“…if you don’t care who gets the credit.”

We are all basking in the win for Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Many people worked long and hard to help bring it about. I would like to mention some fairly big names who pulled in their egos and worked in the shadows away from the limelight in order for Scott to succeed. Their stories can now be better told.

First there was Mitt Romney. Scott Brown came to him very early seeking his help. Mitt provided crucial early aid. He lined him up with members of his staff and others from his campaign. They provided much needed strategic and logistical advice. Mitt also lent Scott his highly-prized fundraiser list, and Mitt helped to get the ball rolling by hosting an early fundraiser for Scott.

Part of the strategy they worked out was to position Scott Brown as a man of the people — a regular guy. A guy who drives an old beat-up pickup truck ala Fred Thompson. He would also be a man not beholden to “The Establishment”. This meant that Mitt Romney would have to remain in the background and not actively campaign for Brown. In his place, Scott would get endorsements from and be seen with such regular Joes as Doug Flutie, the famous Boston College quarterback; Curt Schilling, the famous Red Sox pitcher of “the Bloody Sock” fame; and John Ratzenberger, from the iconic Boston TV series “Cheers”. The only national Republican figure that would actively campaign with Brown would be Rudy Giuliani, “Hizzoner” himself. If there is a national Republican figure with more blue-collar cred than Rudy, I don’t know of him.

Besides Romney, the NRSC and the NRC also stayed in the background. They quietly transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Brown campaign. Some of this happened while they were getting blasted by critics for not doing more to help people like Brown get elected. RNC chairman Steele especially came under scathing criticism at the time for poor leadership as the head of the national committee. Yet while enduring those attacks, they were providing the funds to Brown that allowed him to set up phone banks and do some critical advertising buys. They could have leaked their involvement to defend themselves, yet they kept it quiet. My hats go off to them.

Now ask yourselves, what would have happened if Mitt had selfishly insisted that as part of him helping, he would be allowed to campaign openingly for Scott? Or what would have happened if, as a condition of their cash infusion, the NRSC and the NRC insisted upon public credit? The Democrats would have easily been able to undermine Brown’s carefully crafted image as a regular Joe beholden to nobody.

Did their help ultimately go unacknowledged? No. When asked about the lack of help from the national Republicans, Brown always cagily said that he was receiving everything he asked for. Many people wrote that off as him covering for them, but we now know that he was telling the truth.

And Romney? Brown thanked Romney by name in his victory speech for being there “even when I was a long shot”, and who, “helped show us the way to victory”. John McCain was the only other Republican Scott called out by name in his speech. He said McCain had told him months ago that, “I could win, and gave me confidence for the fight.” From what we now know about the help Mitt provided, I would dearly love to know better the extent of the help that John gave him. I somehow doubt it consisted of just a single meeting and a clap on the back saying “Go for it!”. Hopefully it will all come out some day.

So there you have it. Scott Brown received some crucial help from several people who allowed their reputations to take a hit for supposedly not helping as much as they could, but whose reward was to see the triumphal election of Scott Brown to the United States Senate.

Ronald Reagan had it right all along.

Research 2000/Daily Kos Colorado Political Survey

Gubernatorial General Election

• Scott McInnis (R) 43%
• John Hickenlooper (D) 43%
• Undecided 14%

Senatorial General Election

• Michael Bennet (D) 40%
• Jane Norton (R) 39%
• Undecided 21%

• Jane Norton (R) 41%
• Andrew Romanoff (D) 39%
• Undecided 20%

• Michael Bennet (D) 41%
• Ken Buck (R) 38%
• Undecided 21%

• Andrew Romanoff (D) 40%
• Ken Buck (R) 39%
• Undecided 21%

• Michael Bennet (D) 42%
• Tom Wiens (R) 38%
• Undecided 20%

• Andrew Romanoff (D) 41%
• Tom Wiens (R) 39%
• Undecided 20%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Barack Obama 46% / 47% {-1%}
• Democratic Party 36% / 53% {-17%}
• Republican Party 33% / 55% {-22%}

Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted January 11-13, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 38% Republican; 30% Democrat; 32% Independent.

Reid to be notified tomorrow of Brown’s victory.

Obama health care bill is dead.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin said he would notify the U.S. Senate on Wednesday that Brown had been elected. Originally, he had said he might take over two weeks to certify the results of the special election, giving Democrats a window in which to try to rush through final passage of Obama’s health care plan.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., promised to seat Brown “as soon as the proper paperwork has been received.”

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

I apologize for interrupting the (entirely appropriate) Scott Brown euphoria, but the WSJ released an interesting poll today:

President Obama’s overall approval:

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 43%

Preferred outcome of this year’s congressional elections:

• Republican-controlled Congress 41%
• Democrat-controlled Congress 41%

Among voters with high interest in election:

• Republican-controlled Congress 50%
• Democrat-controlled Congress 35%

Approval ratings of Republicans’ handling of health care:

• Approve 26%
• Disapprove 64%
• Not sure 10%

Approval ratings of President Obama’s handling of health care:

• Approve 38%
• Disapprove 55%
• Not sure 7%

As the second-to-last question shows, Republicans should not pride themselves on these numbers. Voters have clearly become disillusioned with both parties. Still, it appears that Republicans may soon become the lesser of two evils in the minds of the electorate, heightening hopes for a GOP takeover of Congress and the checks and balances that come with divided government (which, barring further collapsing of Obama’s approval numbers, should become very popular among Independents).

In a statement titled, “Congratulations Scott Brown” Mike Huckabee offers his congratulations:

I want to congratulate Scott Brown on an impressive victory in the race for the United States Senate. Massachusetts voters have sent a message to the President and the Democrats in Washington. They are angry with the way things are being done in Washington! Voters do not like the fact that the Administration and the Democrats in Congress are not listening to them. They have sent a message loud and clear. They do not want government run health care. They will not accept out of control spending, record deficits and an even bigger federal government. Scott Brown comes to Washington with the hopes and good wishes of every Republican. It is the first step in taking back our country.

Well, that’s it then. The results are in, the votes have been counted, and like their countrymen from more than two centuries ago, the citizens of Massachusetts executed an act of rebellion against the state for attempting to enslave the individual will. Red and blue are gone; in their place is a mass revolt against the supposedly inevitable transformation of America into just another cog in the decaying Western world — another dying social democracy whose cultural artifacts will adorn the museums of China and India a century from now. Tonight, Americans in the bluest state in the union stood up and said goodbye to all that.

Near the end of The Empire Strikes Back, Luke Skywalker, having been bested in combat by Darth Vader, is given a choice by Darth: join him or die. There really doesn’t appear to be any other option for Luke — he had crawled onto a catwalk and the only way out is through Vader. One way or another, his path to the future is through Vader. But just as the viewer thinks that Luke is going to either accept Vader’s offer or plunge into his lightsaber, Luke surprises everyone, Vader included, by leaping from the catwalk into the seemingly bottomless abyss below. Luke didn’t know what awaited him at the bottom, but whatever it was, it was preferable to the options that Vader had laid out for him.

Tonight’s election was America’s Luke Skywalker moment. It was the moment that Americans in the Bay State, and probably everywhere else, decided that given the choice between imminent social democracy in the mold of Western Europe and economic and societal ruin, they would choose neither. Instead, Americans, like Skywalker, have leapt into the unknown. They have rejected the notion that the only way to solve the problems created by big government and corruption of markets is through more big government and more corruption of markets. Instead of choosing to save the highly regulated mess that is currently the American economy and the American health care system with an even more highly regulated mess, Americans have chosen to reject government as a solution to our problems and allow the mess to fail, knowing that what rises from the ashes will lay the foundation for the next generation of American greatness, and not simply ease America’s transition into mediocrity.

To some, this seems nihilistic. Leaping into the unknown always has the potential to be so. And why would Americans choose this path, say the Establishmentarians, when social democracy is so easily attained at this point in our history given how big government has gotten already? Why, a few more nationalizations and tariffs and American industry will be saved forever, and will be safe under government management. Transform the health insurance companies into public utilities and require everyone to pay them a tribute and access to medical care will be universal. Sure, costs will explode, which is why rationing and price controls will be necessary to implement in the future. The public schools are already quasi-nationalized anyway; let’s finish the job and bring them entirely under federal control. Make higher education free, preserve and expand Social Security and Medicare, and pay for it all via massive debt that will eventually have to be financed by massive tax increases.

This is, after all, the logical conclusion of the trajectory our country has been on for the past two decades, with bigger government creating the need for bigger government creating the need for bigger government, a never-ending spiral that leads to massive debt, higher taxes, and ultimately the end of the free individual. The combination of a highly regulated economy, too-big-to-fail industries protected from a real market, debt, unsustainable entitlements, and public policies that pervert the market and disincentivize individuals from being rational actors has brought us to the precipice at which we have arrived. And Social Democracy, like Vader, willingly extended its mighty hand and its offer of security. It is, we are told, our destiny.

But Americans chose instead to plunge into the abyss of uncertainty. Because as of now, the abyss is the only path to freedom. Instead of making the same choice that every other Western country made when arriving at the same crossroads, Americans once again demonstrated that there remains a fundamental difference between the United States of America and everywhere else. Unlike every other country in the world, we are based on not a common tribe or gene pool or religion or language, we are a nation based on an idea. And that idea — that we are a collection of individuals each of whom has the right to live in accordance with his or her will — is what caused Americans to embrace tonight what some call nihilism but what I call creative destruction. There will be no more bailouts, no more nationalizations, and no health care fiefdom. Instead there will be only the America that a free market mess of 300 million autonomous individuals can create. And that’s an America that truly is too big to fail.

This says it all:

****Update****

How could I forget? (Thanks MWS)

The finale of the 1812 Overture played by the Boston Pops. How appropriate.

The retreat has begun

Red cities are cities are that going for Scott Brown at such a margin greater than they went for Obama that would indicate a Brown win. Blue is the opposite.

City of Gosnold (small city) goes from +33% Obama in 2008 to Brown +33% (official results, 100% in).

City of Holland (small city) goes from +2% Obama in 2008 to Brown +36% (official results, 100% in).

City of Monroe(small city) goes from +36% Obama in 2008 to Coakley +3% (official results, 100% in).

City of Ashland(med city) goes from +22% Obama in 2008 to Brown +11% (official results, 100% in).

City of Bernardston(small city) goes from +40% Obama in 2008 to Coakley +8% (official results, 100% in).

City of Bolton(small city) goes from +14% Obama in 2008 to Brown +15% (official results, 100% in).

City of Woburn(med city) goes from +9% Obama in 2008 to Brown +19% (official results, 100% in).

City of Tyngsborough(med city) goes from +3% McCain in 2008 to Brown +37% (official results, 100% in).

City of Concord(med city) goes from +43% Obama in 2008 to Coakley +25% (official results, 100% in).

City of Worthington(small city) goes from +39% Obama in 2008 to Coakley +19% (official results, 100% in).

A few more of these and I will call this for Scott Brown. Scott Brown needs to average a 26% change STATEWIDE (which can be a lower number citywide because turnout can account for a few points…so on a city level Brown needs maybe a 22% change) from the Obama numbers to win and he is doing that in every area that I have looked at so far.

Click here to watch News 4 WOAI’s Randy Beamer’s full interview with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is in San Antonio to speak at the San Antonio Economic Outlook Forum.

[Update] Why don’t we just consider this our Massachusetts Special Election open thread? I will bump it, if necessary, throughout the day.-KWN

>>> Official State of Mass elections result page

Inclement weather continues to hit Boston and extending north and west.

Twitter user Carrie Sheffield whose bio read, “Grad student at Harvard Kennedy School”, recently tweeted:

Heavy snowfall up here in Boston area could dampen turnout for Coakley/Brown. Only the devout will show up, snow/rain predicted all day.

On Intrade: Brown 84%, Coakley 16%

“Scott Brown” is the #5 trending topic on Twitter and has been a trending topic all day. Martha Coakley has just recently become the #10 trending topic. As I have written this “Scott Brown”  has fallen to #6 and Martha Coakley is no longer in top 10. Coakley became a trending topic against after the Barack Obama account with 3+ million followers tweeted about her.

Coakley Campaign Removes Illegally Placed Signs after Police Called

POLITICO (today): Finger-pointing begins for Democratic insiders

RAW VIDEO: Coakley Supporters Wrap Cameraman in Sign

Phony Calls Tell Massachusetts Residents Pro-Life Group Opposes Scott Brown

A via Politico:

A Democratic GOTV operative tells [Politico's Glenn] Thrush that the DSCC’s GOTV operation is “stunned” by how many Brown supporters it’s seeing

VIDEO:  Jon Stewart Anguishes Over Coakley-Brown Race (highly entertaining)

VIDEO: Olbermann: Scott Brown is a homophobic racist

VIDEO: Scott Brown in North Andover, MA, Jan 18, 2010 (this video captures some of the grassroots energy that seems to be propelling Brown)

RAW VIDEO: Scott Brown Votes in Wrentham

BLAME: MA Dem Vet on Coakley Campaign: “She had a humanity deficit as a cold campaigner”

WOW: Video of Coakley Staff Calling Reporters “Nazis”

• Obama brought change alright. Change to Joe Biden who has done a 180′ on the Filibuster.
• Obama wants to bring change to the TSA. The nominee to head the TSA, Errol Southers thinks terrorism is a problem that deserves some parity with global warming and education. The Democrats argument that this guys nomination somehow allowed the underwear bomber to almost blow up a plane doesn’t seem plausible.
• Despite all of the outrage and fingerpointing at Wall Street crimes as the real source of the financial crisis, the Justice Department isn’t having any luck finding instance true major fraud on Wall Street. This isn’t to say there haven’t been some legal albeit unethical things happening on Wall Street, or some clever crooks are hiding their misdeeds, but it suggests that criminal activity may not be as widespread as critics allege. Those looking for the real criminals will find them hanging out around the Capitol.
• Meanwhile, another rematch from 2008, looks like it might go the GOP’s way this time. Former Congressman Tim Walberg (R-Mi.) leads Rep. Mark Schauer (D-Mi.), who inched him out last time, by a 9 point margin.  Walberg’s a warrior who has fought hard going back to his 2006 primary victory that propelled him to the House.  Here’s hoping 2010 is when he gets to stay a while in Congress. (Hat Tip: Red State.)
• Prayers for Malaysia where Christians continue to attend church despite attacks.
• By now, most people have heard how Pat Robertson said that the Earthquake that hit Haiti hit as a result of Haiti’s deal with the devil. The problem? Robertson didn’t actually say that. Bryan Fischer has an incisive piece on the topic that I reccomend. While Fischer acknolwedges that what Robertson did really say was “insensitive and lacking in Christian compassion.” It wasn’t what everyone said Robertson said. Fischer’s piece is a reminder of how few of the media narratives that get played up have a firm relationships to the truth, and rather are based on people who don’t know what they’re talking about repeating what other people who don’t know what they’re talking about said. This is made particularly easy because Robertson has a history of making dumb statements that feed into the narrative. 
• And here’s your politically incorrect thought of the day: Through Operation Blessing, Pat Robertson has done more good for Black people living in the third world than Barack Obama

Finally this video comes from Little Rock:

Mike Huckabee showing up for the March for Life in Little Rock. Whatever one wants to say about Huckabee, I give him credit as one of the few political leaders who will show up for the March for Life when there’s no political benefit for them doing so.

Rasmussen Obama Cabinet Favorability Survey

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Hillary Clinton 58% (54%) / 41% (43%) {+17%}
• Robert Gates 44% / 35% {+9%}
• Eric Holder 25% / 40% {-15%}
• Kathleen Sebelius 24% / 41% {-17%}
• Rahm Emanuel 26% / 48% {-22%}

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted January 14-15, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 30-31, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Women continue to regard Clinton more favorably than men, but 51% of male voters now have a favorable view of the former first lady.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Democrats and 52% of voters not affiliated with either major party have a favorable opinion of Clinton. Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans view her unfavorably.

Rasmussen Louisiana Senatorial Survey

• David Vitter 53%
• Charlie Melancon 35%

• Jay Dardenne 53%
• Charlie Melancon 31%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• David Vitter 61% / 33% {+28%}
• Jay Dardenne 49% / 24% {+25%}
• Charlie Melancon 39% / 46% {-7%}

How would you rate the job Bobby Jindal has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 32%
• Somewhat approve 35%
• Somewhat disapprove 18%
• Strongly disapprove 15%

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 29%
• Somewhat approve 10%
• Somewhat disapprove 10%
• Strongly disapprove 51%

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 24%
• Somewhat favor 10%
• Somewhat oppose 6%
• Strongly oppose 58%

Should the December attempt to blow up an airliner as it was landing in Detroit be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?

• By the military as a terrorist act 74%
• By civilian authorities as a criminal act 11%

How do you rate the way that the government responded to the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day?

• Excellent 10%
• Good 20%
• Fair 26%
• Poor 41%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted January 14, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Rasmussen Texas Gubernatorial Survey

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 52%
• Bill White 37%

• Rick Perry 50%
• Bill White 40%

• Bill White 44%
• Debra Medina 38%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 61% / 35% {+26%}
• Bill White 49% / 35% {+14%}
• Rick Perry 55% / 42% {+13%}
• Debra Medina 39% / 32% {+7%}

Should Kay Bailey Hutchison remain in her position as senator while she is running for Governor?

• Yes 52%
• No 27%

How would you rate the job Rick Perry has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 16%
• Somewhat approve 37%
• Somewhat disapprove 23%
• Strongly disapprove 23%

Governor Perry withdrew Texas from a federal program offering up to $700 million in education grants. He expressed concern about education guidelines from the federal government as a result of accepting the grant. Do you agree or disagree with Governor Perry’s decision to turn down $700 million in education grants?

• Agree 45%
• Disagree 45%

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 29%
• Somewhat approve 15%
• Somewhat disapprove 8%
• Strongly disapprove 46%

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 20%
• Somewhat favor 19%
• Somewhat oppose 7%
• Strongly oppose 50%

Should the December attempt to blow up an airliner as it was landing in Detroit be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?

• By the military as a terrorist act 68%
• By civilian authorities as a criminal act 20%

How do you rate the way that the government responded to the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day?

• Excellent 9%
• Good 25%
• Fair 27%
• Poor 36%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted January 17, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Both Perry and Hutchison carry roughly 80% of the vote of the larger group that strongly opposes the health care plan, while White gets similar support from those who strongly favor it. Medina doesn’t benefit as much, in part because of the large number of voters who remain undecided about her.

Perry carries male voters by 26 points against White but trails by five among women. Hutchison carries both groups against the former mayor by double digits. Medina breaks even among male voters but loses women to White by 11.

Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican in all three match-ups but like Hutchison best.

Things change quickly.

This from an article in the San Francisco Chronicle:

The possible loss of a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts has Democrats on edge 3,000 miles away in California, where party activists fear a GOP upset today could trigger a conservative wave and swamp health care reform and the 2010 midterm elections.

“Regardless of the outcome … this should be a gigantic wake-up call to the Democratic Party – that we’re not connecting with the needs, the aspirations and the desires of real people right now,” said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

“We better get our act together – and quickly,” Newsom said. Voters “are so angry. They don’t feel that we’re paying attention to their needs, in terms of their jobs, and what’s going on at the grassroots, in their neighborhoods.”

If a close race in Massachusetts can rattle the nerves of entrenched state officials in California 3,000 miles away … .

“Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?”

This is from Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee talking about electing a Republican to fill the Senate seat formally held by Teddy Kennedy!?!.

Martin Luther King, Jr. is very different from most American holidays. Holidays like Washington ’s Birthday, July 4th, Veteran’s Day, or even Columbus Day are truly celebrations of great people’s lives and accomplishments. The accomplishments of Martin Luther King, Jr. are certainly worth celebrating. However, in the hands of many radicals the day has become something quite different.

Festivus, the holiday popularized on Seinfeld has one event called The airing of grievances. When the liberals were holding their Martin Luther King day rally yesterday, what they really needed was a Festivus pole, but that might have been too festive.

Instead of celebrating the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. and what he accomplished in passing Civil Rights legislation, MLK Day celebrations yesterday from the left in Boise were about two things. First, is the perverse idea of demanding to take money by force from those who have earned it in the name of justice. Second, is the ultimately patronizing idea that minorities can’t get ahead without the help of government, and especially without the condescending help of white people who will look them in the eye and say, “Poor you.”

 Of course, the left will respond that the battle for civil rights is never ending. But it’s not never ending because of what’s happening to Blacks in America. It’s never ending because the moment many far left groups admit that the battle for civil rights has succeeded, their jobs go away and so does their reason to live.

So, instead, it’s necessary to stoke racial angst every now and again. It’s necessary to come out and remind people how rotten they have it in this racist country of ours. It’s necessary to rip open racial wounds because failure to do so endangers the self-image of self-styled Civil Rights crusaders.

The truth of the matter is that if you’re concerned about poor minority kids, their biggest problem isn’t racial prejudice at all. It’s the breakdown of the marriage-based two parent family and poor education at their schools. Neither targets them because of their race, but really for self interest. The truth is that while the problems of fatherlessness and poor education are what plague poor youth of all races, and the left will never address these issues. Why?

Fatherlessness has at its root in the mindset of the sexual revolution that leads people to self-actualize and say, “To hell with the kids.” To quote the great M.C. Hammer, “Can’t touch this” if you’re on the left. Liberals will feign interest in education, but it’s really interest in subsidizing failing government schools that don’t work because they are controlled by teacher’s unions (which are big Democratic contributors) that represent the interests of unions and not that of education.. 

 Republicans, when they were in power opened the doors to poor black DC School Children to be able to attend the same school that the President of the United States sends his children to. When the President took office, he might as well have been George Wallace at the schoolhouse door as far as those kids were concerned, except Obama one-upped Wallace by succeeding in slamming the door of opportunity in the face of DC kids who sit in the squalid public schools he would not send his own children to in a million years.

 I think the only ones marching for actual civil rights were those folks from the tea parties. And we’re talking about basic civil rights, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Government is the greatest threat to human freedom in our nation. Government that wants to tell every citizen what food to eat, what kind of car to buy, and to force them to live like sardines in high density housing is an enemy to liberty. And government that can’t stop growing is an enemy to those rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Government growth endangers the future of all Americans. We have $44 trillion in unfunded entitlements, and the Obama Administration left plan on making the hole bigger. What is that going to do to my generation as we grow into middle age? Destroy our economic future.  Destroy our right to pursue happiness, because you can’t pursue happiness if your tax rate is absurdly high to support government spending of if your life savings have become nothing as a result of run-away inflation.

And what will this crisis mean for the poor? It will hurt the rich, it will do great harm to the middle class, but the coming fiscal meltdown will crush the poor like powder. It will degrade the capacity of the government to meet all needs for those whom the liberals have insisted need to become dependent on government, and will shrink the supply of non-governmental money available.

So, the dream of many generations is imperiled, but it’s not because of White racism or evil tea partiers. Rather, it’s because of the hubris, self righteousness, and emotional insecurity that lead some people to find their fulfillment in life by making others dependent upon the state for their sustenance. The hole is dug and we’re about to fall in.

But don’t expect to hear that message of impending crisis at liberal festivus celebrations held a month late. The only suggestion you’ll hear about the $44 trillion hole we’re heading towards is to make it bigger.

Politico has an interesting story of the low-key, yet crucial, role the NRSC has played in today’s Massachusetts special election:

Working quietly and under the radar, the National Republican Senatorial Committee shifted $500,000 to the Massachusetts GOP in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s dramatic election, according to Republican sources.

The NRSC transfer, made in several dispersals beginning on Jan. 7, were used for phone and mail get-out-the-vote operations targeted at independent voters, said Rob Jesmer, the NRSC’s executive director.

NRSC officials kept quiet about the money transfers, despite public taunts from their Senate Democratic counterparts that the GOP leadership was declining to put money behind Brown’s candidacy.

“Working with the Massachusetts state party, we feel our investment and coordination with them will give us a leg up” come Tuesday, Jesmer told POLTICO.

The NRSC’s half-million dollar investment in the tightly contested Massachusetts race between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown is far less than what the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has poured into the race, but it’s still a significant amount to spend in a state where Republicans haven’t won a Senate seat in nearly four decades.

Kudos to the folks at the NRSC for seeing the potential here and quietly doing what they could to make a “Massachusetts Miracle” possible.

My latest piece at Pajamas Media takes on the pure federalism argument on abortion:

Should pro-lifers change how they talk about abortion? PJM’s Nicholas Guariglia thinks so, writing, “For example, rather than remain fixated on the immorality of abortion, why not emphasize the unconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade itself?”

Certainly, Roe v. Wade was wrongfully decided. Far too much time is spent hand-wringing over whether pro-lifers should seek to make pro-life laws at the state level or whether there should be a federal constitutional amendment.

Under Article V of the Constitution, a federal constitutional amendment would require obtaining the votes of 290 members of the House, 67 senators, and 38 state legislatures. We’re not at that level of consensus, and we won’t get there any time soon.

That said, there’s a problem with Guariglia’s case for legal positivism on abortion that’s typical of the tactics suggested by those unconcerned with the issue. Namely, it believes abortion to be primarily a political issue when abortion is primarily a cultural issue.

Let’s consider those who work tirelessly outside of abortion clinics to persuade women to choose life. Would the appropriate argument in that case be: “Ma’am, don’t you know that this abortion is being facilitated by a wrongheaded court decision?”

At least one piece of anecdotal evidence suggests the moral argument made in the halls of power has an impact on the decisions of the people. During the partial-birth abortion debate, one woman heard former Senator Rick Santorum’s eloquent arguments and changed her mind about getting an abortion.

It has been argued, with some justification, that the key to winning the abortion battle is to change hearts and minds. Santorum did that with his moral arguments on the Senate floor. Did Fred Thompson’s federalism position on abortion achieve that end?

Click here to read the rest.

Transcript:

SCHULTZ: An apology right off the top here on the Ed Schultz show today, great to have you with us. I misspoke on Friday. I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I meant to say, if I could vote 20 times, that’s what I’d do (guffaws) This has been a wonderful weekend for us. I’ve had more entertaining email from these right-wing nutjobs than ever before. It must be, it’s gotta be a record for the Ed Schultz show, now in its seventh year.

SCHULTZ: They want me off the air, of course they do! This Radio Equalizer guy or whoever the hell he is, they dissect every word, they’ll take a clip out and they’ll say he said this. Let me be very clear – I’m not advocating voter fraud, I’m just telling you what I would do. That’s how bad I want Scott Brown to lose!

H/T: PoliJam

Despicable, divisive, and utterly un-American.

QUESTION: Will NBC keep this poor example of a man around?

—————————————————————————————

David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy. You can reach him at david.schmidt@evercor.com.  Facebook | Twitter

CBS News Survey on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Movement

Is your opinion of Sarah Palin favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven’t you heard enough about Sarah Palin yet to have an opinion?

• Favorable 26% [23%] (23%)
• Not favorable 41% [38%] (37%)
• Undecided 19% [20%] (22%)
• Haven’t heard enough 13% [17%] (17%)

Among Democrats

• Favorable 8% [4%] (11%)
• Not favorable 69% [57%] (56%)
• Undecided 13% [19%] (22%)
• Haven’t heard enough 10% [18%] (9%)

Among Republicans

• Favorable 43% [52%] (38%)
• Not favorable 14% [16%] (15%)
• Undecided 25% [22%] (25%)
• Haven’t heard enough 16% [10%] (20%)

Among Independents

• Favorable 30% [21%] (24%)
• Not favorable 35% [36%] (33%)
• Undecided 20% [20%] (21%)
• Haven’t heard enough 14% [20%] (21%)

Among Liberals

• Favorable 16%
• Not favorable 58%
• Undecided/Haven’t heard enough 25%

Among Moderates

• Favorable 15%
• Not favorable 47%
• Undecided/Haven’t heard enough 37%

Among Conservatives

• Favorable 46%
• Not favorable 26%
• Undecided/Haven’t heard enough 27%

Would you like to see Sarah Palin run for president of the United States in 2012, or not?

• Would 21% [24%]
• Would not 71% [66%]

Among Democrats

• Would 8% [9%]
• Would not 88% [83%]

Among Independents

• Would 25% [26%]
• Would not 65% [62%]

Among Republicans

• Would 30% [44%]
• Would not 56% [48%]

Among Conservatives

• Would [41%]
• Would not 58% [50%]

Is your opinion of the Tea Party movement favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven’t you heard enough about the Tea Party movement yet to have an opinion?

• Favorable 18%
• Not favorable 12%
• Undecided 11%
• Haven’t heard enough 58%

Among Democrats

• Favorable 3%
• Not favorable 20%
• Undecided 8%
• Haven’t heard enough 69%

Among Republicans

• Favorable 30%
• Not favorable 5%
• Undecided 16%
• Haven’t heard enough 49%

Among Independents

• Favorable 25%
• Not favorable 10%
• Undecided 10%
• Haven’t heard enough 55%

(Among those who have heard of the Tea Party Movement) Regardless of your opinion, do you think the views of people involved in the Tea Party movement generally reflect the views of most Americans, or not?

• Reflect most Americans 46%
• Do not reflect most Americans 40%

Among Democrats

• Reflect most Americans 19%
• Do not reflect most Americans 65%

Among Republicans

• Reflect most Americans 58%
• Do not reflect most Americans 23%

Among Independents

• Reflect most Americans 53%
• Do not reflect most Americans 37%

Survey of 1,090 adults was conducted January 14-17, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 36% [35%] Democrat; 28% [24%] Republican; 33% [41%] Independent. Results from the poll conducted November 13-15 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 9-12 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who may address a Tea Party gathering early next month, is viewed negatively in this poll — as she has been since last year. Her book tour has not improved overall views of her, and most Republicans say they would not want her to run for President in 2012.

She is a little better-known now than she was last fall, and both favorable and unfavorable ratings of her have increased slightly.

Conservatives are the only ideological group that holds net positive views of her; just under half do, while a quarter are unfavorable and a quarter of conservatives are undecided.

A large majority of Americans, seven in ten, say they do not want Sarah Palin to run for President. 56% of Republicans also do not want the former VP nominee to seek the office.

While favorable toward her, conservatives, specifically, also do not want to see Palin run in 2012: 58% of conservatives say she should not.

Heh:

A large majority of Americans say they want a smaller government that provides them with fewer services, according to a new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News. But the Washington Post story about the poll makes no mention of this fact.

The poll asked: “Generally speaking, would you say you favor smaller government with fewer services, or larger government with more services?”

Fifty-eight percent said they favor a smaller government with fewer services, and only 38 percent said they favor a larger government with more services.

This runs contrary to something that Andrew Sullivan claimed today:

…somehow Obama is a communist elitist out of touch with real Americans who want their government slashed, while they want no cuts at all in any entitlements, who want the budget balanced without any tax hikes or spending cuts, who demand access to unrestricted healthcare for ever, but refuse to support ways to reduce soaring costs. They want an end to crippling occupations overseas, but they also don’t want to retreat or surrender to terrorists. They want to restore America’s moral standing but retain the torture camp at Gitmo. And when told they cannot have all this, they vote for someone else who can promise it, however utopian their plans are.

Current polling suggests that’s not true at all. One year of Democratic policies and blueprints for the nation have demonstrated to the country the end result of big government, and of continuing on the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama trajectory, which will bankrupt the country and turn every American individual into a slave. What we’re about to see in Massachusetts is a modern-day Boston Tea Party — the rejection of the transformation of America into just another sleepy Western social democracy. How could I have missed this? How could I have doubted Americans for the past three years? America is unlike any and every other Western nation inamuch as we are a nation based on an idea, not on a common race or religion or culture. And that idea is the Enlightenment-based notion of the primacy of the individual and the triumph of the individual will, existing against the backdrop of realism, prudence, and thrift. This is the essence of the fusion of classical liberalism and classical conservatism on which our nation was founded, and it is why we remained a center-right country even as the nation elected a Democratic supermajority in 2008.

Later today, Massachusetts voters are prepared to do something they were unwilling to do even in 1994 — elect a Republican to the United States Senate. That signals the sort of psychological sea change with regard to Americans’ view of the role of government that neither the Reagan nor Gingrich revolutions could accomplish. And it is the sort of sea change that could only be brought about by the thing that Americans fear the most: the realization that America is heading towards mediocrity. As such, due to the fierce urgency of now, Boston Harbor tonight will be saturated with tea.

Over the last two years, I become far more involved in pro-life advocacy and now serve as CFO & Media Director for the youth-led, pro-life group, Live Action. I have observed the pro-live movement over the last year become more organized and focused. While it still has a ways to go in organizing and focusing of message before it can not just compete with but politically crush abortion advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, I see that day fast approaching.

There is high levels of energy at the grassroots level and here is some of the evidence I see of its expression:

Today in an email, the 40 Days for Life campaign reported that their spring campaign is going to shatter size records in terms of involvement.

The purchase and renovation of the largest Planned Parenthood building in the country is being met with strong protest today that FoxNews reported numbered 3,000 to 4,000 people:

Also today, the French held a large march for life in Paris: Paris March for Life Unites 25,000 French Pro-Lifers (up from 15,000 a year ago)

This weekend, we will also see rallies in:

• San Francisco, CA at the Walk for Life West Coast. A strong turnout is expected and likely to top the 30,000 walkers to attended last year.
• Washington, DC at the March for Life where over 100,000 are expected to show up.
• Other smaller rallies are being held in many places across the country.

In the political realm, we saw a record high number of House Democrats and Republicans oppose tax funded abortion via their Stupak ammendment vote.

Finally, Gallup’s polling seems to also indicate that there is a shift in thinking going on:

GALLUP: U.S. Abortion Attitudes Closely Divided
Forty-seven percent of Americans identify as “pro-life,” 46% as “pro-choice”

This is what I am seeing out there and I would love to hear what you are seeing. Are American’s gaining a new respect for human life? Is the pro-life movement making real progress?

CBS News Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 50% <46%> {50%} [53%] (56%)
• Disapprove 40% <41%> {39%} [36%] (34%)

Among Independents

• Approve 40% <42%> {43%} [45%] (52%)
• Disapprove 47% <40%> {41%} [40%] (35%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 40% <36%> {42%} [44%] (47%)
• Disapprove 54% <54%> {50%} [48%] (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 33% <35%> {39%} [38%] (44%)
• Disapprove 60% <53%> {53%} [50%] (43%)

If health care legislation passes this year, would you say that Barack Obama will have made the U.S. health care system better, made it worse, or will he not have changed the U.S. health care system?

• Better 41%
• Worse 35%
• Not changed 14%

Among Independents

• Better 35%
• Worse 40%
• Not changed 14%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign policy?

• Approve 49% [50%] (48%)
• Disapprove 38% [36%] (28%)

Among Independents

• Approve 39% [49%] (45%)
• Disapprove 48% [38%] (24%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 46% <41%> {47%} [49%] (54%)
• Disapprove 48% <47%> {43%} [43%] (38%)

Among Independents

• Approve 33% <38%> {40%} [40%] (47%)
• Disapprove 59% <46%> {47%} [48%] (41%)

So far, do you think Barack Obama’s policies have generally helped the economy, generally hurt the economy, or have Barack Obama’s policies had no impact on the economy so far?

• Helped 39%
• Hurt 25%
• No impact 30%

Among Independents

• Helped 29%
• Hurt 28%
• No impact 38%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation with Afghanistan?

• Approve 46% <46%> {48%} [38%] (42%)
• Disapprove 39% <38%> {38%} [43%] (34%)

Among Independents

• Approve 45% <47%> {45%} [30%] (44%)
• Disapprove 43% <36%> {41%} [49%] (36%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation with Iraq?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 38%

Among Independents

• Approve 42%
• Disapprove 44%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the threat of terrorism?

• Approve 60% <52%> {57%}
• Disapprove 33% <35%> {24%}

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the U.S. response to the earthquake in Haiti?

• Approve 80%
• Disapprove 8%

In his first year in office, do you think Barack Obama has accomplished more than you expected, less than you expected, or about what you expected him to accomplish by now?

• More 14%
• Less 26%
• About expected 56%

Among Independents

• More 10%
• Less 31%
• About expected 54%

Are you generally optimistic or pessimistic about the next three years with Barack Obama as President?

• Optimistic 62%
• Pessimistic 33%

Among Independents

• Optimistic 55%
• Pessimistic 39%

What kind of President do you think Barack Obama has been so far?

• Very good 14%
• Good 32%
• Average 33%
• Poor 21%

Among Independents

• Very good 8%
• Good 24%
• Average 42%
• Poor 25%

Since he has been President, do you think Barack Obama has brought real change to the way things are done in Washington, or not?

• Brought change 35%
• Has not 59%

Among Independents

• Brought change 28%
• Has not 64%

(more…)

Suffolk University Massachusetts Bellwether Communities Senatorial Survey

Gardner

• Scott Brown (R) 55%
• Martha Coakley (D) 40%
• Joseph Kennedy (I) 2%

Fitchburg

• Scott Brown (R) 55%
• Martha Coakley (D) 41%
• Joseph Kennedy (I) 2%

Peabody

• Scott Brown (R) 57%
• Martha Coakley (D) 40%
• Joseph Kennedy (I) 1%

Survey of likely voters was conducted January 16-17, 2010.

Inside the numbers:

Party registration in the three bellwether communities largely mirrors statewide registration, with the following breakdown:

• Massachusetts statewide: Democrats, 36%; Republicans, 12%; unenrolled, 52%
• Gardner: Democrats, 35%; Republicans, 12%; unenrolled, 53%
• Fitchburg: Democrats, 34%; Republicans, 11%; unenrolled, 55%
• Peabody: Democrats, 35%; Republicans, 9%; unenrolled, 56%

The bellwether polls are designed to predict outcomes and not margins. Suffolk’s bellwether polls have been 96% accurate in picking straight-up winners when taken within three days of an election since 2006.

The cities were identified as bellwether communities because in the most recent “like election” – the November 2006 Senate race between the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Republican challenger Kenneth Chase – the results in all three communities were within 1 percentage point of the actual statewide results for each candidate. Additionally, party registration in those cities is similar to the statewide voter makeup.

“Brown has continued to build on the momentum that we saw last week in the Suffolk University statewide poll,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “There’s still a day left, and a number of factors, including weather, can affect turnout, but the latest bellwether polls suggest a solid lead for Brown.”

Suffolk University released a statewide poll Thursday, Jan. 14, that showed Brown (50 percent) leading Coakley (46 percent) by 4 points. The results showed a race within a margin of error of 4.38.

Rasmussen Texas GOP Gubernatorial Primary

• Rick Perry 43% <46%> {38%} (46%) [42%]
• Kay Bailey Hutchison 33% <35%> {40%} (35%) [38%]
• Debra Medina 12% <4%> {3%}
• Not Sure 11% <14%> {19%} (14%) [13%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Kay Bailey Hutchison 73% <75%> {71%} (72%) [73%] / 25% <23%> {26%} (25%) [24%] {+48%}
• Rick Perry 72% <75%> {72%} (76%) [72%] / 26% <24%> {26%} (23%) [27%] {+46%}
• Debra Medina 43% <16%> {18%} / 29% <29%> {29%} {+14%}

How would you rate the job Rick Perry has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 22% <25%> {20%} [25%]
• Somewhat approve 46% <48%> {49%} [47%]
• Somewhat disapprove 20% <14%> {17%} [16%]
• Strongly disapprove 11% <11%> {12%} [10%]

Should Kay Bailey Hutchison remain in her position as senator while she is running for Governor?

• Yes 65% <60%>
• No 22% <26%>

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 8%
• Somewhat approve 8%
• Somewhat disapprove 10%
• Strongly disapprove 73%

Survey of 831 likely Republican primary voters was conducted January 17, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 11, 2009 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 16, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted May 6, 2009 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Medina, the owner of a medical consulting firm, is the only candidate who is gaining ground, up from four percent (4%) of the GOP vote in November and three percent (3%) in September. Some political analysts have said Medina was the strongest performer in last Thursday night’s GOP gubernatorial debate, although most of the focus was on Perry, who is seeking an unprecedented third term as governor, and Hutchison, a member of the U.S. Senate for the past 16 years.

The candidates have another debate on January 29, although Medina will not be invited. Texas Republicans choose their nominee for governor in a March 2 primary.

Perry leads Hutchison by 12 among male GOP voters and by seven among women Republicans. The incumbent is more popular among higher income voters.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of conservatives like Perry, while 51% of moderate Republicans and 61% of party liberals prefer Hutchison.

UPDATE: Medina added to second debate for GOP Texas governor candidates

Republican candidate for governor Debra Medina will participate in a Jan. 29 debate in Dallas with Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison, organizers said Monday.

Officials at The Dallas Morning News and Belo Corp. had originally excluded Medina from the Republican debate because she didn’t meet their minimum criteria for participation.

“The Rasmussen poll released today shows Debra Medina is now at 12 percent, which is a substantial jump since the previous poll. Factoring in the margin of error (3.5 percent) and using reasonable news judgment, it appears Ms. Medina is a viable candidate and qualifies for the Belo debate to be broadcast on Jan. 29,” said Mike Devlin, president and general manager of WFAA-TV (Channel 8).

Belo’s criteria for the debate includes whether a candidate receives significant levels of public support in independent public opinion polls; 15 percent is the minimum used by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Also factored into the decision are whether the candidate has received substantial campaign contributions from varied source, and whether that person has previously held significant public office or received a substantial level of votes in prior elections for the same or comparable offices.

The hourlong debate will be broadcast live at 7 p.m. Jan. 29 on WFAA, as well as KHOU-TV in Houston, KENS-TV in San Antonio and KVUE-TV in Austin.

This has to be one of the funnier media moments of the Massachusetts Senate campaign.

Watch this three minute news clip from Boston’s NBC affiliate WHDH and see if you don’t see what I’m talking about. (Hint: start exactly 3:00 into the video – during the ten seconds you actually see the reporter who’s reading the story).

They could not have timed that any better if they tried. As Ty Pennington would say:

MOVE….THAT….BUS!!!

InsiderAdvantage/Politico Massachusetts Senatorial Survey

• Scott Brown 52.2%
• Martha Coakley 43.1%
• Joseph Kennedy 1.9%

Among Democrats

• Martha Coakley 71.2%
• Scott Brown 24.1%
• Joseph Kennedy 2.0%

Among Republicans

• Scott Brown 85.5%
• Martha Coakley 9.7%
• Joseph Kennedy 4.3%

Among Independents

• Scott Brown 68.7%
• Martha Coakley 27.5%
• Joseph Kennedy 0.6%

Among Men

• Scott Brown 54.9%
• Martha Coakley 39.7%
• Joseph Kennedy 2.9%

Among Women

• Scott Brown 49.5%
• Martha Coakley 46.1%
• Joseph Kennedy 1.1%

Survey of 804 likely voters was conducted January 17, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 3.4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 43% Democrat; 20% Republican; 37% Independent.

This just in on Twitter:

coakley rally, set to start in five minutes in middle school gym, is 3/4 empty. they’ve pulled curtain across middle of gym.

Couple that with reports of deserted Coakley phone banks while Brown phone banks are having more volunteers than phones — throw in all the overnight polls where the worst Brown finish is a tie with Coakley — then factor in the inclement weather forecast for tomorrow’s voting, and it is becoming apparent that the “fat lady” is in the wings ready to ring down the curtain on tomorrow’s special election.

The pace of turnaround has been mind-blowing. Two weeks ago, it would have been a miracle if Scott Brown won. Now conventional wisdom is making it a miracle if Coakley were to eke out a win. In MASSACHUSETTS of all states!

Incredible — simply incredible.

Even if Brown were to lose tomorrow, the implications of this race upon Obama’s far-left agenda will be enormous. In a sense, we have already won.