surveys, the president’s popularity has gone down the past few months. A Gallup Daily Tracking Poll out this week reported Mr. Obama’s job approval dropped nine points during the third quarter of this year, that is between July 1 and Sept. 30, when it fell from 62% to 53%. It was the biggest such drop Gallup has ever measured for an elected president during the same period of his term. A Fox News poll out Thursday showed support for the president’s policies falling below 50% for the first time. Ominously for him, independents are peeling off. In 2006 and 2008 independents looked like Democrats. They were angry and frustrated by the wars, they sought to rebuke the Bush White House. Now those independents look like Republicans. They worry about joblessness, debts and deficits.
The White House sees the falling support. Thus the reminder: We faced an insuperable challenge, we’re mopping up somebody else’s mess.
The Democratic Party too sees the falling support, and is misunderstanding it. The great question they debated last week was whether the president is tough enough: Does he come across as too weak? It is true, as the cliché has it, that it’s helpful for a president to be both revered and feared. But this president is not weak, that’s not his problem. He willed himself into the presidency with an adroit reading of the lay of the land, brought together and dominated all the constituent pieces of victory, showed and shows impressive self-discipline, seems in general to stick to a course once he’s chosen it, though arguably especially when he’s wrong. His decision to let Congress write a health-care bill may yield at least the appearance of victory. And if Mr. Obama isn’t twisting arms like LBJ, and then giving just an extra little jerk to snap the rotator cuff just for fun, the case can be made that day by day he’s moving the Democrats of Congress in the historic direction he desires. All his adult life he’s played the long game, which takes patience and skill.
The problem isn’t his personality, it’s his policies. His problem isn’t what George W. Bush left but what he himself has done. It is a problem of political judgment, of putting forward bills that were deeply flawed or off-point. Bailouts, the stimulus package, cap-and-trade; turning to health care at the exact moment in history when his countrymen were turning their concerns to the economy, joblessness, debt and deficits—all of these reflect a misreading of the political terrain. They are matters of political judgment, not personality. (Republicans would best heed this as they gear up for 2010: Don’t hit him, hit his policies. That’s where the break with the people is occurring.)
The result of all this is flagging public support, a drop in the polls, and independents peeling off.
In this atmosphere, with these dynamics, Mr. Obama’s excuse-begging and defensiveness won’t work.
Everyone knows he was handed horror. They want him to fix it.
At some point, you own your presidency. At some point it’s your rubble. At some point the American people tell you it’s yours. The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up: That’s the American people telling him.
A Quiet Plurality Speaks
“912” may go down as another day that changed the course of America.
9-11-01 brought the terrorists to our shores. 9-12-09 brought the quiet plurality to their feet.
It was thrilling to see over 100,000 American citizens who converged on the American capital on Saturday, September 12, 2009. to send a message to our elected officials. “A quiet plurality,” is how Georgetown University professor Stephen Wayne put it. Their message was pretty clear:
- We’re not happy with the pork-laden and ineffective stimulus plan and don’t want greater deficits placed on the backs of our children and grand children.
- We want the Administration to get out of the private business sphere and set it free to soar.
- We don’t want the government to run health care in this nation.
- We won’t accept higher taxes on anybody or anything.
- We’ve had enough of the quasi-statist take-over and want our freedom back.
Of course the main driver behind the mass “Tea Party” in Washington DC was the issue of national health care. Just days before the event, President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress trying to rally flagging support for major government involvement in the health care future of the American people. Using his distinct oratorical skills, the President offered various tid-bits to various constituencies (anti-abortionists, seniors, those desiring tort reform, etc.), but there were two major problems with the speech.
First, the president didn’t tell the truth–as Congressman Joe Wilson passionately reminded us. There is a huge credibility gap between our current leaders in Washington and grassroots America citizens who have been doing their homework, coming out en masse to town hall meetings, and letting their elected officials know that they no longer trust them. Here is a sampling of false claims as compiled by PrayInJesusName.org:
Falsehood #1: “No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”
THE TRUTH: The Capps Amendment to HR 3200 has a Section 4B that reads: “Abortions for Which Public Funding Is Allowed. — The services described in this sub-paragraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted.” The Washington Times reported: “You can’t get more explicit than that.” And FactCheck.org exposed Obama’s untruth this way: “Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.”
Falsehood #2: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period.”
THE TRUTH: The Democrat controlled Congressional Budget Office said Obamacare would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years, but will not succeed at shrinking the overall costs of our nation’s health care. Republicans claim it’s more like $600 billion increased deficit spending (confirmed by Associated Press, September 9, 2009).
Falsehood #3: “Don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut…That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.”
THE TRUTH: The Washington Post reports Obama proposes “to squeeze more than $500 billion out of the growth of Medicare over the next decade….[which has] fueled fears that his effort to expand coverage to millions of younger, uninsured Americans will damage elder care. As a result, barely one-third of seniors support a health-care overhaul, several polls found” (Washington Post, August 9, 2009). Even the liberal Washington Post admits Obama was not truthful.
Falsehood #4: “If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage.”
THE TRUTH: Whether working or not, rich or poor, you will be ordered to get mandatory government-run health-care coverage, or pay a fine a $3800 fine per family, under the new Senate plan being railroaded through the finance committee by Max Baucus D-MT (New York Times, September 9, 2009). Obama pretends you’re “able” to get coverage, when he knows it’s mandatory (with a big tax increase or “fine” penalty).
Falsehood #5: “The claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.”
THE TRUTH: Mandatory “end of life” counseling in HR 3200 “shall” include counseling every five years to the elderly, giving doctors a monetary incentive to persuade you to sign a “do not resuscitate” (DNR) order to pull the plug on Grandma, just like the Obama administration already pressures all Veterans to sign them (confirmed by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, read extensive details at prayinjesusname.org). And under the British NHS government-run health plan, “Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned” (The Daily Telegraph, September 2, 2009). Dr. Ewing Cook just admitted intentionally killing patients who signed DNR authorizations during Hurricane Katrina. “I gave her medicine so I could get rid of her faster…there’s no question I hastened her demise.” Bottom line: Grandma, don’t sign Obama’s DNR order, even if your doctor gets a bonus check from the President for talking you into that. Click here to view a John Stossel video that confirms many of these falsehoods.
Erick Erickson adds this commentary on untruths told to the American public: “Barack Obama said the plan will not cover illegal aliens. This is a lie. Joe Wilson was right. The legislation clearly says it will not fund illegal aliens BUT the legislation also prevents anyone from checking on the citizenship status of any person seeking healthcare. He is trying to have it both ways. The entire speech from Barack Obama was loaded with half-truths and flat out lies. For example, he said he would not force the government option on anyone. But, the legislation provides an incentive for private employers to shove their employees onto the government plan.”
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council put it this way: “While the outburst [Joe Wilson] calling the President a liar was unfortunate and inappropriate, I am sympathetic to the frustration on the part of many in Congress. The President’s speech to a joint session of Congress was unprecedented in how many times the President referred to those who disagree with him as being untruthful, yet he himself was misleading on a number of factors. The speech was not one of a leader looking to unite, but of a campaigner looking to further divide this necessary debate on health care.”
Secondly, though this lack of candor is bad enough, the fatal flaw in the current push toward socialized medicine in America is this: It places trust in Big Government to provide for people’s needs. Government is an able protector of life and liberty–that’s its God-given calling in a fallen world (Romans 13)–but it’s a lousy provider due to its lack of competition, innovation, and concentration of power. That’s why wise civilizations, including our founders, favored limited forms of government to keep it honest. Governments handle power, and as Lord Acton rightly said in the 19th century, “Power tends to corrupt; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
In the Obama speech, he condemned insurance companies, medical professionals, talk show hosts and commentators, and also the American people (those who don’t choose to have medical coverage). But he didn’t say one bad or suspicious word about government. Why? Because Barack Obama believes in government and its concentration of power. That’s a fatal flaw in his thinking and in our current leadership.
The greatest thing we have to fear is not free peoples and their enterprises–it’s the corrupting power of government to destroy that freedom in the name of providing for us all. It’s never worked in all of history. It will lead to our demise and destruction as a nation.
But the march on Washington shows that the people know better. A quiet plurality is beginning to make their voice heard.
The politicians had better be listening–and all of us should be praying–that God will use the present debate to bring a spark of revival and reformation to the United States of America.
