By Rich Trzupek
It was in interesting week…
Everyone’s prayers are with the people of Haiti. The scenes of devastation and carnage are truly horrific, and we should all be proud – once again – of the valiant efforts of our men and women in uniform to bring aid and comfort to that troubled, impoverished nation. The administration is to be commended for utilizing the best trained, best equipped, most professional military force in the world during this time of desperate need in the Caribbean.
It is ironic though: a fair bit of the world, so quick to criticize America for acting unilaterally with regard to any number of issues, always looks to us for leadership at times like these. Nobody’s shouting “imperialist” today, but given them time. (Actually Hugo Chavez says the US is in the midst of a “military occupation” of Haiti, but I’m only counting reasonably sane people here). Once Haiti is forgotten, global-government types will begin shouting “imperialist” anew.
Speaking of Haiti and criticism, Evangelist Pat Robertson drew quite a bit of fire for implying that last week’s earthquake was a result of nineteenth century pact with the devil that Haitins supposedly made in exchange for escaping French colonial rule. Robertson deserved the criticism. There is a time to evangelize and there is a time to help the victims. To his credit, Robertson apologized and he has been actively raising money for Haitian relief. Still, this isn’t the first time that Robertson has inserted his foot squarely into his mouth.
Left-wing activist and actor Danny Glover made much the same kind of assertion last week, except that an angry mother earth was at fault is his judgment. What made Gaia so upset? Why it was the west’s failure to achieve a meaningful “climate change” agreement at Copenhagen. Duh. Of course Glover’s gaffe received practically no coverage in the tired, old media. I’m sure that old media sympathy for Glover’s liberal causes had nothing to do with that. Nothing at all.
I’m no geologist, but here’s an alternate theory that Robertson and Glover might want to consider while they try to figure out what caused the catastrophe in Haiti: an earthquake.
By the time you read this, the biggest election of the decade will have been decided. Yeah, yeah, the decade is only twenty days old. One takes what one can get.
The fact that a Massachusetts Senate race could be even close, in a state that’s the bluest of the blue, is remarkable. The fact that – as of Sunday – it was essentially a toss-up is mind-blowing. Just a few months ago, Democrat candidate Martha Coakley was thirty one points ahead of her Republican opponent, Scott Brown. No one, this reporter included, figured Brown had a chance.
The fact that Brown is going to at least make it close is not testament to his cheesecake centerfold that appeared in Cosmo in 1982. It’s rather the result of growing voter dissatisfaction with a government controlled by Democrats and Coakley’s unbelievably abysmal campaign.
The latter point first: during the course of her campaign, Coakley’s string of gaffes read like something from a book entitled “How To Lose An Election,” including:
– When asked about overseas experience, Coakley responded that she has a sister who lives abroad.
– Coakley said that there are no terrorists in Afghanistan, which will certainly come as a surprise to our troops fighting there.
– A Coakley staffer shoved a reporter to the ground and then further bullied him, all of which occurred in the unprotesting presence of the candidate herself. (She would claim that her back was turned, although video of the incident suggests otherwise).
– Though she is Attorney General of Massachusetts, and presumably privy to its laws, Coakley failed to disclose over $200,000 is assets when filing paperwork for her Senate run.
– In a state that is heavily Catholic, Coakley managed to alienate many of them by suggesting that perhaps they shouldn’t work in emergency rooms.
– And, to top it off, Coakley also managed to alienate Red Sox fans by mocking Brown for shaking hands with voters in front of Fenway Park.
All of that, and her less than stellar record as a district attorney (she refused, for example, to prosecute the infamous “curling iron rapist,” though her successor had no problem securing the pedophile’s conviction) make it painfully obvious that the Democrat powers that be in Massachusetts figure they can toss anybody on the ballot and Bay State voters will dutifully elect even the emptiest of suits.
Still, this race could not be close without the growing dissatisfaction that voters have expressed with the Democrat’s agenda. From health care, to spending, to releasing terrorists for retraining in Yemen, to national security – and beyond – it is painfully obvious to most everyone this side of Barack Obama and Harry Reid that the Dems are – and have been – pursuing policies that the majority of Americans find deeply troubling.
A GOP victory in Massachusetts would be wonderful, putting the filibuster back into play and thus restraining any further left-wing insanity. But, even failing a Brown victory, the Massachusetts Senatorial race is further proof (not that we needed any more) that the so-called “party of the people” is as badly out of touch as it has ever been.