The article excerpted below is the first and may end up being the best analysis of the Massachusetts disaster, the loss of the late Senator Edward Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate. The "all knowing" pundits have already tagged this as some sort of revolt against President Obama's health care legislation or a sea change in United States politics. But there are a few facts that point to the likely cause of the defeat. Financial commentator Numerian laid it out out very clearly at the start of his analysis:
"An interesting observation was made today by the pollster for Martha Coakley, the hapless Democratic candidate for the Massachusetts senate seat held almost forever by Ted Kennedy. It appears polls are showing that the voters, especially independents who would normally vote Democratic in a liberal blue state like Massachusetts, have instead run to support the Republican candidate as the agent of change. Wasn't that supposed to be Barack Obama's signature tune?
voters have given up on President Obama as an agent for anything but
the status quo, and this is most evident in his willingness to dole out
trillions of dollars in direct and indirect support to the banks. The
Massachusetts polls show this issue to be foremost on the minds of the
That's pretty clear isn't it. Massachusetts voters are not concerned about health care reform. They already have a program equal to or more comprehensive than the current legislation. There is no Teabagger movement emerging there. However, the information from polling and the general concern across the country about give aways to bankers while the rest of us get nothing stands out as the cause of voter disaffection and abandonment of the Democratic candidate.
Obama's) ... "actions this past year have been completely at variance
with his rhetoric. He is, in fact, almost as completely addled as the
bank executive cronies he appears to court and coddle. This past week
also saw testimony from some of the top executives in the banking
industry, including Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Jamie Dimon of JP
Morgan Chase, and John Mack of Morgan Stanley. They were all very
skilled at accepting regret for what happened without accepting
This is the enduring problem with the White House, a tin ear to the fears of people enduring a real world recession/depression with fully allocated unemployment now at 17% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U-6 results). The Democrats, Obama, Coakley, almost all of them fail to recognize these fundamental truths:
When you lose your job, you know it.
When face the loss of your home, you know it.
When your health insurance disappears, you know it.
When you get nothing while the banks get trillions of dollars, you clearly know it.
Who is to blame for the failed economy?
That's not a difficult question and there is an answer:
are men making millions of dollars a year, and they couldn't see the
housing bubble of the century in front of their eyes? If Jamie Dimon
had a soupçon of personal honor he would have already resigned over
this failure, and fired all his top management to boot. We are left to
conclude that bankers are as much bereft of personal honor as they are
lacking in a sense of personal responsibility for their failures." Numerian
These are the FOB (friends of Obama) on public display, the people he's aligned with to serve whom? Not the 300 million citizens of the Unite3d States living in financial limbo and fear.