Thursday, February 4, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Pathologically Delusional
Via Memeorandum, FOS Gibbs says the President isn't convinced that the election of Scott Brown was a referendum on Obamacare:The White House is evaluating whether to take a breather on health care or try to push for passing legislation, but is not convinced Massachusetts voters were trying to block health insurance reform by voting last week to send Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.
Seriously? With Democrats outnumbering Republicans in Massachusetts by a margin of 3:1, and with a candidate who clearly campaigned as the 41st vote against Obamacare, they still aren't convinced?
Gibbs said that Brown may have campaigned on stopping the health care bill but that's not why voters elected him over Democrat Martha Coakley.
"More people voted to express their support for Barack Obama than to oppose him," Gibbs said.
Delusional.And these people are running the country.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Updates on Massachusetts

Keep an eye on Massachusetts today as Legal Insurrection goes live with the events of the day.
The Other McCain is also on scene (shouting "Roll Tide!" whenever he can) to bring you first-hand reporting of the campaign. If you missed his Live Streaming event last night, well...you really missed...well, something. Yeah. Just check the comments at the post (linked) and you'll get the idea.
Meanwhile, you can read Mark Steyn who is always entertaining, or this piece from the WSJ on the message of Massachusetts.
Go Scott, Go!
Update 4:42: I'm a nervous wreck. I can't blog. I can't wait for the polls to close! I've been reading The Corner all day and Kathryn Jean Lopez has been keeping me going. She's posting emails she gets from kindred souls (and MA voters) pulling for Scott Brown.
Oh the nerves!
Update 5:23: I'm hanging out now at Professor Jacobson's Live Feed - what an awesome thing he's doing! Come on over! We'll wait for the returns together! Get your Boston Lager ready!
Monday, January 18, 2010
If Brown Wins It's the End of the Republic, or something...
And so one suspects that this is a profound moment in the now accelerating decline of this country. And one of the major parties is ecstatic about it.
Oh for crying out loud.
Pity party.
Brown By Nine
Go Scott, Go!Via Politico:
A new InsiderAdvantage poll conducted exclusively for POLITICO shows Republican Scott Brown surging to a 9-point advantage over Martha Coakley a day before Massachusetts voters trek to the ballot box to choose a new senator.
According to the survey conducted Sunday evening, Brown leads the Democratic attorney general 52 percent to 43 percent.
"I actually think the bottom is falling out," said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery, referring to Coakley's fall in the polls over the last ten days. "I think that this candidate is in freefall. Clearly this race is imploding for her."
John Kerry Tries His Hand at Fear-Mongering
And so it goes. Is this what we can anticipate as the 2010 mid-terms get underway?John Kerry, it is reported, is blaming "Sarah Palin" and "tea baggers" for Martha Coakley's staggering drop in the polls in what he hopes will be a match under the pants of Democrats for tomorrow's election.
Via The Corner, "Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) thinks Scott Brown’s rallies in the Bay State are “reminiscent of the dangerous atmosphere of Sarah Palin’s 2008 campaign rallies,” the Boston Globe is reporting.
There's more:
This wasn’t Kerry’s first evocation of a frenzied right-wing movement offering something like illicit support to Scott Brown. In a fundraising e-mail sent to Coakley supporters today, Kerry said “tea baggers” are “revved up…at the thought of hijacking health care reform and every chance we have at making progress in Washington.”
Nor is it the senator’s his first use of Palin as bogeywoman. In a December mailing, Kerry asked supporters to “imagine what Washington would look like if a bunch of new senators – inspired by Sarah Palin and the tea party crowd – took over.”
This is what they did with the NY-23 race - blamed "the tea baggers."If liberals can't defend their own message they attack the other side. Threatened by the conservative values of Palin, frightened by the awakening conservative movement, and unable to change the course of the anger the growing majority of Americans feel at the far-left liberal agenda taking over American politics since the election of Barack Obama, liberals resort to name calling: tea baggers.
Sarah Palin - ooooo! Scary!
John Kerry calling Sarah Palin rallies "dangerous" is incredible. Who were those people at Palin rallies? Parents with special needs children in tow. Working mothers. Conservatives. Working Americans. Teenagers (anybody felt threatened by Jackie Seal lately?)
I'd take issue with Kerry on another point, too. The popularity of Scott Brown is not entirely about his potential vote toward shutting down Obamacare. It could have something to do with the fact that Martha Coakley has imploded and run a terrible campaign. While many people are certainly voting FOR Scott Brown, I'd say there are a fair share voting AGAINST Martha Coakley.
How dare the ultimate elitist Kerry point and wag his finger at conservatives, at Scott Brown, at any of us, and try to spark fear in voters of the conservative movement.
Kerry asks us to “imagine what Washington would look like if a bunch of new senators – inspired by Sarah Palin and the tea party crowd – took over.” I think that's exactly what people are doing. And they like what they see.
Go Scott Brown! Godspeed!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
End of the Line for Kirk
Democrats in Massachusetts have talked about delaying Brown’s “certification,” should he defeat Democrat Martha Coakley on Tuesday. Their aim would be to allow Kirk to remain in the Senate and vote the health care bill.
But based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period. Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate. “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.
Those pesky details!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
News Flash: No More Terrorists in Afghanistan!
MODERATOR: “Do you think we should withdraw? [from Afghanistan]”
COAKLEY: “I think we should plan an exit strategy, yes.”
MODERATOR: “And how would we succeed?”
COAKLEY: “I am not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the vision in Afghanistan was to go in because we believe the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists, we supported that, I supported that goal. They are gone, they are not there anymore, they are in apparently Yemen and Pakistan. Let’s focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is.”
That's from last night's debate between Coakley and Scott Brown.
So is she suggesting that we invade Yemen and Pakistan? Is she saying we should pull out of Afghanistan, because there aren't anymore terrorists there, and move on out to Yemen and Pakistan?
Because if that's what she's saying, I can see completely why Scott Brown raised over a million dollars yesterday. And with lines like this one, he'll probably keep raising money:
More at Memeorandum.
