Media Reaction to the Scott Brown Victory

A new openness has appeared in some quarters of the media since the Scott Brown victory. Mary Katherine Ham via Reason:

As of last night, the media have finally started to change their tune on the Tea Party movement. I was shocked to hear Chris Matthews concede that Democrats had not learned to talk to those critical of the administration, to assuage their worries. Perhaps that was partly because their picture of those critics was painted by...Chris Matthews, who called 60-something veterans "terrorists," and compared peaceful protesters to aspiring Timothy McVeighs. Maybe that had something to do with the lack of engagement.

Pollster Frank Luntz had a hard time finding Coakley supporters to participate in a focus group. The New York Times belatedly notes pent-up anger of the electorate -- at -- something. An "intelligence failure" within the Democratic Party? At the New York Times? Or both? From the comments:

Does anyone else find it as astonishing as I do that Obama blamed even *this* on Bush?

It’s simply too funny for words…

Plus, Wretchard links a video which I think of as the Revenge of BUSHitler The disturbing lust for power evidenced by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and company is different in magnitude and substance from Hitler's vicious lust for power. And the current senatorial leadership style (bribing fellow senators with taxpayer money, special deals for rich people in Nevada, tax exemptions for insurance policies won by unions, etc.) is really different from Hitler's. That's one thing that makes the video so naughty). Many congressional Democrats have got to be pretty upset that Obama characterized the Coakley/Brown contest as a referendum on the administration's agenda. And the President was absolutely right. Many people used their vote for Brown to "send a message" to Washington.

This puts congressional Democrats in a difficult situation. And now even Paul Krugman is about to give up on President Obama's ability to ram a liberal agenda through against the will of the majority of Americans. Devotees turn on false prophets with a special vengeance. (Then again, many people have already given up on Paul Krugman. Heh.)

Sissy Willis gives an inside perspective on the importance of social networking to Scott Brown's win. Bloggers watched and publicized the Democrats' sleazy actions. Much of the legacy media was caught by surprise (maybe not on election day, but during the weeks before the election). Bloggers had some fun with the Coakley campaign. And with Keith Olberman. And with others in the media (even from Australia). Hooray for the New Media. Wretchard decides it's a good thing to let people watch Olberman's over-the-top slander of Brown, for old times' sake. Ditto Big Journalism. Follow the "Cornell Cow College" link for a few chuckles (example: President Obama and others made Rush Limbaugh the "leader of the Republican Party" just by repeatedly calling him the leader. Why can't Olberman be made into the "Leader of the Democratic Party" by repeatedly honoring him with this title? After all, he is a proud graduate of an Ivy League University.)

Olberman must really think his personal ideology is important if it justifies his "noble lies". Oops: now Jon Stewart has piled on.

Boston Globe columnist James Carroll is still stuck on stupid. Voters rejected Coakley because they hate women. There can be no other explanation. Is it the Ivy League universities that make people in the chattering classes blind with such frequency to any idea that doesn't divide people up into identity groups?