Ted Kennedy's seat

[Selene]

I read that at the end Coakley had 3500 people working for her campaign, and Brown had 500.

Quite a story.

I gave the Brown campaign something.

Meanwhile, I've always transferred communications from the Republican National Committee straight to the trash—a policy I have no intention of changing.

Robert Campbell

PS. If I were Barack Obama, I'd forswear campaigning for other Democrats, assuming any are foolish enough to ask.

Bob C:

The traditional political consulting assumption going into this last week was that if O'biwan the diminishing was to make an appearance, it meant that their internals showed that he could make a difference.

What we are realizing is that it was a major blunder once again.

I cannot wait to match the numbers from '08 and the numbers yesterday precinct by precinct in my selection of "bell weather" precincts. If this was trending the way I saw it, and with the blowouts in Virginia and New Jersey, it was frankly politically stupid to send Barry to Mass.

These folks seem to be dangerously out of their league on the National stage. On the global stage, he is perceived as a buffoon as far as I can tell.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe that bitch Cokeley invited Obama to Mass. to share in her coming defeat.

--Brant

spread the shit around

[jeffrey smith]

I read that at the end Coakley had 3500 people working for her campaign, and Brown had 500.

Quite a story.

I gave the Brown campaign something.

Meanwhile, I've always transferred communications from the Republican National Committee straight to the trash—a policy I have no intention of changing.

Robert Campbell

PS. If I were Barack Obama, I'd forswear campaigning for other Democrats, assuming any are foolish enough to ask.

By the irony of the gods, I received a fundraising letter for the Democrat's senatorial campaign organization, sent out under Bill Clinton's name. As evidence of efficiency, it was not too inspiring--the "letter" was dated back in December. It went into the circular file immediately, along with the magnetic decal exhorting me to stop GOP lies. Hmm, I suppose Clinton would know a thing or two about lies...

My perfect record of never contributing to political campaigns is not going to be threatened by either of the Duopoly in the foreseeable future.

Jeffrey S.

[Chris Grieb]

I hope Obama makes himself available to all the Dem. candidates.

One report I saw suggested that all the Cokeley workers were helping a lot of Scott Brown voters get to the polls.

[Jerry Biggers]

Obama displays the shrewd grasp of the nation's political direction equivalent to a "Mr. Thompson."

Get this stunning example of his political analysis, from his interview yesterday with George Stephanopoulos on ABC-TV:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years.

Uh huh, so the Massachusetts voters display their anger (against Bush!??) and support for Obama by electing a Republican?

The man is seriously delusional.

[Selene]

I hope Obama makes himself available to all the Dem. candidates.

One report I saw suggested that all the Cokeley workers were helping a lot of Scott Brown voters get to the polls.

Chris:

I referred to this on one of the other threads on the Mass. race. Essentially, this example of the Coked up Coakley's workers "helping" a lot of Brown voters get to the polls is misleading. What that commentator or commenter meant was that the "knee-jerk" machine pulling operation was being implemented.

I made the point that the Mass. state Democratic "machine" had atrophied and, like many such machines, gets insulated, fat and clueless as to the real emotions bubbling in the boiling pot of the body

politic.

Essentially, they ran the strong side off tackle left ground game on Tuesday, but one (1) out of every four (4) off their prime voter lists had turned to Brown. Their on the ground precinct leaders blew it because they could not admit to their masters the reality that presented itself in their neighborhoods.

It is similar to the fables of the King who dresses in rags and wanders amongst his people, only to hear about the savage repression his precinct people have visited upon them in his name.

All centralized power becomes distant and unresponsive. That is why > severely limited government/anarchism is the manner to progress to freedom.

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

Obama displays the shrewd grasp of the nation's political direction equivalent to a "Mr. Thompson."

Get this stunning example of his political analysis, from his interview yesterday with George Stephanopoulos on ABC-TV:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years.

Uh huh, so the Massachusetts voters display their anger (against Bush!??) and support for Obama by electing a Republican?

The man is seriously delusional.

Jerry -

I doubt Obama believes that. More likely, in my judgment, that is what he wants us to believe:

First - - - it is anger and frustration among the voters

Second - - - it is anger and frustration about the slow pace of change

then

Third - - - it is anger and frustration about the slow pace of the Obama administration in undoing all the bad things Bush did...

Note that he doesn't even say "anger and frustration ABOUT WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE OR ATTEMPTED TO DO.

The buck passes by here.

Bill P

[Selene]

I thought this was amusing. Talk radio did a great job in making this a truly national election. Many Mass voters describe getting e-mails and phone calls from friends, relatives and folks that they had not heard from for several years - exhorting them to get involved - vote work etc.

We could learn a lot from this election.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Post Script:

http://washingtontim...-brown-winning/

And this is expected. It is a major effort to slow down the cheating, but it can be done. Our teams are well trained in this area, but it is still going to take place to some degree.

What cracks me up is he is stating that he would commit a federal felony since this is a federal election.

I once arrested a District Leader for taking a blind voter into the booth without an inspector from both sides as observers. You should have seen her face as she was threatening to politically destroy me, she almost did it to, lol.

Adam,

Your link works, but I think it is a good thing to have this on record here in a clearer form. So here is MSNBC's Ed Schultz before the election saying that he personally would commit voter fraud to keep Scott Brown from being fairly elected. (He also called him a bastard.)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I mentioned this to a few people over the last few days and they have generally said Schultz was just blowing hot air, that he would never actually do something like that.

I say he would. He's a zealot. I also wonder if he has ties to ACORN. I'm serious.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Post Script:

http://washingtontim...-brown-winning/

And this is expected. It is a major effort to slow down the cheating, but it can be done. Our teams are well trained in this area, but it is still going to take place to some degree.

What cracks me up is he is stating that he would commit a federal felony since this is a federal election.

I once arrested a District Leader for taking a blind voter into the booth without an inspector from both sides as observers. You should have seen her face as she was threatening to politically destroy me, she almost did it to, lol.

Adam,

Your link works, but I think it is a good thing to have this on record here in a clearer form. So here is MSNBC's Ed Schultz before the election saying that he personally would commit voter fraud to keep Scott Brown from being fairly elected. (He also called him a bastard.)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I mentioned this to a few people over the last few days and they have generally said Schultz was just blowing hot air, that he would never actually do something like that.

I say he would. He's a zealot. I also wonder if he has ties to ACORN. I'm serious.

Michael

I thought progressives believed in democracy where the people rule. What Ed Schultz believes in is Ed Schultz ruling.

[Alfonso Jones]

I thought progressives believed in democracy where the people rule. What Ed Schultz believes in is Ed Schultz ruling.

If someone had declared the sort of intentions and thoughts Schultz did, but "on the right," there would be no end to the howling and screaming about it.

Imagine, for instance, if Rush Limbaugh had advocated voter fraud to ensure a particular electoral outcome...

Bill P

[Peter]

Bill P. wrote:

Imagine, for instance, if Rush Limbaugh had advocated voter fraud to ensure a particular electoral outcome...

end quote

Some accused that Rush's operation Chaos was an attempt at fraud. In open primaries he advised conservatives to vote for whichever liberal was losing to cause more infighting. The theory was that Hillary and Barrack would more thoroughly beat each other up, if the process was drug out. It worked but the bigger Marxist still won the general election. I don't agree that it was any sort of fraud. Advising people to vote more than once is 'morally' an attempt at fraud, but it is something covered by free speech. Rush might even joke about it.

Here is a couple of quotes that apply to a powerful voice like Limbaugh.

How do you conquer Rome with no weapon other than your voice?

Cicero

Sometimes, if you find yourself stuck in politics, the thing to do is start a fight – start a fight, even if you do not know how you are going to win it, because it is only when a fight is on, and everything is in motion, that you can hope to see your way through.

Cicero

Peter

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill P. wrote:

Imagine, for instance, if Rush Limbaugh had advocated voter fraud to ensure a particular electoral outcome...

end quote

Some accused that Rush's operation Chaos was an attempt at fraud. In open primaries he advised conservatives to vote for whichever liberal was losing to cause more infighting. The theory was that Hillary and Barrack would more thoroughly beat each other up, if the process was drug out. It worked but the bigger Marxist still won the general election. I don't agree that it was any sort of fraud. Advising people to vote more than once is 'morally' an attempt at fraud, but it is something covered by free speech. Rush might even joke about it.

Here is a couple of quotes that apply to a powerful voice like Limbaugh.

How do you conquer Rome with no weapon other than your voice?

Cicero

Sometimes, if you find yourself stuck in politics, the thing to do is start a fight – start a fight, even if you do not know how you are going to win it, because it is only when a fight is on, and everything is in motion, that you can hope to see your way through.

Cicero

Peter

Exacatly. While there was no actual fraud proposed in "Operation Chaos," the howling reached a high level. Imagine if Rush had advocated voting multiple times to magnify the effect...

Bill P

[Selene]

Peter:

Correct. It is not fraud. It is tactical use of leverage. Schultz and the left wing Dems have no problem with election fraud as the end justifies any means.

My applied theory is that you always oppose your target in a primary.

Second, you get an independent community party line on the ballot[which is not easy and shifts from state to state].

Third, you prepare for the general election by identifying your vote whether in your party, in there party or folks who are in no party.

Everything peaks in the last three days and you roll over the bastards on election day.

Politics is war. There are casualties. However, there is nothing like the natural high of being in an insurgency campaign and winning.

Most people can truly find their skill set in a political campaign and use it to set up businesses that actualize those skills.

With the landmark decision this week by the Supreme Court [scalia concurrence is brilliant - have not read Thomas who I believe concurred in part and dissented in part] opens up a huge

volume of money from Unions and Corporations that everyone can tap into.

This is the year. The time is now. You are the people you have been waiting for.

Adam

[Peter]

Bill P. wrote:

Exacatly. While there was no actual fraud proposed in "Operation Chaos," the howling reached a high level. Imagine if Rush had advocated voting multiple times to magnify the effect...

end quote

Adam wrote:

With the landmark decision this week by the Supreme Court [scalia concurrence is brilliant - have not read Thomas who I believe concurred in part and dissented in part] opens up a huge volume of money from Unions and Corporations that everyone can tap into.

End quote

That supreme court ruling was tremendous. I considered myself a proud soldier in Rush’s Operation Chaos. You dudes think like me.

This is a compilation of letters I sent to Senator Hillary Clinton, near the end, and after the primaries. Confusion. Power Lust. I wanted her to do what she and Bubba do best 8-) get Obama to lose so she could run in 2012. and I have thrown in a few I wrote to McCain, to keep the pot boiling. Unfortunately, I lost.

Stay in, Senator Clinton.

There is another shoe set to drop. Isn’t “Whitey” a pejorative like the “N” word? Shame on you, Michelle Obama.

I personally hope you do not become Obama’s running mate because that ticket would trounce McCain.

I emailed Rush some of the following suggestions a few minutes ago:

If Hillary “is rumored” to be a VP consideration for Senator John McCain BY RUSH LIMBAUGH would this not give her the biggest hammer to use against Obama to become his VP pick?

But please forget about Obama, Senator Clinton.

If it were just rumored to be true, or if a McCain/Clinton ticket becomes a reality, the media would go wild. During the lead up to the election, the news media would be energized and excited like never before. The media would be eating out of your hand, Senator.

You could head up the domestic agenda for President McCain and advise him on your perspective on foreign policy.

What about FOX? Rupert Murdock is for Hillary. Bill O’Reilly said he was for Hillary. A giant news machine would be for a McCain/Clinton campaign. Rush would reluctantly be for a McCain/Clinton ticket.

You should stay a democrat. Some democrats would call you a traitor, but you can always counter with the fact that their will be a democrat in the White House. And Obama is an unknown, naïve nobody who should never be President. You could gracefully and regally trash Obama from an insiders perspective during the campaign.

Why would this be considered a possibility? McCain almost became a democrat anyway and is considering a democrat, Joe Lieberman, as a running mate. Why not someone who could guarantee a win?

And the country would stay secure with John McCain or Hillary Clinton in the White House.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Greetings Senator Clinton.

Do you have the fire in your veins like Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher? Join President elect John McCain as his Vice President.

Others think you do have that fire. Rush has been supporting you for months. Many at FOX support you. What is the ultimate conclusion of Operation Chaos? To elect Senator John McCain. How can that goal be guaranteed? With Senator Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Isn’t that ironic? And you thought he didn’t like you ) At the Republican Convention you can smile into the camera and think to yourself or out loud, “Rush, you got your wish!”

The Democrat hierarchy has been openly supporting Obama for months. They ARE sexist. Then, you were barely considered for his VP position. What do you owe the upper echelons of the Democratic Party, Obama or the Super Delegates? A lesson. And revenge while becoming the best Vice President ever.

If they cry ‘foul’ about you becoming a coalition candidate, then that is sexist. Lieberman has been considered as one of McCain’s VP choices for months and there has not been a peep out of them. And what about all those voters they disenfranchised?

Simply by the fact that Obama did not pick you, the one person who could guarantee the election for him, once again shows his poor, poor judgment. If McCain picks you and wins, what sweet revenge that would be.

“These are the times that try men’s souls.” And a woman’s soul.

Do you have the fire in your veins?

Take the VP slot with McCain. Once you are elected VP you will once again head the Democrat Party. Fire Dean if you want to.

You could head McCain’s domestic agenda. 2012? 2016? As an incumbent VP you would have an enormous advantage in a new campaign.

Imagine the scholarly reviews about a coalition Presidency, and the free ‘good’ press. Your coalition ticket would lose Hawaii, Illinois and the District of Columbia. And not much else if anything. In the Electoral College it would be a sure thing and would give you a lot of clout.

The first woman VP. The first spouse of a former President. The first coalition ticket in modern times. Why that’s historic.

There need be no personal working conflicts. Move your office further away from POTUS (for security and for freedom.)

Conflicts on issues? Now there you would need to be more like a circumspect press secretary or just don’t comment.

Next letter:

A fine speech

If Senator McCain chooses Senator Clinton as his running mate, I want to hear the stump speech she gives after the announcement. It will be a clarion call to her supporters, with a refrain that the crowd will pick up on and start repeating en masse: Something like, ‘Come back to me!”.

Teachers, and trade unionists.

Come back to me!

Women voters.

Come back to me!

Arkansas and the south.

Come back to me!.

Hispanics and all minorities.

Come back to me!

Those of you who want a free and vibrant economy.

Come back to me!

New York, you never left me and I never left you. I need your vote!

The crowd erupts into Thunderous Applause.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

A letter to Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain.

If you select Hillary as your Vice President she will be taking a lot of heat from Obama supporters until after you win the election. Then she will be the head of the Democrat Party.

A huge incentive beyond serving her country as the first elected female Vice President would be . . .? Put yourself in her shoes, Senator McCain. She has the fire in her veins like Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher to serve and achieve beyond all expectations. But what will her home life be like?

She needs to keep her husband busy. I suppose a Cabinet post for Bill is not out of the question, but why not a position for him with no expectations?

Special Envoy.

Former President Bill Clinton could be a Special Envoy for your administration. With an office, a title, and meaningful, productive work for his country, former President Clinton could also be an asset, an ambassador to the world, and a bridge to the Democrat Congress and Democrat Senate. Imagine Bill “jawboning” them to get legislation passed.

Save our country. Get yourself elected.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Greetings Senator McCain.

The press is not going to be with you unless something changes. Even FOX’s owner, Rupert Murdock, with his staff of Bill O’Reilly, Alan Colmes, Greta Van Susteren, and Geraldo Rivera were for Hillary and will be luke-warm reporting about you in the general election. If not openly antagonist towards you, the other news networks will sabotage your campaign through the selection of their stories about you.

You need to disassociate yourself from the idea that you are a continuation of the Bush administration. One person would kill that argument instantly: Hillary Clinton as your VP choice.

Hillary could be your VP without burning her Democrat bridges behind her, readying herself for her turn at the Presidency. A coalition ticket would be historic. Having a woman as your VP choice would be historic. She would win you New York, and ask those Democrat delegates and voters who were for her - the Labor Unionist, Feminists and all of her other enthusiastic supporters, to vote for the McCain/Clinton ticket.

Joe Lieberman could be offered a Cabinet post. A diverse assemblage of supporters could be on the stage of the Republican Convention. No matter what happens, there will be a Democrat in the White House. Fundraising would be a breeze.

With a little tweaking, your strong National Defense backers will always vote for you, over Obama.

With Hillary as YOUR Vice Presidential choice your chances of beating Obama are 95 percent.

Thank you for your service to your country, Senator. If my Uncle, retired Naval Meteorologist and Officer, Peter G. Taylor (who is to be buried at Arlington Cemetery later this year) or my father, retired Naval Office and former VFW Commander for the State of Delaware, Harley V. Taylor were still alive, they would be beating the drum for Senator John McCain.

In a joking mood, the ticket might be called MacClinton or MCC or something no one can now predict, but it would be an attention getting name. It would be a joyous election time in America. Imagine the Jay Leno jokes: ‘Say wouldn’t it be like having Lucrecia Borgia in the White House if Hillary were John McCain’s VP? The Secret Service would need to hire a food taster to ensure the President’s safety.’

I will send a copy of this letter to the Hillary campaign website with an apology for my made-up Jay Leno joke )

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Good evening Senator McCain.

Win the election by a landslide. Select centrist, Hillary Rodham Clinton as your running mate. 47 out of 50 states are available for your win column.

With a tidal wave sweeping you into office, you would have coattails for the Republicans running for Congress and the Senate. You would not be in any way a continuation of any previous administration. You would not need to say a word to refute that bizarre “continuation of the Bush Administration” claim, by the extreme left wing of the Democrat Party, lead by Barack Obama.

Once elected, you would have Vice President Hillary Clinton jawboning Democrats in favor of your shared agenda and legislative proposals. Reaching across the aisle would have a new meaning from the day she is sworn into office. Democrat Congressmen and Senators would be voting FOR the leading Democrat in the nation, and for your shared agenda. Can you imagine the guilt free cooperation you would have as President?

SHE WOULD NATURALLY MOVE MORE TO THE CENTER, AND YOU, TO THE RIGHT. You could then address those Conservative Solutions you agree with. Just look at the verbal conservative support you have regained since you began to lead the “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” movement.

Do America a favor. Fracture the Democrat Party by selecting Hillary Rodham Clinton as your running mate. Let them purge themselves of the radical left, currently headed by Barack Obama and his handlers. The melt-down would be great fun to watch.

Showing remarkable discretion for me, I won’t be forwarding this letter to Senator Clinton.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

You are aware that publish or perish was directed to college professors...yes.

Adam

[Selene]

Peter:

You are aware that publish or perish was directed to college professors...yes.

Adam

[Selene]

From the great white comedian Paul Shanklin:

The Day O'Bamacare died...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpevc2t_Frw

Adam

sometimes computer lip sinking sucks

[Selene]

This is from my Media Matters daily e-mail. To a great degree they are correct. So that makes it one conservative cable network to two cables and three main stream hmmm

Five (5) to one (1) sounds like a fair fight to me.

Media Matters: Fox News volunteers for Scott Brown's campaign

"Picking up where the network left off in 2009, Fox News jumped into its first political campaign of the year, this time setting its sights on the U.S. Senate to help elect Republican Scott Brown to the seat previously held by Democrat Ted Kennedy. Fox News and other media conservatives anticipated and celebrated Brown's election with a hyperbolic fervor that would redden the faces of the "Obamaniacs" they most despised in 2008. As conservative media saw it, in defeating Democratic challenger Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, Scott Brown took down Goliath, the 1980 Soviet Olympic hockey team, the Berlin Wall, and the British Empire. Before Brown assumed his seat in the Senate, he had been nominated by Drudge and Fox News to be our next president.

Fox News didn't simply cheer from the sidelines of this contest. Indeed, the network actively aided Brown's campaign. Fox News repeatedly hosted Brown in the days leading up to the election, and during each appearance, Brown directed viewers to his website to find out "how to help with donating and volunteering." Fox News political analyst Dick Morris took it upon himself to urge viewers to "go to DickMorris.com ... to help elect Brown," because if "we win this fight, then there will never be another victory for Obama." When asked at a rally about "ethical questions" raised by Fox News' advocacy for Brown, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron fled, saying he didn't have time to answer. But he did have the time to autograph "Brown for Senate" campaign materials and pose for pictures with Brown's volunteers, as Think Progress documented.

Fox News also did Brown the favor of repeatedly misrepresenting remarks Coakley made to portray her as incompetent. America's News HQ anchor Gregg Jarrett stated on January 17, "Martha Coakley is out of step when she says things like terrorists are no longer in Afghanistan, or in the debate saying, quote, 'We need to get taxes up.' " Interpreting Coakley's remarks in this way requires a willing suspension of basic verbal reasoning skills; and that was Fox's "straight news" programming. On Fox & Friends, Steve Doocy actually claimed that Coakley "suggested the Taliban [are] gone from Afghanistan," and Michael Scheuer declared that Coakley "doesn't seem to mind" that "we are losing there." For his part, Glenn Beck accused Coakley of "religious bigotry" for saying that those who would "deny emergency contraception to a woman who came in who had been raped" probably "shouldn't work in the emergency room."

In case boosting Brown while attacking Coakley wasn't a sufficient strategy, Fox News baselessly fomented fears that Democrats would "cheat" to steal the election. Warning Fox News viewers not to become complacent before Election Day, Beck stated, "[Y]ou can imagine how ugly this thing will get if -- oh God help us all -- if it's too close to call." Beck displayed the ACORN logo and added, "[T]hey have friends in low places." Invoking the Florida recount, Beck asserted that Democrats "were so incompetent they didn't even know how to cheat. But don't worry -- they've gotten good at it now."

Fox even told viewers that they could strengthen their 401(k)s by electing Brown. Echoing CNBC's Jim Cramer, Fox Nation declared that "Brown Win Could Cause Huge Stock Rally." On Election Day, Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson introduced Fox business contributor Stuart Varney by stating, "Well, you may want to make a call to Massachusetts and get some people out to the polls. Well, that's because our next guest, and a friend, says that your portfolio could look much better if Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat." As Varney spoke, Fox & Friends displayed an on-screen text reading: "What can Brown do for you? A boost in your 401K may be in the cards." And over on Fox Business, Charles Payne asserted that a Brown win "fertilizes the soil for an incredible longer-term stock market rally."

But after closing up 115 points on January 19 before election results were in, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 122 points the day after Brown's victory and another 213 points the next day. Baffled by this turn of events, Beck said on his radio show, "I'm not sure why it's coming down" since "it made total sense to me" that the market would "go through the roof" if Brown won.

Predictably, conservative media saw no limit on what Brown's victory could signify and to what extent progressives and progressive policies could suffer. Media outlets converged on a few shallow narratives: The election was a referendum on Obama; Obama should move to the right; and voters have rejected health care reform. (Somehow, Americans hadn't reached these conclusions by January 10, when Coakley still held a comfortable lead.)

Exit polls, however, showed that a majority of Massachusetts voters approve of Obama's job performance. And contrary to the claim that Brown's victory means Congress should toss out health care reform, Massachusetts is not representative of the nation as a whole. Indeed, the state already passed a health care program that insures nearly all residents -- a unique situation that allowed Brown to argue that his state would not benefit from national reform. Brown, and the vast majority of Massachusetts, supported the state's 2006 reforms, which are widely seen as the model for the national plans currently under consideration in Congress.

In fact, Brown himself has rejected claims that the election was a "referendum" on Obama or on health care reform. But these facts were lost in the media's shallow analyses of the election."

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

What were the "exit polls" that Media Matters referred to?

I'd heard there weren't any exit polls for the January 19 special election...

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

Jon Stewart's takedown of Keith Olbermann was hilarious:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5l2Zy3FFmo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5l2Zy3FFmo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5l2Zy3FFmo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Selene]

Bob:

An excellent question. I missed that.

The following is from a few sources and other than on unscientific blog and face book "exit" statements, I know of none yet.

According to the Wall Street Journal, few exit polls were expected prior to the results of the January 2010 special election as generally in cases where a blowout win is expected, exit polls are not released. Per their report and a January 10, 2010, headline by the Boston Globe, Martha Coakley had a significant lead in the polls at 15 points.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013111682315540.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion⁵ That statistic was debated however as CNN cited Brown leading the polls 52% to 45%.http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/19/massachusetts.senate/index.html⁶

Curious Americans aren't the only losers. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal writes in his blog that the missing exit polls are "disappointing journalists and political scientists alike."

Also on the matter, MSNBC anchor David Shuster tweeted: "No news organization is doing exit polls in Mass senate race today. Only numbers will be the election results themselves. Voting ends 8pm."

Unlike other elections, exit polls in Massachusetts may not be available until closing time, at 8 p.m. EST. This is the state's first special election in a long time and for a seat that hasn't been this wide open in decades, so everything is new to them. This includes the prospect of a Republican sitting in Ted Kennedy's seat.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2610403/massachusetts_special_election_results.html?cat=62

Adam

[Selene]

Jon Stewart's takedown of Keith Olbermann was hilarious:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5l2Zy3FFmo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5l2Zy3FFmo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5l2Zy3FFmo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Excellent, 9th.

Stewart can be brilliant. I am watching almost no TV on a regular basis. It is pretty much a dying industry in this format.

Mark Levin has been consistently trying to "draw the foul" by inviting Olbermann, "countdown to no ratings", to sue him. Levin represents that he has e-mails forwarded by some of his ex-dates/girlfriends describing his "sick" sexual desires and his impotency.

Additionally, Levin constantly refers to the "fact" that he has a misshapen body. He constantly asks if anyone has ever seen a "full-figure" picture of Olbermann?

Finally, Levin asserts that Olbermann lives with his mother and his cat(s).

But, seriously, has anyone seen a "full figure" picture of Olbermann? How does he appear on Sunday Night Football? Standing or sitting?

Adam

[Peter]

Some on this thread advised me to not support the Republican Party financially. I disagree, though I am more likely to support an individual candidate. Perhaps the following might change your minds. At the end of the Tracinski article there is an excerpt about an up and coming Republican for 2012.

Peter

TIA Daily • December 23, 2009

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Broken Culture Fallacy

Is Bad Political News Really Good?

by Robert Tracinski

Just before the [2008] election, a reader sent me the following observation:

"As a devout Objectivist since 1992, I have enjoyed your articles and use them as 'intellectual ammo' in my defense of the morality of the free market. I am however somewhat curious as to why you back McCain as 'the lesser of two evils' when the Republicans continue to chip away at the principles of the free market. It reminds me of a scientific experiment where you put frogs into cool water and slowly turn up the temperature until the frogs die from the heat, whereas when you put them directly into boiling water they jump out right away.

"The abandonment of principles by the Republican Party makes them a much more dangerous group of policy makers than the openly socialistic Democrats. We may see drastic government intervention into our financial system, but a least we will see them. And when they are exposed for the unlawful seizure that they are, there will be a backlash and a new group of principled conservative leaders will be able to reassert some of the foundations that produced the best government system in the world.

"The biggest challenge will be to identify and develop this next group of leaders who can intelligently defend the principles of the free market. With the conservative base looking to the wholly unqualified Palin as the savior of the party, there will be much work needed to find a principled leader who also has charisma."

End quote

There is something to this argument; I have certainly found some solace in the fact that John McCain will no longer be the standard-bearer for the Republican Party. (This cartoon pretty much sums up my attitude.) But overall, this is a variant of the "bad news is good" argument I hear from certain Objectivists on every even-numbered year: that an election victory for the left would be good, because it will prompt greater resistance against statism by the right, which will suddenly be much more principled and effective than before. Thus, a collapse into far-left statism now will yield a greater defense of liberty in the long run. Bad political news will really be good.

I was trying to name exactly why I find this argument so unconvincing when my wife Sherri hit the nail on the head. This argument, she said, is just like the "broken window fallacy." It is, she said, the "broken culture fallacy."

In economics, the broken window fallacy is the idea that destruction—e.g., the breaking of a window—actually stimulates economic activity because of all the work required to repair the damage. The most grotesque expression of the broken window fallacy was a Paul Krugman column in the New York Times shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, in which he claimed that the destruction of the World Trade Center would stimulate the economy because of all the office space that would have to be rebuilt in lower Manhattan.

Paul Krugman recently received the Nobel Prize in economics.

The "bad news is good" approach to politics asserts something similar. Barack Obama will break so many windows in our culture and economy, this argument goes, that he will stimulate beneficial political activity to repair the damage.

The error in both fallacies is the same.

In the classic expression of the broken window fallacy, a young hoodlum throws a rock through a store window. A crowd gathers and notices that the shop owner has called in a glazier to repair the window. They then begin to reflect on the increased business for the glazier and how his new income will be spent to buy goods from other businesses in town. They end up concluding that the thug who threw the rock was really a benefactor to society because of all the economic activity he generated.

The error is that they see the new economic activity—but they forget about all of the other productive uses the shop owner might have found for his money instead of spending it merely to regain what he has lost.

Similarly, the advocates of the broken culture fallacy see the prospect of congressional Republicans rallying, say, to block a plan for socialized medicine, and they point with excitement to all of this new pro-liberty political activism—but they forget that the purpose of all of this activity is not to expand liberty, but merely to mitigate the damage caused by giving political power to the left.

I do agree that if Barack Obama and the new Democratic Congress attempt to seize a mandate for socialism, they will cause a backlash, and this will indeed stimulate a great deal of pro-liberty activism on the right. But to understand what this means in full context, we should look at the historical record.

There have been several prominent examples of a victory for the left leading to disaster, followed by a comeback for the right. The biggest example is Carter-Reagan. The left took over Congress in 1974 and the White House in 1976, precipitating the fall of South Vietnam, the Communist takeover in Nicaragua, the Islamofascist takeover in Iran, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as well as double-digit inflation and high unemployment. So the country turned back to the right, electing Ronald Reagan in 1980 on a platform of free markets and strong national defense.

So did bad news turn out to be good?

The actual pattern really went something like this. The left defeated the muddled, compromising old Republicans, and when the backlash came, the country turned to…a new gang of muddled, compromising Republicans—which describes the actual policies of Ronald Reagan, rather than the over-glamorized version now remembered by the right. (This also reminds me of the biggest irony of the "bad news is good" argument. Most of the Objectivist intellectuals who currently make that argument were opposed to this pattern when it actually happened: they denouncing Ronald Reagan and urged Objectivists not to vote for him.) While the conservatives who came to power in the "swing to the right" achieved some good things (defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan, for example, or dramatically decreasing the top marginal tax rate), much of what they did was merely to reverse some of the damage to liberty that had been caused by the left.

And a lot of the broken windows were never fixed. The Islamic Revolution in Iran and the mujahideen in Afghanistan (who were necessary for the fight against the Soviets) laid the foundations for September 11. And government was still much bigger and more intrusive when the whole cycle was completed.

Bad news was bad, and much of the subsequent good news consisted only of making the bad news a little less bad….

There is no conflict between good news for us personally and good news for the cause of liberty. What is good for America in general is always good for the cause of individualism….

Repeat after me: good news is good, bad news is bad. Period.

From Newsmax today, January 24, 2010.

Sen. John Thune Eyed for President in 2012

A new figure is emerging as a possible Republican presidential candidate to challenge Barack Obama in 2012 — South Dakota Sen. John Thune.

“For those in the GOP who aren’t giddy about a second Mitt Romney run and aren’t sold on the viability of Tim Pawlenty, Thune represents a mainstream conservative alternative,” Politico reports.

Republican strategist Mark McKinnon declared: “No one seems particularly excited about the current prospective field. And everyone loves Thune.”

Thune served in the U.S. House from South Dakota from 1997 to 2003 and ran unsuccessfully against Sen. Tom Johnson in 2002. Then in 2004, he defeated powerful Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, becoming a Republican Party favorite as the first candidate to beat a sitting Senate leader in more than half a century.

With no serious challenger for his seat appearing so far this year, Thune will likely seek a higher profile by campaigning for other GOP Senate candidates, according to Politico. And thanks to his race against Daschle, he has a 100,000-strong fundraising list and more than

$6 million that could be transferred to a presidential bid.

As a senator, Thune has been sharply critical of excessive spending by the Democrats.

“Thune’s message of focused fiscal restraint, coupled with aggressive small-business incentives to drive growth, will resonate extremely well with the GOP base and independents as well as Democrats,” Republican lobbyist Jeff Kimbell told Politico.

The American Conservative Union gave Thune a perfect rating of 100 in 2006.

Thune could have an edge over other Republican presidential candidates in early caucus state Iowa, because the ads he has aired were heard in parts of the state that share a media market with South Dakota.

[BaalChatzaf]

Some on this thread advised me to not support the Republican Party financially. I disagree, though I am more likely to support an individual candidate. Perhaps the following might change your minds. At the end of the Tracinski article there is an excerpt about an up and coming Republican for 2012.

Peter

TIA Daily • December 23, 2009

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Broken Culture Fallacy

Is Bad Political News Really Good?

by Robert Tracinski

Just before the [2008] election, a reader sent me the following observation:

"As a devout Objectivist since 1992, I have enjoyed your articles and use

I find it interesting and troubling that the word "devout" precedes the word "Objectivist". The word "sincere" or "convinced" I could understand. But "devout"?

Ba'al Chatzaf