DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional

A Federal District Court judge has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

The federal law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Judge Tauro said that DOMA infringes on each state's individual individual right to define marriage for itself, a tenth amendment issue. As I understand it, DOMA says that no other state has to recognize the gay marriage recognized in another state. I'm not sure how this applies but you can bet this will be appealed. Here's part of a statement recently released by the pro traditional marriage group American Values.

Yesterday, a federal judge in Boston invalidated a significant portion of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that covers federal benefits for same-sex couples. Sadly, this day seemed inevitable. For years, the militant homosexual movement has relied on unelected liberal activists in the courts to force its morality on the overwhelming majority of the public; to impose results that could not pass in elected legislatures.

Many expect this case, and a similar lawsuit in California, to end up before the Supreme Court. It is one more example of why elections are so important and why men and women of faith must be engaged. The politicians we elect to office nominate and confirm the judges who sit on our federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

This will be sure to be appealed and soon should be in front of the Supreme Court.

Obama on the Brink

This Wednesday, the President will make the most important political speech of his life when he delivers his first State of the Union. It was supposed to celebrate the newly minted health care reform bill. Instead, he must explain his way forward following a stunning and humiliating defeat in Massachusetts. Make no mistake, we're only a year in and the President is already on the brink of collapse. At the same time, three years is a very long time and the President has plenty of time to turn things around.

I've been loathe to write much about Scott Brown's victory in its aftermath. That's because I was almost 100% correct about its implications in my predictions. It was a political tsunami. Health care reform, in anything near its current form, is dead. The president and the Democrats are in real trouble. The tea parties are huge winners and the biggest winner of all is Scott Brown himself.

The key going forward is if and when the President realizes that this election in Massachusetts was a massive repudiation of his liberal agenda. If Democrats lose in Massachusetts, you know the country despises your policies. So far at least, it appears that time has not arrived. The President and his allies have blamed almost everything, George Bush included, but their own policies. If that attitude continues, the SOTU will be a massive dud.

The President is trying to take on a populist tone. He wants to side himself with the people against the banks, insurance companies, and big business. That would work if that was the populist revolt. The current populist revolt, however, is against the D.C. policies. So, if the President promises in his SOTU speech to move forward with health care reform, he'll miss a very real opportunity to right the ship. It appears that's where the President is still headed.

Make no mistake. The Massachusetts election was a repudiation of the health care bill in its entirety. It wasn't merely the backroom deal. It wasn't merely the massive price tag. It wasn't merely the fact that it's a massive government expansion. It was all that and more. The Massachusetts vote, more than anything, was a message to moderate.

The President will accomplish nothing, go down among the worst Presidents every, and be a one termer if he insists on liberal policies. You'd think that preserving his legacy and his presidency would be most important. Yet, it appears that pushing his ideology is more important right now.

If the President surprises us all and delivers a manifesto to moderate on Wednesday, it will be the beginning of his moderate presidency. Such a presidency will see health care reform, energy reform, financial reform, education reform, and it will cut the federal budget. It will make him a wildly successful president. If he insists on moving forward as a liberal, he will continue to waste precious time stuck in a stance that accomplishes nothing and leads him one step closer to infamy.

The Political Tsunami Is Here

There's nearly 70% of the vote counted and Scott Brown is ahead by seven points. Because Massachusetts had no exit polls, I don't know when there will be an official call. So, I will make mine. Scott Brown is the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts.

The first thing that everyone should know is that the Democratic party is beginning to eat its own. Everyone within the Democratic party is pointing a finger at each other.

The Democratic Party collapsed into a circular firing squad while waiting for election returns from Massachusetts Tuesday, with everyone from Martha Coakley's pollster to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi taking shots at other Democrats.

The not-so-implicit premise: Democrats will lose the seat Ted Kennedy held for more than four decades.

While Democratic Senate insiders and some White House officials are blaming their own party’s nominee for a lackluster campaign that let Republican Scott Brown frame the race, Pelosi suggested Tuesday that her Senate counterparts shared part of the blame.

"We're always in touch with our members," Pelosi said at an afternoon press conference. "In the House, we don't have surprises when it comes to elections."

There is absolute chaos in the Democratic party. With chaos, that means nothing gets done. They can say what they want but if the Coakley campaign is blaming Obama and the national party. The national party is blaming the Coakley campaign. Nancy Pelosi is saying she's not out of touch.

So, while the Democrats begin the long and painful process of finger pointing, there won't be much time for health care reform. With Brown as the 41st vote, the Democrats won't be able to get this bill through the Senate. The only way to do this would be for the House to vote for the Senate's bill. That won't happen because Bart Stupak isn't happy with the abortion language. That's only the first problem.

The Democrats can talk about all the legislative tricks: reconciliation, voting before seating Brown, etc. but not only would that be political suicide but it won't happen.

Obama's liberal agenda has officially come to an end. From here, the president can decide what he wants to do with his presidency. If he wants to continue to ram through liberal and far left policies, he'll be, by far, the worst president we've ever had. He'll get nothing done. He'll leave an economy in shambles, a homeland vulnerable, and the world very dangerous.

On the other hand, he can take these results as a message. What happens going forward is entirely in his hands. Bill Clinton showed that stunning defeats can turn into political victories in the future. Obama's liberal agenda has been dying a slow and painful death since the summer. It's now officially dead. We'll see what the president does in its aftermath.

There's No Saving Health Care Reform Now

We may all be getting ahead of ourselves. Scott Brown appears to be cruising and if all indications are correct, he'll win going away tomorrow. If he does, there's no saving health care reform. Newsmax has a story about some of the legislative maeuvers the Democrats might try.

A panicky White House and Democratic allies scrambled Sunday for a plan to salvage their hard-fought healthcare package in case a Republican wins the Senate race Tuesday in Massachusetts, which would enable the GOP to block further Senate action.

The most likely scenario would require persuading House Democrats to accept a bill the Senate passed last month, despite their objections to several parts.

Aides worked frantically Sunday amid fears that Republican Scott Brown will defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special election to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy's seat. A Brown win would give the GOP 41 Senate votes, enough to filibuster and block final passage of the House-Senate compromise on health care now being crafted.

None of them will work. Health care is dead if Scott Brown wins tomorrow. Trying to convince the House to accept the Senate's bill is a non starter. Bart Stupak was very clear in the language he wanted regarding abortion. The Senate has no such language.

Beyond that though, this vote is a clear rejection of this package. That's what Brown has been running on. The Democrats aren't that stupid. The leadership may in fact want to throw the party over a cliff to pass health care reform. There are some rank and file that would like to continue to have a job.

Trying to pass health care reform through reconciliation is nearly impossible. It's a legislative trick so complicated that most of Congress itself doesn't understand it. They may in fact get fifty votes in the Senate but that bill would never get the necessary votes in the House.

The simple fact is this. Scott Brown's election in the bluest of blue states is a monumental rejection of the Obama agenda. Chief on top of that agenda is health care reform. The leadership may in fact convince some of the rank and file that reality is really not reality, but they won't convince all.

There's talk that the Democrats will delay in seating Brown in order to have the current occupant, Paul Kirk, vote on health care reform. They can try but it will make them even less popular. In the meantime, it will only take one Democrat to switch. I firmly believe there is one Democrat in the Senate that likes their job more than they like this bill.

Brown V Coakley: 24 Hours (Updated)

Conservatives are running wild with this story first broken by CNN.

Multiple advisers to President Obama have privately told party officials that they believe Democrat Martha Coakley is going to lose Tuesday’s special election to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy for more than 40 years, several Democratic sources told CNN Sunday.

The dynamics of the race haven't changed. I'm still getting emails from every Tea Party related group on the planet about this race. Here's an example.

If you live outside of the area: There are two ways you can help that will make a dramatic impact on turning out the vote for Scott Brown.
FIRST: The most valuable way to help is to contact all of your friends, family members or acquaintances who you think or know are supporting Scott Brown. Or willing to hear you out. Contact them via email, Twitter, phone call, Facebook or carrier pigeon.

The president spoke on behalf of Coakley yesterday and so her campaign got some much needed media attention. This morning both were at an event marking Martin Luther King's birthday.

With more than 1,000 people in attendance at the Hynes Convention Center, Coakley entered the room to a light smattering of applause and took her place at the head table. Brown arrived a bit later and quietly took his seat at a table on the main floor.

A bit later, the two candidates took the opportunity to do some 11th-hour politicking, glad-handing attendees and posing for pictures. Coakley went from table to table through a sea of television cameras and promised to "work the vote" until the last minute.

"We're going to see this through," she told one guest.

Brown didn't speak and then criticized Coakley for "politicking" at this event. The dynamics remain the same and so I am still predicting that Brown wins going away.

UPDATE:

H/T to Watchdog.org. Here's a video of a phone bank for Martha Coakley. The number of people, ZERO, tells the tale.

Coakley V Brown: 48 Hours Left

H/T to my blogging cohort Gerard Vanderleun at the American Digest for this article. This article, from a liberal blogger in Massachusetts, says all you need to know about this race.

Let's get this out of the way. You might not want to vote for Martha Coakley. You might think she deserves what's she's getting after an absentee, self-satisfied campaign (why should I bail her out?). You likely want to send a message to everyone from the attorney general all the way to every Democratic official in Washington, DC. Odds are you didn't vote for her in the primary. And, you might be wondering if it'll make a difference who wins this Tuesday.

You got every reason to be pissed, but it needs to be clear: not voting for Coakley is the same as voting for Brown. And voting for Brown is a very, very bad thing.

sabutai :: Yes it sucks. Yes you have to vote Coakley.

That article is really a pep talk for all the dejected and disgruntled Massachusetts liberals who aren't all that excited about Tuesday. The blogger is hoping they see the bigger picture.

I remember articles just like this by Conservative pundits in both 2006 and 2008 saying the same thing to conservatives. These sorts of pep talks only happen when the leadership knows that the rank and file aren't all that excited.

That's as clear as you will get that all the energy, excitement and momentum is with Scott Brown in this race with 48 hours to go. Coakley continues to make gaffes, meanwhile. The latest is less serious though not knowing that Curt Schilling was a Red Sox hero is a major no no.

Rea: But Scott Brown has Curt Schilling.

Coakley: Another Yankee fan.

Rea: Schilling?

Coakley: Yes.

Rea: Curt Schilling a Yankee fan??

Coakley: No.

Rea: Curt Schilling a Yankee fan? TheRed Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?

Coakley: Well, he's not there anymore.

Now, I doubt that anyone will have their vote hinge on whether or not Martha Coakley knows Curt Schilling's history as a Red Sock. What this does do is put this gaffe into the media cycle.

There's a much more serious, and slimy, gaffe in this attack ad. This photo, first reported by Greg Sargent, is an allusion to Scott Brown voting against a law to let emergency hospitals turn away rape victims in need of emergency contraception. That's downright nasty.

All these gaffes combine to take Martha Coakley off message. That would be more of a problem if Coakley had a message. Right now, it's not very clear why she's running for the U.S. Senate except to benefit herself.

Meanwhile, Scott Brown sticks to his two talking: "I'm the 41st vote against health care" and "this isn't Ted Kennedy's seat but the people's seat".

It's pretty clear where this race is headed. The latest poll has Scott Brown up by 3, and three of the last five polls in the RCP average have Brown up.

With forty eight hours to go, Brown has the momentum and the wind at his back, and I believe he won't merely win but win going away.

Brown V Coakley: The Homestretch

The Coakley campaign has turned into a series of gaffes. Mike Huckabee described it best last night on Hannity. He said that early in a campaign, you can overcome such gaffes. At this point

it's a sign of desperation

It's clear that Martha Coakley thought she would be coasting by now. She never took Scott Brown seriously as a challenger and, as such, she's now paying the price for it. The latest gaffes include this incomprehensible statement to a radio talk show host.

can have religious freedom, you, you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room

Coakley was asked about the controversial morning after pill. She responded that since it's now a standard medication that anyone that objects to it (namely a devout Catholic) shouldn't be working in an emergency room.

On top of that, the DSCC put out this ad.


Apparently, no one noticed that images of the Twin Towers might be, shall we say, insensitive. It's since been scrubbed but remains available on YouTube and thus fodder for folks like me.

The most troubling Coakley story is likely to be this one.

Yesterday, I reported on the horrific rape of a two-year old by Keith Winfield in 2005 in Massachusetts. Then-Middlesex County DA Martha Coakley failed to take action to bring charges against Mr. Winfield. Today, the story takes another turn. In part II of the Curling-Iron Rapist Case, let’s look at two of the key players in the case: The lawyer for the family of the raped toddler, Larry Frisoli, and his brother and legal partner, Frank Frisoli.

In this case a well connected police officer named Ken Winfield was accused of raping, with a curling iron, his nearly two year old niece. Then D.A., Martha Coakley, took a very long time to get a grand jury indictment. In fact, it wasn't until Larry Fisoli was hired by the family and put pressure on the D.A.'s office that charges eventually were drawn up. Winfield is now serving two life sentences. He was initially given a $20,000 bond upon being charged. Lisoli was so outraged by Coakley's handling of the case that ran against her in the next primary for D.A.

Watch for details of this case to trickle out over the weekend. Meanwhile, the Democrats are painting Scott Brown as "radical" because of his association with the Tea Parties.

With the race tightening, national Democratic heavyweights have stepped into the
picture and are lobbing harsh accusations at Brown's support network.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., claimed in an e-mail that "swift boaters" were trying to sink Coakley, a reference to the ads that targeted him in the 2004 presidential campaign. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Brown a "far-right tea-bagger" in an e-mail, using a term that also can refer to a sexual act. Then on Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., wrote in a fundraising e-mail that Coakley was "being attacked by tea partiers and right-wing radicals."

Levi Russell, a spokesman for the Brown-supporting Tea Party Express, said the
rhetoric is a "sign of desperation" from Coakley's backers.

"It's funny -- if your views differ at all with the Democratic establishment, then you're obviously a far-right extremist," he said. "None of that messaging is addressing Scott Brown on the validity of his views. It goes straight to name-calling."

Right on cue, a Tea Party group cut this ad.


Here's what President Obama's, Organizing for America, is saying in their last email.

There's a crucial Senate election in Massachusetts in just three days. We need your help to win it.

The polls are tightening as right-wing money floods the state, and one even shows the race to be a dead heat between progressive champion Martha Coakley and her extreme opponent. The truth is, special elections often have very low turnout and are notoriously unpredictable.

The stakes are just too high to leave Martha's victory to chance.

If we lose, Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat will be in the hands of someone who opposes everything he fought for. We'll lose a key vote for the President's agenda in the Senate -- and put all the progress we've made toward health reform at risk.

President Obama will be in Massachusetts this weekend. Finally, Scott Brown has turned into a fundraising machine.

Knowledgeable sources in Massachusetts tell The Daily Caller that Republican candidate for Senate, Scott Brown, has raised at least $1 million dollars every day this week, most of it online.

Although Brown’s campaign touted Monday’s money-bomb fundraiser that brought in $1.3 million dollars, the campaign declined to confirm totals for other days this week.

“I can’t comment on figures,” said spokesman Felix Browne.

His message of being the 41st vote against health care reform continues to be hammered home. It should be noted that as State Senator he voted for RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Brown calls the two bills much different but I find not a dime's worth of difference between them. If Coakley had any political acumen, she would have been attacking him on this mercilessly. Coakley, has however hit Brown with this health care related attack.

Democratic US Senate candidate Martha Coakley today highlighted her differences with her opponent, Republican Scott Brown, on health insurance reform by saying that Brown does not pay for health insurance for his campaign workers, while she does.

“We already knew that Scott Brown didn’t want to make health insurance more affordable for Massachusetts families and businesses. Now we learn that he won’t even make health insurance available for his own staff. If he won’t stand up for the people he employs, how could we ever trust him to stand up for us?" Coakley said.



Finally, here's some analysis of the race from Politico.

Another Backroom Health Care Deal

Last week, union leaders met with President Obama. They were none too happy. President Obama had agreed to the Senate version of the bill. In that, he agreed to a tax on so called "Cadillac" health care plans. Those are plans usually worth at least $20,000-$25,000. They are almost always provided by the employer to the employee. Since unions are always able to negotiate good deals for their membership (all right, not always but you get the idea), their membership would be hit especially hard by such a tax. Since they came out in full force in support of President Obama, they were none too happy about this idea. It appears that there are no more problems between the President and the unions, as there was yet another back room deal struck to exempt them from such taxes.

In pushing a giant step closer to a health care reform deal, Democratic leaders are once again drawing fire from their critics for extending special treatment to an interest group in exchange for its support of the bill.

The latest deal was struck Thursday among the White House, Congress and union leaders over the proposed tax on high-value "Cadillac" health insurance plans."

Unions had objected strongly to the proposed tax on high-value insurance policies, fearing it would hurt their members, and they won several concessions from the administration. Under the deal, if it becomes law, union workers will be shielded from the 40 percent tax for five years -- until 2018. The threshold for the tax also was raised so that it will kick in for plans worth $24,000 instead of $23,000. And dental and vision coverage will not count toward that threshold.

But what about everybody else?

Everybody else is stuck paying the bill. In fact, such a deal is a blatant violation of the fourteenth amendment, which clearly states that everyone will be treated equally under the law.

These sorts of backroom deals have become a hallmark of the Obama administration, and especially so in the health care debate. We all know about the so called Cornhusker exemption given to Senator Ben Nelson. Senator Nelson is now struggling in Nebrasak. Fortunately for him, his next race isn't until 2012.

Still, anyone that signs on to this deal is showing their naked partisan leanings. The unions get out the vote for Democrats, and now it's payback time.

It should also be noted that Scott Brown has made all sorts of hay with his disdain for these sorts of backroom deals. As such, the OPTICS of this deal will do no favors for Martha Coakley.

The Latest on Brown V Coakley

First, a brand new poll has Scott Brown ahead.

Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown has surged ahead of his Democratic
opponent Martha Coakley, according to a new poll released Thursday night.

Brown leads Coakley by a margin of 50 percent to 46 percent, the Suffolk University/WHDH-TV poll found. It is the first poll to show Brown, who had been thought a long-shot underdog, leading the race.

It raises the possibility of an historic political upset in Massachusetts.

“It’s a massive change in the political landscape,” David Paleologos, director of
Suffolk’s Political Research Center, told The Boston Herald.

If you've been following the race, you know that this poll comes as no surprise. Martha Coakley's campaign has been a series of mistakes and gaffes over the last couple days. Meanwhile, Scott Brown has been raising enormous amounts of money and staying on message.




Things first really started heading south for the Coakley campaign when the candidate pronounced to a debate audience that there are no more terrorists in Afghanistan. The very next evening it was revealed that the same Martha Coakley was holding a fundraiser in D.C. with a bunch of lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry. Following this get together, Coakley and her entourage ran into Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack. That confrontation produced this now infamous photo.

Meanwhile, Scott Brown has been staying on message. First, he continues to call himself the "41st Vote" against health. Since the debate, he's come up with a second sound bite, "it's not Ted Kennedy's seat, it's the people's seat."

Since the race has only recently received a lot of attention, this series of gaffes is what has been the topic of conversation in the national and Boston media recently.

For instance, this confrontation was covered by both Boston newspapers, the Herald and Globe. In response to the Herald's article, it received an enormous 834 comments (and counting). In the Globe, it received 389 comments (and counting) and the story went through four name changes, as the mostly conservative audience wasn't all that happy with the spin of the left wing titles.

So, there's no question the citizens of the country, and most importantly the state of Massachusetts, are engaged. They are watching one campaign stay totally on message, while another is totally disintegrating.

The Coakley campaign has put out the big guns. Most notably, President Obama did this internet video.



At this point, however, I don't think it will matter. Scott Brown is about to pull off a stunning victory. Health care reform will be dead and Obama's Presidency will be on life support come four evenings from this one.

Update on the Massachusetts Senate Race

Martha Coakley is proving to be a very marginal candidate. Two fairly significant gaffes are making their way through the news cycle. First, in the debate, Coakley claimed that there's "no more terrorists" in Afghanistan. I doubt that will make anyone with security concerns feel comfortable with her candidacy. Second, Coakley held a fundraiser in D.C. with a whole bunch of lobbyists including several from the pharmaceutical and hospital industry last night.

Today, Martha Coakley flew to Washington DC to attend a fundraiser with lobbyists from Pharma and health insurance companies. The same day that Coakley was raising money with Pharma and insurance lobbyists, Democrats published a press release accusing Brown of making a “ deal with the devil “, because of his association with the Tea Party movement. Big Government runs down the list of health care companies hosting Coakley’s fundraiser : Of the 22 names on the host committee–meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley–17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there’s also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation. All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley’s host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more.

It goes without saying that the optics on this are awful. Meanwhile, a Weekly Standard reporter had a confrontation caught on camera with a staffer after he attempted to probe Coakley about her comments regarding a lack of terrorists in Afghanistan. He was eventually knocked to the ground. His account of the incident is here.

Democrats have sent in their big guns. John Kerry sent out a fundraising letter. Now, the SEIU is planning a major ad buy.

A major national union supporting Democrat Martha Coakley is taking out a massive TV ad buy that slams her Republican rival, Scott Brown, for his positions on abortion and climate change. The ad taken out by the Service Employees International Union, will begin airing statewide tomorrow. The buy size is $685,000, one of the largest of the election.

“Before you vote for Senate, here’s a few things you should know about Scott Brown,” says a narrator in the 30-second spot. The narrator then says he “has repeatedly opposed a woman’s right to choose” and he “expresses skepticism that climate change is being caused by humans.”

In the span of a few days, this has gone from a non story to one of the biggest stories. Since the stakes have been raised, I don't believe that Brown can merely come close anymore. Anything short of a victory now is a loss. The Tea Party movement has staked its claim and it needs a legislative victory. If they help bring Brown a victory, that will cross that movement over into an electoral force. If not, it's still unclear that the tea party movement can turn its fundraising and organizing into electoral victories.

Update on the Massachusetts Senate Race

First, it appears that all the media attention has turned Scott Brown into a fundraising machine. Brown has raised $1.3 million plus since yesterday and counting. The new story coming from that campaign is procedural. I don't how much merit it has but it only helps Brown. There's word that Dems are considering changing the rules so that if Brown wins he isn't seated right away so they can pass health care reform before he is.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.
Today, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.
“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”
Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.
Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said today a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

I don't know who dreamed up this hair brain idea but I venture to guess that it's a Republican operative that infiltrated the Democratic Party. The mere mention of Democrats alluding to the idea that they will delay Brown's swearing in in order to secure the health care bill has the worst kind of optics. It makes the Democrats look weak and corrupt. It only energizes the Republicans and Brown's supporters.

Worse than that, such a scheme would never work. If Brown is elected, rest assured that health care reform is dead. If Brown himself doesn't kill it, you can bet that there will be some moderate Senator somewhere that will come to their senses and realize that voting for this monstrosity is political suicide.

All that such mention of a stunt does is give Brown more momentum. Furthermore, now Brown is all over the airways condemning this tactic. He looks like not only a victim but he's on the side of the rule of law. Where is Coakley? So far, Coakley's campaign has remained very silent about everything. Meanwhile, Brown has found a message and that message continues to gain momentum.

The race to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has turned into a proxy battle over the fate of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

A once-pedestrian contest between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown has coarsened with a week to go, as the two have cast themselves as custodians of the pivotal Senate vote to determine the bill's fate.

"As the 41st senator, I can stop it," Brown said last week during a debate, highlighting his potential to be the breakthrough Senate vote that upholds a GOP filibuster. While he opposes the bill, the state senator voted in 2006 in favor of a Massachusetts universal health care bill that has largely been the model for the Obama legislation.

Political campaigns, for better or worse, often come down to soundbites. Brown has found his soundbite, "I'm the 41st vote", and he's using it for maximum effect. That's a reason to vote for Brown. What's the reason to vote for Coakley? That no one knows.

Momentum With Brown

Republicans should feel very comfortable about the race in the special election in Massachusetts, and here's why. In about a week, it has gone from barely a story to a major national media story. The whole thing started with nothing more mundane than a poll. About a week ago, news of a Rasmussen poll came out. That poll had Scott Brown nine points which became huge news since this race was supposed to not even be close.

From there, what we've seen is a steady momentum of news about this race since. Scott Brown was suddenly being interviewed by national programs like Real Clear Politics and Greta Van Susteren. Then, conservative activists began to get excited. In the last week, Scott Brown has become a hero of the tea party movement. They've sent all sorts of volunteers to Massachusetts to help get the vote out.

I won't pretend to know the dynamics of Massachusetts politics but this phenomenon is pretty familiar. The race for the Senate seat is now a national story. The story is "Can Brown Pull off a Miracle". That means the story is all about Scott Brown and not his opponent, Martha Coakley. So, what will happen is that Scott Brown will now get hours upon hours of free media attention from cable news.

Meanwhile, it is Brown with the message that works. That message is that he's the 41st vote against Obamacare. In the latest poll, the internals showed that the people of Massachusetts disapproved of the health care bill by 47-41. Most importantly, all the excitement and intensity is on the side of the Republicans not the Democrats. So, the more coverage that this receives the more it will energize Republicans not Democrats.

Now, what's most interesting is what will happen of the Obama presidency if Brown is elected. First, Obamacare, in its current form, will be dead. He could pass something but something totally different than what's on the table. With Obamacare dead, the Democrats are facing a midterm election in which they will be running on massive deficits, massive unemployment and absolutely no legislative accomplishments despite having overwhelming majorities in both chambers.

So, the word bloodbath comes to mind. At that point, President Obama will have to make a Bill Clinton type pivot. Clinton proved to have superior political acumen. Obama has shown none of that. If he doesn't, he won't merely be a one term president but a disaster.

Meanwhile, if Obama is a disaster for the next three years, that puts our defenses in jeopardy. We live in a dangerous time and we may be a week away from having a president that's dangerously close to being totally politically impotent.

Shocker in Massachusetts?

The latest poll ought to be too close for comfort in Massachusetts in the special Senatorial election.

The special election to fill Ted Kennedy's unexpired Senate term is just two weeks from today, and we now have our first public polling on the race since the parties chose their nominees. A new Rasmussen survey (500 LVs, 1/4, MoE +/- 4.5%) shows Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) leading state Sen. Scott Brown (R) by 9 points.

The election is in less than two weeks. If Brown pulls off an upset, I say that health care reform is through for the year. First, he'd represent a 41st Republican. The Democrats would no longer have the filibuster proof majority. They'd have to finish things up before he's sworn in in February.

The president wants a health care bill by the State of the Union. That's unlikely. If Republicans were to win in Massachusetts, that means anyone anywhere, if they're a Democrat, is vulnerable. That would be a screaming indication that the Dems' course is not liked by the public.

Frankly, even if Brown were to get within the ten points the latest poll says he's in, that is a massive sign in and of itself. Obama won with over 60% of the vote. Only California could be considered a bluer state. Martha Coakley, his opponent, isn't a spectacular candidate but there's nothing that makes her a bad candidate either. So, if a standard and traditional liberal candidate were to lose in Massachusetts, no one is safe.

This race bears watching and what a poll like this does is it gives Brown much needed publicity. That leads to fundraising and he should have a big push in the last ten days or so.

As an example, here's a recent interview Brown did with Real Clear Politics.

Romney 2012? Two Words: Romney Care

The last few days conservatives have begun to demonize the health care system in Massachusetts. That's because, in the view of many conservatives, Massachusetts' health care system is congruent to the health care system that President Obama is attempting to construct. That's simplified. Here's how it's similar. It requires every citizen to have health insurance. It requires all employers, but the smallest, to provide health insurance to their employees. Finally, those that don't make enough money have their insurance subsidized. Here's how it's different. It has no public option.

Here's the important point. Universal health care in Massachusetts has FAILED.

The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system.

Gov. Deval Patrick wants to restore $70 million to partly cover legal immigrants. The affected immigrants, permanent residents who have had green cards for less than five years, are now covered under Commonwealth Care, a subsidized insurance program for low-income residents that is central to the groundbreaking health care law enacted here in 2006.

Critics of the cut, which would save an estimated $130 million, say it unfairly targets taxpaying residents and threatens the state’s health care experiment at a critical time.

It's failure is the real world example of what happens when you add people to the system without adding doctors. That's what opponents of the current plan say. What the president says is that we already give those people care and without insurance they cost more to the system. Interestingly, and ironically, here's what the Governor Mitt Romney said when he was about to sign his version of universal health care.

Medical care for Massachusetts patients who lack health insurance is paid for by businesses. Companies -- mostly ones that already offer coverage to their employees -- subsidize a fund that pays for so-called "free" care when uninsured people end up in hospitals.

"We're spending a billion dollars giving health care to people who don't have insurance," Romney says. "And my question was: Could we take that billion dollars and help the poor purchase insurance? Let them pay what they can afford. We'll subsidize what they can't."

Replace Massachusetts with the U.S. and Romney with Obama and there's almost no difference between the way Romney sold his form of universal health care and the way the current president is selling his.

Is there any doubt that Republicans hate Obamacare? They don't merely hate it but with a passion. What's the signature piece of legislation for Mitt Romney? It's his version of universal health care.

While they aren't identical, they are plenty similar. It's failure in Massachusetts speaks for itself. Just today I see that Rasmussen has Mitt Romney leading among Republicans. Give me a break. Romney is supposed to be the fiscal conservative standard bearer and his signature policy is breaking the state's bank. I'm supposed to believe that three years after waging a fierce battle to keep universal health care from being imposed on the nation, the very same party will choose as its standard bearer the man that imposed it on his state. I don't think so. Romney's chances for 2012 went by the way of Romney Care.