The Brown Fallout - Part 2 (Obama's move)

Yesterday I postulated that there were a number of possible outcomes for 2010 as a result of the Brown win in Massachusetts. Other than discussion of my poor diagram-building computer skills, the post needs a revisit. Principally the revisit is needed because what I thought would take some time to start shaking out, is already underway.

The first steps are visible already. What is the President's course of action? Blame Bush and plow ahead. Never mind that it's been his economy for a year, or the voter backlash against his health care efforts. It's Bush's fault Brown won, let's just accept that as fact and move on.

Blame. There it is. And the continued effort? Courtesy of Gateway Pundit, via Drudge:

U.S. President Barack Obama will stick to his policy agenda despite his Democratic Party’s loss of a key Senate seat in a Massachusetts special election, a top White House aide said on Wednesday.

“We’ll have to think through this next year from the standpoint of tactics but in substance the mission can’t change,” Obama senior adviser David Axelrod told reporters.

Alright, so we know that we are the health care double down path. What's also clear, at least assuming that the Democrats are not being deceitful (a big premise to be sure, just ask people who believed Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman that they would not support the legislation), then the Congress is not about to accept the Senate bill as is. And according to Obama (again, he's broken promises many times before) letting Senator Kirk vote in place of Brown is not an option either.

So we are going down the most likely path - Obama continues to push for reform and the Congress fights back. What does it mean for the country? Here are my predictions, and they are not all good.

Health care will not get done by November 2010. It's dead for now. That's good. This will allow President Obama an out on his promise and an excuse to turn his attention to the issue of unemployment. That's bad. It's bad because his solution will be another stimulus package, requiring more taxes and more spending and more debt. On top of which it won't solve anything short term - the previous stimulus was supposed to create government jobs. That's bad for Americans out of work. Luckily it's also bad for the Democrats, who will soon be out of work.

But another reason that's bad is because part of the Obama and Democrats' solution will be to re-approach the topic of green jobs. That idea right now is a sinkhole for money. It's not a smart investment in terms of payback or quick resolution of the energy problem or the job problem - it's just more dogma.

The President and the Democrats are in for a real shellacking if the economy doesn't turn around in spite of their feeble and misguided best efforts. If it doesn't, Congress will be Republican. If it does, there is a chance, combined with the cover that Brown offers the President with his base for not getting health care through in 2010, that Democrats might have their base fired up too and might be able to mitigate the losses the are bound to suffer.

Thee's a big difference between a 20 vote Republican takeover of 20 seats and 50 seats. The former is a nuisance to Democrats, the latter is a loss of domination and control. That layer of the tree diagram though is still far enough away that I'm not ready to make any predictions about the outcome.

The Brown Fallout - Where to now?

A Republican Senate win in Massachusetts has big implications. What happens next is anybody's guess, but judging by the post-Brown fallout there's two possible courses of action for the President and the Democrats to follow - either drift back to the center, or double down on the health care push.

Here's my top of the head "decision tree". This is too simplistic but I think the President is leaning towards jamming the Senate bill through the Congress, bypassing Brown.


I don't see the President doing what Bill Clinton did - drifting to the center out of necessity. Not before next November. The President will push hard on two memes now - the problems in the economy are Bush's fault, not mine and the other one is that the Republicans are the party of 'no', even though there is tangible evidence to the contrary. He's going to rely on the press to keep his back.

Congressional and Senate Democrats, aside from the leadership, will likely reject that message out of fear for their own political careers. Will it matter for November? Yes, some will simply decide to retire, others may save their seats and others still will be too far gone. If the President does double down, it might just serve to keep Republican and Independent voters energized through the mid-term elections. I still see 35 to 40 seats gained in Congress and 4 to 5 in the Senate for Republicans.

The other big factor in mid-term elections is the economy. Expect the jobless rate to stay above 9.5%, and likely above 10%. That combined with another spending-spree stimulus will drive Democrat popularit even further down.

It's too early to tell, but I think a Democrat collapse is still the mostly likely outcome in November. There's more, a lot more to consider and a lot more to happen between now and then. The President's words are potentially spin, or truly believed by him. When over the next few weeks, especially at the State of the Union Address, things become more clear, the branches of the tree diagram will start to fall away and it will be easier to re-cast 2010.

It's going to be a very interesting year.

Brown wins Blue State. How?

Republican Scott Brown woke up this morning as the yet-to-be-certified, Senator-elect for the very liberal state of Massachusetts (or MassachusettEs if you are in the Coakley campaign). How did this happen?

It's not really rocket science trying to figure this one out. There were a number of important factors:

• Likability
• A stale fish opponent
• A gaffe-prone opponent
• An opponent with an air of entitlement
• Anti-Obama sentiment
• Anti-Washington sentiment 
• Anti-one-party-rule sentiment 
• Unrelenting hard work by Brown
• High unemployment
• High government debt
• Brown's promise to be the 41st vote against yet more government spending and intrusion

The list could go on.  But even all that combined did not represent a perfect storm.  It was not enough to accomplish a Republican victory in very liberal Massachusetts. This is a Madonna state - True Blue. (Sorry). There had to be something else.  What were the other factors that drove this?  It's actually not rocket science either.  There are two factors that always, ALWAYS play an important part in politics - money and enthusiasm.

Enthusiasm can be attributed to the factors above.  It's pretty easy to see why the Republican base, a paltry 13% of the electorate in the state, were fired up.  But given the 3 to 1 margin of Democrat registered voters over Republicans, that's not enough.  Independents voted for Brown by a 3 to 1 margin.  They were clearly fired up too.  Even 20% of Democrats broke for Brown.  That's astonishing.  I haven't yet seen the final turnout numbers but for a special election I'm sure the turnout percentage is going to be quite high.  The enthusiasm clearly grew as Brown's late surge kicked in.  Momentum clearly played a key role in the current political and economic environment.

Enthusiam also existed outside of the state.  Conservatives across the nation and even outside of the country volunteered to help.  I personally made GOTV (get out the vote) calls for Scott Brown.  And that enthusiasm helped in the microcosm of Massachusetts.  It doesn't take just money or just hard work it takes both.  This campaign proved that a concentrated effort by grassroots volunteers can perform miracles.  It's something the left has always known and conservatives are just beginning to learn.

The other factor tied into enthusiasm is money.  The moneybomb for Scott Brown leading up to the election raised over one million dollars in one day. That doesn't come without enthusiasm.  But more importantly, when Coakley started going negative, Brown didn't panic, he didn't go negative back.  he stuck to his game plan and he had funds to do things like continue with GOTV and I'm sure other phone bank messages.  not only that, having a financial stockpile helped his advertising and his ground game in the final days fend off the negative push by Coakley.  You can't win without money.

The money came from everywhere across the nation.  I personally couldn't contribute as I'm Canadian - I could only volunteer my time. (Any liberals reading that, I assume you also want the U.S. relief effort in Haiti to stop, on principle).  There's two important lessons to be taken from that that hopefully Republicans notice and Democrats miss (which I suspect they will).

(1)  Republicans have taken their value of rugged individualism communal.  That may sound like a contradiction in terms, but it really isn't.  It simply means that they now better understand that to protect individual liberty, the fight has to be fought as a group.  co-ordination is not the enemy of conservatism.  Political activism is not the enemy of conservatism.  Both are tools - both a means to an end.  The good news is that Republicans seem to get that.

(2)  Whether it's money or effort, it's clear that Republicans are not in the midst of a purge of moderates as the mainstream media would have you believe.  I'm sure if Brown were running in Texas, he could very well be on the Democratic side of the aisle.  Conservatives of all stripes have understood the common conservative good and reacted accordingly.  Conservatives do exist across a spectrum just like liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats exist across a spectrum.  To think otherwise, liberals are deluding themselves.  Yet while conservatives can be flexible as needed, they are not so flexible as to be forgiving of the likes of an Olympia Snowe who cannot bring themselves to a position of party solidarity because of their own electorate.  Conservatives needn't fall on their swords for a greater party good, but that communal effort is not a one way street.  Liberal Republicans need to toe the party line at certain times just as often as conservative Republicans have bent in the past.  It's especially true now, given Brown's win in a blue state.

Repblicans appear to have learned at least one lesson (if they even ever didn't understand it in the first place).  Democrats on the other hand may be deluding themselves into a rose-colored glasses view of 2010.  That suits conservatives just fine.  The interesting thing will be how the Democrats are going to react to this turn of events.  I'll save that for a subsequent post.

PARTING SHOT: I didn't see much of Mitt Romney during the campaign - I assumed it was to take the focus off of Romneycare and Brown's support of it, given his distinct position of opposing Obamacare.  I found it surprising that Romney was prominent on the eve of Brown's victory, and specifically thanked in Brown's gracious acceptance speech.  Is it possible that Romney was deeply involved in Brown's campaign in an advisory role?  That would prove to be a big positive for him in a 2012 Presidential run - the ability to help design a win against seemingly impossible odds.  Regardless of the economic and political climate in 2012, a miracle win season under his belt in 2010 is a card in Romney's hand during the GOP primaries.  If on the other hand it turns out that Romney was doing a bit of bandwagon jumping, it could easily be turned against him.  That part of the Brown victory, like the future Obamacare, has yet to play out.

One more reason to vote for Brown in MA

If you're struggling to decide between voting for Brown or Coakley in the Massachusetts special election for Senate tomorrow, let me boil it down to something really, really simple for you.

Do you want to vote for someone who can't get things done, or someone who is doing more with less?

Here's the phone banks for Coakley from Watchdog.org



Meanwhile Scott Brown's effort is managed by a voluntary, call from home effort. Snow is not an impediment. I know it works, I've called a few people for him myself, having volunteered. I'd encourage any conservative to pitch in as well.

Beyond that, the campaign has co-opted the moneybomb idea, which raised for Brown over $1 million in one day a week ago, to encourage a voter bomb.

GOP GOTV MA

I was looking at the weather forecast for Boston for January 19th.  Not because the Patriots will be playing, they won't.  But there's an even more important 'game' happening that day.  The people's seat (formerly known as Ted Kennedy's seat), is up for grabs between Democrat Martha Coakley and possible Republican usurper Scott Brown.

 

The polls have gotten a lot tighter and the Democrats have sent in the big guns, with less than a week to go. The Republican, Brown, has a chance to actually win this.  It has national implications.  And because it's looking really tight, every vote counts.  Conventional wisdom (with a big '"for what it's worth") says that a low turnout helps the fired up GOP, and that bad weather means a low turnout.  Hence, a visit to the Weather Channel and the Boston forecast. I know, Boston's not all of the state, but that's where low turnout likely helps out the GOP the most.

 

There's bad news if you believe the conventional wisdom, and I personally think there's some validity to it.  The weather on election day and the days leading up to it, seem to be relatively precipitation free, and more mild than it has been in the North East.  So Democrat voter turn out will be helped, or at least not hindered.

 

Which brings me back to the title of the post GOP (Republican) GOTV (get out the vote) for MA (Massachusetts) needs to be cranked up to 11 (a la Spinal Tap) leading up to the 19th.  This all-important seat is winnable for the Republicans and for conservatives across the country, this is THE BATTLEFRONT right now.  A near miss may be a moral victory for conservatives, but it also portends swift passage of the health care bill.  In fact a distant loss might be better than a near miss.  It would allow the Democrats time to continue fighting amongst themselves in the mistaken belief that time is still not their enemy.  A near miss ratchets up the pass it now or it'll never pass line of thinking.

 

This is where you come in.  As a conservative inside of MA, please do everything in your power to drag like-minded voters to the polls.  Beg, plead, convince, drive, carry them.  Do whatever it takes.  If you aren't from Massachusetts, and you have friends or relatives inside the state who are conservatives do the same.  If you have Democrat friends there, let them know about the great TV line up on Tuesday night.

 

Really.

 

Big ripples from Massachusetts

The special election next week for the Senate seat left empty by the death of Ted Kennedy has more, far-reaching, implication than just a single Senate seat. It has national implications that will ripple throughout the nation, and ripple throughout 2010, and beyond. The Democrats, realizing this, have sent in some of their top guns to pull this race out of the fire for their party. So why aren't the Republicans all over this too?

Firstly, consider the impacts of another Republican Senator. With the current tally of Republicans at 40, and 60 votes required to stop a filibuster, the GOP needs one more Republican to be able to thwart a Democrat supermajority. The election of Scott Brown over Martha Coakley would provide that inertia dampening one extra vote that the Democrats swindled by sneaking in Al Frankenberry. It means poorly designed health care reform can be slowed if not stopped. It means cap and trade can be slowed so that real debate can take place. It's not a panacea but it might slow the bleeding on the national debt - or at least stop it from quickening even more.

But that's not the only consideration. With the GOP sweep in Virginia last November, along with the win for Governor in New Jersey, and the near upset of the Conservative Party candidate in NY23, conservatism, and to a slightly lesser extent the GOP has been on a roll. Combine that with a victory in Massachusetts of all places next week, and you have the making of true, surprising momentum. It sets the tone for the 2010 elections. For example, it gives the Republican National Committee a good position to work from for 2010 if there are any recruiting needs still outstanding.

And the momentum has a spinoff effect as well that serves to compound the prospects for the GOP in 2010 - Democrat retirements. If some House or Senate Democrats were on the fence about retirement, imagine how news of Republican Senator from Massachusetts might impact their decisions. It helps ease the incumbency advantage the Democrats possess (in theory), and it might cause the DNC to have to scramble for replacements, thereby taking them out of their 2010 game plan.

So yeah, this special election is a big deal. Special indeed. And the outcome is not a guaranteed Democratic win.



So where the heck is the RNC? After all, just as Sarah Palin pitched in for Hoffman in the NY23 Congressional race, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney have both pitched for Brown in Massachusetts. Steele? Well, he's on a book tour. Even if he has a team working around the clock behind the scenes to help out Brown, the optics are terrible.

"It's the people's seat."

This is a terrific quote from the Brown/Coakley debate.

"It's the people's seat."

All the more reason to help Brown from the outside if you can. There's a week to go - help a Republican out.

Senate Seat Armageddon

The Republican candidate has an outside chance at winning the Senate seat in Massachusetts. That's not a misprint, it's real. It's an Armagedon level showdown among politicos. Scott Brown could break the liberal stranglehold on the state by being ironically, more JFK than Ted Kennedy. Why should you care? The filibuster. Why do senior Democrats care? The filibuster.

It's being reported a 'moneybomb' event yesterday raised an astonishing $1 million in one day for Scott Brown. Meanwhile the polls have him anywhere from 15 points back to being in a dead heat with Democrat Martha Coakley.

The chances of him winning are slim, but momentum is on his side. He fares well in many polls and Coakley can't seem to push through the 50% ceiling. Conservatives are more energized everywhere, including Massachusetts and even the bad polling numbers could keep Democrat turnout low, with Democrat voters figuring it's in the bag. It's a special election, in winter with the possibility of inclement weather leading up to, and during election day. Who is going to make it out to vote on a cold January day- those who are fired up, or those who are complacent Democrat in Massachusetts where surely the Democrat will win?

Still not convinced? Why are Democrats sending high level spin-meisters to the state to pull the race out of the fire?

regardless of the outcome, it's wonderful to imagine apopleptic Democrats defending a loss in such a liberal state. If you know anyone in Massachusetts who might vote for Brown, get them to promise to vote.

Hillary climbs aboard the gaffe train

After the Obamas' gift giving mistakes, Michelle's thoughtless last minute gift for Britain's First Lady Sarah Brown and Obama's thoughtless gift for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, you'd think the White House would learn the finer art of gift exchange and do it quickly. A minor gaffe or two is forgivable - the Obama's are new to the international scene. But since this was supposed to be the administration that got international relations right - the one that improved on the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush administration, it is incumbent upon them to smarten up.

So at the next opportunity, what happened? Hillary Clinton insults the Russian with a poorly translated gag gift (again, dumb but forgivable) but puts the topper on it by accusing the Russians of being over-chargers.

The New York Times reports;

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in greeting Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, presented him with a red plastic button emblazoned with the English word “reset” and the Russian word “peregruzka.”

The gift was a play on Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s call in Munich last month for the two countries to “press the reset button” on their relationship.

“We worked hard to get the right Russian word,” Mrs. Clinton said, handing the button to Mr. Lavrov. “Do you think we got it?”

“You got it wrong,” he replied, explaining that the Americans had come up with the Russian word for overcharged.

“We won’t let you do that to us,” she said quickly, with a full-throated laugh.

Nice Hilary. But it gets better and this is the real story, because it's far worse than pronouncing nuclear incorrectly or misspelling potato;

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows on her first visit to Europe as secretary of state when she mispronounced her EU counterparts' names and claimed U.S. democracy was older than Europe's.

Mispronouncing names and saying American democracy was older than Europe's? If this were Bush, imagine the recrimination. This is just a compounding of the administration's diplomatic incompetencies that the Europeans and Russians are likely willing to overlook short term. But people - get your act together because you look like buffoons in ways far more basic than foreign policy - you're showing ignorance and lack of preparation. Keep it up and they won't be as forgiving next time.