qq_tracker_code_advanced_default



"Hilarious." – Daniel Hannan

Organizing For America Explains the Loss in Massachusetts

with 2 comments

Fellow Collectivist Compatriot -- Yesterday's disappointing election results show deep discontent with the pace of change. I know the OFA community and the President share that frustration. We also saw what we knew to be true all along: Any change worth making is hard and will be fought at every turn. While it doesn't take away the sting of this loss, there is no road to real change without setbacks along the way. We could have simply sought to do things that were easy, that wouldn't stir up controversy. But changes that aren't controversial rarely solve the problem. Our country continues to face the same fundamental challenges it faced yesterday. Our health care system still needs reform. Wall Street still needs to be held accountable. We still need to create good jobs. And we still need to continue building a clean energy economy. The President isn't walking away from these challenges. In fact, his determination and resolve are only stronger. We must match that commitment with our own. But it won't be easy. Real change never is. For that reason, I am grateful you're part of this fight with us. Thank you, Mitch Mitch Stewart Director Organizing for America
So, to be clear, Martha Coakley lost in Massachusetts because:

  1. The American people don’t think the pace of change is fast enough; AND
  2. The American people are resistant to change.

We don’t want it at all, but we do want it quickly. Got it.

UPDATE: Howard Dean gives Chris Matthews an equally inane explanation. (Via Allahpundit.)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Share

Written by Moog Rogue

January 20th, 2010 at 10:49 pm

Posted in News and Opinion for Reasonable People

Tagged with , , ,

«
»

2 Responses to 'Organizing For America Explains the Loss in Massachusetts'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Organizing For America Explains the Loss in Massachusetts'.

  1. Fellow collectivist compatriot??? I guess it sounds better than comrade.

    Drewmann

    22 Jan 10 at 7:32 pm

  2. A moon unit to be sure. Mr. Matthews was asking a logical question. Why didn't Mr. Dean give a logical answer.

    So, following this logic, everyone that wanted Ms. Hillary as the Democrat nominee voted for Mr. Obama? Everyone that wanted Ms. Coakley voted for Scott Brown? So, if I were VERY progressive I will punch the ticket for straight Republicans in Nov?

    It is true that the Repub's held their nose for The Angry White Guy with the Beautiful VP in 2008, and proved that counterfeit Libs will be blown out of the water everytime: liberal voters can easily tell the difference.

    But there is not a similar comparison here: Mr. Brown and Ms. Coakley were as different as white and black.

    Esteban Cafe, World

    25 Jan 10 at 1:06 pm

Leave a Reply

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree