THE MEANING OF BROWN

It's not surprising to see the Democrats in denial. When have they ever taken responsibility for the result of their actions, especially this narcissistic leader? The most comical of all was Obama's statement comparing Scott Brown's victory to his own! Scott Brown rode to victory campaigning against everything Obama and his administration stands for.

What this means is America has had enough. We are frightened, disappointed, appalled, running out of money (some bankrupt), unemployed, and angry. It isn't hard to see the hypocrisy when a man who has campaigned hard for the last 11 months about the need for his health care 'PLAN', never mentions it in his stumping for Martha Coakley.

The Democtrats have spent this past year ignoring and dismissing the TEA Party movement starting in the early spring with tea parties across the nation; during the summer at town hall meetings; and an overwhelming march to Washington DC in the fall. In addition, they dismissed the millions and millions of phone calls, faxes and letters from a nation begging them not to pass this atrocious government run health care bill. They were "showed arrogance being dismissive, even derisive", if I may steal from a quote of Obama describing our country on his "Bash America Tour". Is it any wonder Mr. Brown took the country by storm? A man of conviction, on solid ground, not whining or vacillating.

This special election was profound, and the always brilliant Charles Krauthammer illustrates in his current excellent piece in Real Clear Politics:


The Meaning of Brown
by Charles Krauthammer, January 22, 2010

WASHINGTON -- On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health care reform. "If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have."

The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don't throw her a millstone.

After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.

Bull's-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.

Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don't Mirandize terrorists. Don't raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.

These deals -- the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback -- had engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of one-party rule. The final straw was the union payoff -- in which labor bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption from a ("Cadillac") health insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the 92 percent of private-sector workers who are not unionized.

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.

You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year's two gubernatorial elections.

The evidence was unmistakable: Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.

Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to diss Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal -- of a man who had them swooning only a year ago -- something is going on beyond personality.

That something is substance -- political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power -- even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can't even see is in your own interest.

Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don't want it, could they possibly have a point?

"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate -- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no hope of waking up."

I say: Let them sleep.


letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Copyright 2010, Washington Post Writers Group

THAT OLD OBAMA MAGIC IS BACK

It's been a long time since America has been under a Democratic rule without some kind of balance, and every time they have such power, it doesn't take long for them to remind us why we don't like them. We are a center right country, with strong Christian values, no matter how much noise the far left radicals are compelled to make. America was taken for a ride last year, and the timing couldn't have been more ripe.

Well, Tuesday, January 19th, America said "We've had enough!" Although the election was in Massachusett(e)s, across the nation citizens rallied in his support, which goes to show you what the 2010 elections will bring. All of us make a difference. We are united against this oppression. We are focused, and will remain engaged for as long as it takes.

Scott Brown has been as inspirtion, and Obama is unraveling at the seams, blaming everything and everyone in his line of fire, attacking and criticizing everyone else, including (as always) George W. Bush and especially the private sector. If he destroys the private sector, he is one step closed to government run 'everything'. So now, Obama is out there, where he's most comfortable, in campaign mode, BS-ing and attacking the people who actually create jobs, taxing and regulating the private sector so they can no longer provide these jobs.

He says it's not about him, but in the same sentence it ends with all the I, me's you can count. Ann Coulter writes a wonderful piece on America's awakening and Obama's denial:



That Old Obama Magic Is Back
by Ann Coulter, January 20, 2010

Once again, the people have spoken, and this time they quoted what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy.

Less than two weeks ago, The New York Times said that so much as a "tighter-than-expected" victory for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley would incite "soul-searching among Democrats nationally," which sent Times readers scurrying to their dictionaries to look up this strange new word, "soul."

A close win for Coakley, the Times said, would constitute "the first real barometer of whether problems facing the party" will affect the 2010 elections.

But when Coakley actually lost the election by an astounding 5 points, the Chicago boys in the White House decided it was the chick's fault.

Democratic candidate Martha Coakley may be a moral monster, but it's ridiculous to blame her for losing the election. She lost because of the Democrats' obsession with forcing national health care down the nation's throat.

Coakley campaigned exactly the way she should have.

As a Democrat running in a special election for a seat that had been held by a Democratic icon (and another moral monster) for the past 46 years in a state with only 12 percent registered Republicans, Coakley's objective was to have voters reading the paper on Friday, saying: "Hey, honey, did you know there was a special election four days ago? Yeah, apparently Coakley won, though it was a pretty low turnout."

Ideally, no one except members of government unions and Coakley's immediate family would have even been aware of the election.

And until Matt Drudge began covering it like a presidential election a week ago, it might have turned out that way.

Coakley had already won two statewide elections, while her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, had only won elections in his district. She had endorsements from the Kennedy family and the current appointed Democratic senator, Paul Kirk -- as well as endless glowing profiles in The Boston Globe.

And by the way, as of Jan. 1, Brown had spent $642,000 on the race, while Coakley had spent $2 million.

On Jan. 8, just 11 days before the election, The New York Times reported: "A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state's attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support."

It was in that article that the Times said a narrow Coakley win would be an augury for the entire Democratic Party. But now she's being hung out to dry so that Democrats don't have to face the possibility that Obama's left-wing policies are to blame.

Alternatively, Democrats are trying to write off Brown's colossal victory as the standard seesawing of public sentiment that hits both Republicans and Democrats from time to time. As MSNBC's Chris Matthews explained, it was just the voters saying "no" generally, but not to anything in particular.

Except when Republicans win political power, they hold onto it long enough to govern. The Democrats keep being smacked down by the voters immediately after being elected and revealing their heinous agenda.

As a result, for the past four decades, American politics has consisted of Republicans controlling Washington for eight to 14 years -- either from the White House or Capitol Hill -- thus allowing Americans to forget what it was they didn't like about Democrats, whom they then carelessly vote back in. The Democrats immediately remind Americans what they didn't like about Democrats, and their power is revoked at the voters' first possible opportunity.

Obama has cut the remembering-what-we-don't-like-about-Democrats stage of this process down from two to four years to about 10 months. Folks, I'm convinced that if we all work really hard, we can get it down to three months.

Four years of Jimmy Carter gave us two titanic Reagan landslides, peace and prosperity for eight blessed years -- and even a third term for his feckless vice president, George H.W. Bush.

Two years of Bill Clinton gave us a historic Republican sweep of Congress, which killed the entire Clinton agenda (with the exception of partial-birth abortion and felony obstruction of justice) -- and also gave us two terms for George W. Bush.

And now, merely one year of Obama and a Democratic Congress has given us the first Republican senator from Massachusetts in 31 years.

In other recent news, last November, New Jersey voters, who haven't voted for a Republican for president since 1988, threw out their incumbent Democratic governor, Jon Corzine. In Virginia, which Obama carried by 6 points a year earlier, a religious-right Republican won the governor's office by 17 points.

Sen. Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, won his last election in 2006 by 28 points -- the largest margin for a Democratic Senate candidate in that state in a quarter-century.

Since voting for the Senate health care bill last Christmas, the once-bulletproof Sen. Nelson not only gets booed out of Omaha pizzerias, but he has also seen his job approval rating fall to 42 percent and his disapproval rating soar to 48 percent. (Meanwhile, the junior senator from Nebraska, Mike Johanns, who voted against the bill, has a job approval rating of 63 percent.)

The Democrats have no natural majority because they have no fundamental principles -- at least none that they are willing to state out loud. They are like a drunken vagrant who emerges from the alley to cause havoc every few years. They are the perpetual toothache of American politics.

To be sure, the fact that 52 percent of Massachusetts voters are racist, sexist tea-baggers -- i.e., voted for a Republican -- means only that the Democrats just went from having the largest congressional majority in a generation to the second largest. But this was "Teddy Kennedy's seat." And it was in Massachusetts.

Now, no Democrat is safe.

But the country just got a lot safer.


-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?topic_name=Ann+Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, "Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault America."
-----------------------------------------------------

Massachussetts Armageddon: Dems Going “All Out” for Coakley in Final 3 Days

With so much on the line, the Dems are pulling out all the stops. The SEIU busses have "rolled into town" and the ACORN "boots" are on the ground. Let's pray there are enough lookouts out there to keep it at least honest, and that the backlash is so phenominal there will be no question who has won.

Organizing for America (OFA) is in shock and sending out email bombs, Ed Schultz of MSNBC said on his radio show, "I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are!", and the Kennedy family still thinks the seat belongs to the family, as Patrick shouts "Please volunteer to help in the race for my father’s seat”. But last I checked, we were still a Republic, although on shaky ground.

If you believe in a "Massachusetts Miracle", let's all get out and rally for Scott Brown.

More skulduggery in a piece from Pajamas Media:


Massachussetts Armageddon: Dems Going “All Out” for Coakley in Final Three Days
by Zombie, January 16, 2010

Stop counting those chickens.

Obama and the Democrats have not conceded the Massachussetts senate race, as some have suggested. Quite the opposite: This morning, Obama’s national Democratic activist group Organizing for America sent out a mass email to supporters saying they will fight tooth and nail to hang on to “Ted Kennedy’s seat”:

OFA is going all out in Massachusetts — we’re sending organizers, knocking on doors, and making phone calls by the tens of thousands to make sure that folks know how to participate.

It’s a huge effort, it’s expensive, and time is short. But with the outcome uncertain and the stakes sky high, I don’t want to wake up the morning after the election thinking that we could have done something more. If you feel the same way, please donate $5 or more to help us make Martha Coakley the next senator from Massachusetts…

This is in sharp contrast to some reports yesterday claiming that the Democrats are already making plans for how to handle the inevitable defeat in Massachussetts.

Of course, the email is also full of the usual truth-stretching hyperbole intended to rile up the liberal base:

The polls are tightening as right-wing money floods the state, and one even shows the race to be a dead heat between progressive champion Martha Coakley and her extreme opponent. The truth is, special elections often have very low turnout and are notoriously unpredictable.

The stakes are just too high to leave Martha’s victory to chance.

If we lose, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat will be in the hands of someone who opposes everything he fought for.

This of course is laughable — Scott Brown would actually be among the most liberal Republicans in the Senate. But hey, facts play no role in this modern era of do-or-die politics.

Republicans are beginning to think Massachussetts is in the bag. Democrats are betting the rent money that the seat can be saved.

Who ever imagined an election Armageddon would happen so soon into Obama’s presidency?

MASSACHUSETTS MIRACLE

Wow! This video is exhilarating.

There's plenty of time to pass this around before the monumental special election of Massachusetts Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley on Tuesday, January 19th (h/t Conservative Blogs Central):

Dem Scheme: Seat Brown Late if he Wins, Until After Health Care Gets to Senate

As today's politics become more and more totalitarian, the overreach of the far left radicals in this administration is beyond belief. A big part of American exceptionalism is our freedom, and voting rights is right up there in the top five. We now have a government hell-bent on transforming America back to the day of King George and the British Empire.

When Bill Owens was declared the winner in the NY-23rd race over Douglas Hoffman, they certified Owens to the Senate in record time. Now, the left is threatening to hold up certifying Scott Brown until after government run health care goes back to the Senate, should he win. Should Coakley win, of course she would be wisked in ASAP. Is this a democracy? Is there any way to prevent this? There is time to prepare for this inconsistency. Can this be done?

The unethical and illegal maneuverings of this administration are just mind boggling. This bill effects far too much for it to be handled with so many unprecedented machinations.

Dan Perrin writes more on this in Red State:


Dem Scheme: Seat Brown Late if he Wins, Until After Health Care Gets to Senate
by Dan Perrin, January 10, 2010

(At 11;59 PM on 1/8 Moe Lane posted on this story, here. I’m just adding another log to the fire.)

In a clear demonstration of the Speaker’s comment that we will do “almost anything” to pass health care, the Democrats have said they will delay seating Scott Brown, the GOP candidate for Senate in Massachusetts if he wins the race for former Senator Kennedy’s Senate seat on January 19th.

Talk about lighting a torch while standing is in a field of gasoline! The Dems would be really putting on their crazy train if they tried this.

This plan is rank with corruption. Not only would they be denying the will of the people of Massachusetts, but they would be corrupting our process even further to do it — I mean, besides buying off Senators Nelson and Landrieu — you know.

For the Dems to be planning in this level of detail for a loss is revealing, and puts an explanation point on the great anger at ObamaCare in the nation — and the Dems desperation in even considering this CHEAT.

Here are excerpts from the Boston Herald:

“Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

“Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 - well after the president’s address.

“Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said Friday a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

“In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.”

Even in Massachusetts, Weak Support for Dem Health Care Bill

In an interesting poll analysis, Massachusetts shows weak support for the Democrat health care bill. This is a state that knows first hand what government health care brings -- disaster. Amazing, for a state that has far more registered Democrat voters than Republican.

The analysis illustrates how this administration is completely ignoring the will of the people, and governing on their own. They have closed off the American people from seeing how the health care bill is being put together in its final critical stages. A bill that will affect all of us, and take governmental control of another major chunk of our economy. It's an example of many more takeovers ahead which includes Cap and Tax, and amnesty for illegals.

This is what Americans have to look forward to, until we can reduce their totalitarian power. The special election for that 41st senatorial vote coming up on January 19th is crutial, and the Obama team knows it. They are pulling out all the stops to make sure they don't lose this power, and all Americans across the country can help at Scott Brown's RedInvadesBlue.com. There's an excellent chance for a Republican win in this clearly blue state. Mitt Romney won the governorship.

Byron York analyzes Massachusetts in the Washington Examiner:


Even in Massachusetts, Weak Support for Dem Health Care Bill
by Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent - January 10, 2010

The race to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts is shaping up as a referendum on health care reform. If you look inside the numbers of the Boston Globe poll -- the one that has Democrat Martha Coakley leading Republican Scott Brown by 15 percentage points -- you'll see that more voters name health care reform as the election's top important issue than name jobs and the economy. That's a striking reversal of opinion among the American public overall. And just 43 percent of Massachusetts voters support the Democratic national health care plan now making its way through Congress, versus 36 percent who oppose. In one of the bluest states in the country -- and one with up-close experience with a state health care regime that resembles the plan under consideration for the nation as a whole -- that is strikingly weak support. And that support is pretty much limited to Democrats; independents and Republicans are opposed.

Breaking down opinion by party, 65 percent of Democrats support reform, while 11 percent say they oppose it and 20 percent say they don't know. Among independents, 33 percent favor reform, while 43 percent oppose it and 23 percent say they don't know. And among Republicans, five percent favor reform, while 82 percent oppose it and 10 percent say they don't know.

Looking a little more closely at the numbers, it's clear that opponents of reform are far, far more intense in their feelings than supporters. Among Republicans, 65 percent say they strongly oppose reform, while 17 percent say they somewhat oppose it (making for that total of 82 percent opposed). Among Democrats, just 28 percent say they strongly support reform, while 37 percent say they somewhat favor it (making for the 65 percent total figure). Among independents, 29 percent strongly oppose it, while just 13 percent strongly support it.

That intensity of opposition likely accounts for the poll's finding that Massachusetts voters believe health care reform, and not the economy, is the most important issue in the race. Among all voters, 31 percent name health care reform as the most important issue, while 27 percent say jobs and the economy. Thirty-five percent of Republican voters name health care reform as the most important issue, versus 20 percent who say jobs and the economy. Among independents, 29 percent name health care reform, versus 23 percent who say jobs and the economy. Among Democrats, 29 percent say health care reform, versus 32 percent who say jobs and the economy.

The bottom line: In a state where support for the Democratic national health care plan should be strongest, the current bills making their way through Congress cannot muster majority support. If Coakley is elected, she will cast the 60th and decisive vote in the Senate to pass a plan that not even half the people in her home state support.

An Alert From the Scott Brown Campaign in Mass. Jan 19th Election

This is not an endorsement of a candidate, but a fight to get that all important 41st vote in the United States Senate, where Harry Reid and his Chicago style thugs have taken over and run Congress in silent, backdoor tactics.

In an email today, Scott Brown is alerting us about a final push by MoveOn.org and the SEIU in Massachusetts. Since we all know how they fight, it's not pretty, so here is their request for help:


"OUR BROWN BRIGADE IS STRONG, AND OUR MORALE IS HIGH"
Scott Brown, January 9, 2010

The far left wing attack machine is stepping up to try and defeat our movement to win the Special Election for the United States Senate on January 19th. The radical MoveOn.org has decided to MoveIn to Massachusetts to try and help the lethargic Martha Coakley campaign gain some traction. The SEIU, the nation's largest public employee union is also pouring thousands of dollars into this race to defeat our movement.

These groups like MoveOn.org and the SEIU along with the political machine in Massachusetts have an agenda to continue the reckless spending in Washington and to dramatically expand the size of government.

There is only one thing standing between these groups and their hope for a victory on January 19th, and that is you.

On Monday, January 11th we are having a moneybomb and I am asking for your pledge, right now. Once you make your pledge today, please return to RedInvadesBlue.com on Monday, January 11th to fulfill your pledge and make your contribution.

I refuse to let these far-left groups slow our momentum with their special interest money and I'm asking you to help us fight back, right now.

Our Brown Brigade is strong and our morale is high. Together, we have built a strong grassroots movement to win this special election for the United States Senate on January 19th and send a political shock-wave across the country and to the Washington establishment.

If we win on January 19th, it will deliver a devastating blow to the out-of-control spending bureaucrats and those that want a Government Run take-over of our health care.

You can send a strong message right now by going to RedInvadesBlue.com and making your pledge, right now.

To Victory,


Scott Brown

P.S. Our call from home application is a fantastic way to volunteer to reach the voters that we need to turn out on Election Day - it's critical to inform OUR voters about Election Day being January, 19.