The Scott heard round the world may very well be the loudest shot of the Second American Revolution yet. In the bluest of blue states, a republican contender took down one of the most powerful democrat Senate seats in the nation.
But why did Scott Brown win? Bill Waddell has the most likely explanation of what happened and why in Ah, The Refreshing Winds of Discontent:
“As I have written before, the massive blunder of Obama and the Democrats was to delude themselves into thinking the people had voted for them in the last general election when, in fact, they voted against George Bush and the Republicans. The next scenario to unfold will be for the lifelong political hacks in the Republican party to make the same mistake – to interpret the results of yesterday’s vote in Massachusetts as a vote for them, rather than what it was – a vote against the Dems. In fact, ‘Re-Elect Nobody” is the driving force these days, and the leadership of both parties should be very, very afraid.”
Mr. Waddell is absolutely right. If the republicans have their heads screwed on right, they will realize that this was not a vote for them, but rather, as we pointed out previously, a vote to stop the momentum of the Obama administration.
I suspect there was more than one democrat in Massachusetts that couldn’t believe they were casting a vote for a republican last night, but they did it anyway, because they realize the danger of an unchecked Legislative and Executive branch.
Where will we go from here?
It’s hard to say, but if I had to guess I’d say that gridlock will ensue and not much will get done, unless of course we are befallen with another “crisis” such as a continuation of the economic collapse or volatility in the middle east.
It is during crisis that we will see if the republicans and democrats have gotten the message. Scratch that – the democrats don’t get it even after the election of Scott Brown last night, so the best thing for everyone is if all the democrats just get out of Washington at the next opportunity.
The republicans, if history is any guide, will probably not get it either. They had their opportunity in the first years of the Bush administration to pass meaningful reform in health care, retirement planning, taxation and individual liberties, but they failed to do so, even after a 2000 election platform that promised to do so.
In 2008, when the system collapsed, it was John McCain and Barrack Obama who suspended their campaigns to return to Washington to save the country from economic meltdown. Even when 90% of the people were calling, e-mailing and writing their representatives opposing the legislation, none of them got it, and moved forward with passing a $700 Billion bailout for too-big-to-fail institutions.
They didn’t get it then, and considering that the faces in DC haven’t changed all that much in the last decade, chances are, they don’t get it now.
A third party movement for 2012 has been forecast by Trend Research founder Gerald Celente. As of this moment, the movement is in its infancy. Much of America is still leaning either left or right, red or blue, republican or democrat.
The 2010 election, which will likely end with a bludgeoning of the democrat party, will leave it up to the republicans. If by early 2012 the American people don’t see real change they can believe in, the republicans will have set themselves up for an ousting similar to that of their political rivals.
Hat tip shogunole for the link to Mr. Waddell’s piece
Mac,
Your analysis is dead on. You know, I think we who communicate on these “non mainstream” venues, have become the true mainstream. We knew the people were angry. We knew the people were anxious over the expanding government. We knew what true change is, and that it hasn’t happened yet (although it’s starting).
Mac, you are a pioneer, and this site will be remembered as
a starting point of the new mainstream media. You have it right.
They are still catching up with the truth.
Greyson Deitrich III
Independence News
Mac,
You are welcome. Here the two $64,000 questions: How do we balance what is best from the left and right to come up with a government that works?  I don’t know the answer, but I do know that fixing the mess is our responsibility. We are the government and we are the market.
Greyson, thank you for your comments. This site is really nothing without all of the regular contributors and the exchange of ideas. This is what it’s really about. We all have a voice, and when we all yell together, ‘THEY’ hear us, because if they don’t we replace them. Sometimes it is a slow and drawn out process, so it is excruciating to watch — but in the long run, the hope is a better America, even if it takes decades and generations to accomplish.
Shogun — excellent question/point. We ARE the government and the market! We control what happens in government and the marketplace through our ballots, be they punch cards or dollar bills.
Perhaps a perfect government will never exist — in fact, I am leaning more towards this conclusion for now… Everyone has a different idea of how it should all be… In America, we have 350 million different ideas for what government should be.
I think this is what makes America so great, and why the Constitution is such a brilliant document. It allows for changes to be made based on the will of the people. Unfortunately, it seems the founders failed to implement some basic cross-checks and protections, in my opinion. Things like term limits for elected officials, and the direct election of judges, and term limits for judges, should have been strongly considered. I think Jefferson and others did consider this, but of course, there were many other voices during inception, so what I consider to be important elements were either overlooked or unpopular.
Real change begins when people like ourselves interact in a peaceful, though sometimes heated, dialogue in the marketplace of ideas. My personal views and ideas evolve constantly because of discussions right here at SHTF Plan… I’ve realized that I am a ‘flip-flopper’ on many an issue, and that’s ok, so long as your moral compass and ethics are not compromised.
I think one of the keys to successfully moving forward, on an individual level (and this is where real change starts), is to attempt to eliminate the bias you bring to the argument at the onset and consider an idea from a different view point, no matter how different or scary it is. It’s OK to take your mind to a place where it is not comfortable being… Making the consideration does not necessarily mean your position has changed. It only means that you explored the same argument from a different point of reference.
Over more than 40-years of voting for one candidate or another, the debate has been defined by left vs. right, democrat vs. republican, blue vs. red. It just seems like now is the time to redefine the debate and frame the issues in new terms. There’s a new paradigm emerging, a new way of thinking, and successful candidates, like Scott Brown, are not only capturing the moment but are likely to capture the movement. The next year should be very interesting, indeed.
there are too many serious overwhelming fundamental faults with the united states. there is simply no hope…
I’m just as disappointed as the rest of America that we did not get real, positive change in Washington, DC. The “Change you can believe in” was just a marketing message that worked. To see Mr. Obama carry on many of the same disastrous policies from the last administration is so disheartening. I’m not looking for the Republicans to sweep back into power and fix everything either. Whether they caused it or not is debatable, but Mr. Bush’s administration stood by and watched as the economic storm gathered strength, let Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora and invaded Iraq when the people that attacked us are in A-stan. He underfunded the FDA and EPA and appointed former chemical industry executives to run the agencies, making them ineffective at protecting people’s health or the environment…and on and on.
I get the point of the article. That people so disheartened by Mr. Obama’s administration’s performance may choose to “throw all the bastards out” and vote Republican is a definite possibility and I would not blame the people for being angry at this administration. Even when the Democrats had a super majority they seemed so timid to flex their legislative muscle and go it alone. They keep reaching out to the Republicans trying to build consensus, while the Republicans chief aim is to deny Mr. Obama any legislative wins. The ones that loose out are the people.
I would vote Republican in the next election just to send a message to Obama that I am unhappy with the way things have gone so far. But, the Republicans largely created the financial mess Mr. Obama’s administration inherited and then made so, so much worse for future generations by driving up the national debt to stratospheric heights.
I feel kind of stuck when choosing whom to vote for. I know that candidates for both parties are corporate approved, and made electable through their generous campaign donations, because they will not rock the boat very much. Both parties represent, largely, continuance of the status quo.
I feel that if people vote en mass Republican in the next election then they are just falling for the same marketing pitch Obama made, “Change you can believe in–we mean it this time.”
If you want to send a message to Washington, DC that will make their hands tremble then lets have a very high turnout of votes for a third party.
Don’t see how Repub vs Dem matters much. Both parties will waste money on welfare and on warfare. The multiple Ponzi schemes in USA (federal deficit, social security, and fractional reserve banking) have simply grown too large to dismantle gracefully, even if it were politically possible.
Agreed both parties have sold out the American people. Thats why we need a viable, third (independent) party nationwide, but at the local, grass roots level to control Congress. We just need a vocal minority in both the House and the Senate to stake out the middle ground, where most Americans are at. We don’t need a third party president or candidate. Even if he or she could get elected, he or she would not be able to govern.
The Tea Party may be the answer if they concentrate on the State level.
Gerald Celente’s idea on the need for a third party is dead on.
We personally support The Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com), though we have friends who also are strongly committed to the Libertarians. No matter how you slice it, if we don’t get back to the Constution, we’re dead in the water.
I’m liking what I’m hearing here…
This is NOT necessarily a “win” for the GOP and a “loss” for the Democrats – it is simply sign that people are pissed…and the voters in Massachusetts didn’t know what else to do.
Re the possibility of a third party, as I’ve said before, it starts with two simple goals: get rid of the corruption and get rid of the ridiculous spending (ear marks, pork, etc.) – ON BOTH sides of the aisle.
There are probably thousands of issues, literally, that need to be addressed after that, but until we take care of those two items, we’re just spinning our tires and are doomed regardless of which party is running the show.
Dear Obamao, you have been teabagged!!
A third party is a good idea, but the Constitution party is not it for me. I looked at their web site and going back to 1789 is not an option. You don’t want to go back to even more corrupt state governments appointing Senators, and eliminating agencies like the FDA, EPA, etc… will lead to shenanigans like we see in China with tainted milk and other products. Trust me on this one, the Chinese have a traditional distrust of merchants(The merchant class was on the lowest rung of the social status ladder throughout Chinese history) and they will not buy OTC medicines.