Rubes and Fundies? - The Left Takes Aim at Tea Partiers

I read Frank Rich's latest anti-tea party screed while out for coffee. It's titled "The Great Tea Party Rip-Off" and it's full of dumb stereotypes about conservatives and Republicans, and the conclusion pretty much encapsulates the bull:

The entire Tea Party Convention is a profit-seeking affair charging $560 a ticket — plus the cost of a room at the Opryland Hotel. Among the convention’s eight listed sponsors is Tea Party Emporium, which gives as its contact address 444 Madison Avenue in New York, also home to the high-fashion brand Burberry. This emporium’s Web site offers a bejeweled tea bag at $89.99 for those furious at “a government hell bent on the largest redistribution of wealth in history.” This is almost as shameless as Glenn Beck, whose own tea party profiteering has included hawking gold coins merchandised by a sponsor of his radio show.

Last week a prominent right-wing blogger, Erick Erickson of RedState.com, finally figured out that the Tea Party Convention “smells scammy,” likening it to one of those Nigerian e-mails promising untold millions. Such rumbling about the movement’s being co-opted by hucksters may explain why Palin used her first paid appearance at Fox last Tuesday to tell Bill O’Reilly that she would recycle her own tea party profits in political contributions. But Erickson had it right: the tea party movement is being exploited — and not just by marketers, lobbyists, political consultants and corporate interests but by the Republican Party, as exemplified by Palin and Steele, its most prominent leaders.

Tea partiers hate the G.O.P. establishment and its Wall Street allies, starting with the Bushies who created TARP, almost as much as they do Obama and his Wall Street pals. When Steele and Palin pay lip service to the movement, they are happy to glom on to its anti-tax, anti-Obama, anti-government, anti-big-bank vitriol. But they don’t call for any actual action against the bailed-out perpetrators of the financial crisis. They’d never ask for investments to put ordinary Americans back to work. They have no policies to forestall foreclosures or protect health insurance for the tea partiers who’ve been shafted by hard times. Their only economic principle beside tax cuts is vilification of the stimulus that did save countless jobs for firefighters, police officers and teachers at the state and local level.

The Democrats’ efforts to counter the deprivation and bitterness spawned by the Great Recession are indeed timid and imperfect. The right has a point when it says that the Senate health care votes of Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were bought with pork. But at least their constituents can share the pigout. Hustlers like Steele and Palin take the money and run. All their followers get in exchange is a lousy tea party T-shirt. Or a ghost-written self-promotional book. Or a tepid racial sideshow far beneath the incendiary standards of the party whose history from Strom to “macaca” has driven away nearly every black American except Steele for the past 40 years.

Well it's no surprise that the radical lefties are having fun with this. Barbara O'Brien, who is consisently wrong about anything she writes on politics -- and I tell her so much in the comments -- calls tea partiers a bunch of rubes:

It shouldn’t be surprising that the “tea party movement” has so quickly devolved into a scam for squeezing money out of the rubes. It began as a scam for manipulating the rubes into supporting corporate profits over the needs of the people — their own needs — after all. And we’re dealing with a class of people (movement conservatives) whose only measures of value are (1) will this stick it to liberals? and (2) how much money can I get for it?

Tea Party Nation, Inc. owner Judson Phillips has been so blatantly avaricious that even some of the rubes are asking questions. Conservative blogger Melissa Clothier says people have heard Phillips say “I want to make a million dollars from this movment.” The financial arrangements for the upcoming tea party convention in Nashville appear to so be so, um, irregular that one co-sponsor, the American Liberty Alliance, has backed out.

The rip-off is so blatant that even Erick Erickson figured out that something about Tea Party Nation stank out loud. Of course, in his world the pure-of-heart Sarah Palin is in danger of having her sparkling reputation tarnished by her association with these scoundrels. Some things you can count on, and one of those things is Erick’s Erickson’s, um, cognitive deficiencies.

Actually, Erickson should be commended. He's one of the first major conservative bloggers to call out the Nashville tea party folks for their exclusive exploitation. As for Sarah Palin, maybe she's in it for some money. No doubt she's earned the right to cash in on her fame. Given the continued partisan assualts on her family, I simply do not blame her -- more power to the Palins! And of course, if folks on the left had any consistency, they'd be equally attacking the Obama administration's Wall Street cronies who are swimming in riches, bulking up bankers, while leaving the working class hanging in crisis. That doesn't really fit the left's meme, I guess. Besides, I've participated in close to a dozen tea party events in California and these are (1) driven by the grassroots primarily (and hence far from "astroturfed," like the Democratic/SEIU events we saw all last year), and (2) certainly not motivated by a quest for profits. But Barbara's right about one thing: We are working to piss off the lefties, and to drive them from power ultimately, with increasingly obvious success.

There's another post over at Prairie Weather that's even worse, "Steele-ing." This fellow's focusing more on the Michael Steele angle discussed by Rich. But then there's this paragraph, which really gives one a good glimpse into the mind of a smug, falsely self-superior Democratic radical:

Over here on the left we tend to think that the far right, the fundies, the tea partiers are dumb as dirt. But they're not. Membership in their club requires that they reject everything that the left stands for and one of those things is education and knowledge. That's not intended to be catty anymore than this: the people on the right that I know have gone and educated themselves in a different book. For some it's the Bible. For others it's Bill O'Reilly's books, "Going Rogue" and piles of arcane evidence that Obama isn't American (they have proof, right off the internets). They've invented their own inside dope and they shout it from the rooftops. The facts are of no social use if you want an invitation to the tea party.

I recommend that folks like this actually spend some time, in person, with the opposition. Lord knows I have! Anyway, I responded at the post:

Sorry, friend, Ph.D. in 1999, enthusiastic tea partier in 2009. And most folks I know pounding the pavement for this movement are attorneys, doctors, financial consultants, political consultants, musicians, etc., etc. If you want stupid, check the mirror, especially if you continue to advance this stupid "dumb as dirt" line. It's leftists simply, who are not well educated, and as a professor, I know that first hand.

Of course, what I say, and how I respond to these idiots, matters very little. What does matter is that the larger electorate is rejecting the Democrats' socialist program, even faster than most obvservers would have predicted. See the Washington Post, "Poll shows growing disappointment, polarization over Obama's performance" (via Memeorandum), and the Jonathan Gurwitz, "After one year, Obama's trail of broken promises."

And this, from CNN, "Sources: Obama Advisers Believe Coakley Will Lose":

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

The sources added that the advisers are still hopeful that Obama's visit to Massachusetts on Sunday - coupled with a late push by Democratic activists - could help Coakley pull out a narrow victory in an increasingly tight race against Republican state Sen. Scott Brown.

However, the presidential advisers have grown increasingly pessimistic in the last three days about Coakley's chances after a series of missteps by the candidate, sources said.

Perhaps Frank Rich and his minions should be going after some of their own?

The Haiti-Katrina Comparisons

I've been holding off on commenting on this, since it's so predictable. But this Campbell Brown video has apparently triggered some humanistic philosophy among radical leftists, so here goes ...

At the video you'll see CNN anchor Campbell Brown overcome with emotion at the story of an 11 year-old Haitian who succumbed to her injuries on the way to the hospital. It's clearly riveting television. In response, Nicole Belle at the radical Crooks and Liars writes:

If only more talking heads in this country could move past their own limited binary thought of politics to recognize that there is no Left/Right, no Democratic/Rebublican paradigm to this story. There is only humanity and more importantly, human suffering, to which we, as fellow humans, are obligated to respond. You can donate to Haitian Relief via Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders.

That's perfectly reasonable, but given the increasing intensification of partisan polarization, it's frankly hopelessly idealistic. I don't claim any innocence here, since I'd be the first to hammer Bill Clinton's insincerity and opportunism in bailing out on Haiti last week to campaign for Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. But I have to say the radical left's exploitation the Haitian disaster to demonize the George W. Bush administration really gets my goat. The worst is Amy Goodman in response to Randall Robinson, who was interviewed on the communist Democracy Now! channel, "Bush Was Responsible for Destroying Haitian Democracy." It's not all about Bush, although Robinson pins a lot of blame on him:

RANDALL ROBINSON: ... Of course, President Bush was responsible for destroying Haitian democracy in 2004, when he and American forces abducted President Aristide and his wife, taking them off to Africa, and they are now in South Africa ...

Robinson, however, takes issue with U.S. foreign policy as a whole, and criticizes Democratic administrations as well. But then Amy Goodman tries to pry some BDS out of Robinson in a follow-up:

AMY GOODMAN: In talking about President Bush, while most people may not know the role the US played in the ouster of President Aristide February 29th, 2004, probably what would come to mind when there’s any discussion of relief efforts is Katrina.

It's amazing to me that communist partisans like Goodman give Democrats a pass on the failures of Haitian democracy, but it's the Katrina parallel that's really galling. Of course, as Bob Willliams wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2005, in response to criticism of the Bush adminstration response in New Orleans:

Many in the media are turning their eyes toward the federal government, rather than considering the culpability of city and state officials. I am fully aware of the challenges of having a quick and responsive emergency response to a major disaster. And there is definitely a time for accountability; but what isn't fair is to dump on the federal officials and avoid those most responsible--local and state officials who failed to do their job as the first responders. The plain fact is, lives were needlessly lost in New Orleans due to the failure of Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Blanco, and the city's mayor, Ray Nagin.

The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to local and state officials who are charged by law with the management of the crucial first response to disasters. First response should be carried out by local and state emergency personnel under the supervision of the state governor and his emergency operations center.

The actions and inactions of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin are a national disgrace due to their failure to implement the previously established evacuation plans of the state and city. Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin cannot claim that they were surprised by the extent of the damage and the need to evacuate so many people. Detailed written plans were already in place to evacuate more than a million people. The plans projected that 300,000 people would need transportation in the event of a hurricane like Katrina. If the plans had been implemented, thousands of lives would likely have been saved.

In addition to the plans, local, state and federal officials held a simulated hurricane drill 13 months ago, in which widespread flooding supposedly trapped 300,000 people inside New Orleans. The exercise simulated the evacuation of more than a million residents. The problems identified in the simulation apparently were not solved.

Of course, every level of government -- federal, state, and local -- failed to respond as quickly and effectively as possible in 2005. Yet, there's some kind of leftist urban legend that the horrendous damage in the Gulf Coast after Katrina was exclusively a Bush administration failure.

Check out this post, for example, from Lance Mannion, "Our Corrupt National Press Corps Trying to Make Haiti Part of the Game":

As John McQuaid says, there are no meaningful comparisons between what’s happening in Haiti and how the Bush Administration screwed up on Katrina, unless you reduce both events to nothing more than political theater.

As has been bewailed constantly in the liberal blogworld (see this post by Glenn Greenwald for a recent example), to the insiders in the Washington Press Corps, politics is just a game---and a game Democrats can’t win even when they don’t lose and Republicans can’t lose even though they keep getting beaten time and time again---with nothing at stake but which team scores the most political points.

Scoring is kept my the insiders themselves without regard to polls, election results---when those results favor Democrats---history, or even obvious facts.

This is why and how Howard Fineman, an Insider’s Insider, can write an “analysis” that deals with the devastation in New Orleans five years ago and in Haiti this week as matters of perception.

As Fineman sees it, the problem in New Orleans wasn’t that the city drowned because of the Bush Leaguers’ incompetence and negligence. The problem was that voters blamed George Bush.

So the problem for President Obama isn’t to coordinate US aid to Haiti but that he avoid being blamed for that aid not doing a good enough job once it gets there.

See that? The "Bush Leaguers' incompetence and negligence"? No mention of the distrastrous actions of Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin.

(And you might check radical Michael Stickings, at The Reaction, who in discussing Campbell Brown somehow manages to get a jab in at Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for their alleged inhumanity).

It all relates, of course. Folks like Amy Goodman and Michael Stickings don't really care about Haitians or human suffering. They care about naked power, and their diatribes against Republicans and conservatives are all of a piece with the program of neo-communist revolution.

Folks need to see the big picture to be able to fight back.

RELATED: "The Ideological War Within the West" (via Blazing Cat Fur).

Brandon Neely, Guantánamo Guard, Reunites With Former Prisoners

The main story is at the BBC, "Guantanamo Guard Reunited With Ex-Inmates." And surprise, surprise, surprise, the New York Times pumps it up, "Guantánamo Reunion, by Way of BBC."

My first was perhaps there was some kind of genuine human interest angle here. But a look around shows that Brandon Neely, the former Guantánamo guard and now hip brother to Muslim Brotherhood types, is a useful idiot to the neo-communist left. See Sparks From the Anvil, "What's Next? A Television Sit-Com?" And from a Soldier's Perspective:

Here's the point of my disrespectful attitude towards Neely: He got good men killed, period! The actions at Gitmo directly contributed to an insurgency with a new purpose to avenge those detainees who were abused at the camp. Just like Abu Ghraib, these Soldiers should have been charged with 2nd degree murder and hung publicly. At the very least, they should be imprisoned with a burly redneck named Bubba whose best friend was a goat on the outside. They got my friends killed because they weren't men enough to stand up for what's right when faced with a moral delemma.

Now we have idiots like Rachel Maddow (who hates the military anyway) broadcasting his cause without questioning him on his own actions! It's a media that failed to do its job in telling the whole story!

Again, for the sake of illiterates like Neely who couldn't comprehend the simple precepts of my last post blasting him, I'm not denying that abuses took place at all. What I'm saying is that these issues were addressed as soon as they became evident that Soldiers weren't doing their job! The entire camp got a bad rap because of girly men like Neely who didn't have the balls to stand up for his values. And, again, I hold Brandon Neely directly responsible for the deaths of my brothers and sisters in arms in 2003-2004 when this became public.

Also, This Ain't Hell, "Guantanamo Ex-Guards Report Hearsay."

The video's are care of "Stop Canadian Complicity in Torture," so you get the idea on who's supporting this idiot Neely.

Code Pink's Muslim Brotherhood Terror Recruitment Campaign

Via Blazing Cat Fur and Lumpy, Grumpy and Frumpy, I've just learned that Code Pink, the antiwar organization of Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin, is running an advertising campaign on the Muslim Brotherhood's official homepage. Screenshots are at Big Government and Jawa Report.

Here's this from Big Government:

Discover the Networks provides background on the current status of the Muslim Brotherhood:

In recent years, the Brotherhood has attempted to forge a reputation as a moderate and reformist Islamic group that has renounced its violent past. Lending plausibility to this reputation has been criticism of the organization by radical Islamist groups, who have condemned the Brotherhood’s willingness to participate in the political process as heretical. These groups have also criticized the Brotherhood for supposedly abandoning violent struggle as a means of establishing an Islamic empire.

However, numerous statements by the Brotherhood’s leadership belie its moderate posture. Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni, the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, has repeatedly disavowed violence while concurrently pledging his support for the terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah. Muhammad Mahdi Othman Akef, a prominent leader of the Brotherhood, has expressed his support for suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq “in order to expel the Zionists and the Americans.” He has also denounced the United States as a “Satan,” saying: “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.” Many other leaders of the Brotherhood have likewise justified terrorism against Israel and the United States, with many defending the September 11 terrorist attacks against America. Jews are another common object of the Brotherhood’s hatred. Of the Jewish people, Sheik Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, the spiritual leader of the Brotherhood, has written: “There is no dialogue between them and us other than in one language — the language of the sword and force.”

Even as it is deemed insufficiently militant by some Islamist groups, the Brotherhood has had a discernible influence on contemporary jihadist terrorism. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, was a member of Muslim Brotherhood. More prominently still, Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood preacher, was a mentor to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

A recent sympathetic article on the Muslim Brotherhood was published by the Christian Science Monitor.

Jodie Evans and Code Pink attempted to destabilize the Egyptian government by provoking a crisis last month over the government’s refusal to allow all 1362 ‘Gaza Freedom’ marchers to enter Gaza through Egypt.

It would appear that Jodie Evans and Code Pink found an ally in Egypt in their opposition to the Mubarak government.

This is how Jodie Evans repays the kindness showed by First Lady Suzanne Mubarak who came to Code Pink’s aid after Jodie Evans sent her a letter asking for help delivering the ‘humanitarian aid’ to Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Code Pink’s involvement with radical Islamic terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in the Middle East would be troubling enough without Jodie Evans’ close ties to President Barack Obama and his administration.

Does CIA Director Leon Panetta know that a close ally of the president he serves is asking a radical Muslim group with terrorist sympathies to join them in “cleansing our country”?

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is in the news today, with the selection of Mohammed Badie as its new leader. See, "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Chooses New Leader."

But for the background on the group as the leading influence for Islamist terrorism, see Ladan Boroumand and Roya Boroumand, "TERROR, ISLAM, AND DEMOCRACY."

What Happened to Black Culture?

From Reliapundit at Astute Bloggers, "WHAT'S HAPPENED TO AFRICAN-AMERICAN CULTURE - AND WHY?":

Well, we went from a period of history like this (when folks like sharecropping black families did everything they could to make sure their kids got an education):

To things like this and this (when black and white Americans came together in love and understanding):

To things like this (when change and challenge destroyed the moral authority and institutional integrity of the black family, and anti-intellectualism and the normalization of violence became the cultural routine):

See Reliapundit's own video montage for an alternative take.

Inspired by Instapundit (which I saw this morning), and Boing Boing.

Thanks to Reliapundit for going beyond nostalgia to hard and necessary cultural analysis.

'The People's Rally' for Scott Brown!

From Scott Brown's Twitter and Facebook, "The People's Rally - Scott Brown For US Senate":

Please join us Sunday January 17th for The People's Rally for Scott Brown in Worcester at 3:00 pm at Mechanics Hall. The momentum continues to build for Scott Brown as we head into the final 72 hours of the campaign.

Let's show them that not even a Presidential visit can slow us down. Martha Coakley has a launched one of the nastiest negative campaigns in history. She is counting on this Presidential visit to help save her failing campaign.

President Obama, Martha Coakley, and the Democrat’s powerful political machine know that the choice we will make on Tuesday, January 19th will send a powerful message to the big-spenders, bigger government politicians in Washington. We need to show them that we want Scott Brown as our next US Senator and not another rubber stamp for their big government agenda.

Join us so we can let them know that they need to quit expanding our government and defending wasteful spending, and start expanding this economy and defending our jobs.

*****

Mechanics Hall
321 Main Street Worcester, MA
Doors open at 3:00 PM –Rally Begins at 3:30 PM

See also, Politico, "Enthusiasm Gap in Mass. Senate Race" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: The Blog Prof, "Report from the Macomb GOP Phone Bank for Scott Brown (R-MA)."

IMAGE CREDIT: Atlas Shrugs, "Four More Days of Fascist Rule: Save America GO Brown."

Sarah Palin Snags $100 Grand for In Touch Cover Story!

Hey, more power to her! From the New York Post, "Palin Gets 100G for Mag Cover":

Sarah Palin and her daughter, Bristol, earned an eye-popping $100,000 for their new In Touch Weekly cover, sources say. For just eight hours' work at her own home, Palin pocketed nearly as much as her $125,000-a-year salary as Alaska governor. It seems her decision to quit her political role is making big financial sense. Palin also reportedly earns $100,000 per public-speaking engagement, while she has a multiyear deal as a Fox News Channel analyst. Reps for the magazine and Palin refused to comment on the deal.

The Post snarks on Bristol Palin's awesome new "pledge to celibacy" (until she marries), which is apparently getting a lot of attention. But Jill Stanek just loves the cover headline, exclaiming, "Wow, it can't get any more pro-life than this!"

The article is here: "In Touch Exclusive Interview & Photos:Sarah & Bristol Palin, "We're glad we chose life." And some demonic Palin-bashing is here.

Is Firedoglake Polling CA's 20th Congressional District?

Leftist journalist David Weigel had an interesting report yesterday, "Did Firedoglake Take Out Vic Snyder?" As he notes there:

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) announced his retirement today, mixed–but mostly dire–news for Democrats, who were hopeful that he could hold on and defeat his likely, scandal-tainted GOP opponent Tim Griffin. One of the possible reasons for the retirement? A poll conducted by SurveyUSA, paid for by the progressive blog Firedoglake, which tested negative messages about the health care reform bill and whether it made voters sour on Snyder ....

The question, raised by Nate Silver and others: Is Firedoglake trying to scare vulnerable Democrats into retirement in order to kill health care reform? All indications point to “yes.” I’m hearing that FDL will conduct more polls in vulnerable Democratic districts, based largely on this chart of the “top 20 Democrats who could lose their seat over health care vote[s]. Snyder was at the top of that list, posted by FDL’s Jane Hamsher on Jan. 6. (One irony: Snyder is a fairly progressive member of Congress, and not a member of the Blue Dogs.)

Actually, Nate Silver hammered the disastrous FDL survey for idiotic methodology and cheap-ass "robopolling technology." But it's the larger point that interests me: Jane Hamsher's looking to elect a communist Congress. She working to take out any MC who won't toe the line on her public-option totalitarianism, and she's made a name for herself recently with some uber-hypocrisy that's even gotten the extremists at Daily Kos fired up.

I mention all of this after spying a very interesting report at the Fresno Bee, on Representative Jim Costa, a longtime Central Valley Democratic legislator. See, "Rep. Costa Faces Threat From the Left: Party Leaders in Valley Back Democrat Challenger Haze":

It is rare that sitting incumbents are challenged by members of their own party.

But Auberry resident Steve Haze is mounting a serious challenge against Costa -- and has won some surprising endorsements, including those of two members of the Fresno County Democratic Party Central Committee and party chairs in Tulare and Madera counties.

"It's a classic problem behind the ideological splits within the parties," said Jeffrey Cummins, a political science professor at California State University, Fresno.

"The activists are always more ideologically rigid than the candidates."

Haze, 59, said he decided to challenge Costa because nothing seems to be improving in the 20th Congressional District, which runs from Fresno, south through Kings County, to Bakersfield and other parts of Kern County. Democrats hold a commanding registration edge in the county -- with 50% of registered voters, compared to 33% for the Republicans.

Haze cited a 2008 study funded by Oxfam America, the Rockefeller Foundation and other nonprofit groups titled "The Measure of America" that rated Costa's district last in a national scorecard that ranked the well-being of residents.

Susan Rowe, who has endorsed Haze and is chairwoman of the Madera County Democratic Central Committee, is even more blunt.

"Steve has actually read the party's platform," she said. "He actually does show up at meetings and take questions. I haven't seen that out of Costa in quite a while."

Both Rowe and Jay Hubbell, vice chairman of the Fresno County Democratic Central Committee, also have issues with Costa's handling of the national health care debate. In particular, they are miffed that he voted in favor of an amendment to the legislation that would extend the current ban on using federal money to pay for abortions.

It also could restrict abortion coverage for those who buy coverage through a proposed government-run insurance exchange.

Some of Haze's other key endorsements have come from Gary Alford, chairman of the Fresno County Democratic Central Committee, and Tulare County Democratic Party chairwoman Barbara Waldron of Exeter.

Haze's challenge prompted Michael Der Manouel Jr., chairman of the conservative Lincoln Club of Fresno County, to ask of Democrats: "What do they want? He couldn't be any more to the left than he already is."

Costa said he has made efforts to reach out to the party activists and committee members in the counties represented by his district.

But he said he also has had to deal with some difficult issues in Congress, and when that happens, "you upset people of extremes on both sides."

Stanley Eugene Clark, a political science professor at California State University, Bakersfield, said that Costa's views "fit his district pretty well. [The district is] more conservative than the Bay Area or Los Angeles, but not without liberal elements, and that is what Costa is doing. He is kind of balancing these issues with regard to the party."

And that's the thing: Even when there are huge national tides roiling the electorate, Members of Congress look out for their specific constituency interests. Voters in Michele Bachmann's MN 6th congressional are going to be drastically different from Barbara Lee's CA-9. Moreover, as Nate Silver pointed out, Americans are hugely satisfied with their own health coverage. It's actually counterintuitive for parties to campaign for ideological outliers, and as the Fresno Bee's piece notes, incumbent challenges are rare.

In any case, I doubt that FDL polling had much influence on Snyder's decision to retire. It's simply not going to be a Democratic year all around, and Snyder said he wanted to spend more time with his family, which includes a set of year-old triplets. FDL has another post up tonight though, "Ohio Democrat Steve Driehaus Losing To Steve Chabot 39% to 56%." No doubt "Hammering" Jane Hamsher will be touting the effects of her pollling campaign on vulnerable Democrats. Of course, her bid to oust Senator Joseph Lieberman in 2006 remains one of the most epic failures of the netroots left. So perhaps she's out to do even one better?

Will Feminists Call Out Martha Coakley?

William Jacobson's got the report, "Coakley's Disgusting Rape Mailer," and this is the second time he's posted on this extreme story of desperation on the Democratic side. It turns out the Martha Coakley campaign has sent out an attack-mailer looking to hammer Scott Brown for his votes on abortion legislation. And unsurprisingly, even leftists are taking the Coakley people to task. From Taylor Marsh:

If this is what is being sent out by Democrats in Massachusetts to obviously help Martha Coakley bring affluent and suburban women, regardless of parties, to the polls on Tuesday. She’s finished, whether she wins or not.

Let’s just hope the White House had nothing to do with this, not even giving a nod, though I wouldn’t put anything past David Axelrod.

So, will other women and feminists come out to decry Coakley and the Democrats?

For a glimpse of what's happening with radical feminism, check the American Prospect, "Not Everything Has Changed: The women's movement may have changed everything for the American public, but in the home, the revolution has hardly begun."

Meanwhile, Coakley's in more trouble today, this time with UPS. The package-delivery company's not thrilled with the Dems' attack on Scott Brown that rips off the popular UPS slogan, "What Can Brown Do for You"? See, the Boston Globe, "What Can Scott Brown Do for Dems? UPS Ships Off Legal Salvo." (Via Memeorandum.)

Folks have been talking up the hip "Massachusetts Miracle" video, but at this point -- if Coakley keeps up with the blunders -- it's going to be a miracle if she pulls out a win.

Israeli Defense Forces to Boycott Bar Refaeli?

Bar Refaeli is seriously the kind of woman that dreams are made of, but whenever I've posted her as part of my babe-blogging routine I've gotten a few scowls at her leftist radicalism. So, I'm actually not surprised that some in the IDF aren't not too happy with her. See, "Israeli Army Calls for Boycott Over Model's Refusal to Serve":

Israel's army has a new enemy in its sights – a model called Bar Refaeli.

The face and body of the popular lingerie label Passionata is in the firing line after avoiding military service and applying for non-resident status in her native Israel so she can pay less tax.

Now a senior officer with the Israel Defense Forces has called for a boycott of products advertised by the 24-year-old, who has had an on-off romance with Leonardo DiCaprio.

Major General Avi Zamir, addressing students in Herzliya near Tel Aviv, said: "I can't take on Bar Refaeli, but you can."

Military service in particular is a touchy subject. About a third of the eligible population in Israel is estimated to avoid national service, a figure which is worrying the country's military leadership.

It is not the first time she has run into trouble. Last year her racy billboard advertisements, for Fox, a local clothing chain, attracted the anger of ultra-orthodox rabbis.

The offending adverts were eventually replaced with pictures showing Miss Refaeli and a male model fully clothed.

In 2004 she was granted an exemption from military service after marrying a family friend. Married women are not required to serve.

However, the couple divorced soon after and she was dating the Titanic star within a year.

Their relationship ended in June although the new year has brought reports of a rekindled romance.

The latest controversy erupted this week when it emerged that Miss Refaeli, who spends most of her time in Los Angeles, was setting up an offshore company in order to reduce the amount of tax she would pay in Israel.

Her attitude is often contrasted with that of another Israeli model, Esti Ginzburg, who is six months into her two-year tour of duty.

She is now juggling acting commitments with her military role. Yesterday, Refaeli's mother hit back at the public criticism, telling an Israeli website: "The general is a disgrace. Before they attack Bar they should check the government and see who in government did not join the army."

Hat Tip: Stormbringer. Also at New York Magazine, "Bar Refaeli Dodges Israeli Draft But Gets Hit by Military Boycott."

Martha Coakley's Radical Tax-and-Spend Ideology

The more I learn about Martha Coakley, the less human she seems. I just visited Radley Balko's, "Dorothy Rabinowitz on Martha Coakley and the Fells Acres Sex Abuse Cases" (and be sure to click through to the Rabinowitz piece). Then checking out the Scott Brown campaign website, here's a new web ad on Coakley's radical tax-and-spend ideology:

See also, Reaganite Republican, "Crumblin' Croakley Death-Spiral Update."

Also Blogging:

* Allahpundit, "Still rockin’: Brown’s internal poll shows him up … by 11."

* Althouse, "'Curt Schilling? The Red Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?'"

* Another Black Conservative, "Martha Coakley needs her mouth washed out with soap. Says Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan."

* The Astute Bloggers, "POLL: BROWN UP BY 10%!"

* Dan Riehl, "How An Army Of Davids Could Win MA For Scott Brown."

* Darleen Click, "Scott Brown – Massachusetts Miracle?"

* Gay Patriot, "The Society Column & The Sports Page:On Visuals, Coakley & Clinton Lose to Brown & Giuliani."

* Jules Crittenden, "In The Balance."

* No Sheeples Here!, "Slip-Slidin’ Away."

* Weasel Zippers, "Wow: Brown's Internal Poll Has Him up by 11..."

More at Memeorandum. ADDED: Left Coast Rebel, "Martha Coakley on Curt Schilling and the Boston Yankees: Re-post of the Reasons Not to Vote for Martha Coakley."

Desperate Dems Attack Scott Brown as 'Far-Right' Politician Backed by 'Right-Wing Radicals'

From Fox News, "Democrats Accuse Brown of 'Radical' Ties as Senate Election Nears":

GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown and his supporters are firing back at Democratic senators for accusing him of being a "far-right" politician backed by "right-wing radicals" by virtue of his ties to the conservative tea party movement.

Brown, with the support of the tea party groups and others, is posing a stiff challenge to Democrat Martha Coakley in the race for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy. Polls show him closing in on Coakley, long the frontrunner, with just four days to go until the special election, and the latest survey shows him leading by 4 points.

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

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

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

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

Russell noted that Brown, a state senator, did not come out of the tea party movement, though he is supported by it. Russell said a Brown victory would still count as a "win" for the tea party groups.

More at the link.

And of course, it's typical and makes no sense, especially considering this: "Scott Brown is a more liberal Republican than Dede Scozzafava" (via Memeorandum).

Desperate Dems, you think?

RELATED: Nice Deb, "Poll: Which Gaffe Hurt Martha Coakley The Most?"

Charlie Cook: 'Colossal Miscalculation On Health Care'

From Charlie Cook, at National Journal, "Colossal Miscalculation On Health Care: Obama and Hill Democrats Should Have Focused Much More on the Economy":

Honorable and intelligent people can disagree over the substance and details of what President Obama and congressional Democrats are trying to do on health care reform and climate change. But nearly a year after Obama's inauguration, judging by where the Democrats stand today, it's clear that they have made a colossal miscalculation.

The latest unemployment and housing numbers underscore the folly of their decision to pay so much attention to health care and climate change instead of focusing on the economy "like a laser beam," as President Clinton pledged to do during his 1992 campaign. Although no one can fairly accuse Obama and his party's leaders of ignoring the economy, they certainly haven't focused on it like a laser beam.

Last week's disappointing December unemployment report was the final blow in what was already a bad week for Democrats. One of the most sobering findings in the report was that if 661,000 Americans had not given up even looking for work that month, the unemployment rate would have moved up rather than holding steady at a horrific 10 percent.

Most economists had been expecting an increase of about 50,000 jobs in December; instead, the total declined by 85,000. Some 6.1 million Americans, the highest number in the post-World War II era, have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. The "U-6" rate of unemployment, which adds in people who are working part-time while seeking full-time work and those who have stopped looking, stands at 17.3 percent, the highest level in the 15 years that the Labor Department has calculated it.

A number of economists expect that unemployment will get worse before it gets better. Even if that prediction is wrong, some analysts estimate that Labor's household employment survey would have to show a net increase of 150,000 jobs a month for 48 straight months for the unemployment rate to drop to just 9 percent.

Since World War II, unemployment has exceeded 8 percent in a total of only 12 months in even-numbered (meaning, congressional election) years. All 12 months were in 1982 ....

More commentary at the link, then:

As political analyst and data-cruncher extraordinaire Rhodes Cook noted in the December issue of The Rhodes Cook Letter, no other president in the past half-century has seen his Gallup job-approval rating drop as far as Obama's has in his first year (down 21 points), and no president in that same half-century has seen his approval rating go up, even as much as 1 point, between the end of his first year and the eve of his first midterm election.

Obama and his party have no doubt taken on big and important fights. But given the nation's tremendous economic troubles, they don't seem to have picked the most urgent ones.

VIDEO CREDIT: Pat Dollard, "Dead Ted’s Widow Tries To Guilt Trip Votes For Coakley."

HAT TIP: Glenn Reynolds.

RELATED: Jonathan Karl at ABC News, "Bill Buckner Curse Haunts Health Care?" (via Memeorandum).

Political Experts Weigh-In on Massachusetts Special Election

maOkay, following up my post last night ("Dems Prepare for Complete Coakley Meltdown"), the Washington Post has also surveyed some election experts on the implications of a Scott Brown victory on Tuesday. See, "Topic A: What happens if Democrats lose in Massachusetts?"

The Post asked political experts to explain the prospects for Democrats if Martha Coakley is defeated in Tuesday's special Senate election in Massachusetts. Below are contributions from Norman J. Ornstein, Dan Schnur, Mary Beth Cahill, Ed Rogers, Robert J. Blendon and Martin Frost.

NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN

Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

A Scott Brown victory would send shock waves through Democratic Party circles, the Senate and the White House -- and not just because of the improbability of a Republican win in deep-blue Massachusetts. The real impact would be more immediate, jeopardizing passage of a health-reform plan carefully and painstakingly stitched together to win exactly 60 Democratic votes in the Senate, and not yet ready for its prime-time vote to move to final enactment.

Democrats have three options. One is to speed up delicate negotiations between House and Senate Democrats in order to bring up the bill before Brown gets sworn in. Even with their current sense of urgency, that is dicey at best. The bill will need to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office, meaning at minimum several days. Then a vote on final passage could be delayed for yet more days, using a variety of parliamentary tactics, in the Senate. Democrats control the Senate, so they can delay the swearing-in of Brown, but to do so for weeks would be uncomfortable and probably would not play well politically.

The second option would be to go back to Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, the only two Republicans who might consider supporting a bill. Snowe's refusal to vote for the Senate bill in December was in part based on substance, but in part a protest of the Democrats' decision to get to 60 votes without serious negotiations with her. Could she be brought back to the table with the requisite groveling and concessions -- without in turn losing another Democrat along the way?

The third option is reconciliation. While it is possible to lower the threshold in the Senate to 50 votes under the budget rules, it would mean a convoluted and inadequate health bill that would expire in five years. Three lousy options explain why Democrats are praying that Coakley limps across the finish line.

DAN SCHNUR

Director of the University of Southern California's Unruh Institute of Politics; communications director for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign

There's no way that Martha Coakley can lose: Kennedy family members will personally carry Massachusetts voters to the polls to keep that from happening. More likely is that she wins by a relatively small margin of victory that will be written off as a status-quo outcome by a political community whose expectations for a huge upset were raised beyond all rational levels this past week.

But if Scott Brown actually does pull off an astonishing victory, first, the sun will swallow the moon, angels will weep and the Charles River will run red with blood. Then, the national Democratic Party will blame Coakley for running a hapless, uninspired Creigh Deeds-ish campaign. Republicans will prematurely predict a takeover of Congress in November, and thereby raise expectations to the same level they have for Brown in this race. And President Obama will be forced to learn, like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan before him, that working with members of the opposition party is a fairly smart path toward his own reelection.

The most important impact will be on health-care reform. Democrats will be tempted to delay the certification of Brown's election in order to pass the bill, but Obama should be smart enough to see that the populist backlash against such brazen maneuvering would be devastating for his party in the fall. Better at that point to declare a brand-new set of bipartisan negotiations on health care, put them on simmer, and belatedly turn his full attention to the nation's economy.

The rest is at the link.

Photoshop Credit: The magisterial No Sheelpes Here!, "Miracle In Massachusetts?"

RELATED: The Boston Herald, "Rudy Giuliani Joins Scott Brown, Slams Martha Coakley on Terrorism (via Memeorandum). And, Gateway Pundit, "Scott Brown Up by 3 In American Research Group Poll," Legal Insurrection, "Brown Campaign Saturday ,"and The Other McCain, "Are Democrats Planning to Steal the Massacusetts Election for Coakley?"

Heidi Montag's Plastic Surgery

I was genuinely shocked, seriously, when I saw my wife's People Magazine this morning. We traveled to Fresno today and I read the cover story in the van, "Heidi Montag: Addicted to Plastic Surgery."

Not being a regular viewer of MTV reality shows, I first heard of Montag after she endorsed John McCain for the presidency in 2008. I posted her picture as a "Rule 5" entry last June. And I even watched a couple of reruns of The Hills with my oldest boy. But, nothing special? She's attractive, for sure, but I doubt she has much talent. Perhaps that's why she's literally lost her mind with this so-called "addiction" to plastic surgery.

The story at People just gives you a couple of teaser paragraphs. But according to my wife's hard-copy, Montag had ten procedures done in a single 10-hour surgical session. The operations included the following procedures:

"Mini Brow Lift."
"Botox in Forehead and Frown Area."
"Nose Job Revision."
"Fat Injections in Cheeks, Nasolabial Folds and Lips"
"Chin Reduction."
"Neck Liposuction."
"Ears Pinned Back."
"Breast Augmentation Revision."
"Liposuction on Waist, Hips and Inner and Outer Thighs."
"Bottock Augmentation."

Wanting to get it done in one massive makeover jamboree, Montag was unable to walk after the procedures. This is how she explains her initial recovery at the interview:

After surgery they took me in an ambulance to Serenity After Care, a recovery center in Santa Monica. I was there for five days, and then I got to go home. The first day being back was really hard. I asked Spencer [Pratt, her husband] to cover all the mirrors in the house because I didn't want to fixate on what I looked like then. And I felt bad that he had to even look at me. I looked like I had been hit by a bus. I was a purple, swollen mush -- I didn't look human! It was so scary. I could hardly move. Couldn't even walk. And my back was black and blue and purple. It was more traumatizing just seeing it than even feeling it really. When I had a nurse come over so I could bathe, the first time the water touched me, I freaked out. I just felt so fragile.

Heidi Montag is just 23 years old. She says at the interview that she plans many more surgeries, including more breast augmentation. She may be a bit unbalanced, but she's completely honest about her motives:

People can say whatever they want, but I'm the one living in my skin. I'm the one in this cut-throat industry. Every starlet is getting surgery every other day to keep their looks up. They just don't talk about it. I wanted to be honest. For me, this was a personal choice.

The People links is here: "Heidi Montag: Addicted to Plastic Surgery."

Cover Image Credit: The Superficial, "Heidi Montag or Barbie With a Circulatory System?"

Travis Copeland Escape Attempt

Via Marathon Pundit, from the Daily Herald, "Zion Man Flees Courtroom, Bounces Off Window in Escape Attempt":

A Zion man who tried to escape police by jumping through a window learned the hard way that what happens on television is not always possible in real life.

Authorities said Travis Copeland, 19, bolted out of a Lake County felony courtroom Wednesday and ran across the courthouse skyway over Washington Street in Waukegan. The skyway connects courtrooms inside the Lake County Government Center to courtrooms at the Lake County jail.

With Lake County Sheriff's deputies approaching and running out of options, Copeland - who was in court after violating a bond condition - tried to shoulder block his way through a window of the two-story skyway in an attempt to escape.

The bulletproof glass did not give way and Copeland, clearly staggering after hitting his head and shoulder, took two steps back and laid down on the floor with his hands spread over his head, and waited to be arrested.

But here's the kicker:

Copeland was returned to the courtroom following the failed escape attempt, and his bond was increased from $50,000 to $1.5 million.

According to other reports, "Copeland had been out on bond on charges of disorderly conduct and aggravated battery of an officer."

One. Stupid. Brother.

'What the Heck is Really Going on Here in Massachusetts Below the Radar?'

The video's care of Robert Stacy McCain, who is now in the Bay State doing on-the-ground reporting on the Massachusetts special election. Bill Clinton's in town, and Jammie's got this, "Overwhelmed With Grief, Aging Rock Star and Special Envoy to Haiti Abandons Post, Flees to Massachusetts to Campaign For Coakley."

But don't miss Sissy Willis, "Just a gal sitting in our living room in our virtual pajamas":

Who are we that Jim Oliphant of the LA Times/Tribune Papers would cold call us for a phone interview this afternoon on what the heck is really going on here in Massachusetts below the radar? Well, he tells us he did a google search for "scott brown," and there we were above the fold, right below Scott Brown's own campaign site. We've been blogging our tea-partying heart out about Hottie McAwesome since December 9, the day after our native son won the primary. Oliphant's article comes out Sunday. Watch this space.

See also, Brian McGrory, "Race is in a spinout" (via Memeorandum). And, Powerline, "Is the Globe getting off Coakley's bus?"

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

Dems Prepare for Complete Coakley Meltdown

This is an unusual headline for a major news story with just days remaining in the race: "Coakley underestimated Scott Brown in Mass. Senate race. And that's at the Boston Globe too, where the editors just endorsed the lackluster Coakley over the insurgent Republican Brown:

After Attorney General Martha Coakley sailed largely unscathed through the Democratic Senate primary, her aides set a course for the general election that fit her status as the perceived front-runner: protect her statewide popularity, and ignore the little-known Republican opponent.

It turned out to be a major miscalculation.

With Democrats around the country now panicked about a neck-and-neck race with Republican Scott Brown, Coakley's campaign has suddenly been forced to tear up that strategy. She has pivoted into attack mode, targeting Brown and his record in TV ads, at events, and in news releases and interviews. She has expanded her presence on the campaign trail. And she has called in national Democrats to bail her out.

''They should have been prepared for this,'' said Michael Shea, a Democratic media strategist who worked for US Representative Michael Capuano, whom Coakley beat in the primary. ''You don't let someone creep up on you like he has.''

So what happened?

Insiders in the Coakley campaign -- none of whom would agree to talk strategy for the record -- say they were convinced that Brown faced too many hurdles to be a viable challenger in the race to replace Edward M. Kennedy. His political profile signaled no threat. They felt he was too conservative for Massachusetts, and that his legislative career had been unremarkable.

Some in Coakley's inner circle say it was mere complacency. One adviser said the early strategy also fit Coakley's personality -- she is not a natural campaigner, she does not like to grandstand, and she is averse to stirring up controversy, the adviser said. The campaign's approach in the immediate post-primary days was to focus on Coakley's strengths -- broad state-wide recognition, and high favorable ratings among voters -- and ride the momentum off her landslide victory in the four-way primary race.

Coakley limited her campaign appearances and refrained from airing television and radio ads to promote her candidacy. Her campaign was aware that Brown was traveling the state, but, even through the holidays, her aides were confident he had yet to get much notice.

Then Brown found his opening. Even though a Globe poll a week ago showed Coakley comfortably ahead, surveys conducted by two out-of-state firms using automated phone calls showed him surging. One poll had the candidates virtually tied.

The polls brought national attention and a flood of support and money from around the country for Brown, who had gained traction among Republicans everywhere by promising to be the "41st vote" blocking the Democrats' efforts to overhaul the nation's health care system. Suddenly, the campaign was sizzling, becoming a political event with the potential to define this year's mid-term elections nationwide.

Though some in the Coakley camp acknowledge being caught flat-footed, they say it came early enough for them to jump-start the campaign and draw in national reinforcements, including President Obama, who plans to campaign for Coakley in the Boston area tomorrow.

The president will indeed head to Massachusetts. See the New York Times, "Obama to Campaign in Massachusetts on Sunday."

And this would be a significant change from earlier reports, for example Byron York's, "Massachusetts: 'Bottom has fallen out' of Coakley's polls; Dems prepare to explain defeat, protect Obama."

Damned if you do or damned if you don't. Either way, this is just awful news for the Dems, and more evidence - if things really do go Scott Brown's way on Tuesday - that 2010's going to be an epic GOP year.

RELATED PANIC: Jonathan Chait, "What To Do If Coakley Loses" (via Memeorandum).

World Trade Center Used in DSCC Scott Brown Attack Ad

At National Review, "Desperate Dems' Bad Taste Reaches *Epic* New Heights," and "Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Makes Worst Stock Photo Choice Ever."

Plus, from Michelle Malkin, "Blundermania: Dems Attack Scott Brown’s “Greed” Using World Trade Center" (via Memeorandum):

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee decided to “help” flailing Mass. Senate candidate Martha Coakley with a hard-hitting ad attacking GOP challenger Scott Brown’s opposition to the White House’s Cover Tim Geithner’s A** Tax.

Except that they got so carried away with the class warfare rhetoric they Photoshopped Brown in front of the World Trade Center, which, um, was destroyed by jihadists who share the same view of American “greed” as the DSCC does.

Ben Smith at Politico has the scoop and reports that the DSCC is pulling the ad.

Please keep “helping,” DSCC!

And here it is, via Snooper Report:

More at Memeorandum.

Added: Linked by The Blog Prof, Cold Fury, Fausta, Gateway Pundit, Left Coast Rebel and The Rhetorican.

Americans Back Profiling Islamic Suicide Terrorists

From Gallup, "Americans Back Profiling Air Travelers to Combat Terrorism":

Americans widely endorse the use of profiling to single out airline passengers for more intensive security searches before they board U.S. flights, based on their age, ethnicity, or gender. Seventy-one percent are in favor of this practice and 27% are opposed.

These results are based on a Jan. 8-10 USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted in the weeks after the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight headed for Detroit. The incident sparked renewed discussion of ways to tighten security measures at airports, ranging from expanding the government's "no fly" list to more widespread use of body scan machines at airports.

"Eighty-three percent of self-identified conservatives favor the use of profiling, compared with 47% of liberals."The attempt has renewed debate over the use of profiling on the basis that terrorists generally have certain shared characteristics. The practice is used in Israel, a country noted for its tight airport security, but not in the United States. Two common objections to its use in the U.S. are the potential violation of individual civil liberties and unequal treatment for members of certain groups.

The poll results suggest that Americans seem to give greater weight to protecting citizens against possible terrorism than to protecting against potential violations of individual liberties.

You think?

RELATED: Bare Naked Islam, "YEMEN Terror Chatter Points to New Attacks on U.S. Aviation."

President Obama's Fail

From Charles Krauthammer, "One Year Out: President Obama's Fall":

What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama's approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent -- and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president's second year.

A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health-care reform.

A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on Earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing -- even among erstwhile believers.

Liberals try to attribute Obama's political decline to matters of style. He's too cool, detached, uninvolved. He's not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He's contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.

These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today's vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he's too left.

It's not about style; it's about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society -- health care, education and energy.

Then began the descent -- when, more amazingly still, Obama devoted himself to turning these statist visions into legislative reality. First energy, with cap-and-trade, an unprecedented federal intrusion into American industry and commerce. It got through the House, with its Democratic majority and Supreme Soviet-style rules. But it will never get out of the Senate.

More at the link.

I wonder what leftists will say? It's all the "teabaggers" fault?

Or, recall the New Yorker's cover cartoon:

Scott Brown Up by 15 in Pajamas Media Poll!

From Roger Simon, "Massachusetts shocker: Brown Up 15% in Pajamas Media/CrossTarget Poll":

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%.

This is the first poll to show Brown surging to such an extent. A poll from the Suffolk University Political Research Center – published Thursday morning by the Boston Herald, but taken earlier – had Brown moving ahead by 4%.

More at the link (via Memeorandum).

Plus, William Jacobson has a great post, "When Martha Dissed Teddy" (check the video there as well).