Imagining that because they’re so smart and have so rarely faced criticism save from those whose credibility they question, Democrats find it difficult to imagine, polls and election returns notwithstanding, that the people don’t like what they’re doing in Washington. Maybe they need first measure Obama’s actions in office against his rhetoric on the campaign trail. He’ll add more (much more) to the national debt in his first term than W did in both of his,* yet he ran against Bush’s government for living beyond its means while he promised a net spending cut.
The health care bill was negotiated behind closed doors while he had promised negotiations on C-SPAN. It included payoffs to special interests when he ran against them in his campaign. And yet, Obama still doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand that voters in Massachusetts were voicing not the rage that catapulted him into the White House, but a rage at what he’s being doing since he got there.
Charles Krauthammer helps explain why his (and other liberal’s awakening was so rude:
The reason both wings of American liberalism — congressional and mainstream media — were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they’d spent Obama’s first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.
It’s Krauthammer, read the whole thing.
*UPDATE: Jax Dancer reminds me that instead of going for rhetorical parallelism, I should have been more specific:
from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.
And as per ILC, I fixed the link above.