Yesterday Urgent Agenda had the highest readership in its history.  Thank you, readers.

WEDNESDAY,  JANUARY 20,  2010

THE P.C. CRUSADE CONTINUES - AT 11:17 P.M. ET:  The p.c. crowd has won a victory at the State Department, and Hillary Clinton is accountable:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Two prominent Muslim scholars once accused of having ties to terrorism can reapply to travel to the United States now that the State Department has concluded they pose no danger to the country, federal spokesmen said Wednesday.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has signed orders enabling the re-entry of professors Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University in England and Adam Habib of the University of Johannesburg in South Africa once they obtain required admittance documents, department spokesman Darby Holladay said.

Clinton "has chosen to exercise her exemption authority for the benefit of Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib," Holladay said. "We'll let that action speak for itself."

It sure does speak for itself.  I don't know about Habib, but Tariq Ramadan is a very bad piece of work.  But, after all, who are we to criticize other cultures?

In a prepared statement, Holladay noted the change in U.S. posture since both professors, who are frequently invited to the United States to lecture, were denied admittance after making statements counter to U.S. foreign policy.

"Both the president and the secretary of state have made it clear that the U.S. government is pursuing a new relationship with Muslim communities based on mutual interest and mutual respect," Holladay said. The decision was made after consultations with the departments of Homeland Security and Justice, he added.

COMMENT:  Yes, we've certainly seen the "mutual respect."  I'd love to see an example of respect for us coming from radical Islam.  Maybe I missed it.

It's business as usual in our appeasement-oriented foreign policy.  Massachusetts hasn't changed that.

January 20, 2009   Permalink

UNBELIEVABLE – AT 9:34 P.M. ET:  Remember that, while we're focused on Massachusetts, other things are happening, many of them exposing once more the sheer incompetence and even silliness of the current and temporary administration in Washington. 

We're learning more every day about the Christmas airline bomber and our government's reaction to him.  It's hard to keep a straight face about this:

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that he was not consulted on whether (Umar Farouk) Abdulmutallab should be questioned by the recently created High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG.

"That unit was created exactly for this purpose," Blair said. "We did not invoke the HIG in this case. We should have."

Under questioning by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Blair and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said they were not consulted before the decision was made to not use the high-value detainee interrogation group. Also, Michael Leiter, chief of the National Counter Terrorism Center, said he was not consulted.

"That is very troubling," Collins said.

Troubling, but not surprising.  Our anti-terror policy is under the control of Attorney General Eric "try Al Qaeda in New York" Holder and his band of liberal lawyers in the Justice Department, some of them recruited from the same firms that enthusiastically defended the Gitmo vacationers. 

Meanwhile, FBI Director Robert Mueller told lawmakers that al-Qaida and its offshoots are spreading and rebuilding in Pakistan, Yemen, and the Horn of Africa.

That's good to know.  It's been reported by responsible media for years.

You should sleep more soundly tonight knowing that this crew is in charge of your safety.  That is not a serious statement.

January 20, 2009   Permalink

ABOLISH KIDS!  ABOLISH KIDS! – AT 9:01 P.M. ET:  We hear the chant from the precincts of the far left:  "Hey hey, ho ho, all those kids have got to go!"  Why?  Because the kids are apparently turning against President Obama:

A BAD week for President Barack Obama got a little worse yesterday after Time Magazine for Kids announced that even the nation's youngsters were souring on him.

Asked to grade Mr Obama on his first year in office, kids gave the President an average of C-minus - with 16 per cent going so far as to mark F on the President’s report card, according to the magazine’s poll of 1000 youngsters ages 9 to 13.

Nineteen per cent gave him an A, with 30 per cent B’s, 24 per cent C’s and 10 per cent D’s.

The same magazine found in 2008 that US children favored Mr Obama over Senator John McCain in the presidential race by a thin margin.

COMMENT:  It's the unkindest cut.  Lyndon Johnson once said about Walter Cronkite's turning against the Vietnam War:  "If I've lost Walter, I've lost America."  Now Barack Obama must be saying, "If I've lost Jimmy and Buffy, I've lost those people with their guns and religion...and trucks."

It's very sad.  It really is.  Choke.

January 20,  2009   Permalink

THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING – AT 7:33 P.M. ET:  The foreign press is now picking up the Massachusetts story.  Reader James Croak alerts us to this, from Australia's Sydney Morning Herald:

At 9.20pm today, in Massachusetts, or 1.20pm on the Australian east coast, the era of Obamamania abruptly ended. The euphoria surrounding the elevation of Barack Obama to the American presidency was brought to a crashing end.

It didn't even last a year.

Oh, the pain.  Not really.

The writer notes the anniversary of Obama's swearing in:

On the eve of that anniversary, the people of Massachusetts, the bluest of blue Democratic states, delivered a thunderous rejection of the Democratic Party and, by implication, the President.

In a special election to fill the seat vacated by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, the people of Massachusetts did something they had not done for more than 40 years: they elected a Republican to represent them in the Senate.

This was unimaginable one year ago, as Washington was gripped by euphoria over the charismatic Obama.

And...

Not only does it follow the double-digit swings against the Democrats in governors' races in New Jersey and Virginia two months ago, it confirms and cements the mood of anger in the electorate toward the Obama-led Congress.

On Sunday, the President rushed to campaign in Massachusetts after it emerged that his candidate was in serious trouble. His attempt to mobilise the party base failed.

What I like about the British and Australian writers, at least those not under the thumb of the politically correct, is that they're so direct.  Don't you hate subtlety at a time like this?

This was a protest vote heard around the nation, from the state famous for the Boston tea party in December 1773, an act of civil disobedience that foreshadowed the American revolt against British rule.

And the fact is, that, the term "tea party" is equated with "fascist" on the loony left.

A second Boston tea party is now resonating around America.

The liberals are now the British.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

OH DEAR, FINALLY – AT 6:22 P.M. ET:  President Obama, operating independently of his beleaguered party, some of whose members he's already thrown under the bus, says that, hey, maybe there's a compromise on health care.  From the Washington Post:

As Democrats searched for a way forward after their defeat in the Massachusetts Senate race, President Obama said Wednesday that "core elements" of his health-care package enjoy broad support and could form the basis for a swift compromise.

Hey, wait, guy.  Isn't this what the Republicans have been saying for months?  Fix it, don't replace it?  Have you heard this before, Saint Barack?

"I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements in the package that people agree on," Obama said in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

Now there's a revolutionary idea.  In fact, a guy in Massachusetts named Brown was talking about it.

"We know that we need insurance reform. The health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't, then our budgets are going to blow up."

The Senate passed its health-care package late last year without a single Republican vote, and the surprise election of Scott Brown (R) on Tuesday deprived Democratics of their filibuster-proof majority.

Maybe someone should ask the Republicans why they voted against it.

White House aides initially said they favored having the House pass the Senate-passed version, rendering another Senate vote unnecessary, and then refining it later. But in comments that appeared to represent a change of position, Obama said Brown should be part of the process. The president ruled out one possible approach that other leading Democrats have also opposed.

"Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," Obama said. "The people of Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."

Until Scott Brown is seated?  Until?  A good reporter might ask what that meant.

Many people are saying that Obama now must make a choice between being Kennedy or Carter, between being a man who recognized his mistakes and tried to correct him, or a holier-than-thou figure who would not change because he was better than all of us.  On that choice will rest his presidency.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

MAJOR MORALITY ADVANCE – AT 6:14 P.M. ET:  The White House is admitting that it may just – little bitsy – bear some responsibility for the Massachusetts massacre.  Please read carefully, as words are being formed with a delicate scalpel:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that the Obama administration "bears some responsibility" for Democrat Martha Coakley's loss in the Massachusetts Senate election Tuesday.

"The president didn't expect — I would certainly put myself in that category — not expecting to lose that Senate race," Gibbs told reporters in his daily briefing. "There's no doubt we are frustrated by that. So I think everybody bears some responsibility, certainly including the White House."

Whaa?  Are they bearing responsibility for the frustration, or what?

Asked to assign comparative levels of blame to national Democrats for their role in the campaign and Coakley's camp for its weak performance, Gibbs reiterated: "We all bear some responsibility."

Well, it's not exactly Jack Kennedy's phrase, uttered after the Bay of Pigs, "I am the responsible officer of the government," but it's something.  The psychiatrists will give all the White House guys something to say.  Remember, bottom line, the fault lies with BUSH (!!).

January 20, 2010   Permalink

HEY, NO KIDDING – AT 6:05 P.M. ET:  The Dems are reportedly "rethinking" their approach to health care.  It reminds me of the old diplomatic phrase, "an agonizing reappraisal."  From The Politico:

Scott Brown’s shot heard 'round the political world left congressional Democrats stunned and befuddled about what to do next in the yearlong push to overhaul the country’s health care system.

Maybe they'll finally realize the people don't want an overhaul.  They want the carburetor fixed and the oil changed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his top lieutenants emerged from a Wednesday morning strategy session with no clear path to proceed in the health care fight, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could only repeat her well-worn promise that Congress “will move forward.”

Even though the other Dems "moving forward" are moving forward right off a cliff.

"People just have different feelings about this," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). "This was obviously not a good day for us. To be honest, you have to sit back and reassess and move forward."

Democrats were weeks — and possibly even days — from achieving their decades-long goal of near-universal health care coverage, only to watch the finish line move once again when a long-shot Republican beat the Democratic candidate in a race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. But after Democrats lived dangerously all year by passing controversial bills on tight, party-line votes, Tuesday's results were the biggest blow yet to health care reform.

A bit of bias there.  No, they weren't the biggest blow yet to health-care reform, they were the biggest blow yet to the particular bill before Congress. 

As lawmakers sifted through the wreckage on Wednesday, no clear strategy emerged to keep President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority moving through the halls of Congress. With the loss of the crucial 60th vote, two alternatives moved into consideration.

One idea is to pass the Senate bill through the House, with the addition of a “cleanup” bill that could be done through a parliamentary process, known as reconciliation, that requires only 51 votes.

A second idea is to move a dramatically scaled-back bill either through reconciliation or by attracting Republican votes.

But each of those scenarios makes an already difficult needle to thread even harder. And House Democrats have little appetite to swallow the Senate bill as it passed at the end of December.

"I don't feel like I can vote for it," Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a prominent liberal and Pelosi ally, said of the Senate health care bill. "I'm not drawing any lines in the sand, but I really don't feel like I can vote for it."

Of course not.  It wasn't introduced into Congress by Lenin himself.  McGovern is so far to the left, he needs binoculars to see the center.

These guys remain in their dream world.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

RELATED TO MASSACHUSETTS? – AT 2:32 P.M. ET:  This is pure speculation on my part, but maybe the Obamans realize, as a result of yesterday's mishap in Massachusetts, that they can't get away with shabby governing, including the appointment of defective officials, the way they used to.  From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration's choice to lead the struggling Transportation Security Administration withdrew his name from consideration Wednesday, just weeks after revelations that he had provided misleading information to Congress prompted several Republicans to suggest his nomination would not move forward without a fight.

Erroll Southers, a former FBI agent and homeland security specialist, was presented as a leader who would improve the TSA's sprawling operations and improve passenger screening to prevent such attacks as the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner.

But GOP opposition to Southers escalated rapidly after The Washington Post reported that Southers had given Congress and the White House misleading information about incidents two decades ago in which he inappropriately accessed a federal database to obtain information about his estranged wife's new boyfriend, possibly in violation of privacy laws.

In a statement released by the White House, Southers blamed congressional critics motivated by "political ideology" for the troubles that overshadowed his nomination.

COMMENT:  Southers was also quoted as saying that the environment was more important than terrorism, not exactly the kind of rallying cry you want at the TSA. 

Maybe the White House will now try to find an appointee without a painful past.  This is serious stuff.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

THIS IS TERRIFIC – AT 10:04 A.M. ET:  Reader Tom Wharton alerts us to this remarkable piece by a former member of John Kerry's 2004 legal team.  The man wants to vindicate George W. Bush:

America quickly forgot about how President Bush charismatically lifted our spirits during some of the darkest moments of our nation’s history when the Twin Towers collapsed. After all, even Senator Kerry admitted Bush’s handling of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was “terrific,” during the 2004 presidential debates.

But after President Bush successfully secured America in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, he was rewarded with accusations of committing human rights violations and war crimes – an incredible irony since his policies were responsible for liberating tens of millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some Americans accused Bush of lying and starting a war under false pretenses simply because our troops never found actual weapons of mass destruction.

Despite what Michael Moore implied in his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," Congress did not base its 2002 authorization for the Iraq War solely on the premise that Saddam Hussein either had or was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The legislation reads very clearly that America’s purpose in sending troops back to Iraq was to enforce U.N. resolutions, some of which were violated in the 1990’s and probably should have been enforced by President Clinton. Whether actual weapons were found or not, the war in Iraq was legally and morally justifiable, and necessary.

Remember, this is from a member of Kerry's legal team.

As Obama continues to make decisions that mirror the Bush doctrine, it is becoming apparent that the former president was not ignorant or irrational in his foreign policy decisions despite the harsh criticism and disloyalty he endured. He was in fact, ahead of his time, a visionary who understood politics and warfare in the modern age of terrorism.

That is why Obama is now following his lead.

Stunning.  Absolutely stunning.

Americans who chastised President Bush for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq should apologize and show him the same respect they are now showing President Obama as he neutralizes the Taliban in Afghanistan.

George W. Bush seemed to have an almost mystical understanding of what the American people needed when we needed it most. He reminded all of us of why we should be proud to be Americans at a time when there was a whisper that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks upon ourselves for promoting democracy abroad.

President Bush deserves our respect, not our betrayal.

Now, that warms the heart.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

NUTS – AT 9:44 A.M. ET:  Some institutions never learn:

The New York Times announced Wednesday that it intended to charge frequent readers for access to its Web site, a step being debated across the industry that nearly every major newspaper has so far feared to take.

Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the newspaper’s print edition will receive full access to the site.

But executives of The New York Times Company said they could not yet answer fundamental questions about the plan, like how much it would cost or what the limit would be on free reading. They stressed that the amount of free access could change with time, in response to economic conditions and reader demand.

COMMENT:  They tried something like this before, and it failed.  My own sense is that this will fail as well.  People will just use up their quota of free articles, then switch to another online newspaper.  The Times is no longer the newspaper of record.  They've ruined that image.  There are loads of other news sources.

This is slow-motion self-punishment.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

FROM SCOTT RASMUSSEN – AT 9:38 A.M. ET:  Our favorite pollster analyzes some of the statistics that came out of yesterday's Massachusetts massacre:

On the first anniversary of his inauguration, the President is dealing with the fallout from a stunning election upset in Massachusetts last night. On his way to victory, Scott Brown won unaffiliated voters by a 73% to 25% margin. That is consistent with a weakness among unaffiliated voters that has been evident in the President’s numbers for several months. Currently, just 25% of unaffiliated voters Strongly Approve of the President’s performance while 44% Strongly Disapprove.

Most voters said health care was the top voting issue in Massachusetts. But, a final look at the Massachusetts Election Night Poll shows that Martha Coakley narrowly won among voters who ranked health care as most important. Brown won among those who consider the economy most important. That’s consistent with national polling showing that voters are now more likely to trust Republicans over Democrats when it comes to the economy.

Overall, just 38% of voters nationwide now support the health care plan working its way through Congress. That matches the lowest level of support yet measured.

COMMENT:  The attitude of Dems in Congress is to tell Americans that they don't understand their own health needs, and probably didn't do very well on their College Boards.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

THE MASSACHUSETTS MESSAGE – AT 9:07 A.M. ET:  Michael Barone, one of the very best political commentators we have, analyzes what happened last night:

The final percentages aren't in as this is written, but it's plain that Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley by a substantial margin in the race for the remainder of the late Edward Kennedy's Senate term. In Massachusetts. The state that in the last four presidential elections has voted on average 61 percent Democratic and 33 percent Republican. That's a bigger margin than in any other state.

If a Republican can win there, he (or she) can win anywhere. That's a message that is not lost on anyone whose name is on the ballot later this year.

But it may be lost on the narrow operators in the White House.  Their guy's name isn't on the ballot this year, and he's been known to throw even his grandmother under the bus.

On the health-care bill:

...the Massachusetts vote is a loud and clear signal that the American people hate this legislation. Barack Obama came into office assuming that economic distress would move most Americans to favor big-government legislation. It turns out that's not so. Not when Democratic bills would take away the health insurance most of them are content with. Not when it's the product of backroom deals and blatant political bribery.

And...

Democrats will be tempted to dismiss Brown's victory as a triumph of an appealing candidate and the rejection of an opponent who proved to be a dud. But Brown would never have been competitive if Americans generally favored the policies of the Obama administration and congressional Democratic leaders. In that case, even a dud would have trounced the man who drives a truck.

And there's this absolutely fascinating political point:

Unfortunately there was no exit poll (because news organizations didn't think this would be a seriously contested race until 10 days ago), and so we can't be sure whether, as at least one pre-election poll indicated, Brown swept young voters in a state where they voted 78 percent to 20 percent for Obama.

Of course, the academic crowd remained respectably brainless:

Brown's gains were not as great in areas dominated by what the New York Times's David Brooks called, perhaps archly, "the educated class." Cambridge and Amherst remained solidly monopartisan. But in suburbs with many upward strivers, people who (like Scott Brown) have worked their way from the economic margins to some comfort, turnout was almost as high as in November 2008. Towns that split evenly in the presidential race went 2-to-1 for Brown.

What will Cambridge and Amherst do now?  Maybe Obama should have another beer summit on the White House lawn to introduce Senator Brown to the anthropology departments. 

Obama and "the educated class" think they know what is best for the little guy. The voters of Massachusetts (Massachusetts!) beg to differ. Is anyone in the White House listening?

That's the political question of the year.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

STAND BY FOR THE HYPOCRISY – AT 8:44 A.M. ET:  It's already starting – Dems distancing themselves from the very things they were embracing as late as yesterday afternoon.  Get this gem from Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a major Democratic campaign strategist. 

“Health care was also part of the debate, and the people of Massachusetts were right to be upset about provisions in the Senate bill like the Nebraska purchase and other special deals,” Mr. Van Hollen said, referring to elements included in the bill to win the votes of Democratic senators and round up 60 votes.

COMMENT:  Oh right, Chris.  We sure saw you and other Democratic leaders protesting those deals before last night.   Yes sirree, you were right out front. 

Oh, and by the way, if you're going to change your stripes, at least get the stripes right.  It's the Louisiana Purchase, which refers to the $300-million given to Senator Mary Landrieu's state of Louisiana in exchange for her vote on health care.  The Nebraska deal, giving Senator Ben Nelson's Nebraska a subsidy for Medicaid not given to any other state, is called the Cornhusker Kickback. 

Just thought you'd like to know.

January 20, 2010   Permalink

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, MR. PRESIDENT – AT 8:24 A.M. ET:  Barack Obama became president of the United States one year ago today.  At this moment, a year ago, he was probably dressing for the occasion.

Who would have thought, one year later, on this anniversary, that Mr. Obama would be reflecting on the fact that the Democratic Party, under his leadership, could not hold onto the Senate seat that had been occupied by Ted Kennedy.

At the White House, they must be asking whether they'll actually allow Massachusetts to secede, or whether they'll order Gen. McClellan north to stop the outrage.

There is, across the internet, a kind of numbness.  Yes, some pundits have spoken, and have not said much.  But in the face of revolution, silence is often the wisest response.  We have not had a political result like this in many decades.

I recall, walking through the streets of Chicago at 5 a.m., the day after the 1960 election, savoring the apparent victory of John F. Kennedy over the loathed Richard M. Nixon.  Who would have thought then that, 50 years later, the Democratic Party would come to this?  The party of Roosevelt and Truman, the party that really did try to stick up for the average guy, the national defense party that ran to the right of the GOP on military preparedness, has become a pathetic mess, an elitist bunch of Aspen-skiing, terrorist coddling  snobs, so out of touch with the common man that its Senate candidate in Massachusetts couldn't even correctly identify the team loyalty of a local baseball legend.  It's as if someone running for senator from New York thought Joe DiMaggio was a St. Louis Cardinal. 

What is the president thinking today?  Well, being Barack Obama, he's probably thinking that it's someone else's fault.  It was Martha Coakley.  Ran a bad campaign.  It was the Senate Dems, who didn't see it coming.  It was Sean Hannity.  Rush.  O'Reilly.  Wait.  It was certainly BUSH (!!), and probably CHENEY (!!!).  Maybe even Liz Cheney.

It was Obama.  He hovered over this race like Nancy Pelosi over a wine and Brie party.

Now the question, on this first anniversary, is how the president responds.  That response may well shape the remainder of his term, possibly his only term.

January 20,  2010   Permalink

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