Now look - I don't think Republican's ought to be gloating about this victory. It's wonderful, thrilling, and historic, but (and I hate this expression...) let's be clear about what it is. It was a referendum against Obama's far left socialist type agenda. Americans across the country made that clear in their Tea Party protests, their town hall meetings, and their various marches on Washington.
Yet here is vanden Heuvel:
This was an unearned win for the Republican Party. The election was fundamentally about one thing—the rotten economy—and Democrats paid the price as voters expressed their discontent. Conservatives in both parties who claim the vote represented an ideological shift to the right are plain wrong.
She's missing the fact that, in truth, America is a center-right nation. The far left agenda of this administration is simply overreach. There was no shift - she's right about that. Just a return to the norm.
No, according to vanden Heuvel, the opposite is true: the Democrats lost because they weren't liberal enough:
The quickly congealing conventional wisdom is that President Obama tried to do too much and was too liberal. The opposite is true: Voters were alienated because they didn't believe his team had fought aggressively enough for the interests of working- and middle-class citizens.
A frightening thought, to be sure. She says the Stimulus was inadequate. It should have been more and it's the darn Republicans fault that it wasn't. To vanden Heuvel and other Democrats I've heard since Tuesday, it's still all about the economy. This is a message they'd do well to rethink unless they want to lose control of the Senate as well; Americans are indeed concerned about jobs and the economy. That's what we wanted Obama to focus on rather than a massive health care takeover and government power grab.
And I'm not sure which Obama she's been listening to when she claims the president "remains committed to a politics of 'civility and common ground'." I don't think he ever looked for much common ground ("I won!") and I haven't seen any civility lately. I recall him calling me an "enemy" just last week and telling me to "sit in the back" of the bus he's trying to drive over the cliff.
No, vanden Heuvel demands he fight for government that benefits the "majority of Americans" but the majority spoke Tuesday night, and they're tired of his helping them. He's NOT helping them. Obama's policies are about to further cripple the economy, job growth and raise taxes come January.
I don't need that kind of help and clearly that's what Americans were rejecting Tuesday.
Added: Oh wait...in answer to my own question, I see there IS someone more clueless, or at least as clueless. Looks like Paul Krugman and vanden Heuvel got the same talking points this week:
Mr. Obama’s problem wasn’t lack of focus; it was lack of audacity. At the start of his administration he settled for an economic plan that was far too weak.
Not liberal enough.
I'm not always the brightest color in the box, so someone might ought to explain this one to me:
And when Mr. Obama took office, America had just suffered its worst financial crisis since the 1930s. What the nation needed, given this grim prospect, was a really ambitious recovery plan. Could Mr. Obama actually have offered such a plan? He might not have been able to get a big plan through Congress, or at least not without using extraordinary political tacticsWith a Democratic majority at the time, why couldn't he have gotten it through Congress? He showed no aversion to "extraordinary political tactics" when it came to ramming ObamaCare down our throats.
Krugman and vanden Heuvel's advice to Obama to dig in and "take a stand" is likely what he will do, and that's fine, too. 2012 is just around the corner.