Blessing in Disguise?

While Republicans are dancing with glee over Scott Brown’s election to the Senate, what does it mean if by his winning this battle, they lose the war?   Will Obama now promising to get tough on Wall Street really bring about the change the Democrats promised?  Will Rush and other Republicans continue to defend those huge salaries and bonuses of the Wall Street Gang?  Is Scott Brown really the independent vote that he promised to the people in Massachussets or is he going to fall into the lockstepping Party of No and just obstruct everything  Obama – including the call for the end of the greed on Wall Street?    Interesting times, aren’t they?

Lilac

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/01/22/obama_banks_open2010/index.html

7 Comments

Filed under Democratic Party, Elections, Playing Politics, Republicans

7 responses to “Blessing in Disguise?

  1. lillacluvr

    Sometimes the road to get to where we need to go takes unusual twists and turns. Is that what is happening to Obama?

    If Obama wants to be a two-term president, will Brown’s election victory be a wake up call to change his priorities or change the way he is going to try to accomplish his priorities?

  2. itolduso

    They deserve each other

  3. lillacluvr

    I am withholding my judgment of Scott Brown until he has been in office for a few months.

    Alot of unanswered questions are still on the table – IMHO.

  4. Zippy

    I don’t much about Brown, but from the little I know, I expect him to be at minimum, how shall I put it?–a weenie.

    And while there were local reasons for the results, it appears the “anti” sentiment carried the day. A Research 2000 poll showed that 78% of Obama voters voted for Coakley.

    Gee, guess who was staying home?

    Is this isn’t a wake-up call for what’s left of the Democratic party, nothing will be.

    But, as well all know, the stakes are much higher than party affiliation. It may indeed be a blessing in disguise if the Max Baucuses of the world realize that we’ve had enough (Lieberman, of course, will never learn).

  5. Zippy

    P.S. Montana, please do not be as blind as Kansas.

    Maybe I’m unrealistic, but we–us–can make change happen.

    But Obama needs to find his pen.

  6. Zippy

    P.S. Oops–82% (going from memory, who am I? 🙂 ).

  7. lillacluvr

    With all the crowing being done by the Republicans about Brown, my mind keeps coming back to the one of the few times I listened to Brown when he was speaking after his victory.

    He kept saying that he is the independent voter to go to Washington and fight for the people.

    Can an Independent be a Republican?

    I’ve heard Brown be described as a ultra social conservative but yet he is pro-choice.

    If Brown is pro-choice, then how can he possibly pass that ‘purity’ test of the real Republicans.

    No, I think Mr. Brown rode to victory on the wave of anti-establishment and Coakley was seen as a candidate that expected her rightful Senate seat, as if she did not have to actually work for it.

    That arrogance shown through to the voters and they rejected it – soundly.

    But did the voters really embrace Republicanism?

    Seems to me they chose the lesser of two evils on that ballot.

    But, we shall see.

    I suspect Mr. Brown will have to decide pretty soon whether he will let all this hero worship go to his head or to actually come through with what he promised to his independent voters that got him in the Senate seat.