Final Election Predictions, Featuring Weekend Monkey

JoshuaPundit:

Well this is where the pedal hits the metal as they say. It's time for me to make my final election predictions, along with the able assistance of Joshua Pundit's political guru, ace handicapper and former Democrat presidential candidate Weekend Monkey.

RM: Hello Monkey, and thanks for joining us.

WM: Your pleasure, I'm sure Rob. Howdy Doody, primates!

RM: @##!#. Always the inflated ego...

WM: Hee hee hee! Lemme tell ya, I'm feeling good about tomorrow!

RM: Let me guess. I know you've been campaigning for Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts... I take it you favor her chances tomorrow.

WM: Oh, you betcha Rob. And that translates into a lot of shekels for yours truly in election action, plus a high level staff position in DC when she gets in.

RM: I should have known. Anyway, you want to do the Senate first or the presidential race?

WM: Let's start at the top and work down.

RM: OK, fire away.

WM: It's really too close to call, but I see it leaning towards President Obama narrowly winning a second term..probably after some controversy among the primates:

It's really pretty simple. I see Romney the Robot narrowly getting frozen out of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And I mean narrowly. If even one state changes, it could go the other way. Let's call it 5-3 Obama.

Ohio is gonna be the poop storm, with a lotta weirdness in Cuyoga and Mahoning Counties that could leave us hanging on the branch for a long time, but in the end it's gonna come down to Ohio. If that goes Obama's way, he wins.Otherwise, Romney the Robot gets in.

RM: So you don't see Romney taking either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin?

WM: Y'know, anything's possible, But if I gotta make a call, I say Obama takes it overall. Especially Ohio, because a lot of the primates have jobs still, unemployment's relatively low, you got the unions and the Cleavland Machine. And they're all organized because of Governor Kasich trying to pull a Scott Walker on the public employee unions and getting his pee pee slapped. (The RNC’s Reince Priebus, from Wisconsin, says the polls were showing Walker down by 7 in the recall election and he won in a cake walk.  He also said that the GOPS ground game for Wisconsin is double what it was in 2004 and 2008… so the Monkey maybe off here!).

RM: Speaking of governors, what did you think of Chris Christie cozying up to Obama and dissing Romney, essentially telling him he wasn't welcome in Jersey to tour the storm areas?

WM: Ah hee hee hee! I got a real laugh outta that! Look, it's simple. Lardass is ticked off because he didn't run, he's looking at 2016 and the only way that opens up for him is if Romney the Robot loses. Simple as that.

RM: Makes sense. I never liked him anyway. The House?

WM: I say it stays ReThug, with maybe 3-5 seats changing hands.

RM: The Senate?

WM: Hee hee! Worst case, my Democrats will probably lose Virginia, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana. They'll make pickups in Massachusetts and Maine, where the indy guy King will caucus with us Donkeys.Maybe another pickup in Indiana, depending on turnout.And we'll keep Florida.Probably Missouri too.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are wild cards. If they go Democrat like I think they will, we get those too. They might end up splitting, one apiece.

The ReThugs make pickups in Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and Nebraska. They'll keep Arizona and Nevada, maybe Indiana.They lose Massachusetts and Maine. They might get either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, depending.

Bottom line? Including two indies, my Democrats end up with 49 seats maybe 50-51 if we get Indiana and either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. The ReThugs end up with 49, 48 if they lose Indiana.To get control of the senate, they'd have to hang on to Indiana somehow and get both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, or maybe Missouri which I don't see happening at all.

RM: You predicted a divided Senate before.

WM: Yup. It could shake out that way. OK, whaddya got?

RM: I see Romney winning.

WM: Cheez, what a surprise!

RM: Hey now...

WM: Alright, alright.

RM: Here's how I see it, but just like with your map, mine is subject to some changes..it really is a pretty close race to predict.

With the economy the way it is, and the other issues of Obama's presidency, I see Romney taking Virginia, Florida, Colorado and North Carolina pretty decisively. I also think he's going to take two of the Big Four in the Midwest, most likely Ohio and Wisconsin, although the last polls I saw that meant anything show Pennsylvania and Michigan tied up. I think there's a very good chance that Ohio and Pennsylvania might switch columns, with Romney taking the Keystone State and Obama getting Ohio by a narrow margin because of the factors you mentioned.Especially with Obama's EPA already salivating publicly at crippling coal for good.

WM: You see Romney taking Iowa and New Hampshire?

RM: Yeah, but with this scenario if he loses them both he still wins.

WM: Yeah, I can see that.You better hope he takes Colorado then,,,,

RM: I think he will. For what it's worth I agree with you Monkey, it's going to come down to the Big Four in the Midwest.Obama has to take both Pennsylvania and Ohio to win.
WM: You see the Elephants keeping the House?

RM: Of course, Monkey. With a maximum loss of 3-5 seats. Which means that even if you're right and Obama does get re-elected, Darrel Issa still has subpoena powers and Obama might wish he lost tomorrow in a couple of years.

WM: Ouchie! You got a point there!

RM: Here's how I see the Senate. OK, the Dems lose Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and Nebraska. I personally think there's an excellent chance of one or two more GOP pickups in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Maybe Florida if Romney wins decisively enough. I think Tammy Baldwin's lunatic fringe lefty ideas don't play well in the Badger State anywhere outside Madison and Dane County, and there's also the Catholic vote to consider in both PA and Wisconsin. And with Paul Ryan on the ticket, Scott Walker surviving the recall and Wisconsin being RNC head Preibus' home state, I think it's looking pretty good for Romney and for Tommy Thompson.The GOP hangs on to Arizona and Nevada.

The Republicans probably lose Massachusetts and definitely lose Maine. And probably one of either Missouri or Indiana, although I think Mourdock has a shot at surviving in Indiana. So that puts us at between 49 and 52 seats for the GOP, depending on what happens in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Missouri and Indiana.

I pretty much see the Democrats' scenario the same way you do, including the two indies. I'd like to think the people of Massachusetts have more brains than to put someone like Elizabeth Warren in the Senate -

WM: HEY!

RM: Nothing personal Monkey.

WM: Besides, it is Massachusetts....

RM: You got that right. Anyway, I also see a split senate as a real possibility. So there it is...

WM: I gotta tell you something Rob...you know that video of that little primate crying and saying she was tired of Bronco Bama and Mitt Romney? I feel the same way. I wanna get this thing over with.

RM: Me too Monkey. I think a lot of people feel that way. Two years for a political campaign is just to damned long, and I'll be relieved when it's over and done with. You ever think of running for something again?

WM: You know me Rob. I'm a political animal and I see my opportunities and take 'em. Hee hee!

RM: Spoken like a Democrat, Monkey. Thanks for swinging by.

WM: See ya later Rob. Smell Ya later, Primates.

Weekend Monkey was a Democratic candidate for president in 2008 and is JoshuaPundit's political Guru. He can be reached at wendmonkey@yahoo.com

Related:

Listening to the pundits, most say it is too close to call and it could go one of two ways… a landslide for Romney or a squeaker to the end, late into the night.  Dick Morris, Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove predict that it will be a Romney-Ryan win.  Dick Morris feels it will be a landslide for Romney because he claims pollsters are oversampling Democrats and says a poll that claims Obama is up 3, really means Romney is winning by 4. Claiming that "Ohio is overrated... Romney can lose the state and still win the election."

Charles Krauthammer Outlines Romney's Three Paths To Victory

Presidential paths: How Romney, Obama could win

Dick Morris Stands by Romney Landslide Prediction

Picking a U.S. President… in 2012… Now Just One Day Away From a New Start

‘Cooling Out’ the Voters

The Council Has Spoken!! Watcher’s Council Winners for 11.02.12

Have You Heard About ‘Spigot Cities’ That May Pump Votes to Obama?

The Choice

Krauthammer kicks Christie

Voter fraud complaints may be directed to any of the local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the local FBI offices or the Public Integrity Section (202-514-1412).

Technorati Tags: Election 2012,2012 Election,elections,Mitt Romney in 2012,Romney-Ryan,Chris Christy,Charles Krauthammer,Reince Priebus,swing states,battle ground states,Dick Morris,pols,Election 2012 predictions,Karl Rove,Rush Limbaugh,Obama vs. Romney,Romney vs. Obama

Best Political Commercial – Barry Hinckley

Am I right? is this campaign ad the best ever? who is the star? Senate candidate Barry Hinckley’s son…. He is 5 years old

Video:  Best Political Commercial – Barry Hinckley

Hinckley for US Senate - Economics for five year olds -  A Rhode Island economics lesson with 5 year old Hudson Hinckley, son of Barry Hinckley.

h/t to Greta Van Susteren  -  Greta says, I am not telling you to vote for or against Barry Hinckley… but this is a cute commercial!!

Senator Scott Brown Endorses Barry Hinckley

Glenn Beck Exposes Occupy Wall Street - Excellent Videos

Video:  OWS spontaneous?  Not so much…

Fully Organized Movement -

http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=19944751&topic_id=24584158

Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street -

http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=19944759&topic_id=24584158

Soros Connection to OWS -
http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=19944817&topic_id=24584158

Anti-Semitism in OWS movement -
http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=19944829&topic_id=24584158

OWS global reach -

http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=19944833&topic_id=24584158

Glenn has been onto them for ages. He is the bravest man in America. …IMO

Here is the the Steve Lerner video he's talking about.
[link to video.godlikeproductions.com]
http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/SEIU_Planned_Destruction_of_Capitalism?id=c281a1503d524e1560c

Elizabeth Warren: I Created 'Occupy Wall Street'

Massachusetts Senate candidate, consumer activist, and Wall Street Enemy #1 Elizabeth Warren took credit for the Occupy Wall Street movement in a new interview with The Daily Beast.  (This is the radical women running against Scott Brown.)

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” she told Samuel Jacobs. “I support what they do.”

Warren, who was once a registered Republican, said she decided to enter politics because she realized “I can’t just leave this to people who are going to wreck the lives of millions of American families if they get the chance."

Read the full interview here >

Source: Business Insider

CPAC - Largest Attendnce Ever

Some highlights from the CPAC:

Expression on attendees face watching Mitt Romney: "How on Earth did we end up with John McCain as a nominee after we had this guy? It makes me sick to my stomach."

Scott Brown's surprise appearance: "Yes, I arrived in my truck."

Dick Cheney's surprise appearance: "A welcome like that is almost enough to make me want to run for office again," said Dick Cheney. "But I'm not gonna do it."

Former Florida House Speaker and Florida Republican Senate candidate, Marco Rubio addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010.

GOP Embraces 'Party of No' as Badge of Honor at CPAC

Free TV : Ustream

See Glenn at Speak at CPAC Tomorrow – Video 1 or 4 From Today’s Show

See Glenn at Speak at CPAC Tomorrow – Video 4 or 4 From Today’s Show

Glenn Beck will be the keynote speaker at CPAC tomorrow (Sat 2.20.09) at 6PM EST – Will be televised on Fox Cable News

Scott Brown Will Be Sworn in Today… Thursday

Wow… If you didn’t see Scott Brown’s Commercial – Massachusetts Miracle, take a look…

Brown to Be Sworn in Today, Thursday… Giving GOP 41 votes

Senator-elect Scott Brown, the Republican who upset the political world to wrest the longtime Massachusetts Senate seat of the late Senator Edward Kennedy from the Democrats will be sworn in to office Thursday afternoon.

Brown's swearing-in will give Republicans 41 seats in the upper chamber.

"Once we get his certificate, we expect to swear him in tomorrow afternoon as early as 5 o'clock, which is earlier than he suggested," Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told TheHill.com Wednesday.

Source: Newsmax

The liberal Dems (Progressives) have passed as much legislation and as many appointments since Brown’s election as they could, insisting they needed to wait for the official Certification, even though Mass gave the Senate a temporary certification and the okay to swear him in immediately, as they do and have previously done, including for Teddy Kennedy for this same seat, when it works in their favor.

From the signs we have seen so far, the second shot heard around the world, was not heard by the Progressives in our government.

CA – Need Your Help!! - Liberal California Senators Pass Universal Health Care Legislation

By George Runner - California State Senator representing the 17th Senate District

Fri, January 29th, 2010

Senate Bill 810 has unfortunately passed the Senate yesterday on a 22-14 party-line vote.

The measure would create a single-payer, government-controlled health care plan for Californians. The same government that has mismanaged your money now wants to control your health care.

Does anybody believe a state that bleeds red year-after-year could possibly control the costs of health care?

As I said on the Senate floor: This plan is to the Left and radical of ObamaCare. It’s this type of big-government idea that caused an earthquake of an election in Massachusetts in recent weeks. Yet, my liberal colleagues in Sacramento don’t seem to care about the needs or concerns of the people or the state of our economy.

Senator Runner on passage of CA Government Run Health Care Plan from CA Senate GOP on Vimeo.

The Orange County Register says the Senate Democrats are “tone deaf” to have revived “a $200-billion, government-run, universal health care scheme to outlaw private insurance and subsidize coverage for millions of Californians.”

The San Diego Union-Tribune calls the plan “appalling on one level and bizarre on another.”

The editorial goes on to say: “It is appalling because it amounts to an in-your-face display of contempt for public sentiment.”

And the Oakland Tribune wrote: “The bill would add a huge public cost and create considerable uncertainty at a time when both the state government and the private sector are struggling for survival.”

SB 810 will now be heard in the Assembly, where I hope the Democrats are in tune with the wishes of the people and in touch with the realities of our economy.

------

I called and faxed those listed below:

Liberal California Senators Pass Universal Health Care

CALL THEM AND SAY “NO” TO THIS BILL SB 810
CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY MEMBERS- DEMOCRATS- UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Jared Huffman-Phone: 916-319-2006, Fax: 916-319-2106
Noreen Evans-Phone: 916-319-2007, Fax: 916-319-2107
Mariko Yamada-Phone: 916-319-2008, Fax: 916-319-2108
Dave Jones-Phone: 916-319-2009, Fax: 916-319-2109
Alyson Huber-Phone: 916-319-2010, Fax: 906-319-2110
Tom Torlakson-Phone: 916-319-2011, Fax: 916-319-2111
Fiona Ma-Phone: 916-319-2012, Fax: 916-319-2112
Tom Ammiano-Phone: 916-319-2013, Fax: 916-319-2113
Nancy Skinner-Phone: 916-319-2014, Fax: 916-319-2114
Joan Buchanan-Phone: 916-319-2015, Fax: 916-319-2115
Sandre' Swanson-Phone: 916-319-2016, Fax: 916-319-2116
Cathleen Galgiani-Phone: 916-319-2017, Fax: 916-319-2117
Mary Hayashi-Phone: 916-319-2018, Fax: 916-319-2118
Gerald Hill-Phone: 916-319-2019, Fax: 916-319-2119
Alberto Torrico-Phone: 916-319-2020, Fax: 916-319-2120
Ira Ruskin-Phone: 916-319-2021, Fax: 916-319-2121
Paul Fong-Phone: 916-319-2022, Fax: 916-319-2122
Joe Coto-Phone: 916-319-2023, Fax: 916-319-2123
James Beall Jr-Phone: 916-319-2024, Fax: 916-319-2124
Bill Monning-Phone: 916-319-2027, Fax: 916-319-2127
Anna Caballero-Phone: 916-319-2028, Fax: 916-319-2128
Juan Arambula-Phone: 916-319-2031, Fax: 916-319-2131
Felipe Fuentes-Phone: 916-319-2039, Fax: 916-319-2139
Bob Blumenfield-Phone: 916-319-2040, Fax: 916-319-2140
Julia Brownley-Phone: 916-319-2041, Fax: 916-319-2141
Mike Feuer-Phone: 916-319-2042, Fax: 916-319-2142
Paul Krekorian-Phone: 916-319-2043, Fax: 916-319-2143
Anthony Portantino, Jr.-Phone: 916-319-2044, Fax: 916-319-2144
Kevin de Leon-Phone: 916-319-2045, Fax: 916-319-2145
John Perez-Phone: 916-319-2046, Fax: 916-319-2146
Karen Bass-Phone: 916-319-2047, Fax: 916-319-2147
Mike Davis-Phone: 916-319-2048, Fax: 916-319-2148
Mike Eng-Phone: 916-319-2049, Fax: 916-319-2149
Hector de la Torre-Phone: 916-319-2050, Fax: 916-319-2150
Isadore Hall, III-Phone: 916-319-2052, Fax: 916-319-2152
Ted Lieu-Phone: 916-319-2053, Fax: 916-319-2153
Bonnie Lowenthal-Phone: 916-319-2054, Fax: 916-319-2154
Warren Furutani-Phone: 916-319-2055, Fax: 916-319-2155
Tony Mendoza-Phone: 916-319-2057, Fax: 916-319-2157
Edward Hernandez-Phone: 916-319-2057, Fax: 916-319-2157
Charles Calderon-Phone: 916-319-2058, Fax: 916-319-2158
-
Norma Torres-Phone: 916-319-2061, Fax: 916-319-2161
Lori Saldana-Phone: 916-319-2076, Fax: 916-319-2176
Martin Block-Phone: 916-319-2078, Fax: 916-319-2178
Mary Salas-Phone: 916-319-2079, Fax: 916-319-2179
Manuel Perez-Phone: 916-319-2080, Fax: 916-319-2180
Wesley Chesbro- Phone: 916-319-2001, Fax: 916-319-2101

You really have to shake your head, don’t you?? The majority of Americans do not want socialized single-payer healthcare, from the federal government or the state. California is bankrupt already, and if we pass this disaster we will be paying twice, like Massachusetts… who just elected Scott Brown to say no to government controlled HC of any kind and no to a public option, no to single payer and no to paying twice.

Please call, fax and visit your rep’s local and Sacramento offices and tell them NO, NO, NO. And when you are done please call your Federal Congressman and Boxer and Feinstein and tell them the same thing about ObamaCare.

Think about it, California can’t pay its bills and is threatening layoffs and reduction of services everywhere and now they are voting in socialized medicine??? This is the perfect example of what is wrong with liberal politics, the Progressive movement and what happens when you lose all Common Sense!!

About 17% of Californians are either unemployed or underemployed… just think about it?!?

Beck’s Response to O’s State of the Union and Bernanke’s Reappointment… Videos

Video 1 of 6 – Which Obama Showed up for the State of the Union? The one who thinks the American People are stupid, believes the spin cures all and the one intends to move forward with his agenda regardless of the wants and needs of the people.

And, is partisan bickering really one of our biggest problems?

Video 2 of 6 – Logic and Math will ultimately kill the Obama Administration.

Obama’s speech let us know that neither he, the Progressives, Pelosi or Reid heard the second shot heard by everyone else around the world from Massachusetts.

Video 3 0f 6

The average salary in America is $40,321

The average union salary is $71,206 plus great benefits… and it is the union’s benefit packages, that if not adjusted, that will keep us from being competitive forever.

Giving the government more control over education is giving them more control to indoctrinate your children. Note the featured book “Little Pal Book”

Video 4 of 6 - Speech was arrogant and defiant and full of mistruths as 9/11 two is looming.

The new jobs bill is stimulus 2 renamed

Obama said jobs but followed with this same old socialistic global job killing programs like ObamaCare and Cap and Trade.

The espoused anti-lobbyist politician has 30 lobbyists in the administration

Video 5 of 6 – The Fed, Bernanke, Geithner, GreenSpan… Goldman Sachs

Video 6 of 6 – Obama’s Blue Ribbon Panel – Remember the one he plans to override the Senate vote on by signing another executive order (EO)?? And more Goldman-Sachs

Appointing Geithner and Bernanke to fix the economic problem is like choosing Bonnie and Clyde to help find the bank robbers.

And then there is Al Capon… Freddie and Fannie (the major cause of economic wows) are the Al Capon in this story… And Mommy (Fannie) and child (Salle) will be the institutions making all the Federal student loans, if the fiasco passes.

Obama’s First State of the Union

----------

And now for a little laugh…

A teacher asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Obama fans.

Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.

The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different... again.

Little Johnny said, "Because I'm not an Obama fan."

The teacher asked, "Why aren't you a fan of Obama?" Johnny said, "Because I'm a Republican."

The teacher asked him why he's a Republican. Little Johnny answered, "Well, my Mom's a Republican and my Dad's a Republican, so I'm a Republican."

Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?"

With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, "That would make me an Obama fan."

Hosed by the Progressives Again… Senate OKs debt sealing hike to $14.3 Trillion

$45K owed by every man, women and child in America. And China now owns more of our debt than we do. How much more until we wake up or are Joe Klein of the Times and the other Progressives right, the American people are too stupid and too disinterested to do anything about anything?

Senate Democrats passed a $1.9 trillion increase in the federal debt limit Thursday, seeking to push off another politically painful debt vote until after the midterm elections.

All 60 Democrats and no Republicans voted for the debt limit increase. The measure, which the House has yet to vote on, would put the debt ceiling at roughly $14.3 trillion.

Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) voted for the debt increase. Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass.), his replacement, has not been seated.

Democrats said the move is necessary because the debt is approaching its current ceiling of $12.4 trillion. If the debt breaches the limit, the government would lose its borrowing authority and risk default.

"We have gone to the restaurant, we have eaten the meal; now the only question is whether we pay the check," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) in urging his colleagues to increase the limit.
Republicans criticized Democrats for passing a massive increase, arguing that a smaller increase would have been more responsible.

"It's like the drunken sailor asking to have the bar open all night," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

If the House agrees to the $1.9 trillion debt ceiling hike, lawmakers won't have to make another debt vote until 2011.

Democrats won enough votes for passage only after the White House, Senate centrists and House Democratic leaders reached a deal on measures to tackle the rise in red ink.

A group of centrist Senate Democrats, led by Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Kent Conrad (N.D.), said that their votes depended on lawmakers committing to a special legislative process to come up with a package of fiscal reforms. President Barack Obama fulfilled that requirement in his State of the Union when he announced that he would create by executive order a fiscal reform commission.

Bayh, who opposed a short-term debt limit increase last month, praised the president for backing measures such as the fiscal commission and a three-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending to address the deficit, which hit a record $1.4 trillion last year and is expected to surpass $1 trillion in 2010.

"We can't allow the country to default on its debt. That would cause an economic calamity," Bayh said. "But we also need fiscal discipline, so I think [Obama has] struck a balance here that will enable us to do both."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had opposed the commission approach, fearing it would put the power over entitlements, taxes and spending in the hands of an appointed body. But she relented after Senate Democrats agreed to pass a pay-as-you-go measure that requires any new mandatory spending be offset by new taxes or spending cuts elsewhere.

The Senate passed the pay-go measure as an amendment to the debt limit increase Thursday. The pay-go amendment also passed on a party-line vote, 60-40.

The Senate pay-go legislation would not apply to costly items that are expiring that Democrats plan to extend — a host of middle-class tax cuts, Medicare doctor payments, current estate and gift tax rates and a patch to keep the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting middle-income Americans. The exemptions, except the one for the middle-class tax cuts, would end in five years or less, meaning that lawmakers would have to pay for them eventually.

Conrad had opposed a version of the pay-go measure passed by the House because all of the exemptions would have been permanent.

But Gregg argued that the limits on exemptions did not go far enough, making a floor motion to call the Senate legislation "Swiss-cheese-go."

The debt limit debate revealed bipartisan support for discretionary spending limits, suggesting that Obama's call for a freeze on non-security discretionary spending has a chance of passing the upper chamber. An amendment offered by Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) sought to cap yearly discretionary spending increases to about 2 percent for the next five years. The amendment didn't get the 60 votes it needed to be adopted, but most of the Senate — 16 Democrats, 39 Republicans and an independent — voted for it.

Senate Democrats passed a $1.9 trillion increase in the federal debt limit Thursday, seeking to push off another politically painful debt vote until after the midterm elections.

All 60 Democrats and no Republicans voted for the debt limit increase. The measure, which the House has yet to vote on, would put the debt ceiling at roughly $14.3 trillion.

Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) voted for the debt increase. Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass.), his replacement, has not been seated.

Democrats said the move is necessary because the debt is approaching its current ceiling of $12.4 trillion. If the debt breaches the limit, the government would lose its borrowing authority and risk default.

"We have gone to the restaurant, we have eaten the meal; now the only question is whether we pay the check," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) in urging his colleagues to increase the limit.
Republicans criticized Democrats for passing a massive increase, arguing that a smaller increase would have been more responsible.

"It's like the drunken sailor asking to have the bar open all night," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

If the House agrees to the $1.9 trillion debt ceiling hike, lawmakers won't have to make another debt vote until 2011.

Democrats won enough votes for passage only after the White House, Senate centrists and House Democratic leaders reached a deal on measures to tackle the rise in red ink.

A group of centrist Senate Democrats, led by Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Kent Conrad (N.D.), said that their votes depended on lawmakers committing to a special legislative process to come up with a package of fiscal reforms. President Barack Obama fulfilled that requirement in his State of the Union when he announced that he would create by executive order a fiscal reform commission.

Bayh, who opposed a short-term debt limit increase last month, praised the president for backing measures such as the fiscal commission and a three-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending to address the deficit, which hit a record $1.4 trillion last year and is expected to surpass $1 trillion in 2010.

"We can't allow the country to default on its debt. That would cause an economic calamity," Bayh said. "But we also need fiscal discipline, so I think [Obama has] struck a balance here that will enable us to do both."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had opposed the commission approach, fearing it would put the power over entitlements, taxes and spending in the hands of an appointed body. But she relented after Senate Democrats agreed to pass a pay-as-you-go measure that requires any new mandatory spending be offset by new taxes or spending cuts elsewhere.

The Senate passed the pay-go measure as an amendment to the debt limit increase Thursday. The pay-go amendment also passed on a party-line vote, 60-40.

The Senate pay-go legislation would not apply to costly items that are expiring that Democrats plan to extend — a host of middle-class tax cuts, Medicare doctor payments, current estate and gift tax rates and a patch to keep the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting middle-income Americans. The exemptions, except the one for the middle-class tax cuts, would end in five years or less, meaning that lawmakers would have to pay for them eventually.
Conrad had opposed a version of the pay-go measure passed by the House because all of the exemptions would have been permanent.

But Gregg argued that the limits on exemptions did not go far enough, making a floor motion to call the Senate legislation "Swiss-cheese-go."

The debt limit debate revealed bipartisan support for discretionary spending limits, suggesting that Obama's call for a freeze on non-security discretionary spending has a chance of passing the upper chamber. An amendment offered by Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) sought to cap yearly discretionary spending increases to about 2 percent for the next five years. The amendment didn't get the 60 votes it needed to be adopted, but most of the Senate — 16 Democrats, 39 Republicans and an independent — voted for it.

Instead of doing the right thing and either seating Scott Brown immediately or waiting to take this vote until he was seated, the Progressives (Obama’s cronies) forced this vote to strike another blow against the American people and especially the middle class, and to reinforce Obama’s State of the Union message, “We don’t care what you think and we will push through our agenda… no matter what you say or want!” To the tea party, town hall and Mom’s groups… “We don’t hear you now!!”

Obama’s First State of the Union… Disappointing and Surprisingly Disingenuous and Steadfast

Pres. Obama's State of the Union Address: What Did You Think?

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For two hundred and twenty years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable - that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted - immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in ten Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. For those who had already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades - the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana and Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children - asking why they have to move from their home, or when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope - what they deserve - is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories and different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared. A job that pays the bills. A chance to get ahead. Most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids; starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching little league and helping their neighbors. As one woman wrote me, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."
It is because of this spirit - this great decency and great strength - that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.

And tonight, I'd like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.

It begins with our economy.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular - I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.
So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.

To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.
As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.

That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right - the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it.

Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act.

Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.
Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again. Read the rest of the complete speech HERE.

Obama’s speech was stunning in its arrogance, rhetoric, insults, scolding of Congress and blaming of everyone from the Supreme Court to George W. Bush.

Polled Reactions of Speech:

All words and no action… Talk is cheap but no results.

Speech was a recycle of his campaign.

Sounds good, but nothing behind it!

More of the same.

Lies, lies and more lies…

He takes no responsibility, blames everyone, and can’t top blaming Bush.

Amazingly arrogant…

I have never trusted that guy. He is a socialist with a socialistic agenda, and America just won’t wake up.

His speech was defiant and his tone was confrontational instead of what people expected after Scott Brown’s win. And by the way, why hasn’t Scott Brown been sworn in. When the Dems need someone all the rules are waved. It was done for Ted Kennedy. The fact that Brown wasn’t there tonight just shows you that Obama is all talk and nothing will change!

The Speech proved that he (Obama) is an arrogant ideologue~

If you don’t follow what is going on the speech sounded great, on the surface, but in reality it was all rhetoric and well written smoke and mirrors. He talked about focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs, but then everything he highlight was anti-job. He blamed everyone but himself, and unlike Clinton, he did not hear the warning shot (heard round the world); Scott Brown’s election. Clinton heard the people after his and Hillary’s socialized medicine push fell apart and moved to the center. Obama arrogantly yet often hidden in innuendos said he was pushing forward with Cap and Trade… renamed, pushing ahead with ObamaCare, and even insulted (interpreted by many as trying to manipulate) the Supreme Court seated in front of him. He also insulted the American people over and over again…

Obama said he would continue working to stop earmarks. In reality he has done nothing to stop earmarks. He talked about cutting spending, but in reality his freeze doesn’t start until after 2011 after he has raised the debt and spent us into oblivion and he and Congress will continue to spend and raise the debt unto 2011, all the while siphoning off funds as they have for the administrations pet projects. And finally Obama had the nerve to tell the American people that the worst of the economic storm was over and that ‘now’ he would be transparent. And let us remember that Obama has already increased spending (in just one year) by between 12% and 17%, depending on what you include. And Obama’s plan only freezes .58% for the next 3-years. (Obama’s Spending Freeze Announcement is Meaningless… And Why)

What Obama did not address was terrorism, the terrorist trial in New York, the bad decisions of the his DHS team over Christmas or the closure (or non-closure) of Gitmo.

The items highlighted in Obama’s speech were more of the same… more government interference; anti-personal freedom(s) and America’s ‘global’ standing as he focused his gaze on his cabinet filled with Progressives, Marxists, and anything but Constitutionalists. Lucky for him they don’t march in the czars at these events: A Comprehensive List of O’s Czars and a brief description of each!

Reaction from both sides of the aisle to Obama’s speech was overall negative.

Frank Luntz Author of What Americans Really Want...Really and professional pollster, polled and in-house group as well as conducted a national poll of reactions to Obama’s State of the Union speech.

Results of Luntz Poll:

Good 8%

Fair 5%

Terrible 86%

GOP State of Union Response: We Can't Afford Dems' Spending

WASHINGTON -- The nation cannot afford the spending Democrats have enacted or the tax increases they propose, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said Wednesday in the Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address.

McDonnell told a cheering crowd of supporters in Richmond, Va., that Democratic policies are resulting in an unsustainable level of debt. He said Americans want affordable health care, but they don't want the government to run it.

"Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much," McDonnell said. "In the past year, more than 3 million Americans have lost their jobs, yet the Democratic Congress continues deficit spending, adding to the bureaucracy, and increasing the national debt on our children and grandchildren." Read more ...

ALSO: Text of GOP Response to State of the Union

'Not True': Alito Fires Back After Obama Jabs Supreme Court

Can this be considered the equivalent of a Supreme Court heckle? Close to an hour into his address tonight President Obama called out the Supreme Court’s recent decision to remove all limits on what corporations can spend on an election. And he did it to their faces.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that corrects some of these problems.”

SNAP. The Supreme Court justices sit directly below the President and traditionally do not respond to anything the president says during his speech. Not this time. Obama’s remarks were clearly too much for Justice Alito, who could be seen rather emphatically shaking his head.

Justice Alito's 'Not true" Was Correct

Obama Didn't Even Have His Facts Correct... Again~

Yawn: Obama Puts Reid to Sleep

Harry Reid Yawns During Obama's State Of The Union

It is full speed ahead my fellow Americans… Cap and Trade; ObamaCare on the Dem’s terms; slight of hand economics; Amnesty; a jobs bill that will cost us money and won’t create jobs; indirect tax hikes… so Obama can say he isn’t raising taxes; continued attacks on personal freedom and the Constitution; promotion of fringe groups and the normalizing of Islam in our society while attacking Christians, Jews and American Traditions and the promotion of Globalism, the Progressive Green Agenda and World Government (through the United Nations) over Americans and American Sovereignty. It is Obama’s Progressive Agenda and although he threw the GOP and the American People a few bones, he backed and hinted at everyone of his beliefs in his speech and never really pivoted toward the center.

We are being had by a slick salesman. The question here is are the American People our Founding Fathers believed in and left their dream to? Or are we the idiots that Joe Klein of the Times and Obama’s cabinet and czars believe that we are???

Obama said in his speech, “One of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education!”, and interesting comment from the head of an administration that cancelled the voucher program in DC for primarily under-privileged black children. And when you hear stories like this past week of the re-writing of textbooks, including the suggestions of eliminating the mention of: Christmas, Thomas Payne, the religion of the Founding Fathers and their stand on God, etc and a government takeover of student loans… who can and will ultimately use that to direct people toward professions the government wants and then use enrollment in Obama Youth to payback those loans, you need to step back and think twice! (See: The Dumbing Down of America Series)

Obama also talked about how we stood by people around the world who fight for freedom. Funny… when the Iranian people we fighting in the streets and looking to us for help, Obama was one of the last leaders to respond.

And again Obama said he would work with anyone in Congress who had an alternative idea for HC reform. HMMMM… there are Republican members of the Congress who have been trying to see Obama with suggestions and bills written by the GOP trying to see Obama since last April (last time he made this offer) who can’t even get a phone call in return telling them Obama is too busy, let alone a meeting.

The American People do not want Cap and Trade and do not want their government signing away their decision making powers or their sovereignty to the UN or other global organizations. The American People do not want government involved in their healthcare. The American People do not want any type of public option as part of healthcare. The American People want the borders secured. The American People want immigration controlled and perhaps even halted completely for awhile. The American people want the Federal government out of their children’s classrooms. The American people do not want the Federal government turning off their water, like in California, to please the environmentalists. 85% of American people are Christians or Jews and believe in God and are tired of the Federal government telling them where or when they can mention or display their religion, their traditions or God. The American People do not want union leadership in bed with the Federal government. The American People do not want their history re-written or to be told when and how they should address sexual issues with their children. And the list goes on… But bottom-line the American People want a President who represents them and their will, who defends the Constitution and who keeps America safe… and keeps his nose out of most everything else!!

Remember: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” (Ronald Reagan), and those that steal freedom are always slick charismatic talkers!

Related:

VIDEOS: State of the Union Highlights

AP Fact Check: State of Union vs. Reality

Barack Obama is actually pulling a David Copperfield with this spending freeze

Can’t We At Least Get a Toaster?

The Blame Game

State of the Union - No Re-Set Button

There will be more discussion and review of this speech for the next few days, but this is a good start. (PBS did their review today with an all liberal crew including George Soros’ and Obama’s buddy John Podesta. If Fox or any conservative outlet did the same they would be threatened with fines, ridiculed and who knows what else. It is about time that the American people say stop to anymore legislation that restricts freedom of speech online, on the radio, on TV or just against what you might say. Every right in the Bill of Rights was put there for a reason! They are the things that dictators take away…the rights that make us free.

Pelosi Concedes: House Lacks Votes for Health Care Bill - Congrats America, Thanks Mass

Thursday, 21 Jan 2010 12:22 PM

Queen Pelosi cannot admit that she was wrong and that the people do not want what she and her Progressive cohorts have been selling.

WASHINGTON – Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she lacks the votes to quickly move the Senate's sweeping health overhaul bill through the House, a potentially devastating blow to President Barack Obama's signature issue.

Pelosi, D-Calif., made the comment to reporters after House Democrats held a closed-door meeting at which participants vented frustration with the Senate's massive version of the legislation.

Her concession meant there was little hope for a White House-backed plan to quickly push the Senate-approved health bill through the House, followed by a separate measure making changes sought by House members, such as easing the Senate's tax on higher-cost health plans. Such an approach would be "problematic," she said.

"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said, adding, "I don't see the votes for it at this time."

Pelosi's remarks signaled that advancing health legislation through Congress will likely be a lengthy process — despite Democrats' desire for a quick election-year pivot to address jobs and the economy, which polls show are the public's top concern.

"We're not in a big rush," Pelosi said. "Pause, reflect."

Source: The Associated Press/Posted NewsMax

Pelosi Rejects Senate Version of Health Care Bill

"We're not in a big rush," Pelosi said. (Time to) "Pause, reflect."… Translation: I have polled and cajoled everyone and after trying all the tricks in my bag… I mean all, I finally have to admit that only 38% of America wants ObamaCare and their reps are finally listening… so I don’t have enough votes to cram this through against the will of the people.

It is a time to celebrate!! But with the Nancy and crew it is never time to stop being vigilant!! KCP

The Health Care Bill Is Dead

And other repercussions of Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts.

BY FRED BARNES

The impact of Republican Scott Brown’s capture of the Massachusetts Senate seat held for decades by Teddy Kennedy will be both immediate and powerful. It’s safe to say no single Senate election in recent memory is as important as this one.

Here are a few of the repercussions:

1) President Obama is weakened. For the third time in three months, he couldn’t deliver for a Democratic candidate. Last November, he abetted the defeat of Democrat Creigh Deeds in the Virginia governor’s race and failed to prevent Democrat Jon Corzine’s ouster as New Jersey governor. Now in Massachusetts, his appearance for Martha Coakley was a bust. A president who can’t aid his party’s candidates loses influence with Congress and inside his party.

That’s not all. Obama’s agenda, chiefly health care, took a beating in Massachusetts. In fact, it was the chief cause of Coakley’s defeat. Without the intrusion of national politics, she would have defeated Brown. But Obama and Democrats in Washington have created a hostile environment for Democratic candidates even in liberal and Democrat-dominated Massachusetts. So there’s a double whammy for Obama: he can’t help if he personally shows up to campaign on behalf of Democrats and his policies are ruining their chances of being elected.

2) Independents are lost to Democrats, at least for the time being. In 2006 and 2008, they fled Republicans in large numbers and facilitated Democratic triumphs for the House, Senate, and White House. Now they’ve staged a mass migration to the Republican camp. In Massachusetts, where they make up half the electorate, they overwhelmingly voted for Brown. This followed the 2-to-1 advantage they gave to Republicans in Virginia and New Jersey last year.

Democrats may win them back, but not if they stick with the liberal policies--especially the unbridled spending and $1 trillion deficits--of Obama and congressional Democrats. These are killer issues among independents. Perhaps it will take another unpopular Republican administration in Washington to push them toward Democrats again. And that is years away.

3) In the midterm election in November, Republicans are poised to win 25 or so House seats. But it will take a net of 40 to take control the House. For this, they need more open Democratic seats, which are easier to win than incumbent-held seats. Brown’s victory in Massachusetts is a good bet to scare many more Democrats into retirement.

If a Republican can win in Massachusetts, why not in Missouri or Pennsylvania or a solidly Democratic state like New York? Last week, Democrat Vic Snyder of Arkansas announced his retirement, citing the political climate as the reason. It’s an anti-Democratic climate.

4) Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is the new king of Capitol Hill. His skill in keeping 40 Republicans united against Democratic health care reform was masterful, and it wasn’t easy. A number of Republican senators are drawn to co-sponsoring or at least voting for Democratic bills. Not this time.

By keeping his minority together, McConnell put enormous pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had to keep every Democrat in line to gain the 60 votes need to halt a Republican filibuster. On health care, it meant he had to make unseemly deals with a host of senators, most egregiously in the Medicaid payoff to Nebraska to appease Senator Ben Nelson. Reid got the votes, but the deals were political poison.

5) Oh, yes. The health care bill, ObamaCare, is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection. Brown ran to be the 41st vote for filibuster and now he is just that. Democrats have talked up clever strategies to pass the bill in the Senate despite Brown, but they won’t fly. It’s one thing for ObamaCare to be rejected by the American public in poll after poll. But it becomes a matter of considerably greater political magnitude when ObamaCare causes the loss of a Senate race in the blue state of Massachusetts.

Then there’s the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists some version of ObamaCare will be approved and soon. She’s not kidding. She’s simply wrong. At best, she has the minimum 218 votes for passage. After the Massachusetts fiasco, however, there’s sure to be erosion. How many Democrats in Republican-leaning districts want to vote for ObamaCare, post-Massachusetts? Not many.

Pelosi met with House Democrats yesterday to tell them how the negotiations on a compromise health care bill between the House and Senate were going. As she spoke, one Democratic member whispered to another, “It’s like talking about your date on Friday, but the date’s in the emergency room.” ObamaCare went into the emergency room in Massachusetts and didn’t make it out alive.

Pelosi 'Spooked' After Meeting with Blue Dogs

House Liberals to Pelosi: 'We Cannot Support the Senate Bill. Period.'

Union Big: Labor Won’t Support House Passing Senate Bill

Obama Tells Congress Not to Ram Through HealthCare

Obama Says: We Lost Touch With American People Last Year

Seeing red: Graphic of the night — Cautionary Tale for GOP

By Michelle Malkin • January 20, 2010 01:11 AM

How ya like these red apples?

(h/t Mary Katharine Ham)

January 19 was an amazing day for grass-roots conservatism. But the Beltway GOP should be warned against unjustified triumphalism. They were late to the game. Activists still haven’t, and won’t, forget the massive amounts of money Washington, D.C. Republicans wasted on Dede Scozzafava. And Scott Brown quite noticeably didn’t mention the word “Republican” once during his prepared remarks.

The GOP brand is still damaged. And instant exploitation of the Brown win — see the NRSC website here — isn’t going to help matters. As I’ve said for many years, the Republican Party needs to clean its own house before it demands that the Democrats clean theirs.

The Brown victory was very clearly a strike against machine politics of all kinds and business as usual in Washington. That includes top-down meddling by tired old GOP operatives. The party bosses have tried to install their preferred Senate candidates in Florida, Colorado, and California. They will use Brown’s win to argue for more “mooooooderation.” As I wrote yesterday in my analysis of how Brown unified a center-right-indie coalition, that is not the lesson of the Massachusetts miracle.

Wake up and smell the Tea Party leaves.

***

Heh. – Riehl World View

***

One more cautionary note: Tonight is unquestionably a night to celebrate. But remember to manage your expectations, as always, of all politicians. You’ll be less disappointed when they inevitably let you down.

Help Get Scott Brown Seated Right Away!!

Let us all call William Gavin and insist Brown be seated immediately!!!! Secretary of State Mass contact info: Secretary William Galvin 1-800-392-6090 email is cis@secstate.ma.us View this site to get an idea on what they do with the law in Mass?!?

BOSTON (AP) - Massachusetts's top election official says it could take weeks to certify the results of the upcoming U.S. Senate special election. That delay could let President Barack Obama preserve a key 60th vote for his health care overhaul even if the Republican who has vowed to kill it wins Democrat Edward M. Kennedy's former seat.

Secretary of State William F. Galvin, citing state law, says city and town clerks must wait at least 10 days for absentee ballots to arrive before they certify the results of the Jan. 19 election. They then have five more days to file the returns with his office.

Galvin bypassed the provision in 2007 so his fellow Democrats could gain a House vote they needed to override a veto of then-Republican President George W. Bush, but the secretary says U.S. Senate rules would preclude a similar rush today.

The potential delay has become a rallying point for the GOP, which argues Democrats have been twisting the rules to pass the health care bill despite public opposition. It's also prompted criticism from government watchdogs.

"We believe that elections should be by the people and for the people, and when the people have spoken, the system ought not be politicized," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar, a former member of Congress. "If the Republican wins, the person should be seated immediately. If the Democrat wins, the person should be seated immediately."

Massachusetts Democrats already changed state law last fall so the governor could appoint a fellow Democrat to fill the seat after Kennedy died in August.

Now that interim replacement, Sen. Paul G. Kirk Jr., says he will vote for the bill if given the chance, even if Republican Scott Brown beatsDemocrat Martha Coakley in Tuesday's special election to fill the seat permanently. Brown, a state senator, has pledged to vote against the bill; Coakley, the state attorney general, supports it.

Businessman Joseph L. Kennedy, no relation to the late senator, is also mounting an independent campaign, but he has trailed badly in publicopinion polls. He, too, opposes the bill.

Kirk and Coakley represent the crucial 60th Democratic vote to prevent a filibuster of the legislation. A Brown victory would shift the chamber's balance to 59-41—just enough for Republicans to block the legislation.

Yet passing or stopping the bill could depend on when the new senator is seated. Obama is angling to get the bill passed before he delivers his State of the Union speech, most likely in early to mid-February.

"Until a new senator is sworn in, Sen. Kirk is the senator," Coakley said.

While Galvin wrote a letter in 2007 so Democrat Niki Tsongas could assume a U.S. House seat immediately after a special election, an aide said he would not do so in the case of the upcoming Senate election.

"The Senate requires the certificate of election, which can only be issued after this period takes place," spokesman Brian McNiff said.

Democrats control the Senate, and they argue there is recent precedent for withholding a seat until local officials certify an election. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his colleagues waited 238 days before seating fellow Democrat Al Franken last year after Republicans challenged his 2008 election all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

"When there is a certified winner in Massachusetts, the Senate has received appropriate papers and the vice president is available, the successor to Kennedy/Kirk will be sworn in," said Reid spokeswomanRegan Lachapelle.

She said that could take "a week or more."

By GLEN JOHNSON - AP Political Writer

Let us all call William Gavin and insist Brown be seated immediately!!!! Secretary of State Mass contact info: Secretary William Galvin 1-800-392-6090 email is cis@secstate.ma.us View this site to get an idea on what they do with the law in Mass?!? No more two party games or standards!

Even Barney Frank Concedes Healthcare Approach ‘No Longer Appropriate After Brown Beats Coakley

Bayh Warns “Catastrophe” If Dems Ignore Massachusetts Senate Race Lessons

Scott Brown’s Shot Heard Around the World: What If?

Sign John McCain's Petition: Seat Him Now

Sign the petition to seat

Senator-elect Scott Brown immediately

Scott Brown's Shot Heard 'Round the World: What If?

Political pundits are running out of superlatives to describe the fallout President Barack Obama faces if Republican Scott Brown captures the Senate seat that the late liberal lion Ted Kennedy held for more than four decades, in a state with a 3-to-1 Democratic voter registration advantage.

Although the Democratic get-out-the-vote machine and heavy snowfalls in Brown strongholds have left the outcome very much in doubt, the most recent polls show a powerful surge favoring the GOP challenger.

Anti-Obamacare sentiment in the Bay State, as well as a series of damaging gaffes by Brown's opponent, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, have propelled him into the lead by double digits, according to some polls.

Obama aides reportedly hvae begun to advise Democratic leaders privately that they consider the race a lost cause.

Already, analysts are beginning to assess the political fallout from what Suffolk University pollster David Paleologos predicts will be a political "shot heard 'round the world." But in some ways, the impact is difficult to gauge, simply because the scope of the turnabout in Massachusetts is almost unprecedented.

A Coakley defeat despite Obama's heavy personal investment in the race might constitute the biggest upset in modern political history, some political pundits say. Obama taped robocalls, made a campaign appearance, blasted his e-mail list, and is appearing in a last-minute Coakley ad that is blanketing Massachusetts airwaves – all perhaps to no avail.

It is a stunning reversal, given that polls showed Coakley coasting along with a 30-point lead only a few months ago.

Here are the sea changes to expect in the immediate future if Brown wins, according to a wide range of experts and analysts:

Beware the Spinmeisters
The first reverberation, political experts say, will be massive media coverage and a full-court press by the Obama administration and Democrats to spin the upset to their advantage – as difficult as that may be.

Look for the administration to send out surrogates who will say the people have spoken and the administration has heard their message. The administration will go back to the political drawing board, they'll say, while pointing out that Democrats still have strong majorities in Congress.

"We're told that the president is going to come back fighting," Politico's Mike Allen said Tuesday on MSNBC's “Morning Joe” program. "We're going to hear the president with much more tough, populist language. We heard him out there saying, 'We're going to get our money back from the banks.' We heard him say Sunday at that [Coakley] rally, 'The bankers don't need another senator in Washington.'

"And so even though they'll have to accept smaller victories, you're going to hear the president in a fighting mood trying to say, 'Look, I said change was going to be hard. Whoa! Change was harder than I thought,'" Allen said.

Obamacare in the Balance

A lot of attention has focused on whether the president's healthcare reforms, which both houses of Congress are revising, will be a casualty if Brown wins and the GOP gains its 41st vote in the Senate – enough to mount a filibuster.

Of course, Democrats are working on a "plan B" in case Coakley loses. But while there are certainly parliamentary avenues available by which healthcare reform still could be enacted, skittish Democrats up for re-election may find those options politically unpalatable.

With public opposition to Obamacare continuing to rise, at some point the question becomes how much damage Democrats are willing to sustain.

New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote that ramming healthcare reform through after a Coakley defeat would be "political suicide."

"It would be the act of a party so arrogant, elitist and contemptuous of popular wisdom that it would not deserve to govern," he writes. "Marie Antoinette would applaud, but voters would rage."
Even firebrand New York Democrat Anthony Weiner said on "Morning Joe" Tuesday that “I think you can make a pretty good argument that healthcare might be dead” if Coakley loses.

There will be fierce liberal arguments to proceed at any cost, however.

Facing voters in the midterm elections without having acted on the president's primary policy initiative would be a formula for disaster at the polls, they'll say.

Obama's Big Agenda

Election years are known mostly as legislative wastelands – no one wants to pass a big-ticket item that an opponent could use against him a few months later. After Democrats shake off the effects of the Brown haymaker, look for that to be even more the case.

Although Congress will still be under pressure to pass measures that promise to boost employment and revive the economy, much of the administration's transformative agenda will be put on the shelf. Energy cap-and-trade legislation was already a non-starter in the Senate, and it would certainly remain so. Chances of passing immigration reform that includes some indirect form of amnesty for illegal aliens would be remote indeed.

"It’s hard to see how the more controversial parts of Obama’s agenda get passed now, at least after healthcare reform, which Democrats can ram through in various ways, quickly, if they want," Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, told Newsmax. "I would bet many Democrats would say they’ve given enough blood at the office. Now they’ll spend their energy trying to find a way to get re-elected."

And as the Brown-Coakley race demonstrates, that won't be easy for Democrats to do. But look for Obama to continue to cater to his left-leaning political base; in the aftermath of Coakley-Brown, that may be all he's got left.

It would be too extreme to say the shocking setback in Massachusetts would transform Obama into lame-duck status. But given the legislative gridlock he can expect anyway in an election year, the remainder of his term could prove to be a very difficult battle indeed.

A 'Plan B' for Everything

David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, says a Coakley-Obama defeat will "totally change how the administration approaches the next nine months."
Democrats are looking furiously for "Plan B" on healthcare reform if the political balance shifts in the Senate. But Paleologos says the administration's legislative strategies will all have to change.

"That's tells me strategically they're going to have to have a fallback for every other issue," Paleologos told Newsmax, "and to work on anyone that's borderline in the Senate.

"And in fact it might bind the administration's hands, which isn't going to help at the polls, especially if the recession doesn't sort of bottom out, and people [don't] begin to feel that we're turning around."

What remains to be seen, however, is whether Team Obama can be flexible enough ideologically to follow the course of former President Bill Clinton, who responded to his midterm defeat by moving to the center politically.

Brickbats From the Left

As much as the president faces criticism from the right, a defeat in Massachusetts will evoke howls of protests from prominent figures on the left.

Expect MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, to lead the charge. Although liberal enclaves may circle the wagons initially. they also will complain that the reason for the president's sagging fortunes is that he hasn't gone leftward enough.

Obama needs to return to his core values, they will say, ignore the growing cries for fiscal restraint, and propose more big-government programs to jump start the flagging economy. Sometimes, it seems, failure isn't an orphan after all.

Rediscovering Bipartisanship

The president came into office promising to nurture bipartisanship but felt he really didn't have to work with Republicans because his party enjoyed a supermajority.

The latest example of the administration's hubris: locking Republicans out of the Obamacare negotiations, and allowing C-SPAN to televise the weeks-long proceedings for only a single hour.

If Obama hopes to make any progress in Congress, he'll have to scale back his ambitions and get at least some Republicans to sign on to his proposals. Look for him to soften the barrage of anti-Bush rhetoric.

So the irony of a Republican win in Massachusetts today is that it could encourage the president to begin to deliver on his campaign pledge for a new style of politics.

"They will need to fulfill the promise of bipartisanship, because it's now the reality," Paleologos told Newsmax. "With the numbers potentially being 59 to 41, that changes so much of the methodology of doing the work in Congress. And that's going to have a significant impact."

No More Mystique

Remember how international leaders jostled to have their picture taken with the new president after the inauguration? Hollywood stars tried to cadge a visit to the White House, and his choice of a family pet became a front-page news story?

Well, if all the president's men and a bevy of attack ads couldn't save Coakley from a bitter loss, the Obama honeymoon is arguably over once and for all. Post-Coakley, he may find he's no longer the darling he once was on Capitol Hill, let alone a celebrity when he meets the leaders of other countries.

"If Brown wins, Obama will have spent a huge amount of political capital and cache for naught," Boston University professor and political analyst Tobe Berkovitz told Newsmax. "This will have a huge impact on the president's ability to fly in and out for campaign appearances for democrats at the start of the 2010 election.

"He's used up several political lives stumping for candidates in 2009 and 2010 and promoting his policies for economic recovery, the war against terrorism, and most significantly healthcare reform," Berkovitz said. "A loss of the 'Kennedy seat' would be a huge repudiation of the Obama and Democratic agenda. This might not prove insurmountable in the long run, but will place the president and the democrats in a massive tailspin into the spring.

Presidential promises to leverage his popularity on behalf of candidates who support his agenda will ring hollow, Berkovitz said. The president remains personally popular with voters, but that status may now be at risk. In fact, don't be surprised if Democrats from conservative districts begin to distance themselves from a president whose popularity appears to be on the wane.

"The 41-59 party split [in the Senate] will be the least of Obama's problems. He and the democratic leadership will be battling with incumbents up for reelection who will be watching their political careers evaporate, as they march in and out of votes forced by the House and Senate leadership," Berkovitz said.

Congressional Fallout

One of the problems facing White House political strategists has been a rash of Democratic retirements in Congress. Parker Griffith, the erstwhile Democrat from Alabama, even switched parties to avoid the expected midterm bloodbath bearing down on incumbents.
People shouldn't be surprised if even more Democrats opt out of running in November, in the wake of Brown-Coakley, Sabato said.

"Obama was unable to help his candidate in a state [Massachusetts] he carried with 62 percent. He didn’t help Jon Corzine last fall even though he won New Jersey by about a 15 percent [margin]. So you have to wonder where he can make a difference for Democrats in the midterm elections.

"This has got to scare the bejesus out of Democrats everywhere," Sabato told Newsmax. "If Brown can win in Massachusetts, the second-most Democratic state, then what must Democrats who represent Republican states be thinking? It’s possible this will nudge a few more Democrats to retire from Congress."

Republican Gains

As the national political momentum swings away from Democrats, much of it will swing over to Republicans. The bombshell that a GOP win in Massachusetts would represent would bring with it a whole host of benefits for the party of Lincoln and Reagan.

"The national Republican brand will no longer be toxic," commentator and GOP strategist Roger Stone told Newsmax. "Look for party-switchers – moderate and conservative Democrats who switch and jump into statewide races."

Already the party is enjoying a resurgence of enthusiasm from its base, now that the party faithful see that the "Obama miracle" appears astoundingly short lived.

Along with that will come money – lots of it. It is a sad reality of U.S. politics that special-interest lobbyists read the political tea leaves to determine which party's fortunes are on the rise, and then contribute money accordingly in order to buy influence.

Pundits say it was no accident Obama attracted record-breaking donations in his presidential campaign – once the economy tanked in September 2009, it didn't take Svengali to figure out which candidate was likely to win.

Now, the flow of dollars will begin to reverse, meaning GOP candidates will be much better off than in recent elections.

There's another important political impact felt as the pendulum swings to the right: GOP leaders will find it much easier to attract top-drawer candidates willing to toss their hats in the political ring and run for office.

Depending on the district, however, Democrats who step forward to run could be accused of having a death wish.

More Tea

One of the big winners in Massachusetts: the tea party movement. Although tea party leaders kept a low profile in Massachusetts to avoid alienating die-hard Democrats, they poured in resources to help Brown mount his bid to come from behind. An upset victory by a candidate whose No. 1 issue was fiscal restraint can only bolster the tea party faithful.

"The tea party movement, named for a Boston event, will grow as a vehicle for reform," Stone predicted.

Demise of a Media Lovefest

During Obama's first year in office, he basked in positive press the likes of which arguably no previous president had experienced. But with his job-approval numbers in a free-fall – and likely to take even more of a hit in the weeks to come as the media runs postmortems ad nauseam on why he couldn't save Coakley from defeat – Obama will face much tougher questioning.

If Coakley loses, the media universe that will be forced to recognize what the rest of the nation realized a long time ago: The president isn't the ratings magic that the media once thought he was.

The biggest change if Brown wins may be an altered perception that Obama represents a new era in politics. In precisely one year's time, the hope and change promised by his move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. will be sucked into the Beltway swamp, possibly forever.

All of which raises another question: Can Republican leaders reverse their well-earned reputation for not being able to handle success?
"The Republicans have the ability to make a sow's ear out of the political silk purse that might be handed to them by the voters in Massachusetts," Berkovitz told Newsmax. "Just as the Democrats misread the election of President Obama as a possible realignment rather than a repudiation of the Bush administration.

"The Republicans should place themselves on hubris alert," he said. "The possible win in Massachusetts should be seen as much as a 'throw the bums out' vote as 'vote the Republicans in.'"

By: David A. Patten

Source: Newsmax