In a stunning repudiation of Obama’s entire program, Scott Brown made the 1969 Amazing Mets look like a foregone conclusion.
It wasn’t Scott Brown taking on the machine. It was America.
Despite the media’s mad machinations, in coaxing the Kennedy faithful to come out for a Coakley victory, and assuming the sale, the people weren’t fooled. The Boston Globe went so far as to publish a map that showed pre-poll-closing results depicting Coakley winning handily. Of course, they were trapped, and apologized.
The vice president of communications for the Globe, Bob Powers, put the blame on The Associated Press, saying: “AP was testing an election data feed to its Massachusetts clients.
"During corresponding tests at our end, the feed of AP’s hypothetical test data was inadvertently posted for a few minutes on a single subsection page within our site. As soon as the error was discovered, it was removed. We regret the mishap.”
But it’s funny how “mishaps” like that all seem to go in the same political direction these days. And they influence people.
“Mishaps” like that keep people home. They change people’s voting behavior, much the way the early Reagan call in the 1980 presidential election kept people on the West Coast at home.
You can influence voting behavior by publishing subversive stories like that.
This time it failed, but that was not the only dirty trick that the Democrats tried to pull off. On Monday, the day before the election, I received what appeared to be a Coakley press release alleging voter fraud by the Brown camp. The Crooked Party was accusing the Republicans of handing out ballots with Brown already filled out.
In Yiddish we have an expression: “On de gonif brent a hittle,” or, “On the thief the hat burns.” If Coakley pursues this charge, it will be as a stall tactic, in order to keep Brown from being seated.
If you can throw enough leftist nonsense in the air, like the confetti that rained down when Brown won, you can delay seating Scott Brown. But remember:
As I showed at my Web site AtlasShrugs.com, the memo detailing this voter fraud was put up the day before the vote!
In any case, the media bias is thoroughgoing. Look at the fact that the first words out of the leftist media’s mouth after Brown made his seminal speech: They claimed he was a sexist. Rachel Maddow went after him for a very light-hearted joke about his daughters.
I’m a woman, and I have daughters, and I totally got it. But the media neglected to address the real substance of Brown’s remarks, which were a repudiation of Obama’s policies of siding with terrorists, of paying for their lawyers.
Eric Fehrnstrom, Brown’s chief strategist, remarked: “People talk about the potency of the healthcare issue, but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants.”
That stands to reason. For the terrible consequences of Obama’s national security catastrophe are unavoidable. There is no way to escape the reality of jihad. There is no way to escape the Maj. Hasans who lay in wait, even if the Pentagon refuses to recognize the very existence of a plain and vocal and avowed mortal enemy.
About all this the media was silent. But because of all this, the people of Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown.
The media still thinks they own the narrative. The media still thinks that they can’t lose. But with Brown’s victory, came a new era. And if Brown’s triumph is an indication of anything, it’s that new media has new power.
The role of bloggers in the race cannot be understated. It was the blogs that burst Coakley’s bubble. Brown’s victory was a huge boost for the new media. The bloggers’ role in that victory should form an important part of the template for the 2010 election campaign.
Scott Brown’s victory merely scratches the surface of America’s revulsion at the sting, the con, that Obama has been perpetrating. Everything Obama campaigned on, everything he said, was a con — from Afghanistan to Israel, from healthcare to taxation.
As a nation, we’re used to hollow campaign promises. But this is altogether different. This was a coup, and the people are letting Washington know that they’re on to them.
I expect the Democrat reaction to be visceral. Don’t look for rapprochement — it’s not how Chicago plays. Expect a serious ratcheting up. Expect dirtier, sleazier, meaner, on all fronts: legislative, media, propaganda, and the politics of destruction.
Duck, don’t run.
Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs Web site and is former associate publisher of the New York Observer. Her Op-Eds have appeared in The Washington Times, Newsmax, Human Events, Big Government, WorldNetDaily, the American Thinker, Israel National News, and other publications. She is the author (with Robert Spencer) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon and Schuster).