I agree with you to some extent, but I think we're looking at the situation from two different perspectives. I'm looking at it in terms of the way the campaigns were run (It's what I do for a living, so it's very relevant to me) - not in terms of the ideologies of either candidate or the people of Massachusetts. I'm not trying to extrapolate meaning from this, or use it to judge the electorate - I'm using it as something to learn from, to enable me to do my job better.
I'm going to disagree on a number of these things, while still agreeing with your point.
I disagree. The Republicans fell out of favor because of the condition that George W. Bush left this country in. The "core values" of the GOP never existed - Republicans, just like Democrats have
NEVER shruken the government, the GOP stands for personal freedoms - unless you're gay, or you smoke pot, or any number of other things. A "core value" of the GOP has been the Religious Right - which stand for nothing close to "more personal freedom". The "core values" that you've mentioned have nothing to do with Republicanism or why Scott Brown won - they're just rhetoric that the party NEVER actually followed.
Hee hee. Well we now know who you work for in analyzing campaigns, and it sure as heck isn't anybody in the GOP.
The Republicans didn't fall out of favor 'because of the condition George W. Bush left this country in.' The Republicans fell out of favor well before 2006, and were voted out of power in 2006, because they were spending like drunken sailors, were not keeping their pledge to reduce the size and scope of big government, and, in the eyes of the Republicans, Independents, and moderate Democrats who put them into office, they had broken their trust with the people. The economy, however, was doing quite well at the time. The electorate had become quite war weary by then, but that alone was not enough to trigger the rebellion at the ballot box.
Do not confuse the core values that makes a person decide to be a Republican and the behavior of irresponsible people they inadvertently elect to office.
I disagree again. Obama's agenda is NOT "soft Marxist socialism", and making a statement like that shows that you don't understand what those words mean. Also, what has Obama done to make the government more authoritarian? What has he done to erode personal freedoms?
I can assure you that I know what Marxism is and I know when principles advocated by Marx are implemented. It isn't that the administration is intentionally emulating Marxist polcies, but that is what they are just the same. Taking over major corporations, dictating wages and policy to others, presuming to effect more control over curriculum, a proposed 'civilian security force', promoting policies that would exercise total government control over a healthcare system representing one sixth of the U.S. economy, promoting a Cap and Trade that would impose the largest government tax ever known on the people while radically eroding their choices, options, and opportunities and punishing them if they failed to toe the line, and an emphasis on punishing the rich on pretense that this will somehow empower and enrich the poor, etc. etc. etc.
And it is precisely those kinds of things that the Tea Parties have been protesting and condemning in no uncertain terms.
That is true, although I think they're (the Tea Partiers) a little misguided.
Using an objective and non prejudiced eye, I think only true Obama-ites and true liberal big government advocates attempt to paint the Tea Partiers as 'misguided', a little or at all. Right or wrong, they are citizens exercising their right to speak and petition their government for redress of grievances.
6) Scott Brown, whether or not he sympathises or supports the Tea Parties, capitalized on the rising fortunes of the GOP and expressed the identifical message the Tea Partiers have been expressing. He resonated well with people, even in Massachusetts, who are fed up with irresponsible or exploitive government and want a return to core values and proven values that work.
I agree with this to an extent, but I think you might be projecting your views on the voters of Massachusetts a little - specifically "a return to core values and proven values that work". What core, proven values are you talking about?
The core values Scott Brown promoted. No backroom deals, no taxation without representation, no big government takeovers to which the people have said a resounding 'no', no coddling or citizen rights for terrorists/enemy combatants, freedom - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unhindered by how government chooses to redefine those principles.
And that, in my opinion, is why Scott Brown was elected. If his campaign rhetoric turns out to be all smoke and mirrors--if he betrays the trust of the people--he will be scum by November and may be a very short-lived senator. I'm thinking (maybe hoping) he's the real deal though and others will follow his example.
He will "betray" anyone who is putting too much faith in his rhetoric, just like Obama "betrayed" the left by moving to the middle as soon as he was elected. He's a politician - a good one, but a good politician doesn't mean a good person. It means he knows the system, and how to work it. I don't know how it'll end up, but I wouldn't put my faith in him.
Maybe he will betray us. Maybe he won't. But I choose to trust those who have not given us reason not to trust them.
Addendum:
From my perspective, Obama campaigned strongly as a centrist but has governed mostly far left of his campaign rhetoric. In your perspective he campaigned as a leftist and then veered to the center after the election.
Interesting, huh?
