Merriman River Group/InsideMedford.com Massachusetts Senatorial Survey

• Scott Brown 50.8%
• Martha Coakley 41.2%
• Joe Kennedy 1.8%

MRG surveyed 565 likely voters between 5:00 P.M. and 8:45 P.M. on January 15, 2010 using touch-tone polling technology. The margin of error is +/– 4.1%. Some columns do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Inside the numbers:

Not surprisingly, nearly all of Coakley’s supporters approve of President Obama’s job performance, while three-quarters of Brown’s supporters disapprove. Coakley may see a glimmer of hope in the fact that more than two-thirds of undecided voters approve of the president’s job performance while only 6% disapprove, especially in light of the president’s swing through the state to campaign for her later today.

47% of Brown’s supporters say that taxes, jobs, and the economy represent the most important issue to them in this race, while half of Coakley’s supporters say that healthcare reform is most important to them. Undecided voters are nearly evenly split between the two issues—40% say they’re most concerned with taxes, jobs, and the economy with 37% saying that healthcare reform that most concerns them. “For Coakley to have a chance, she needs to convince voters that the Democratic party’s agenda for the economy is the right one, and she needs to do it fast,” said MRG’s executive director, Matt Fitch.

Hat-tip: Hot Air

This isn’t “New Commie Rhetoric?”

Elected officials serve at the pleasure of their constituents.  Conservatives have always understood this principle.  Liberals have always abused this privilege.

-

“It’s the people’s seat“‘ – Scott Brown

“we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and … a servant’s heart” – Sarah Palin

“the people’s house” – Ronald Reagan

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Scott Brown’s riposte to the assertion that he was trying to take “Ted Kennedy’s seat” was that it was “the people’s seat.” And now he’s holding a “people’s rally” to counter the president’s own with Martha Coakley. Sarah Palin has long been repeating her mantra that she wants to put government back on the side of “the people.”

Am I the only one irritated by this new Commie-style rhetoric? Where’s Jose Ortega y Gasset when we need him? “The People” is a leftist phrase. See, for instance: Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” or, well, “The People’s Republic of China.”

I’m an elitist, country-club Republican of the old school. Conservatism’s not a “people’s movement.” Proud bourgeoisie-types like me don’t know what to do with the GOP’s new rhetoric. I’m sitting back and tolerating it, letting the masses have their plaything, I suppose: but at the end of the day, this had better translate into some good old-fashioned small government policies. I don’t want the government “on my side.” I want it out of my life.

Pro-lifers confront Democratic Senator Robert Casey who betrayed them.

Nelson had to leave pizzeria .  (Hat Tip: Don Surber.)

Democrats talk about taxing investment income to pay for Obamacare.  (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Why some Insurance companies love abortion. (Hat TIp: Right Mind.)

Christendom college marches for life.

Join the Virtual March for Life.  

Homeschoolers win huge victory in New Hampshire.

New York theater group does play about “Gay Charlie Brown.”

Same sex marriage opponent fears for his life.

Christians convicted of “discriminating” against homosexuals to appeal. (Hat Tip: Right Mind.)

9 Vermont candidates call for secession. (Hat Tip: Right Mind.)

26 patients die in Cuban Mental hospital as a result of a cold snap.  (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)

Click here to listen, click here to download.

In all its illegal and unethical glory:

Scott Brown is holding steady at 55% over at InTrade at the moment.

The Friday night Coakley internal polling has made it’s way public again just like Wednesday and Thursday night’s have. The number being reported through the grapevine:

• Wednesday: Brown +2
• Thursday: Brown +3
• Friday: Brown +2

Public Policy Polling tweeted about this saying:

The daily leaking of Coakley’s internals, when they’re not good news, sign of a highly undisciplined campaign.

When a candidate’s internals are leaking out every night and the numbers are not good, it can’t be a good thing – can’t it? The only way this could make any sense is that they are wanting people to wake up to how dire their situation is so that the Democratic base comes out but this would be sure one risky way to try to do that.

The Cape Cod Times is also reporting that Brown drew a large crowd at his event in Hyannis Saturday:

The red, white and blue signs. Chants of “Yes We Can.” People of all ages and races clamoring for one glance at the candidate.

It was state Sen. Scott Brown — not President Barack Obama — who received the rock star treatment yesterday in Hyannis, as several hundred supporters lined Main Street to cheer the Republican hopeful for the U.S. Senate on to victory against state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

The hefty turnout surprised some people, including police officers, as Main Street was down to one lane in spots and Brown supporters crowded in the street caused frequent traffic backups.

The crowd began forming around 1 p.m. and waited for almost two hours before Brown arrived, as the car horns continually honked in support of the Wrentham resident.

Sounds like people are pretty fired up.

Washington Post/ABC News Survey on Barack Obama

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 53% {50%} (56%) [57%]
• Disapprove 44% {46%} (42%) [40%]

Note: 30% strongly approve; 32% strongly disapprove.

Obama has been president for about one year. Would you say he has accomplished a great deal during that time, a good amount, not very much or little or nothing?

• A great deal 12% [14%]
• A good amount 35% [35%]
• Not very much 30% [27%]
• Little or nothing 22% [23%]

(If not much/nothing) Who’s mainly responsible for that – Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

• Obama 52%
• Republicans in Congress 20%

How much confidence do you have in Obama to make the right decisions for the country’s future?

• A great deal 24% [29%]
• A good amount 23% [20%]
• Just some 26% [27%]
• None at all 27% [24%]

Is Obama keeping most of his major campaign promises, or not?

• Yes 41%
• No 46%

Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Barack Obama?

• Strongly favorable 38% (39%)
• Somewhat favorable 20% (21%)
• Somewhat unfavorable 13% (11%)
• Strongly unfavorable 27% (27%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 44% {44%} (47%) [48%]
• Disapprove 52% {53%} (49%) [48%]

Note: 24% strongly approve; 43% strongly disapprove.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 47% {46%} (51%) [50%]
• Disapprove 52% {52%} (47%) [48%]

Note: 22% strongly approve; 39% strongly disapprove.

Do you think Obama’s economic program is making the economy better, making it worse or having no real effect?

• Better 35% [41%]
• Worse 23% [22%]
• No effect 41% [35%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the federal budget deficit?

• Approve 38% {37%} (42%) [45%]
• Disapprove 56% {56%} (53%) [51%]

Note: 18% strongly approve; 41% strongly disapprove.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the threat of terrorism?

• Approve 55% (53%)
• Disapprove 42% (41%)

Note: 31% strongly approve; 28% strongly disapprove.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the government’s response to the attempted terrorist bombing aboard an airliner last month?

• Approve 62%
• Disapprove 35%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan?

• Approve 50% {52%} (45%) [45%]
• Disapprove 45% {44%} (48%) [47%]

Note: 22% strongly approve; 27% strongly disapprove.

Would you say Obama is doing a better or worse job as president than you expected?

• Much better 12%
• Somewhat better 22%
• Somewhat worse 18%
• Much worse 17%

(more…)

A heads up for Kindle owners, Race42012 is now available for subscription for the astonishingly low price of $1.99 per month.

It’s a heckuva deal my friends… You can subscribe here.

Click here to watch Danielle Smith on CTV’s “Question Period”.

Yes, I’m bringing up Alberta and the Wildrose Alliance yet again. Why the obsession with provincial-level politics in Western Canada? Well, in this case it has little to do with Alberta and everything to do with the Tea Party movement here in the United States.

Danielle Smith is running a very effective insurgent operation and has shot from worst to first in the polls. Hence, I think that all aspiring insurgents south of the border need to be taking their cues from Ms. Smith and her renegade Wildrose Alliance.

The difference between where the Wildrose Alliance is (leading the political pack and humiliating the provincial government) and where the Te Partiers are (just getting started) is that the Smith and her Wildrosers are now conducting themselves with the quiet confidence of a leading party. By contrast, many Tea Party folks are (rightly) expressing themselves via outrage.

I have few qualms with the progress of the Tea Parties, as the movement is still embryonic, but as it comes of age we will need more people who talk like Danielle Smith. Her rhetoric is indeed peppered with “throw the bums out” populism and references to ”founding fathers” - in her case, citing the Wildrose-esque rise of  Peter Lougheed and Alberta PC Party over the then-dominant Social Credit Party in the late 1960s and early1970s (which is interesting, considering that she is now on the brink of sweeping out the party that Lougheed built). However, she is not  angry, nor does she come off as a loon. Instead, she calmly presents her case, shows herself to have a firm grasp of the issues, and presents the image not of a firebrand oppositionist but of a competent leader ready to assume power.

By the way, I do think a number of U.S. insurgents are capable of this. For instance, Smith’s delivery reminds me of Sarah Palin when she’s at her best, and I think there may also be some pointers here for people like Marco Rubio or even Mike Huckabee.  

Now, simply because I repeatedly cite the Wildrose Alliance does NOT mean that I’m interested in some of the third-party nonsense circulating here in the States. I think Wildrose-type parties are capable of succeeding independently in a parliamentary system of government, but that the USA’s presidential system dictates that such revolutions be kept in-house within the Republican Party. Furthermore, the GOP has a much more solid foundation (dating back to Lincoln) then does the Alberta PC Party (which, as noted, did not emerge as a major force until the 1960s). However, when it comes basic insurgent tactics of her party, I think that Danielle Smith should indeed be a guiding northern star for the building anti-establishment movement in the GOP.

That’s why I’m bothering to post a week-old interview with an obscure, sub-national Canadian politician. This woman ROCKS!

By the way, you can follow Danielle Smith on Twitter @ElectDanielle.

Watch at 0:45 where the video (recorded January 13th, 2010) goes:

Interviewer: I don’t want people to get the wrong idea so before you go, right now, the bill is a non-starter with you?

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO-5): “I don’t think this bill is going to go anywhere”

All the little data points seem to be showing that this health care bill is in a world of trouble.

The public still doesn’t like it:

Oh at the moment (10:36am PST), Scott Brown is favored to win the Massachusetts Senate seat based on financial bets over at InTrade:

Scott Brown: 55.0%
Martha Coakley: 45.1%

—————————————————————————————

David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy. You can reach him at david.schmidt@evercor.com.  Facebook | Twitter

While I am aware this has been done by many sources more reputable than I, here is my take on the winners and losers in the health care reform I feel is most likely to pass through Congress:

Winners:

1. Unions managed to get out of the so-called “Cadillac taxes” to be imposed on high-cost (and therefore likely overused) health care plans. The Heritage Foundation also tagged some other outs they got.

2. Insurance companies are getting a bigger share of the market, as enforced by the government. The government is, unfortunately, continuing to pick winners and losers, and will probably continue with its abysmal success rate. Insurance companies, following in their anti-free market practices, are quite okay with this.

3. President Obama, if he can get liberals online with him.

4. 2010 candidates running against most incumbent Democrats and some incumbent Republicans.

5. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for showing her ability to put together a health care bill that is practical versus ideological, at least in political terms. (Though, of course, that will mostly be the interpretation by liberal Beltway writers and political analysts. Most of the rest of the country will want her head, but since she’s from San Francisco that won’t matter for her re-election.)

6. Liberals who want a further destruction of competition in the private sector of America and who want a stronger central government.

7. Governor Sarah Palin, who can continue to say how bad the bill is, continue to declare herself the only non-establishment candidate in the upcoming 2012 Republican primary and defeat MassCare creator Governor Mitt Romney. Romney is, of course, the only probable 2012 candidate with a real shot of beating Obama and turning this country’s fiscal crisis around. (Here’s hoping Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels changes his mind and runs…)

Losers:

1. Moderate Democrats. No explanation needed.

2. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). He’s toast in his re-election, and making things worse.

3. The Constitution. Heritage and George Will explain.

4. The unborn.

5. Moderate Democrats who vote for any form of Democratic health care reform.

6. The vast majority of Americans.

7. The inverses of those who are in the “Winners” category, such as Romney, many incumbents, the free market etc.

There is, of course, still hope. I’m going to Massachusetts tomorrow courtesy of Americans For Limited Government to observe the special election there, and hopefully Scott Brown pulls it out. If that happens, health care reform is probably toast. Too, here’s hoping Representative Stupak (D-MI) holds his pro-life coalition together to slam health care reform to a halt, or that budget and special interest concerns push honest liberals to jam the bill. Then, we can start on the real path to health care reform.Unfortunately, I feel there is a 70% chance health care reform will pass if Coakley wins, which still could happen.

(Note: President Obama has been calling health care reform “health insurance reform” for some time now, and does so again when calling for Massachusetts to vote for Coakley the other day. A subtle but important change in strategy and goal.)

Jay Cost has a savvy post up on the impossibility of permanent majorities.  And he addresses the “Republicans can’t beat something with nothing” idea.  He writes:

When the country is angry about the state of the union, and it feels that it’s time for a change, it will vote for the opposition party as a “protest vehicle.” Why? Because in our two-party system there is no place else for the people to go. They might not like the opposition, but it is a choice between them and the status quo….

If it’s a choice between the status quo and an opposition party that has disappointed in the past, sometimes circumstances demand the opposition. Historically speaking, that’s simply a true statement…

Ultimately, this is what dooms a majority party. Sooner or later, it’s going to find itself having to deal with voter anger when times turn tough. When that happens, the country will get behind the opposition. Sometimes this happens quickly. Sometimes it takes a while. But it always happens.

This is all pretty common sense stuff, which makes the twice a decade cooings about “permanent majorities” all the more bewildering.  But, one sentence in particular jumped out at me.  After noting the eagerness with which conservative Republicans are supporting the moderate Scott Brown, he writes:

Ideological diversity is a problem for a party to worry about only after its returned to the majority.

This is interesting.  I’d argue that a willingness to support “less than ideal” candidates, in less then ideal circumstances, is a leading indicator of a party’s resurgence.  After devastating defeats there’s a vocal “purify” segment of the party; and there’s a “broaden” segment.  The first group is relatively useful because enormous victories are inevitably followed by backlashes.  So a party can afford to move to their core in the short term; they’ll experience some success, however modest, whatever they do.  It’s not by chance that incumbent parties almost always suffer losses in mid-term elections: it’s a near law of the universe, floating around there with “girls like guys with muscles” and “boiled egg yolks are icky”.  It’s inexorable.  But, a party can’t cobble together any long-term coalition on purification.  Eventually there needs to be a broadening.  Eventually the purifiers need to get excited about a Scott Brown; they need to rally for conservatives in conservatives areas (Hoffman in NY-23) and moderates in liberal areas (Brown in Mass).

So we’re getting there.  But I think Cost is wrong about when a party ought to start worrying about ideological diversity.  Big-tents don’t work unless they’re well-crafted, as we see with the current Democratic majority.  Democrats, in 2006, built their congressional majority primarily on opposition to the Iraq war.  This paid short-term dividends but created long-term problems.  When Iraq improved they were left without a very coherent majority and, indeed, they seemed like a party without an agenda prior to the 08′ economic collapse.  That collapse just kicked the fundamental structural can down the road.  They’re now discovering that their majority wasn’t built for anything- that none of the major domestic issues they’re tackling received broad support from the public or their new blue-dog colleagues. Which Obama supporters thought they were voting for a massively expanded federal debt and an expansive, intrusive health care bill which panders to the insurance industry?  Which Obama voters were pining for a massive carbon tax in the midst of economic stagnation?  Democrats didn’t win on these radical proposals and it’s no surprise that many of their more moderate colleagues are balking.

The Contract with America, in 94′, represents a different pathway.  The Republican tent broadened, but it was well-crafted.  They knew what they were about and, as a result, achieved a remarkable string of successes.  Republicans need to remember this lesson as they seek to dismiss this Congress and dismantle this President’s agenda.  Ideological diversity is acceptable, even necessary, but there must be an enduring, mutually agreed upon, core agenda.  Without one a party can win a majority only to find that they’ve lost the country.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

1. Mitt Romney – Gov. Romney remains in the best position to win the GOP nomination, however the fallout from Gov. Mike Huckabee’s clemency of a cop killer may hurt Romney as well. If the clemency problems force Huckabee out of the race, then Gov. Sarah Palin could consolidate social conservative support in the early states and pose a serious threat to Romney’s chances.  On the other hand, Romney has held steady throughout the year, experiencing none of the problems that have plagued his potential rivals.  That doesn’t mean that trouble isn’t rearing it’s head around the corner.  Gov. Romney’s healthcare plan will likely loom large throughout the next year, with the New Hampshire Union Leader firing the first major shot across the bow in a recent article that also showed signs of support for another Romney rival, Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Although this is a major hurdle, Romney’s rivals also have major obstacles, from Gov. Palin’s resignation, Gov. Pawlenty’s cap-and-trade problems, to Gov. Huckabee’s clemencies.  Whomever handles these problems the best will likely be the front-runner come 2012. For now, Gov. Romney is in the best position to do that.
2. Tim Pawlenty – Minnesota’s governor has made some significant moves in his pursuit of the 2012 nomination.  He has created a PAC, Freedom First, and announced several major hires from previous campaigns.  He has also taken direct aim at both Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan, likely to be a favorite line of attack as Pawlenty sets out to overtake 2012 frontrunner. He is quickly becoming an establishment alternative to Romney, and attracting early insider support.  His efforts have earned him some early praise from key players in 2012, namely an early indication of support by the influential New Hampshire Union Leader. With Palin and Huckabee potentially leaving politics behind in pursuit of success on television and other areas, Pawlenty now appears to be Romney’s top rival. However, any indication that Palin and/or Huckabee may break their Fox News contract and return public life would instantly make the campaign more difficult for the Minnesota governor.
3. John Thune – Senator Thune continues to quietly build for a 2012 run. While having no announced opponent yet for his 2010 reelection bid, Sen. Thune still has amassed an impressive war chest, retained a top-level campaign manager, started a PAC, and fundraised for candidates in Iowa.  Slowly but surely the media is beginning to catch on, with new profiles about the junior senator from South Dakota appearing on CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Thune’s social conservative credentials could also allow him to join the chorus of candidates likely to benefit from Huckabee’s problems. Thune brings both the social conservative credentials needed to win over the early states like Iowa, as well as significant establishment support that is needed for overall success in the primaries. With other conservative candidates seemly leaving politics for careers in media, Thune is rising quickly to potentially fill the void, with both his intangibles, his giant-killer reputation, and his conservative credentials leading the way.
4. Sarah Palin – After taking hits early on, Palin has stormed back with her wildly successful book, Going Rogue, and has seen a marginal increase in her numbers among republicans and independents.  But the success of her book is not the most important factor in her return to contention, but rather the damaging clemency revelations that could mortally wound Gov. Huckabee’s political career. Palin can now galvanize the social conservative movement behind her, making the former Alaska governor the overwhelming front-runner in the all important Iowa Caucuses. This  potential, as well as a natural base of support in South Carolina, could help the governor build an unstoppable momentum towards the nomination. However, her decision to sign a multi-year contract with Fox News seems to indicate that Palin could very well leave political office behind, instead choosing to remain in the private sector writing books and becoming a TV star.  Due to these tempting private sector opportunities, Palin as well as Mike Huckabee may forgo political office all together, deciding to stay active politically more as pundits and celebrity conservatives.  These opportunities are why I feel Palin is now less likely to run, and therefore why she is being dropped in the rankings.
5. Newt Gingrich – The former Speaker may have lost some face with the conservative base in endorsing Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 election, but he may have gained support from the crucial GOP establishment.  Despite the Speaker’s impressive resume and historic electoral successes, his bombastic past still leaves many in the establishment wary. But being a team player in NY-23 may get the establishment on board the Gingrich train, granting the former Speaker a chance to make history and complete a legendary comeback.  Nixon accomplished it, and Newt may be next.  With Palin and Huckabee potentially staying out of the 2012 field, Gingrich could potentially rally the base and become an alternative to the more moderate Romney and Pawlenty. He has recently mentioned himself as a potential 2012 contender and also plans to release a new Contract with America, which could be the policy foundation for his presidential bid.
6. Mike Huckabee – The former Arkansas governor has run into serious trouble with the revelation that he granted clemency to notorious cop-killer Maurice Clemmons. The sheer amount of clemencies and pardons is jarring, with the governor having granted more clemencies and pardons then several surrounding states’ governors combined.  The volume alone would lead you to believe that Clemmons will not be the last we hear of the people released or commuted by Governor Huckabee.  While Huckabee’s die-hard supporters will likely stick by their man allowing his poll numbers to hold steady, this will certainly come back to haunt him, as rivals hammer the former governor with his poor judgment in these cases.  A GOP establishment already wary of Huckabee now has the last reason they will ever need to abandon him completely, and will work to force him from the 2012 race. If Huckabee was reluctant to leave his TV show before this news broke, I imagine his Fox News deal will grow only more enticing as the primaries get closer.  The promise of a lucrative private sector career on TV and radio may prove too much to surrender for another run for office, a temptation now shared by Huckabee’s new Fox News colleague, Sarah Palin.
7. Haley Barbour – Governor Barbour is perhaps the greatest strategist in the party.  He showed off that talent earlier this month, helping to lead two GOP candidates to victory in Virginia and NJ, a great start for the head of the RGA.  With his sights set on major races all over the country in 2010, from California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Florida, and Texas, Gov. Barbour could not only continue to help revive the party but could also collect enough chits along the way to make himself a strong contender in 2012.  With Speaker Gingrich’s mishap in NY-23, it could be Gov. Barbour who emerges as the 1994′er to lead a new generation of Republicans back to power, and himself to the White House.
8. Rick Perry – The long serving Texas Governor has bounced back from poor early polls to take a solid lead in the GOP primary against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.  A successful primary followed by likely reelection will help raise Gov. Perry’s profile further in the national party.  He is already winning populist support for his anti-Washington screed, and won the endorsement of Gov. Palin.  But it’s his state’s strong economy that just might push the Texas Governor into contention. As blue states like California and New Jersey head into spiraling fiscal crisis, Texas stands as a strong example of successful conservative economics in the face of a President pushing tax-and-spend liberalism.  This factor, combined with a long, experienced career can put Perry in a very strong position. The uniting of the Tea Party base and his large, deep-pocketed Texas donors would give him a strong chance in the early states.
9. Mike Pence - The conservative Indiana congressman is a rising star in the GOP, and now more then ever he seems to be gearing up for a potential 2012 presidential bid.  Rep. Pence’s intentions have been tough to read due to the multiple opportunities for higher office currently within his reach.  In 2012, both the governorship and Richard Luger’s senate seat could be open, and due to the unpopular Obama agenda even Sen. Evan Bayh could be vulnerable in a 2010 race.  Despite these potential opportunities, it appears Pence has a bigger office in mind.  The recent additions to his campaign team, notably Phil Gramm, Ed Meese, and Tony Perkins as advisors and Kellyanne Conway as a campaign strategist, seem to indicate Pence will aim for the 2012 presidential nomination. With his conservative credentials, his Tea Party connections, and his strong communication skills, Pence could be a real dark horse, especially if Palin or Huckabee pass on the race.
10. Jeb Bush – The former Florida governor has been more active of late, stumping recently in Ohio for GOP candidate John Kasich, and fundraising for other candidates around the country.  As Obama’s numbers get worse and the Bush brand slowly rebuilds, talk of Jeb returning to public life is growing.  He still commands the vast Bush network, and is increasingly gathering chits by fundraising in key races around the country.  The biggest potential chit, however, remains his potential endorsement of Marco Rubio in the Florida senate primary, an endorsement that could put Rubio over the top while also endearing the more moderate Bush brother to the conservative grassroots.  Such a high profile, high reward endorsement could push Jeb right back into the 2012 spotlight.

Honorable Mention: Rudy Giuliani, Mitch Daniels, Eric Cantor, George Pataki, Dick Cheney, Bobby Jindal, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

With just hours to go before Tuesday’s special Senate election in Massachusetts to fill the unexpired term of the late Edward M. Kennedy, Sen. Harry Reid said that Democratic candidate Martha Coakley would be “much more than just my 60th yes-man.”

“Sure, she’d be a rookie senator, who’s never functioned in a legislature, with no power, eager to please, inheriting the onus of the longest liberal dynasty in history,” said Reid, “but that doesn’t mean she’d be just a rubber stamp, or some kind of inert mass of protoplasm that responds predictably to the stimuli of her partisan overlords … no, not at all.”

Coakley, the attorney general of the commonwealth, immediately released a statement endorsing Reid’s remarks, and noting: “I will not be just a rubber stamp, or some kind of inert mass of protoplasm that responds predictably to the stimuli of my partisan overlords … no, not at all.”

Scott Ott’s Examiner Scrappleface: Reid: Martha Coakley ‘more than just my 60th Yes-Man

There’s more just a click away. Enjoy.

For the New York Review of Books, Jonathan Raban has penned a review of Going Rogue. It is dripping with contempt for anyone who refuses to blindly follow experts — liberal experts, not conservative ones — over a cliff:

In our present neo-Keynesian moment, economics has never seemed more bewildering and arcane, or more the exclusive preserve of hated “experts” from the “East Coast elites.” Most people I know, myself included, can’t readily follow the algebraic equations that explain the “Keynesian multiplier,” which, in its turn, is needed to explain TARP and the stimulus package. Belonging to a tribe different from Palin’s, I simply take it on trust as a matter of faith that Paul Krugman, in his columns for TheNew York Times, is more likely to be right about such things than, say, Lou Dobbs or Senator John Thune, but I share in the general apprehensive fogginess about what’s happening.

For Palin, it’s simple. The national economy is a straightforward macrocosm of the domestic economy of the average god-fearing family of four. What’s good for the family is good for the nation, and vice versa; and the idea that the family should spend its way out of recession is an affront to common sense, conservative or otherwise. On December 3, she tweeted: “Baffling/nonsensical: Obama’s talk of yet another debt-ridden ’stimulus’ pkg. Fight this 1, America, bc after last 1 unemployment rose, debt grew.” Five days later, while Obama was speaking at the Brookings Institution about the economy, Palin wrote, “Quik msg b4 book event: Prez pls pay down massive, obscene U.S debt &/or give ’stimulus’ $ back to Americans b4 propose spending more of our $.”

Palin’s general economic theory, so snugly adapted to Twitter’s 140- character limit, carries great weight. At a time when everyone should be clipping coupons, tightening belts, and buying generic peanut butter, Obama (Columbia and Harvard), Larry Summers (MIT and Harvard), Tim Geithner (Dartmouth and Johns Hopkins), and Peter Orszag (Princeton and London School of Economics) are out on a spending spree that is “baffling,” “nonsensical,” and “obscene.” But then what did we expect of the East Coast elites?

First of all: cute rhetorical juxtaposition. Quote Palin’s netspeak Twitter postings rather than her op-eds for major newspapers. Cite The Brookings Institution, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and London School of Economics — and you’ve won! Wow — doesn’t that list look impressive? — But there’s a little problem.

Why does he trust Paul Krugman “on faith”? Why not someone like Thomas Sowell? Would he have trusted Friedrich Hayek “on faith”?

The problem with citing “experts” is that you can always find a countervailing opinion from someone with just as many credentials. And then you simply have a clash of credentials — which only leads to a debate about results, which is exactly what the wicked expert-haters are trumpeting.

Citing experts is intellectual chicanry. “Look at this important person who agrees with me!” is not an argument. Argue your case or get off the stage. The issues are too important to be left to people who only care about feeling important.

BECK: [Sarah Palin] is the most guarded woman I have ever seen in my life. She’s the most – I’ve never…I don’t know if you’ve had this feeling. I’ve never met anybody with shields up more than Sarah Palin. She is someone I think that gets – people have the wrong impression of her, I think, because she knows she’s swimming in a tank full of sharks. When she walked onto my set, she was Googling. She was actually getting her hair and makeup done, and she was Googling, and talking to people, and I said: ‘So, what’s up?’ And she said ‘Oh, I’m just doing last-minute homework.’ And I said ‘Why?’ And she said ‘’Cause you’re going to ask me about the 25 windows.’ I said ‘What 25 windows?’ She said ‘Statue of Liberty…25 windows…There are 25 windows. They each represent different minerals.’

BECK: She’s suspicious of everything.

BECK: Here’s the thing with Sarah Palin, you have to understand. One – she has shields up like you couldn’t believe. And until you get those shields down on her, I don’t think you’re really going to see Sarah Palin be able to answer enough questions about her. The second thing is – I’ve decided that Sarah Palin cannot be President of the United States until I see her able to eviscerate somebody like [Bill O’Reilly]. She needs to be – she’s playing defense right now where she needs to play offense. I’m not convinced that she wants to be President.

American Research Group Massachusetts Senatorial Survey

• Scott Brown (R) 48%
• Martha Coakley (D) 45%
• Joseph Kennedy (I) 2%
• Undecided 5%

Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted January 12-14, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 44% Democrat; 20% Republican; 36% Independent.

Inside the numbers:

Brown leads Coakley 94% to 1% among registered Republicans and he leads 58% to 37% among unenrolled voters. Coakley leads Brown 71% to 20% among registered Democrats. A total of 8% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans remain undecided.

Brown leads 54% to 39% among men while Coakley leads 50% to 44% among women.

Brown leads 52% to 42% among likely voters age 18 to 49 and Coakley leads 47% to 46% among voters 50 and older.

A total of 9% of likely voters say they have already voted by absentee ballot, with Brown leading Coakley 58% to 42%.

Here is her latest gaffe…

Here we hear Martha Coakley stating emphatically that Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan! For those of you not up on the Red Sox, barely five years ago Curt Schilling was the ace pitcher that helped the Sox win the 2004 World Series and free them of 86 years of frustration.

Quite seriously, if this lady was trying to lose, she would be very hard pressed to do it any better.

The other night I watched 1965’s The Great Race starring Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon, and Natalie Wood. In it is a quote that seems apropos somehow:

Leslie: It’s been my experience, General, that there is little advantage to winning if one wins too easily.
General: An admirable point of view, for anyone but a soldier. In my profession, to win is imperative. To win easily is a blessing.

Is there any wonder why Obama now feels free to campaign for her? If she wins, he will be hailed by his party as a hero. If she loses — as seems increasingly likely — the fault will be laid entirely at her feet. “Even Obama himself couldn’t save her”, will be the refrain. There is literally no downside for him in this.

***Update***
Curt Schilling replies:

I’ve been called a LOT of things… But never, and I mean never, could anyone ever make the mistake of calling me a Yankee fan. Well, check that, if you didn’t know what the hell is going on in your own state maybe you could….

It seems that Scott Brown, whom we all are hoping will win next Tuesday in Massachusetts’ special election, is a more liberal Republican than Dede Scozzafava, who was reviled by the majority of the people who are now enthusiastically rooting for State Senator Brown.

The bottom line is while Brown is more liberal when compared to Dede, he is more conservative when compared to the rest of Massachusetts. So, as Mr Shor states in his concluding paragraph:

What this shows, however, is that the conservative base in the United States, far from dragging their party moblike into an unelectable extreme, has made the decentralized decision to support the realistically best candidate they can relative to the context in which he’s being elected. The 23rd special district election can also be seen in this light; throwing Scozzafava overboard made far more sense in the context of that electorate.

An excellent analysis. I highly recommend reading all of it.

According to Rasmussen, Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat is starting to look shaky. Here are the results of their latest polling:

• Barbara Boxer 46% (46%) {49%} [45%]
• Carly Fiorina 43% (37%) {39%} [41%]
• Other 3% (5%) {4%} [7%]
• Not sure 8% (12%) {8%} [7%]

• Barbara Boxer 46%
• Tom Campbell 42%
• Other 3%
• Not sure 9%

• Barbara Boxer 46% (46%) {46%}
• Chuck DeVore 40% (36%) {37%}
• Other 4% (5%) {7%}
• Not sure 10% (13%) {10%}

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Tom Campbell 49% (40%) {42%} / 23% (20%) {32%} {+26%}
• Barbara Boxer 51% (51%) {51%} [50%] / 46% (41%) {42%} [47%] {+5%}
• Carly Fiorina 38% (40%) {32%} [30%] / 34% (29%) {35%} [35%] {+4%}
• Chuck DeVore 33% (31%) {31%} / 29% (25%) {37%} {+4%}

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 25% (29%) {35%}
• Somewhat favor 24% (22%) {20%}
• Somewhat oppose 9% (8%) {6%}
• Strongly oppose 39% (37%) {35%}

Should the December attempt to blow up an airliner as it was landing in Detroit be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?

• By the military as a terrorist act 63%
• By civilian authorities as a criminal act 21%

How do you rate the way that the government responded to the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day?

• Excellent 17%
• Good 24%
• Fair 20%
• Poor 37%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted January 14, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 17, 2009 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 23, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 22, 2009 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Men favor any of the Republicans by double digits over Boxer, while women prefer the incumbent by similar margins. Voters not affiliated with either party like the Republican candidates by anywhere from nine to 14 points.

The worst Republican (DeVore) is now within six points after trailing ten point two months ago. The best (Fiorina) is within three points after trailing nine points two months ago. This is within the margin of error. Remember, Boxer is a three term incumbent Democrat from a deep blue state.

Every Republican gained on her, with Fiorina gaining six points and DeVore gaining four. Newcomer Campbell is already within 4 points of her.

Note Boxer’s curiously consistent 46%. This is indicative of a race being more about Senator Boxer than her opponent.

An email message sent today by Team Huck Iowa states (emphasis added):

I am excited to let you in on some news. Plans are underway by Team Vander Plaats for a February 24th visit by Governor Mike Huckabee to Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Governor Huckabee will be hitting the campaign trail with Bob Vander Plaats.

The plans are in the beginning stages but I wanted you to be the first to know. There will be a private luncheon with Governor Huckabee and Bob Vander Plaats and in the evening we will be having a grassroots campaign rally (no charge). This will be an exciting day!

Team Vander Plaats is starting to take requests from interested parties. If you are interested in attending the private luncheon with Governor Huckabee and Bob Vander Plaats please contact Tim Dusenbery @ tim.dusenbery@teamvp2010.com more details will follow regarding the rally.

Part of a statement released today by U.S. Representative Vic Snyder (AR-02) reads:

I have concluded that these election-year forces are no match for the persuasive and powerful attraction of our three one-year old boys under the leadership of their three-year old brother, and I have decided not to run for re-election.

The Tolbert Report comments:

This comes on the same day that a poll showed him trailing Republican Tim Griffin by 17 points…

—————————————————————————————

David Schmidt is the Director of HucksArmy. You can reach him at david.schmidt@evercor.com.  Facebook | Twitter

I know I’ve been a little late in commenting on this but life has been busy. Obviously, Sarah Palin’s debut as a Fox News contributor has been big news lately. She’s been on O’Reilly, she’s been on Beck, she’s been on Hannity, and she seems to be making it clear that we’re going to be seeing a whole lot more of her.

 So, how do I think she’s doing and where do I think she’s headed? Personally, I think she’s done wonderfully in her first round of appearances – answering all of the obligatory questions that we’ve been asking for months and setting a rather aggressive tone for her future appearances. Most importantly – she has poo-pooed the absurd talk that she will bolt the Republican Party to run for president atop a Tea Party ticket (and done so to Glenn Beck’s face). Furthermore, she has clearly left the door open when it comes to running in 2012 as a Republican.

Personally, I think this is her way of gearing up for a presidential run more than it is a way of stepping back. For one, she’s made clear that she’s not in it for the money as many people have said – noting that all speaking fees from her upcoming Tea Party Convention speech are going to SarahPac and will be used to fund conservative candidates. She clearly wants to be a power player on the campaign trail in 2010, and she’s willing to spend a lot of cash on these midterms – that is NOT what you do if your plan is to rest on your laurels and rake in the dough. However, it IS what you do if your plan is to seek national office in the near future.

Furthermore, I really like the idea of Gov. Palin hosting specials on Fox News. I said in my new year’s predictions that Palin was likely to start work on a second book after the elections (and I stand by that) – but let us remember that the governor is a broadcast journalist by profession. She knows full well that a good documentary film or TV news special is every bit as effective as a bestselling book (if not more so). If you doubt that, consider how Al Gore was able to raise the profile of his environmental doomsday prophecy by making “An Inconvenient Truth”.

 I now fully believe that Sarah’s plan is to use film – rather than the printed word – to spread her message. It’s a far more accessible medium than books, and it requires less of a time investment on the part of viewers – so it’s a very good move.

Lastly, while a lot of people think that future presidential candidates need to lay low and not rock the boat – I do not think this is the case with Palin. First off, Palin’s strategy is to position herself as the de-facto leader of the opposition against Barack Obama. The best way to do this is to make sure she gets double the camera time compared to Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, etc. Second, Palin’s biggest weakness is her perceived lack of intelligence and issue knowledge, and laying low would only play into those perceptions. In her particular case, she needs to saturate the airwaves with smart commentary and make sure that everybody and their brother knows that Sarah is on top of things.

Not rocking the boat may indeed be a viable strategy for people like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, but I don’t think it would cut the mustard when it comes to Sarah Palin. Hence, I am very happy about the way things are working out.

Kudos to Gov. Palin for both a successful TV debut and a brilliant strategy move. It was unorthodox, but ultimately I think it will be very effective. As for those who think this means she’s axed any 2012 aspirations…well…I look forward to your reactions when she announces her candidacy.

Joe Biden has sent an e-mail out through the Organizing for America list. (When did I sign up for this, anyway? Was it when I asked for that Joe Biden text message that didn’t come until 3 A.M.?) In it, he pretends that he and Obama are the enemies, rather than the handmaidens, of the banking industry.

Yesterday, President Obama announced our proposed Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on the country’s largest banks…

The fee would recover every penny loaned to Wall Street during the financial crisis and stop the reckless abuses and excesses that nearly caused the collapse of our financial system in the first place.

But the banking industry — among the most powerful lobbies in Washington — is already launching attacks to stop Congress from enacting the proposal.

Barack and I aren’t backing down. But to win, we’ll need the American people to add their voice right away.

Yeah, okay, then. There’s this weird game that goes on in Washington where big business and big government wink at each other, pretend to be at each other’s throats, and keep each other from failing at the end of the day. This is a particularly egregious example of it. I

David Frum lays out the broader implications of this non-idea:

Wasn’t the whole point and purpose of the administration’s actions in 2009 (and the Bush administration’s actions in 2008) to restore profitability to the banks by any means necessary? Didn’t the administration consciously and knowingly reject policies such as direct investment in the banks that would have enabled the government to share in the proceeds if profitability were restored? In other words – they got the result they wanted. Why complain?

…

Which committee of Congress will have jurisdiction over this new idea for holding bankers to account? Would it be … Ways and Means, chaired by Charlie Rangel? Why yes I believe it would. It will be interesting to hear Chairman Rangel discuss the importance of honest disclosure and full responsibility for one’s obligations.

Is 2010 to be the year of the Obama tax increase? As I count them, in addition to this proposed new tax on banks, there are 1) the jump in tax rates as the Bush cuts expire; 2) the increase in the Medicare payroll tax proposed to fund health care reform; 3) the excise tax on high-value health plans; 4) the implicit tax increases in cap-and-trade; 5) the implicit tax of the health insurance mandate.

Massachusetts: ‘Bottom has fallen out’ of Coakley’s polls; Dems prepare to explain defeat, protect Obama

So proclaims an article by Byron York in the Washington Examiner. Some key paragraphs:

Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. “I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers,” says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. “If she’s not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout,” the Democrat says. “So right now, she is destined to lose.”

Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor’s race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama’s policies or those of the national Democratic party.

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. “This is a Creigh Deeds situation,” the Democrat says. “I don’t think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she’s a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware — you better run good campaigns, or you’re going to lose.”

With the election still four days away, Democrats are still hoping that “something could happen” to change the dynamics of the race. But until that thing happens, the situation as it exists today explains Barack Obama’s decision not to travel to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley. “If the White House thinks she can win, Obama will be there,” the Democrat says. “If they don’t think she can win, he won’t be there.” For national Democrats, the task is now to insulate Obama against any suggestion that a Coakley defeat would be a judgment on the president’s agenda and performance in office.

In other words, it’s all about “The One”. So they must therefore insist that it has nothing to with “The One”.

It would appear that the Democrats are starting to cut their loses. This cannot be good news for Coakley. These sorts of things tend to become self-fulfilling prophesies.

The only way Coakley can win now is to get a high-turnout from the yellow-dog Democrats, and they seem to becoming more demoralized by the hour. It’s going to be a long, long four days for Ms. Coakley.

***Update***
As commented below (thanks Jake), Obama is now scheduled to campaign in Massachusetts this Sunday according to Politico.

Rasmussen Colorado Senatorial Survey

• Jane Norton (R) 49% {46%} [45%]
• Michael Bennet (D) 37% {37%} [36%]

• Jane Norton (R) 47% {45%} [42%]
• Andrew Romanoff (D) 35% {34%} [34%]

• Tom Wiens (R) 44% {42%}
• Michael Bennet (D) 38% {41%}

• Tom Wiens (R) 44% {41%}
• Andrew Romanoff (D) 39% {40%}

• Ken Buck (R) 43% {42%}
• Michael Bennet (D) 38% {38%}

• Ken Buck (R) 40% {41%}
• Andrew Romanoff (D) 39% {39%}

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Jane Norton 51% {49%} [47%] / 26% {32%} [30%] {+25%}
• Ken Buck 38% {36%} / 20% {26%} {+18%}
• Tom Wiens 36% {37%} / 24% {30%} {+12%}
• Andrew Romanoff 40% {44%} [37%] / 36% {35%} [41%] {+4%}
• Michael Bennet 42% {39%} [36%] (41%) / 40% {46%} [49%] (34%) {+2%}

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 32% <32%> {31%} [35%] (35%)
• Somewhat approve 15% <13%> {19%} [13%] (16%)
• Somewhat disapprove 9% <7%> {6%} [8%] (7%)
• Strongly disapprove 43% <47%> {43%} [43%] (41%)

How would you rate the job Bill Ritter has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 16% <14%> {18%} [11%] (15%)
• Somewhat approve 29% <30%> {29%} [29%] (34%)
• Somewhat disapprove 27% <15%> {20%} [25%] (20%)
• Strongly disapprove 28% <37%> {31%} [32%] (29%)

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 19% {25%}
• Somewhat favor 22% {20%}
• Somewhat oppose 6% {9%}
• Strongly oppose 47% {46%}

Should the December attempt to blow up an airliner as it was landing in Detroit be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?

• By the military as a terrorist act 64%
• By civilian authorities as a criminal act 21%

How do you rate the way that the government responded to the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day?

• Excellent 10%
• Good 27%
• Fair 21%
• Poor 37%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted January 13, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted January 6, 2010 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 8, 2009 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 15, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 9, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Norton captures nearly 90% of the vote of the larger group that is strongly opposed to the health care plan. Bennet and Romanoff get similar support from the group that is strongly in favor of it.

All four of the Republican candidates lead their Democratic rivals among male voters, but Norton is the lone GOP hopeful who also has a double-digit lead among women voters and among those not affiliated with either of the major political parties.

Giuliani leads feisty Brown rally in North End

A feisty crowd of several hundred shouted “Rudy, Rudy” and “Go, Scott, Go” this morning in the North End as former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani campaigned for surging Republican Scott Brown in his bid for US Senate.

-

Another chant from the throng declared, “The liberals are going! The liberals are going!” and a sign read, “It’s our turn for a change.” Giuliani fired up the crowd by recalling his stump work on the victorious Republican campaigns of former governors William Weld, Paul Cellucci, and Mitt Romney.

Brown Reportedly Raising $1 Million Per Day in Senate Race

Republican candidate Scott Brown has raised money at a rate of $1 million a day this past week in his bid for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, according to one report.

The Daily Caller, a new online publication launched by conservative Tucker Carlson, reported Friday that the GOP state senator has raked in most of that money through online donations, as his campaign sees a last-minute surge before the special election set for Tuesday.

Is the [Boston] Globe getting off Coakley’s bus?

The Globe has been in the tank for Coakley. It not only endorsed her, it also covered for her when Coakley media consultant Michael Meehan roughed up the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack following Coakley’s closed-door Washington fund-raising trip this week. The Globe ran the AP story on McCormack’s close encounter with Meehan under the heading “Reporter takes stumble chasing Mass. candidate.”

McGrory’s column today is “Race is in a spinout.” It is written from the perspective of a liberal Democrat who is distraught over Coakley’s campaign. From Scott Brown’s perspective, of course, the race is not in a spinout. The race is on track. Brown, however, is upsetting the Globe’s natural order.

Dorothy Rabinowitz on Martha Coakley and the Fells Acres Sex Abuse Cases

Attorney General Martha Coakley—who had proven so dedicated a representative of the system that had brought the Amirault family to ruin, and who had fought so relentlessly to preserve their case—has recently expressed her view of this episode. Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was “formidable” and that she was entirely convinced “those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants.”

Shocking Surge (for Brown)

Update: the DSCC is now pulling their attack ad after using an image of the World Trade Center — which was apparently mistakenly included in their haste to stop the Coakley freefall…..

“Using the image of a site where over 2,700 Americans died in a terrorist attack to distort Scott Brown’s position on regulating Wall Street is both distasteful and disrespectful. Martha Coakley should immediately renounce this ad and call for it to be removed from the airwaves,” he said.

A spokesman for the DSCC, Eric Schultz, said the image should not have appeared in the ad, and that it was being pulled and aired with a different image.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Scott Brown surges to a double-digit lead?

Pajamas Media/Cross Target 2010 Massachusetts U.S. Senate Poll

Thinking about next Tuesday’s special election for US Senate. The candidates are Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley. If the election were today, who would you vote for?

• Scott Brown 53.9%
• Martha Coakley 38.5%
• Undecided 7.6%

And do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Scott Brown?

• Favorable 60.5%
• Unfavorable 27.5%
• Unsure 12.1%

And what about Martha Coakley. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Martha Coakley?

• Favorable 38.5%
• Unfavorable 50.5%
• Undecided 11%

Only a small percentage of all voters will cast a ballot in this Tuesdays special election for US Senate. How likely is it that you will actually vote in this election on January 19th?

• Definitely will vote 71.9%
• Might or might not vote 21.4%
• Probably won’t vote 6.8%

Are you a male or female?

• Male 43.3%
• Female 56.7%

Do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or something else.

• Republican 20.3%
• Democrat 36.6%
• Something else 43.1%

A new poll taken Thursday evening for Pajamas Media by CrossTarget – an Alexandria VA survey research firm – shows Scott Brown, a Republican, leading Martha Coakley, a Democrat, by 15.4% in Tuesday’s special election for the open Massachusetts US Senate seat. The poll of 946 likely voters was conducted by telephone using interactive voice technology (IVR) and has a margin of error of +/- 3.19%.

… according to The Telegraph.

Continued from yesterday (the number following the name is their 2007 ranking).

Don’t shoot the messenger.

1. Dick Cheney (6)

2. Rush Limbaugh (5)

3. Matt Drudge (3)

4. Sarah Palin (-)

5. Robert Gates (7)

6. Glenn Beck (18)

7.Roger Ailes (23)

8. David Petraeus (2)

9. Paul Ryan (-)

10.Tim Pawlenty (-)

11. Mitt Romney (10)

12. George W. Bush (21)

13. John Roberts (8)

14. Haley Barbour (16)

15. Eric Cantor (-)

16. John McCain (9)

17. Mike Pence (19)

18. Bob McDonnell (-)

19. Newt Gingrich (4)

20. Mike Huckabee (11)

Update: Sorry — left out the link. Click it to see the Top 100 Conservatives and Liberals with a write-up on each.

Tim Pawlenty has kicked off his presidential campaign with a bold message: he’s pro-freedom!

Future campaign themes are expected to include:  justice, hope, American values, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Is this some kind of joke? John McCain passed up putting Pawlenty on his ticket because he was seen as being too white-bread, too conventional. He has boldly refuted this narrative by coming out strongly for freedom. He has even endorsed Scott Brown for Massachusetts senator: sounding more like a grade-school civics textbook than the next leader of the free world, Pawlenty declares that Brown will “bring freedom to Massachusetts.” Does anyone even know what that means?

We just elected a man who rose to prominence based on tiresome platitudes. If Tim Pawlenty wants to differentiate himself from Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, he ought to come up with a better theme than “freedom.”