We will be monitoring Massachusetts all day, and into the night, until the winner is decided.

TUESDAY,  JANUARY 19,  2010

11:33 P.M. ET:  Reader Beth Harrison, quoted here earlier tonight, has now produced a scholarly response to the election of Scott Brown:  WA-HA-HA-HA-HOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.  We are inclined to agree.

11:30 P.M. ET:  Pundits are all over the map on the revolution in Massachusetts.  Some say that President Obama will have to change his approach, especially on health care, while others believe the president will stiffen his resolve and dig in.  Moderate Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is already calling for a suspension of all votes on health care until Scott Brown is seated, a clear concession to the GOP.

11:03 P.M. ET:  Brown has finished.  He went on a bit too long – they usually do – but, as Fox's Carl Cameron said, he's the kind of guy with whom you want to have a beer.  He seemed to understand that he symbolizes a political revolution.

10:30 P.M. ET:  Scott Brown speaks.  Very spirited.  Very human.  Not particularly eloquent, but his enthusiasm and common touch are infectious.  He has a great instinct for what to say, how to say it, and how not to get in trouble.  Good.

10:22 P.M. ET:  Karl Rove, on Fox, makes the accurate point that the Obama administration doesn't show any signs of learning from political defeat.  The Obamans are already blaming Martha Coakley for tonight's defeat, and are increasingly defiant.

10:21 P.M. ET:  Stand by.  Scott Brown is about to speak.  He is a new, major national figure.

9:56 P.M. ET:  Martha Coakley speaks.  Gracious speech. Perfectly tasteful.  Doesn't change the fact that tonight marks a political revolution in Massachusetts.  If the Democrats can't hold the Ted Kennedy seat, they have, as the Brits say, a bit of bother. 

9:53 P.M. ET:  With 93% in, it's Brown 52%, Coakley 47%.  That spread is sufficiently large, I think, to prevent shenanigans.

9:42 P.M. ET:  CNN now calls the race for Brown.  CNN staff asks for political asylum in Vermont.

BULLETIN:  9:24 P.M. FOX NEWS REPORTS THAT COAKLEY HAS CONCEDED IN A PHONE CALL TO SCOTT BROWN.  AS SINATRA MIGHT HAVE PUT IT, LEAVE US WE SHOULD GLOAT.

BULLETIN:  9:22 P.M. ET:  ASSOCIATED PRESS HAS JUST CALLED THE RACE FOR SCOTT BROWN.  WITH 75% IN, IT'S STILL 53% BROWN, 46% COAKLEY.

9:10 P.M. ET:  With 65% in, it's still 53% Brown, 46% Coakley.  Spread of seven.

9:08 P.M. ET:  Brown is doing well, but a word of caution:  Some Dem strongholds are showing very few returns thus far, and Boston has reported far fewer than half its precincts.  So stand by.  No one is calling this yet.

9:04 P.M. ET:  Sixty percent in.  Brown 53%, Coakley 46%.

BULLETIN:  Halfway mark passed.  With 52% in, it's Brown 53%, Coakley 47%.  Six point spread.

8:58 P.M. ET:  With 39% in, it's still Brown 52%, Coakley 47%.

8:50 P.M. ET:  With 36% in, it's Brown 52%, Coakley 47%.  But we learn from RealClearPolitics, that most of the Boston vote is not yet in.  Stand by.

8:45 P.M. ET:  With a quarter of the vote in, Brown leads by five, 52% to 47%.

8:41 P.M. ET:  21% in, Brown leads by seven points.

8:33 P.M. ET:  Nine percent in.  Brown 52%, Coakley 47%.

8:27 P.M. ET:  From Fox News:  With seven percent in:  Brown 51%, Coakley 48%.  We don't know exactly where these votes are coming from.

8:22 P.M. ET:  With four percent in, Brown is slightly ahead.  Numbers are meaningless at this point.

8:12 P.M. ET:  No results yet, but Rasmussen reports the following, based on an election-night survey of 1,000 voters:

Among those who decided how they would vote in the past few days, Coakley has a slight edge, 47% to 41%.

Coakley also has a big advantage among those who made up their mind more than a month ago.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of voters for Brown said they were voting for him rather than against Coakley.

Sixty-six percent (66%) of Coakley voters said they were voting for her rather than against Brown.

22% of Democrats voted for Brown. That is generally consistent with pre-election polling.

The first figure is disturbing, but there is a tradition in Massachusetts politics of some Democrats "coming home" on election day.  The final figure - that 22% of Dems voted for Brown - can neutralize that "coming home."

8 P.M. ET - POLLS CLOSE:  Polls are now closing in Massachusetts.  We now begin our live blogging until the result is known.

HALF HOUR TO GO - AT 7:30 P.M. ET:  Polls close in half an hour.  Even most of the deceased have now voted. 

One of our great founding readers, Beth Harrison, comments:  "This may morph into a major and unforgivable gloat, depending on the news over the next few hours.  <grin>"

We hope so.  We sure hope so.

From The New York Times:

In North Andover, Katie Zezima interviewed a mother-daughter team, both of whom have long histories of voting for Democratic candidates but who switched allegiances in this hotly contested race. The views below are telling, in a way, because they perhaps underscore the shifts to State Senator Scott Brown that pollsters and the campaigns have picked up on in recent days among independent voters and some Democrats in a race that a month ago looked like a shoo-in for Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate.

From Ms. Zezima: Marlene Connolly, 73, of North Andover, says she cast her first vote for a Republican today, forced to return to her polling place after waiting 45 minutes initially when the lines were long. She left to pick up her grandson from school, and then waited another 20 minutes before finally getting her opportunity to be heard in the voting booth.

“I voiced my opinion and voted for a Republican, and the roof did not cave in,” Ms. Connolly said. “I can’t believe I’m saying this and if my husband were alive you’d hear a roar, but I think I am now a Republican. I’m just devastated by what Obama’s doing. I don’t think he cares enough about anything other than his own personal agenda or this foolish health care bill.”

Of course, we don't know how many other Democrats feel this way.  As we reported earlier, there are no exit polls.  We should start getting early trends in, oh, 45 minutes to an hour.

January 19, 2010   Permalink

ONE HOUR TO GO - AT 7:03 P.M. ET:  Polls close in Massachusetts in a little less than an hour.  There was no exit polling so we'll have to wait for an actual count.  Already, there are charges flying of fraud, the first from Martha Coakley:

Martha Coakley’s campaign says there have been reports of “spoiled ballots” in five Bay State districts that threaten the “integrity” of the historic race to succeed Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

“We have seen a number of disturbing incidents this evening that have called into question the integrity of this election,” Coakley campaign manager Kevin Conroy said.

Coakley officials say they’ve received reports from five supporters that they received ballots already marked for Republican state Sen. Scott Brown.

“Those are spoiled ballots and they should not be counted,” Coakley campaign attorney Marc Elias said. “This is a serious issue.”

Elias added that the campaign has received more “anecdotal reports” of similar activity which is being investigated.

Well maybe, maybe not.  The key words in that story are "Marc Elias."  Marc Elias handled the legal fight for the Al Franken campaign in Minnesota, and there is still a feeling of bitterness in GOP circles that Republican Senator Norm Coleman, who was declared the loser, didn't get an honest count.  These early charges by Elias could well be the foundation for later challenges that could delay the seating of a senator for weeks or months, as happened in Minnesota.

January 19, 2010   Permalink

THEY CAN'T CONTROL THEMSELVES – AT 4:40 P.M. ET:  From the Boston Herald.  Boston.com, referred to in the story, is the online service of the veddy liberal Boston Globe:

Not so fast.

In a premature online Dewey beats Truman moment, boston.com today posted an online map of Massachusetts voting results declaring Attorney General Martha Coakley the winner of today’s special U.S. Senate election.

Whoops.

There’s only one problem, guys - the polls are open until 8 p.m.

“It was a test on a tool and it meant nothing. I don’t know how these things happen,” said the executive assistant to the editor of boston.com. The editor, David Beard, has yet to return a call to the Herald.

The boston.com map called the race for Coakley 50 percent to state Sen. Scott Brown’s 49 percent. Independent Joseph L. Kennedy, no relation to the Kennedy clan, comes in last with a mere 1 percent.

Ouch.

The bogus map shows Coakley capturing most of eastern Massachusetts all the way to the tip of Cape Cod.

Brown was big, in the Globe’s wish map, taking the North Shore.

The map is now down - at least until the real results come in after 8 p.m.

COMMENT:  One pundit wondered what the reaction will be in the political world if the final results matched the map.  Hmm.  We hope not.

January 19, 2010    Permalink

FIELD REPORT – DEM VOTE DOWN - AT 2:58 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

As Election Day moves beyond the midpoint, there seems to be little optimism – or excitement – in the voices of Democrats here. Early field reports for Democrats suggest turnout is falling below expectations in several key areas, including precincts dominated by black voters, the party’s traditionally reliable sector of the electorate.

So the president is weighing in through a last-ditch appeal to supporters across the country, asking them to make telephone calls to Massachusetts voters. For days now, members of Organizing for America have been logging hundreds of thousands of calls. It remains an open question if the long-distance persuasion has had any effect.

“The polls are still open, the choice has not been made, and you still have a crucial role to play by calling voters in Massachusetts,” Mr. Obama said in his e-mail appeal. “In a low-turnout special election like this one, every single voter counts.”

The flood of calls – from candidates and outside interest groups – is contributing to a sense of overload, according to several voter interviews. And here’s another potential worry, which was just passed along by a Democrat.

What if the robust calling effort is turning out voters for Mr. Brown, instead?

Also, from The Politico:

A Democratic operative familiar with the get-out-the-vote push by Martha Coakley's team, and boosted late in the game by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, says that outreach workers in and around Boston have been stunned by the number of Democrats and Obama supporters who are waving them off, saying they'll vote for Scott Brown.

The polls close in five hours.

January 19, 2010   Permalink

A WORD OF CAUTION – AT 9:50 A.M. ET:  With all the excitement over Scott Brown and his Massachusetts run, a word of caution is in order:

Late word has internal polling from both the Brown and Coakley campaigns showing Brown ahead, but not by that much.  About five points.  Massachusetts is a very blue state, and the Democratic Party has a superb get-out-the-vote machine.  There are armies of Massachusetts voters who will vote for any Democrat.  In addition, as the Boston Herald reports, Brown's forces have another, serious concern:

Republicans supporting state Sen. Scott Brown and some conservative activists are raising concerns that electoral fraud could throw a close U.S. Senate contest to Democrat Martha Coakley.

“The only way he can lose this is to have it taken from him,” said Roy Dennehy, 65, of North Andover, at a Brown rally yesterday.

A fast-circulating e-mail yesterday by the conservative Washington News Alert stoked fraud fears, suggesting liberal groups such as ACORN and Coakley supporters could pose as one of more than 100,000 dead people supposedly on voter rolls to cast ballots for the attorney general.

COMMENT:  This race isn't over.  Nothing is in the bag.  We'll know after 8 p.m. tonight, and don't be shocked if the vote count goes on for a long time. 

January 19, 2010   Permalink

REAL CLASS, YEAH RIGHT – AT 9:17 A.M. ET:  The Democratic Party has become fanatical, vowing to pass its health-care "reform" despite widespread public opposition.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The White House and Democratic Congressional leaders, scrambling for a backup plan to rescue their health care legislation if Republicans win the special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday, have begun laying the groundwork to ask House Democrats to approve the Senate version of the bill and send it directly to President Obama for his signature.

A victory by the Republican, Scott Brown, in Massachusetts would deny Democrats the 60th vote they need in the Senate to surmount Republican filibusters and advance the health legislation.

And with the race too close to call, Democrats are considering several options to save the bill, which could be a major factor in how they fare in this year’s midterm elections.

Some Democrats suggested that even if their candidate, Martha Coakley, scraped out a narrow victory on Tuesday, they might need to ask House Democrats to speed the legislation to the president’s desk, especially if lawmakers who had supported the bill begin to waver as they consider the political implications of a tough re-election cycle.

But these master strategists seem not to have noticed that members of Congress sometimes think for themselves:

In an interview on Monday, Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who opposes the Senate bill in part because of provisions related to insurance coverage of abortions, said: “House members will not vote for the Senate bill. There’s no interest in that.”

When the idea was suggested at a Democratic caucus meeting last week, Mr. Stupak said, “It went over like a lead balloon.”

“Why would any House member vote for the Senate bill, which is loaded with special-interest provisions for certain states?” Mr. Stupak asked. “That’s not health care.”

COMMENT:  Major fireworks coming.  The Democratic kamikazes are putting on their sacred headbands and are vowing to die for the emperor.

January 19, 2010   Permalink

REVISION ON IRAN – AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  While focusing on Massachusetts, we continue to watch other developing stories.  It appears that our intelligence "community" is about to right a horrible wrong.  From ace reporter Eli Lake of The Washington Times:

U.S. intelligence agencies now suspect that Iran never halted work on its nuclear arms program in 2003, as stated in a national intelligence estimate made public three years ago, U.S. officials said.

That estimate was a scandal.  It did enormous damage to our efforts to stop the Iranian program, undercutting the Bush administration's major arguments.  There was informed speculation that it was more a political document than a work of intelligence.  There has not been an adequate inquiry into that.

Differences among analysts now focus on whether the country's supreme leader has given or will soon give orders for full-scale production of nuclear weapons.

For our own protection, we must assume the worst.

The new consensus emerging among analysts in the 16 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community on Iran's nuclear arms program is expected to be the highlight of a classified national intelligence estimate nearing completion that will replace the estimate issued in 2007.

The unclassified summary of the 2007 document said the U.S. intelligence community had "moderate confidence" that Iran's nuclear weapons work had halted in 2003. In a footnote, it stated that weapons development was defined as warhead design and not the enrichment of uranium, which has continued unabated contrary to the Iranian government's agreement not to develop uranium enrichment techniques outside International Atomic Energy Agency controls.

A senior U.S. military officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity last week revealed that the new argument among analysts is over Iran's decision to move forward with weaponization...

...The officer, who is knowledgeable about operational matters and intelligence on Iran, said Iran's nuclear program is well-advanced and moving toward the point at which a weapon could be built.

In the meantime, our policy toward Iran is in a state of collapse.  Six major powers met on Monday to decide what to do in the face of Iranian defiance about its nuclear program.  The Chinese again insulted the United States by sending a lower-level delegation than was sent by other nations.  China has made it perfectly clear that it opposes further sanctions on Iran, and China has veto power in the UN Security Council, which would have to vote on those sanctions.

We have no Plan B.  There wasn't much of a Plan A either.

January 19, 2010   Permalink

CALLING IT FOR BROWN – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  Late yesterday the highly respected Rothenberg Political Report made its call for today's election:

While special elections often come down to turnout – and they therefore are more difficult to predict than normal elections – the combination of public and private survey research and anecdotal information now strongly suggests that Republican Scott Brown will defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in tomorrow’s race to fill the remainder of the late-Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat.

Brown is running extremely well with Independents in the Bay State, and unless Democratic turnout exceeds everyone’s expectations, Brown is headed for a comfortable win. Move from Toss-Up to Lean Takeover.

COMMENT:  We will remain cautiously hopeful.  The only poll that counts is today's.

January 19, 2010   Permalink

MARTHA'S MOUTH – AT 8:26 A.M. ET:  The chief Coakhead speaks:

MEDFORD, Mass. (AP) -- Democrat Martha Coakley is predicting victory today in her hard-fought campaign against Republican Scott Brown.

The attorney general voiced confidence to reporters after casting her ballot at an elementary school near her home north of Boston. Polls opened at 7:00 a.m. EST in the special election to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Coakley said she wasn't paying attention to media or polls suggesting she might lose to Brown, who's ridden a wave of support across the solidly Democratic state.

She hasn't paid much attention to anything, in fact, including the loyalties of Red Sox great Curt Schilling, whom she described as a Yankee fan, or the presence of terrorists in Afghanistan.

The only consolation of a Coakley victory would be to look forward to the gaffe of the week.  We can live without that.  "Senator Brown" sounds just fine.

January 19, 2010   Permalink

MASSACHUSETTS VOTES – AT 7:53 A.M. ET:  There are no more days left in the Massachusetts campaign.  From the Boston Herald:

Polls are now open for the special U.S. Senate election to choose a successor for the late Edward M. Kennedy in a nail-biting contest between GOP state Sen. Scott Brown and Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Brown, Coakley and Independent candidate Joseph L. Kennedy are on the ballot.

Secretary of State William F. Galvin projects between 1.6 million and 2.2 million voters out of a total of 4 million will cast ballots. More than 105,000 voters have applied for absentee ballots.

Polls will close at 8 p.m.

The Massachusetts registration system is lax, and there is already concern about voter fraud, especially ineligible voters voting.  We will be monitoring any fraud charges, which usually become a factor only if the election is close.

Carl Cameron of Fox News said last night that this is the most consequential non-presidential election in 50 years.  I'm inclined to agree.  This is the Kennedy seat.  A Kennedy sat in the Congress of the United States since 1947, some 63 years, until Edward M. Kennedy's recent death, with only a brief interruption when John F. Kennedy went to the White House in 1961.  It is also a seat in the most Democratic state in the nation. 

Stand by.  We hope for a historic day.

January 19,  2010   Permalink

MONDAY,  JANUARY 18,  2010

MADNESS – AT 10:43 P.M. ET:  Sean Wilentz, a liberal Princeton professor, wrote over the weekend that Barack Obama can either do a Jack Kennedy or a Jimmy Carter.  

In other words, Obama can learn from his mistakes, as Kennedy did, or not learn, as Carter did.  So far, Barack seems to like the peanut farmer's ways, as The Politico reports:

President Barack Obama plans a combative response if, as White House aides fear, Democrats lose Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, close advisers say.

“This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt,” a senior administration official said. “It more reinforces the conviction to fight hard.”

Hey, there's a cliff ahead.  Let's drive off it and see what's down there.

A defeat by Martha Coakley for the seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy would be embarrassing for the party — and potentially debilitating, since Democrats will lose their filibuster-proof, 60-vote hold on the Senate.

A potential casualty: the health care bill that was to be the crowning achievement of the president’s first year in office.

The health care backdrop has given the White House a strong incentive to strike a defiant posture, at least rhetorically, in response to what would be an undeniable embarrassment for the president and his party.

COMMENT:  President Kennedy openly admitted he'd had a bad first year in office.  Apparently, this president hasn't gotten the message, doesn't believe it, or doesn't have the character to respond to it.  Does the phrase "one-term president" come to mind?

January 18, 2010   Permalink

QUEEN NANCY SPEAKS – AT 10:23 P.M. ET:  Massachusetts?  Never heard of it.

Nancy Pelosi now informs us that tomorrow's result in Massachusetts doesn't really count.  The health bill will go through.  Voters?  Mere peasants.  From The New York Times:

With Democrats increasingly anxious about the special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday and what it will mean for their big health care legislation, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, told reporters in California Monday that the legislation would move forward not matter what.

“Let’s remove all doubt,” Ms. Pelosi said. “We will have health care one way or another.”

I love the terminology.  "We will have health care..."  Madam Speaker, we already have health care.  What you mean is, we'll have our bill, and we'll grab one sixth of the American economy.

Ms. Pelosi acknowledged that the path forward could change if the Democrat in the Massachusetts race, Martha Coakley, loses.

“Certainly the dynamic will change depending on what happens in Massachusetts,” Ms. Pelosi said. “Just the question of how we would proceed. But it doesn’t mean we won’t have a health care bill.”

The speaker also slammed the Republican in the Massachusetts race, Scott Brown, and indeed all Congressional Republicans, for trying to block the legislation.

“I heard the candidate in Massachusetts, the Republican candidate, say ‘Let’s go back to the drawing board,’” Ms. Pelosi said.

That's what the American people are saying, in poll after poll.  But what do these ordinary people know about their families' health care?  The fools.

Kind of reminds us of the kamikaze, doesn't it?

January 18, 2010   Permalink

MASSACHUSETTS – FASCINATING POLL ANALYSIS – AT 7:29 P.M. ET:  Suggesting the possibility that Democrats in Massachusetts, the most Democratic state in the nation, are drifting toward Scott Brown.  From RealClearPolitics:

A poll conducted Sunday night for Politico by InsiderAdvantage shows Scott Brown leading Martha Coakley 52-43.

As one looks at the polls that have been released of late, there's a trend worth noting. Not only has Brown locked up his Republican base and taken a commanding lead among independent voters. But a growing number of Democrats seem to be shifting toward the Brown column. In this new survey, Brown wins Republicans 86-10 and independents 69-28. Among Democrats, Coakley's lead is just 71-24, meaning nearly one-in-four of those voters plans to cast a vote for the Republican.

COMMENT:  I suspect these are the traditional-values Democrats, the kind whose families became bound to the party during the New Deal, and who recall the days when the Democrats were the national-defense party.  Ah, nostalgia.

January 18, 2010   Permalink

THE SMOKING GUN – AT 7:15 P.M. ET:  You say you don't believe in press bias?  You say you want proof?  Well, we've got the proof, big time.

The Boston Globe, not exactly known as an institution that takes its liberalism lightly, showed us just how biased a paper could be today, in reporting the last-minute details of the Massachusetts Senate race.  Every late poll has shown Scott Brown ahead, except for one that showed him tied.  Note the way the Globe played the story:

With the clock ticking inexorably towards Tuesday's election and a new poll showing them in a dead heat, Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown are crisscrossing the state today in a last-minute scramble for votes in a race that has drawn national attention.

Say what?  The Globe picked the tie poll as the lead, ignoring all the others. 

Coakley, after stops in Newton and Pittsfield, swung into Springfield to rally supporters for one final stop in Western Massachusetts. As she walked into the Teamsters Local 404 hall, they shouted "Martha! Martha! Martha!"

At least they got the name right.  At another rally last night, one of the Kennedys kept referring to her as "Marcia."  Well, it's close.

"You can see the energy," Coakley said as she shook hands on the way in. "People can see it's a race."

Coakley ended the day in Framingham, before swinging by a phone bank and then gathering with staff and supporters at the Eire Pub in Dorchester.

Brown was in Boston, North Andover, and Littleton, and wrapped up his day with a rally in his hometown of Wrentham, where the Republican candidate took to the stage at a banquet hall as speakers blared "Start Me Up" by the Rolling Stones...

...The new poll, done for the liberal Daily Kos blog by Research 2000, found Brown and Coakley tied, 48-48. The telephone poll of 500 randomly selected voters was conducted Friday through Sunday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Thanks for the information.

Other polls have suggested that Brown, until recently a little-known state senator, is tied or slightly ahead of Coakley, the state's attorney general.

Slightly ahead?  One final poll has him up ten, another has him up seven.  Slightly ahead?

Give that reporter a promotion to the editorial page.  Wait, he's already writing editorials.

January 18, 2010   Permalink

APPALLING – AT 7:05 P.M. ET:  We said earlier that we'd watch for the race card being played in Massachusetts at the last minute.  It was played – by Martha Coakley herself.

In an act of supreme bad taste, Coakley used the occasion of a memorial breakfast for Martin Luther King Jr. to ask for votes.  From The Politico:

Scott Brown blasted his rival Martha Coakley for invoking the legacy of Martin Luther King in asking for votes at the Boston Martin Luther King Day breakfast this morning.

"I thought it was inappropriate when she started asking for people's votes when they're trying to remember Martin Luther King Jr.," he said. "I didn't know this was a rally for Martha."

Coakley asked for the votes of the audience, which included Brown, at the Hynes Convention Center:

"Tomorrow we act on the dream and we make sure that we allow me to continue that work," Coakley said. "We remember the dream tomorrow and we will act on the dream tomorrow."

COMMENT:  One of the headlines of the Massachusetts race is Martha Coakley's remarkable incompetence as a candidate.  No brains, no taste, no class.  She has always been a go-along political hack, only too willing to be the water carrier for whatever Democratic interest needed protecting, and maybe the truth caught up to her.

By contrast, Scott Brown has been the closest thing to a dream candidate that I can imagine.  Perfect pitch every minute.

January 18, 2010   Permalink

WE ARE WARNED, WE ARE WARNED – AT 5:17 P.M. ET:  This is the level of desperation to which the Cloaked have sunk.  From NRO:

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.

Yeah, I remember how dangerous those Sarah rallies were.  I mean, the death, the destruction, the rioting.  I just try to put it out of my mind.

Kerry says Brown supporters have engaged in “bullying and intimidation tactics” in the past few days and suggests that some of them may even be from out of state. (Would the senator rather keep the race local?)

As opposed to those in-staters, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

“I'm no stranger to hard fought campaigns, but what we've seen in the past few days is way over the line and reminiscent of the dangerous atmosphere of Sarah Palin's 2008 campaign rallies. This is not how democracy works in Massachusetts,” Kerry said in a written statement Monday.

“Scott Brown needs to speak up and get his out of state tea party supporters under control. In Massachusetts, we fight hard and win elections on the issues and on our differences, not with bullying and threats,” he added.

Right.  The Kennedy family has always been an example of genteel politics.  No hardball, no fists.  Just intellectual arguments.

Corey Welford, a Coakley spokesman, went even farther, accusing Brown of having “stoked the fires” by “smirking at threats against the Attorney General,” (a reference to this). The spokesman says Brown “has lost control of his campaign” and must “tell his out of state supporters to stand down.”

You know, you read this stuff, and you realize that some people really do live in a fantasy world.

January 18, 2010   Permalink

BULLETIN, MASSACHUSETTS – AT 4:39 P.M. ET:  A new Politico/Insider Advantage poll just published, and taken yesterday among 804 likely voters, shows Brown up by nine.

January 18, 2010   Permalink

MASSACHUSETTS UPDATE – AT 3:07 P.M. ET:  Here is the latest polling information, as of this minute:

RealClearPolitics is publishing four polls, all taken through yesterday.  They show Brown plus 10, Brown plus seven, Brown plus five, and a tie.  The tie was reported by the Daily Kos poll.  Okay, don't laugh.  It's taken by Research 2000, and is considered a serious poll.  Averaging the polls, Brown is ahead by 5.5 points.  While respectable, it is far from a guarantee. 

However, Politico is reporting this:

A Suffolk University survey of three bellwether counties found Brown "surging," according to pollsters, and leading by double digits in all three.

That last report is sweet music. 

We continue to monitor.  We haven't yet seen a last-minute poll by Rasmussen.  We assume that's coming.

January 18,  2010   Permalink

WELL, IT'S NICE TO KNOW THIS, BEFORE WE SPEND TRILLIONS – AT 9:57 A.M. ET: The more we learn about global warming, the chillier the air seems.  Another revelation, this one from The Times of London:

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Oh, I see.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

Why do I think there are more examples like this?

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

COMMENT:  This is absolutely and utterly disgraceful.  We have begun to realize that much of the talk of "climate change" has nothing to do with climate at all, but is a subtle assault on free enterprise.  Remember, the greatest applause at the recent so-called "climate summit" in Copenhagen went, not to President Obama, or even to Al Gore, but to the thug, Hugo Chavez, after his out-of-control assault on capitalism.

Articles like this are useful, and represent what journalism should be – a search for the truth.  We need more of them, and we need a series about the strange things that go on in the "global warming" industry.  Will it take Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal to do it?

January 18, 2010   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 9:12 A.M. ET:  From British writer and editor Harold Evans, on the style and plight of Barack Obama, one year into his presidency:

Obama enjoys working with the clever advisers he calls his "propeller heads." There is hardly any senior person in the administration who has had to manage a business or meet a payroll, a deficiency that may yet be fatal to the hopes of a recovery, of which more in a moment. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is admirably loyal, but she has been vindicated in her campaign charge that Obama's willingness to meet any adversary, any time anywhere, was naive.

That's one of the best critiques of Obama that I've read.

In his first year, Obama has swallowed humiliation after humiliation from Iran, as Carter did from the ayatollahs all through his ignominious final year. The Iranian leaders have behaved like playground bullies, kicking the pacific Obama in the teeth with as much insulting vigour as they did the demon Bush. The response of the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini to the proffered handshake was: "The Great Satan now has a black face." Even last summer, when millions took to the streets across Iran to protest against the crooked election, and got killed and jailed for their pains, Obama stayed aloof on the grounds that to intervene would be meddling with Iran's elected government (Hello?).

And on the economic picture:

"They used to tell me I was building a dream" is the opening line of the song Yip Harburg wrote in 1932 for Rudy Vallee, meeting a request by President Herbert Hoover to write a melody that would make people forget the Depression. It would be too bad if "Buddy, can you spare a dime?" became the lament for the lost dreams of the Obama presidency.

COMMENT:  That is not a rave review.  I would not buy tickets to the Obama Show.  Tomorrow's vote in Massachusetts, if it works out the way we'd want it to, could be a decisive moment in modern American politics, a verdict on the Obama presidency that, unless the president changes course, can forecast the end.

January 18, 2010   Permalink 

AFGHAN ATTACK – AT 8:51 A.M. ET:  There was a spectacular Taliban attack in Afghanistan this morning, reminiscent of the "Tet Offensive" style attack of the Vietnam War.  From The New York Times:

KABUL, Afghanistan — Teams of militants launched a spectacular assault at the heart of the Afghan government Monday, with at least two men detonating suicide bombs and the rest fighting to the death only 50 feet from the gates of the presidential palace.

The attacks, the latest in a series targeting the Afghan capital, paralyzed the city for hours, as hundreds of Afghan commandos converged and opened fire. The battle unfolded in the middle of Pashtunistan Square, a traffic circle that holds the palace of President Hamid Karzai, the Ministry of Justice and the Central Bank, which appeared to be the object of the attack.

As the gun battle raged, another suicide bomber — this one driving an ambulance — struck a traffic circle a half-mile away, sending a second mass of bystanders fleeing in terror.

And...

The effect of the attack seemed primarily psychological, designed to strike fear into the usually quiet precincts of downtown Kabul — and to drive home the ease with which insurgents could strike the American-backed government here.

Yes, memories of Tet.

In that way the assault succeeded without question: The streets of Kabul emptied, merchants shuttered their shops and Afghans ran from their offices. Even guards assigned to Mr. Karzai himself came to join the fighting; it was that close.

COMMENT:  We're focused on Massachusetts today, and will be tomorrow.  But then there's work to be done in Afghanistan, Iran, and elsewhere.  Obama will be challenged on every foreign-policy front.  So far, he's bunted at best.

January 18, 2010   Permalink

SIGN OF THE TIMES – AT 8:23 A.M. ET:  New York talk-show host Mike Scully, on whose WVOX show I'm privileged to appear, sends us this sign of the times – actually a Massachusetts vehicle's rear window:

That pretty much says it.

January 18, 2010   Permalink

MASSACHUSETTS – AT 8:05 A.M. ET:  The campaign begins its last day.  Voting is tomorrow.  We hope that, tomorrow night, we will see the beginning of the end of the old order.

We should be hopeful, but guardedly so.  The polls published late yesterday all show Scott Brown ahead, by five to ten points.  We expect new polls today, even tomorrow morning.

But remember the old adage:  The only poll that counts is the one on election day. 

Tomorrow's election will be decided by turnout.  Scott Brown's troops have the enthusiasm.  Martha Coakley's troops....wait, she wouldn't say troops.  She would say multicultural electoral caregivers.  At any rate, Martha's MECs have the Democratic machine, and it is formidable in Massachusetts.

We will look today for the following things:  1) any last-minute "revelations" about Brown by the Coakheads.  In other words, any last-minute smears.  2)  The impact of King Day on the African-American community's attitude toward the election, which up to now has been indifferent.  3) Any sign of a last-minute shift, either way, as a result of Obama's visit to Massachusetts yesterday.

CNN's Ed Henry is reporting this morning that the White House believes Coakley will lose.  This can be a case of trying to lower expectations.  Or, more likely, they actually believe it.

Coakley, given certain conditions, including changes in the weather, can still pull it out.  Don't underestimate the Democrats of the Bay State.  But we should be hoping for a convincing Brown win of five points or more – enough to prevent strange things from being done with the vote count. 

We'll be monitoring this today, tonight, and through tomorrow night.

January 18,  2010   Permalink