Obama's New Start

From Business Week, "Obama's Year Two: Time to Start Over":

After a tough first year, the President's economic agenda and standing will be challenged again in 2010 by soaring joblessness, ugly budget deficits, and Obama fatigue among independent voters

As President Barack Obama was preparing for a major policy speech on the economy in December, he erupted at his economic team. Budget Director Peter Orszag argued in a White House meeting that more emphasis should be put on reducing the deficit, while chief economist Christina Romer led a contingent advocating for a greater short-term focus on jobs. They were familiar refrains, and Obama was frustrated. "Why are we having this meeting again, the same discussion?" participants quoted him as saying. Welcome to year two, Mr. President. It won't require the same high-wire act as year one, when Depression 2.0 was staved off with a jumbo stimulus package, massive cash injections into the battered banking system, and bailouts of the auto industry. Instead, as he prepares to deliver his State of the Union address on Jan. 27 and his budget on Feb. 1, Obama has to clean up the damage done by the now-ended Great Recession: the budget deficits on the government's books and the sliding job market his aides were arguing over. Only after that will he be able to turn his full attention to his long-term "change" agenda.

For Obama, 2010 will be a year of finding 10% solutions. Last year's $1.4 trillion budget deficit is nearly 10% of the economy, and the unemployment rate is also stuck at 10%. And here's the dilemma: Cut the budget deficit by raising taxes or reducing spending and you risk slowing down the economy and pushing up unemployment. Spur job creation through tax credits for new hires or infrastructure spending and you blow out the budget.

"He's got a needle to thread," says John Podesta, an Obama confidant and head of the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank. "He wants to try to get as much as he can done in 2010 on the economy while paying attention to the long-term debt problems of the country."

That job got a whole lot harder with Republican Scott Brown's surprise victory in the recent Massachusetts special election, robbing Obama's Democrats of their super-majority in the Senate and threatening the President's health-care overhaul push. The setback left Democrats questioning Obama's decision to focus most of the party's energy on health care, rather than focusing more on jobs and the economy. Now, with independent voters souring on Obama, vulnerable lawmakers are likely to be reluctant about casting votes on other controversial issues such as caps on carbon emissions, tax reform, and a revamp of entitlement programs ahead of November's midterm elections. The White House may have to pare this year's legislative wish list.
Obama, who frequently invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s "fierce urgency of now" mantra during the Presidential campaign, doesn't have time to waste. The longer unemployment remains high, the more likely it is that discouraged job-seekers will drop out of the labor force. Government borrowing and debt, meanwhile, have reached "very worrisome" levels, says former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, risking a rise in long-term interest rates.

The President and his economic team have been brainstorming for months over how to solve the budget and job deficits and still move ahead with his broader economic agenda. One proposal: tapping the $700 billion bank bailout fund to help small business owners get credit. Another would lower the principal amount on underwater home loans, in which a house's value is less than the balance due.

More at the link.

Video Hat Tip: Nice Deb.

Jessica Simpson in Santa Monica!

New Jessica Simpson pics, from The Superficial:

Here's hoping she doesn't go all Heidi Montag on us!

P.S. Theo Spark's "Bedtime Totty" is too hot!

Saving Kiki, Saving Hope

John Humphrys, at London's Daily Mail, takes a step back from the sensationalism of the telegenic rescue of Kiki, the beautiful boy, rescued in Haiti, whose wide arms and wide smile are unforgettable. See, "Kiki, the Icon of Hope in the Rubble":

No Hollywood director could have improved on the scene that was splashed across the pages of this and just about every other newspaper 24 hours ago.

No reader could have turned the page without pausing, smiling, perhaps even shedding a tear.

That one photograph summed up the horror and - yes - the hope of what has befallen Haiti.

Check the link for the rest. As Humphrys notes:

If there is one image that stays in our minds when the world's attention has moved on from Haiti it will surely be this one. But why?

Why should it not be the picture of another Haitian child who also survived the earthquake?

Well, for one thing everybody's looking for the heroic angle, and the marketable one as well. And it's definitely a professional accomplishment as well (see the Times of London, "Photographer Matthew McDermott Describes Moment of Haitian Boy’s Rescue.") But I hate to see too many corks popped when there's still so much pain.

In any case, compare and contrast the same story as told by CNN in New York and a Kenyan network in Africa. We want everyone to be safe, and God save the Haitian people. But lets continue with, when we can, the humble restraint in the American press:

More from the Daily Mail, "Haiti in Hope and Despair: The Boy Craving a Hug After a Week Buried Alive and the Schoolgirl Killed by Police for Looting."

Abandoning Obama?

I just checked Andrew Sullivan's Sitemeter. Oh sure, I know he's still a big name blogger, but I'm curious to see his traffic stats given his latest meltdown over Scott Brown's election. What kind of demand is there for these really freaked screeds against the voters in MA? (Sully peaked in the early afternoon at just over 14 thousand visitors for the 1:00 o'clock hour, and he's thus gettin' well over 150,000 visitors for the day.) He's got a post up at the moment, "Now Fight!" (a Google link is here), and the least I can say is the guy's never boring:

The seismic events of the last few days ends, in some respects, the phony war of the first year of Obama's presidency. As is the case in truly fracturing democracies, the opposition simply does not and cannot accept the fact that it is out of power. The incoherence of the opposition to Obama - that he is both Jimmy Carter and Adolf Hitler, as Stephen Colbert pointed out last night - reveals the irrationality of the hate. It began immediately on the FNC/RNC right. And the ferocity of the campaign against Obama, the sheer dickishness of the GOP and its acolytes, the total oppositionism to everything he has done and indeed anything he might do... suggests that any hope for some kind of cooperation from this rump is impossible.

But the truth is that these forces have also been so passionate, so extreme, and so energized that in a country reeling from a recession, the narrative - a false, paranoid, nutty narrative - has taken root in the minds of some independents. Obama, under-estimating the extremism of his opponents, has focused on actually addressing the problems we face. And the rest of us, crucially, have sat back and watched and complained and carped when we didn't get everything we want. We can keep on carping if we want to. But it seems to me that continuing that - as HuffPo et al. appear to be doing - is objectively siding with the forces of profound reaction right now.

Don't get me wrong. Criticism is still vital. I'm not going to give up on advocating marriage equality or a carbon tax, rather than cap and trade, or for an independent investigation of Bush era war crimes. I think pushing Obama to a more populist position on banks is well and good. But given the alternative, I am going to step up my support of this president in the face of what he is confronting, even when he is not exactly doing everything I want. In my view, you should too.

There's more at the post, but I didn't link it (check Google if you want more of Sullivan's wallowing). Still, I'm intrigued at this notion that independent voters have been brainwashed with all this "false, paranoid, nutty" talk -- but apparently not so much during the 2008 during election, when conservatives foretold precisely how bad this administration would be. (Couldn't be economic issues and the ObamaCare boondoggle, right Andrew?)

Anyway, not everyone's so quick to double-down on their support for the president. Barack Obama was a phenemonon in 2008, but it's amazing the kind of Icarus effect he's having. Nowadays, if you don't toe the line of your most partisan cadres at the base, you could end up losing them all together in a mass pathology of anger and rejection. We saw this already with Jane Hamsher (who was willing to enter into some truly bizarre alliances to defeat healthcare without the public option), but when Paul Krugman starts to question allegiances, then something's really up. See, "He Wasn’t The One We’ve Been Waiting For":

... I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

If you read Krugman in 2009, especially his "letter" to the new president last January, then you can appreciate how significant the left's disenchantment has become.

More here, from Greg Sargent, "SEIU Chief: If Dems Pass Scaled-Down Health Bill, Labor Will Have Trouble Staying 'Focused On National Politics'" (via Memeorandum). And, from Hot Air, "SEIU Warns Obama: If ObamaCare Doesn’t Pass, We Might Not Be There for the Midterms."

Man, Ayla Brown is Tall!

Via Saberpoint, I just happened to notice this R.S. McCain interview with Ayla Brown. That woman is tall. Whoo hoo!! Be sure to read Stogie's comments:

Last time I wrote about height issues I got in a little trouble, but this time I blame Stogie!

See, At 5' 6½", George Stephanopoulos Debuts at Good Morning America - UPDATED!!"

RELATED: Ayla Brown Acknowledges It: She Voted for Kerry (via Memeorandum).

Bye Bye Obama

No doubt at least a couple of readers have been looking for some big awesome analysis here on the Massachusetts election and its implications for politics and policy going forward. Indeed, Kathy MacGinn used to visit here looking for some big picture analysis only to find pictures of big, busty, beautiful women, LOL! Sorry to disappoint, but it's been a big week at my college, and I've had a pretty bad cold, which is unusual for me. The weather of course has been a major preoccupation, and I've been concerned about my wife and kids out in the elements. We're all safe, and things should be settling down this next week as my school schedule and new-semester-bustle mellows out a bit. And after one more storm today and tomorrow, we should have some calm over the weekend before another front moves in next week. My prayers go out to all.

In any case, I've been meaning to say something significant since at least Wednesday, especially after seeing this post at The Monkey Cage, "The Effect of the MA Special Election." As Joshua Tucker notes there: "The 1993 Canadian Elections this was not." And of course it wasn't, especially since that was a national election for control of the Canadian Parliament (and we had just one seat in the Senate in play on the 19th). Although untold numbers on the radical left can't bring themselves to admit it, Scott Brown's election was a referendum first and foremost on good government at the national level in American politics -- and thus, by primary implication, the election (of a Republican in the Massachusetts Senate seat) was a repudiation of the national Democratic majority under President Barack Obama's leadership:

All kinds of leftist contortions are being made to argue that the Democratic-left hasn't worked hard enough or hasn't been bold enough in pushing its agenda in Washington. That's pure bull, of course, and such halucinations are not isolated to the extreme fringes of the netroots left. Checking Memeorandum right now shows Paul Krugman's essay leading the board, "Do the Right Thing." From the sound of Krugman's piece you'd think that it's just institutional roadblocks holding up ObamaCare. He argues that "Ladies and gentlemen, the nation is waiting. Stop whining, and do what needs to be done." But the nation is not in fact "waiting" -- not for ObamaCare, at least. Gallup shows this morning that Americans are frustrated by the long grind of healthcare reform, and they believe it's been a distraction. With respect to Scott Brown's election, the administration and the Democrats in Congress should take a holistic look at the state of U.S. politics, policy, and popular opinion:

President Obama has indicated he would like Congress to hold off on healthcare reform until Brown is seated, which is consistent with the public's wishes to suspend work on the bill. But the public is also not convinced that healthcare should be the top priority for the government at this time and endorses finding alternatives that can gain Republican support, which the bill under consideration has not received. Americans may therefore prefer a longer pause on the issue -- one that stretches well beyond the time Brown is seated.

And if you want to get a good idea of Democratic disrespect for public opinion, and hence for the message of the special election, see the posts by Steve Benen, Greg Sargent, and Booman (which deserves a response in and of itself).

What the GOP has now is momentum -- extremely powerful momentum -- and that's the real message of January 19th.

So with that, I'll hold off on more comment until later, but I'll leave folks with an analysis from across the Atlantic. See Der Speigel, "The World Bids Farewell to Obama":

US President Barack Obama suffered a painful defeat in Massachusetts on Tuesday. With mid-term elections looming, it means that Obama will have to fundamentally re-think his political course. German commentators say it is the end of hope.

The end of hope means "nope."

Cartoon Credit: The Blog Prof.

ADDED: Dan Riehl links!

And Would You Cry if I Told You That I Lied ... And Would You Say Goodbye?

Time to lighten it up around here with some drivin' rock from my youth. Please enjoy Bachman-Turner Overdrive, "Let it Ride":

Also, from my good friend Anton, "Sunday Music – The Stranger." Plus, Theo Spark, "Thursday Totty ..."

Debating Gay Marriage

There's been a little debate at my last night's, "Cindy McCain Shills for No on H8 (and Meghan Too)." Actually, some of the comments are not really addressing my arguments, or by now they've moved past them to emotionalism. So, as I've done this before, I'll simply repost some articles I've blogged earlier.

From David Blankenhorn, "Protecting Marriage to Protect Children":

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

And from Susan Shell, "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage":

When considering the institution of marriage, a useful comparison exists between how society addresses the beginning and end of human life. Like death, our relation to which is shaped and challenged but not effaced by modern technologies, generation defines our human nature, both in obvious ways and in ways difficult to fathom fully. As long as this is so, there is a special place for marriage understood as it has always been understood. That is to say, there is a need for society to recognize that human generation and its claims are an irreducible feature of the human experience.

Like the rites and practices surrounding death, marriage invests a powerful, universally shared experience with the norms and purposes of a given society. Even when couples do not "marry," as is increasingly becoming the case in parts of western Europe, they still form socially recognized partnerships that constitute a kind of marriage. If marriage in a formal sense is abolished, it will not disappear, but it will no longer perform this task so well.

A similar constraint applies to death. A society could abolish "funerals" as heretofore understood and simply call them "parties," or allow individuals to define them as they wish. Were the "liberationist" exaltation of individual choice pushed to its logical conclusion, would not a public definition of "funeral" as a rite in honor of the dead appear just as invidious as a public definition of "marriage" as an enduring sexual partnership between a man and woman? If it is discriminatory to deny gay couples the right to "marry," is it not equally unfair to deny living individuals the right to attend their own "funerals"? If it makes individuals happy, some would reply, what is the harm? Only that a society without the means of formally acknowledging, through marriage, the fact of generation, like one without the means of formally acknowledging, through funeral rites, the fact of death, seems impoverished in the most basic of human terms.

Like generation, death has a "public face" so obvious that we hardly think of it. The state issues death certificates and otherwise defines death legally. It recognizes funeral attendance as a legal excuse in certain contexts, such as jury duty. It also regulates the treatment of corpses, which may not merely be disposed of like any ordinary animal waste. Many states afford funeral corteges special privileges not enjoyed by ordinary motorists. Funeral parlors are strictly regulated, and there are limits on the purchase and destruction of cemeteries that do not apply to ordinary real estate. In short, there are a number of ways in which a liberal democratic government, as a matter of course, both acknowledges "death" and limits the funereal rites and practices of particular sects and individuals. I cannot call a party in my honor my "funeral" and expect the same public respect and deference afforded genuine rites for the dead. And it would be a grim society indeed that allowed people to treat the dead any old which way--as human lampshades, for example.

Once one grants that the link between marriage and generation may approach, in its universality and solemn significance, the link between funereal practices and death, the question of gay marriage appears in a new light. It is not that marriages are necessarily devoted to the having and rearing of children, nor that infertility need be an impediment to marriage (as is still the case for some religious groups). This country has never legally insisted that the existence of marriage depends upon "consummation" in a potentially procreative act. It is, rather, that marriage, in all the diversity of its forms, draws on a model of partnership rooted in human generation. But for that fact, marriages would be indistinguishable from partnerships of a variety of kinds. The peculiar intimacy, reciprocity, and relative permanence of marriage reflect a genealogy that is more than merely historical.

See also, Vinegar and Honey, "Flabbergasted!"

Heavy Rain Closes Colleges in Long Beach

It was a torrential downpour when I ran out from my office building yesterday to head home from work. I had parked by the athletic facilities, and thus after pulling my car out I drove south on Faculty toward Conant, and then right over to Lakewood Boulevard south, which is my normal route in the afternoon. Perhaps I should have thought twice about it (although at the moment it was raining so hard I doubted an alternative route would have been better). Lakewood was totally flooded and I thought some of the cars might stall from the high water -- mine included. Police had set up a detour at the Lakewood Boulevard and Spring Street intersection, and I traveled east on Spring to Bellflower Boulevard to the 405 southbound. And to my surprise, not a car was on the freeway when I pulled up around the on-ramp. No doubt the 405 was flooded not too far up the road northbound, and the traffic on the other side of the freeway was backed up. When I got home, ABC 7 was showing clips of the Lakewood Boulevard undercrossing (which goes literally under the Long Beach Airport) totally flooded out with mud and debris:

Unlike Long Beach State, where the semester doesn't start until next week, my college is open for classes. Here's the message at the LBCC website as I logged on from my kitchen laptop to write this post:

Thursday January 21, 2010, 4:30 p.m.

Tonight’s weather forecast for Long Beach predicts more rainfall, but at this time, both LAC and PCC campuses are scheduled to remain open for evening classes. We will notify you immediately if there are any changes via email and updates on the LBCC home page.

Please continue to exercise caution when walking around/within campuses, as the walkways and floors may be slippery.

Eloy O. Oakley,
Superintendent-President

Thanks to Dana at Common Sense Political Thought, who asked if my house was dry. That's an affirmative. But it's gnarlier around here than I can remember for a long time.

Check KABC-TV Los Angeles for updates on the Southern California storms.

Democrats Need to Feel It...

From Amy Walter, one of my favorite political analysts, "Will Democrats Feel Voters' Pain? The Party Won't Win Back Independents This Year Simply By Attacking Opponents":

After all the finger-pointing and hand-wringing are done over Martha Coakley's once improbable Senate loss in Massachusetts, Democrats have to stop scapegoating (bad candidates, bad polls, bad advice) and start to figure out how they can stop what is shaping up to be an electoral disaster this year.

Lots of Democrats blame their 54-seat loss in the House in 1994 on a lack of preparation and hubris. This year, they say, they're ready for the fight. With enough preparation and money, they can define the contours of their races before the political mood and their opponents do it for them. Coakley, for her part, didn't seem to take Republican Scott Brown or the mood of the electorate all that seriously. By the time she finally engaged him, it was too late ...

RTWT at the link.

RELATED: From Legal Insurrection, "A Warning For The Next Scott Brown."

Democrats to Use Budget-Reconciliation to Pass ObamaCare?

I frankly never really believed that Nancy Pelosi would abandon the push for healthcare "reform." And this post at National Review sounds pretty on target:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, tells National Review Online that House Democrats are planning to use the budget-reconciliation process in order to pass Obamacare. “They’re meeting with each other this weekend to pursue it,” says Ryan. “I’ve spoken with many Democrats and the message is this: They’re not ready to give up. They’ve waited their entire adult lives for this moment and they aren’t ready to let 100,000 pesky votes in Massachusetts get in the way of fulfilling their destiny. They’ll look at every option and spend the next four or five days figuring it out.”

Compare to the Washington Post, "Pelosi says House cannot pass Senate's health-care bill without changes" (via Memeorandum).

Scott Brown Goes to Washington

This is cool. From the Los Angeles Times, "GOP's Brown Takes Washington by Storm":

On the day when Democrats seemed to ease away from immediate action on healthcare overhaul, the man whose Senate campaign was built on opposition to the current legislation took Washington by storm.

Sporting a we-can-work-together attitude, Massachusetts Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown arrived at the Capitol, where he was surrounded by media as he paid courtesy calls to Republicans and Democrats.

“I read in an article that you getting elected will make my job easier,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said at some of the numerous photo opps that dotted Brown’s day and became a staple of cable news outlets across the political spectrum.

“You’ve been very gracious in reaching out,” Brown replied. “I appreciate the gesture.”

“You are entering the Senate at a time when the country is in deep trouble,” Reid said. That’s “a lot of what your campaign was about.”

In his race, Brown rode a wave of unhappiness with the pending healthcare bills passed with just one Republican vote in the House and without any GOP support in the Senate. Brown pledged to be the 41st GOP vote against the bill, in effect forcing the healthcare debate to move beyond a battle within the governing Democrats.

Republicans have been pushing to reopen the process and to start the legislative deliberations all over. Democrats are weighing their options in combining the two bills, which would still need 60 votes to pass the Senate over united GOP opposition.

One plan, to have the House pass the Senate version and send it President Obama, seemed dead for now after Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a televised news conference that her members had problems with some of the provisions of the Senate bill.

“In its present form, without change, I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House,” Pelosi said. “We are not in a big rush.” Congress will “take the time it needs to consider the options.”

If anything, Pelosi’s comments put an even brighter spotlight on Brown, who, like fellow New England Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, is regarded as more moderate than others in the GOP caucus.

RTWT at the link.

Plus, at Hot Air, "Breaking: Pelosi Announces That She Can't Pass Senate ObamaCare Bill" (via Memeorandum).

Added:

Obama’s Finance Hypocrisy

Folks might want to go back and take a look at the very first piece I published at Pajamas Media, "Obama’s Fundraising Fraud."

At the time of writing, in late October 2008, the Barack Obama presidential campaign had raised more the $200 million in small contribution of $200 or less. Such small individual donations are not reported to the FEC, as I noted at the essay:

These small donations do not require public disclosure under FEC guidelines, and the Obama campaign refuses to make public its list of contributors. Obama earlier announced he’d accept public financing if the GOP nominee did the same (and then, of course, broke his pledge in June after realizing he’d far surpass previous fundraising records). So there’s a pattern. By keeping his donor list secret now, the Illinois senator has heightened speculation of financial impropriety. Not only can Obama’s inside operatives organize massive bundling operations outside the law, there are no safeguards against the new “fat cat” contributors who bundle their own cash. Hillary Clinton’s Norman Hsu scandal from late-2007 points to the kind of abuses possible under the current regime. A more serious breach of faith may be taking place right now in the Obama camp.

There are rarely ever serious consquences to financial impropriety in campaign fundraising, and with "Mr. Chicago Boy" in the White House, it's common knowledge that this administration is the most corrupt in decades. So I had to literally shake my head in disgust upon reading this statement from the White House:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

Also, just now at Pajamas, "Supreme Court Strikes Down Campaign Finance Laws: A Decisive Blow for the First Amendment."

And of course, here it comes: "Democrats Plan to Push Bill to Limit Impact of Campaign Finance Decision."

Heidi Montag: 'I Feel Very Plastic..."

It's a fascinating interview. Heidi Montag went nearly to the limits of human endurance to improve her appearance. (She sounds quite vulnerable in listening to her vocals.) And she literally can't move her face. "I feel very plastic," she says, after being asked. I'm moved by how honest she is about it, so perhaps an attempt a sincerity can humanize this quest for perfection that's so common among us and in our culture. Be sure to listen to the end of the video. Montag's thought through the philosophy of aging pretty thoroughly. I've always accepted age and changing, but isn't extreme exercise and fitness just a corollary to how she feels about beauty and longevity?

See also, "Heidi Montag Before and After."

Massachusetts Results Could Spell Trouble for Boxer

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

If Republicans can win a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, that bluest of blue states, they can win anywhere – including California. Republican Scott Brown’s decisive and historic victory in the U.S. Senate race in the Bay State could be a bad sign for Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer’s re-election chances in November.

Brown succeeded in making the Obama administration’s policies – especially its plan to overhaul the country’s health care system – a millstone around the neck of Democratic candidate Martha Coakley. The same could happen to the liberal Boxer, given her support of health care reform and a host of other Obama initiatives.

This was not just a local race, but a national one. Many people in Massachusetts obviously feel the Obama administration is doing too much too fast at too high a cost to American taxpayers. And you will find the same sentiment in California.

Also, since Brown – who, as he pointed out in TV ads, drives a pickup truck – was able to reclaim populism for the GOP, it left Democrats open to the charge that they’re elitists who represent the establishment. Those robes fit Boxer well. After all, during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” she suggested that town hall protesters were too “well-dressed” to be authentic and so they had to be planted there by the GOP.

In a recent poll of California voters by Rasmussen Reports, Boxer was favored by only 46 percent of respondents – less than a majority – regardless of which of her Republican challengers she was pitted against. Former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina got 43 percent against Boxer. Former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell pulled down 42 percent. State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore got 40 percent.

Even before this week’s Senate race in Massachusetts, Boxer clearly faced a difficult campaign. Now, it could be that her troubles have only intensified.

Of the three Republicans, Californians should elect Chuck DeVore. See Right Klik, "Support Chuck DeVore."

Cindy McCain Shills for No on H8 (and Meghan Too)

This article has got me thinking, so I'm just going to come out and admit it: I'm tired of it. I'm tired of standing up for my principles and then having to turn around to be attacked as a "hater." No one who knows me as a dedicated family man would call me a "hater." No one who knows me and my work with students and communities would call me a "hater." Not one my own students -- gay or straight, man or woman, black, white, or hispanic -- would call me a "hater" (at least not one of those students who has really worked with me, and benefited from my teaching and mentoring). But after supporting Proposition 8, and then blogging the hell out of the gay marriage issues for months after the November 2008 election, I'm even more frustrated by the left's campaign of vilification of cultural traditionalists. So, I'll be clear: I believe marriage exists for the fundamental purpose of child-rearing and the biological regeneration of society. In no way can a same-sex couple do what a man and woman can to reproduce the essential unity of physiological oneness of children and procreation. This is simply what I understand as constitutive of the marriage union. And thus, I don't consider same-sex marriage as equal to the historic struggles for civil rights, for example, the reversal of the historic wrongs of discrimation against interracial couples. There's no need to provide links. I've blogged all of these issues time and again, and there's not much more to prove. I love all people regardless of ethnicity, gender, language, national orgins, and religion, etc. And I really don't want to fight with people because of my traditional values. All along, throughout the debates on Proposition 8 in California, and in the recent politics of gay marriage in the states across the union, I've accepted the notion that majority rule should decide the issue -- even if that means gay marriage should prevail. We need to observe the people's will on this crucial question of society. Should the courts authorize a blanket right to same-sex marriage, we'll have decades of cultural wars along the lines of the politics of abortion following Roe v. Wade in 1973. There are some issues so fundamental to the stability of society that the deep emotions and partisan battles are never quite resolved. I don't see the question of gay marriage fading away if the Supreme Court eventually decides the issue in favor of the radical left. Too many people of both religious and secular standing see the historic family of husband and wife as the pillar of the community. Without that, America will never be the same, and our nation will almost certainly not be as strong as we've been as a people over time. We must decide the controversy over same-sex marriage at the state level and as a question of federalism and the rights of states to organize the legal status of the family according the local norms and community standards.

Okay, why am I'm I moved to write this? No one has ever made compelling arguments on the facts to rebut what's been written here over time. Indeed, it almost always ends up, the responses I get, as leftist namecalling and the politics of radical hatred and demonization. It's really sick sometimes. You think Andrew Sullvan's just recently gone off? Whatever he's said of Scott Brown this week is all of a piece. You're "Christainist" (and thus a fanatical terrorist) if you're into the historical conception of family unity and regeneration. But I'm afraid it's getting to the point that even people of strong values have capitulated to the demonization of what's good. If it's gotten to the point where the Cindy McCains and the Meghan McCains of this world are the arbiters of what's an acceptable Repubican, I doubt that party will ever regain any credibility on the right, no matter how many Scott Browns we elect. I know, I know: Lots of top Republicans favor so-called "marriage equality." Dick Cheney comes to mind, one of the most forceful critics of the Obama administration, but one who has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. For all of Dick Cheney's wisdom, I don't think he gets it on this issue. Once conservatives concede marriage to the radical left, it's all downhill -- there's not going to be much to uphold regarding fundamental values of goodness and social preservation. It's all up in the air at that point. But don't just take my word for it. Listen to the folks who Cindy McCain and Meghan McCain have joined in the "NO on H8" campaign, "Meghan McCain is Redefining Republican"

Teabaggers are definitely getting all the attention these days when it comes to the Republican Party. Look no further than Massachusetts, where Republicans have graciously told their candidate, Scott Brown, to shove a curling iron up Democratic nominee Martha Coakley's butt, or to Oklahoma, where teabaggers have prayed for Senate Democrats to die.

Talk about a civility FAIL. Is there any hope left for the Republican Party? Maybe some sort of superwoman? Or, well, at least a super Tweeter and/or blogger?

Enter Meghan McCain, the daughter of U.S. Sen. John McCain, who has grown tired of childish kvetching and teabaggers. She's ready to redefine Republican, and for her, that starts with increasing the number of Republicans supportive of marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

McCain is scheduled to speak at George Washington University's "Marriage Equality Week," scheduled for February 9. That is, unless a civil war among students breaks out. A student gay rights group is thrilled that she's coming. But a student Republican organization feels like they were duped. They wanted Meghan McCain to speak about the new face of the Republican Party, and now they're miffed that she'll be talking about marriage equality ...

I can't hold back in my intense resentment at being attacked as a "teabagger" by these freakin' gay marriage ayatollahs. Meghan McCain is too stupid to realize these she's simply the most colossal tool of the neo-Stalinist gay rights lobby (including the International ANSWER cadres and Code Pink traitors who've long supported the killing of American troops overseas). Put it all together and it's just plain grotesque. It's really time for conservatives to take a stand (and if you don't think so, read Diana West's, "The Stage Is Being Set"). Will Meghan and her mother define the agenda of the GOP? Take a look at that article: "Cindy McCain Joins California’s No H8 Gay-Rights Campaign." It's hard to believe that John McCain's wife would be sucked into this by the same groups that worked to destroy her husband in 2008. But they are one and the same. John McCain as a candidate supported marriage traditionalism. I don't know where he stands now, but his wife and daughter certainly don't represent what the McCain presidential campaign stood for at the time.

Anyway, it's all coming to a head again this week. Court's back in session in San Francisco, and the left's campaign of lies and distortion is picking up steam. See, the Los Angeles Times, "Documents Show Links Between Prop. 8 Campaign and Church Leaders" (via Memeorandum). And the San Jose Mercury News, "Prop. 8 Trial Day 7: Live Coverage From the Courtroom."

RELATED: The Advocate, "Cindy McCain Poses for NOH8." And the Washington Post, "McCain's Wife, Daughter Back Gay Marriage Movement."

Scott Brown's Social Networking Election

Here's my comment from last night, at William Jacobson's post, "A Night to Give Thanks":

Congratulations, William. I learned more about this race on your blog than anywhere else.

I really did, too.

I wasn't even following Massachusetts' special election all that closely, but then all of a sudden I noticed that William was getting tons of attention for his coverage of Scott Brown's candidacy. Basically, William's blogging was weeks ahead of the national media curve. If you check over there now, William's got a post up called, "What A Day," which reports the traffic surge at his blog on election day.

I was planning some kind of post to formally recognize William at my blog, but I doubt I could beat the commentary of Sissy Willis at Pajamas Media, "Social Networking Key to Brown’s Success" (via Memeorandum):

The inside story of how tea party twitterers, Facebook friends, and Blogspot buddies helped win the race for Scott Brown ....

Starting December 9, the day after Scott Brown’s primary victory, bloggers like myself and Cornell Prof. William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection took Bill Kristol’s idea to make Scott Brown’s race a “referendum on Obamacare” and ran with it. We both communicated directly with the campaign through Facebook and Twitter. We burst out of our virtual worlds from time to time to help get out the vote by phone banking at regional offices. At campaign headquarters in Needham one day, Jacobson was actually kicked off the phone because he was spending too much time on Twitter! Blogging and twittering our on-the-ground experiences, from phone banking to informal exit polling, fired up our readers — from Massachusetts and around the country and beyond — to contribute and volunteer.

The campaign itself was totally social-networking savvy. As New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote, Brown “used Internet fundraising to put the fear of God into” the old boy network. If you were from out of state or unable to come in to one of the regional offices to phone bank, they had the technology to allow you to make calls from home.

Like-minded big-time bloggers like Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and Michelle Malkin showered Prof. Jacobson, myself, and others with links. The message had gone viral, and the comments and tweets poured in, a groundswell of tea party fever that would bring in dollars and volunteer time to get out the vote and help sweep our long-shot candidate to an astonishing 52-to-47 percent victory. One in five Democrats supported Brown, “who benefited from high suburban turnout,” according to a Rasmussen Reports poll, enough of an edge so the Beacon Hill machine couldn’t cheat.

“Winning is fun,” fellow blogger-in-arms Dan Riehl of Riehl World View twittered on victory night, and the “beauty of New Media is getting local perspective.” Indeed, the ability of bloggers like Prof. Jacobson and others to use social-networking tools to share our experiences instantaneously with tea party sympathizers across the country is akin, perhaps, to the way Radio Free Europe was once used to give hope to oppressed peoples behind the Iron Curtain.
No longer dependent upon legacy media to tell our story, we are able — in Prof. Reynolds’s formulation — to disintermediate the old boy networks via the internet.

Please head on over to William's page to give a word of congratulations and thanks.

Also, at Sissy Willis' page, "Social Networking Key to Brown's Success: Pajamas Media Lead Story."

Scott Brown's Daughters

I think last night really demonstrated the immediacy and power of Twitter. When Scott Brown announced that his daughters were "available," Kathleen McKinley sent this tweet in real time:

I saw a few more tweets from women bloggers who were similarly shocked. It wasn't the high point of Brown's speech, but he's easily forgiven considering the emotional high of the moment.

It turns out that Glenn Beck's not cutting Brown any slack:

I wish Beck would have laid off this bit, especially since he's ostensibly on Brown's side, but what can you do.? The show must go on. Dan Riehl has more:

Oh, I know. It's just comedy. But it won't be in two years when liberals supporting Brown's opponent troll it up to initiate a discussion around Scott Brown's victory speech - without the context of the whole thing. Nah, they'll just be citing a former CPAC speaker to engage in smear tactics against Brown because Beck is being given political credibility by the Right.

Most won't appreciate that, now. But Beck's radio show which, truthfully, relatively few people listen to compared to the other national hosts, will provide the Left with a treasure trove of remarks taken out of context to hurt the Right at the polls. But, why should Beck care? He's getting paid for it, after all.

Southern California Storms

My campus was flooded yesterday, just as I was heading over to my 1:00pm class. Good thing I had heavy boots and my umbrella. The local news has video from the Long Beach freeway, a few miles northwest of my college, around the same time yesterday:

Costa Mesa, in Orange County, had a tornado whip through town as well. That's big news for us, even though national election news and the happenings in Haiti have taken up more of the air time. See also, "Soaked Southland Awaits Third Storm."

The People's Seat!

There's too much news to digest this morning, but a couple of headlines at Memeorandum stuck out. See, Politico, "Forces of Change Now Target President Obama." And, the Washington Post, "For Democrats and Republicans Alike, Lessons from the Massachusetts Senate Election."

More Sore Losers: Leftists Lash Out After Coakley Defeat

A follow-up to my previous post, "Sore Losers: Leftists Lash Out After Coakley Defeat."

From the comment board at Democratic Underground:

207. Massachusetts

What you did to this country tonight is disgusting. You voted for hatred, you voted for ignorance, you voted for Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and the vomit producing Republican Party. You deserve every rotten, stinking thing that party has in store for you. I say let the Republicans have this country and take it down, that is the only thing people will remember, that's the only thing that will make them understand just what they have done. Fuck you you fucking tea bagging assholes.

See also, Cassy Fiano, "The Liberal Reaction to Scott Brown's Victory" (at Hot Air as well).

Ayla Brown

If you watched Scott Brown's victory speech you caught his really offhand remark that both his daughters were "available." Perhaps that's a pitch for some young men on the Democratic left to change party affiliation! Check out Ayla Brown. Whoo! The photo's from the lovely Pamela Geller, "The Atlas Has Landed: Massachusetts Senate Race Liveblog ...":

She was previously a season five semi-finalist on American Idol:

And from Jonah Goldberg on Twitter, "Brown daughters are definitely easy on the eyes. If you like that sort of thing."

Sore Losers: Leftists Lash Out After Coakley Defeat

I knew Twitter'd be where the action is tonight, and I'm not disappointed. Can't say the same for Roger Ebert:

Rachel Maddow's dissing MA voters as well ...

Martha Coakley Concedes!

Saw it first at Jim Geraghty's Twitter. But see also Politico, "Coakley Concedes":

The Boston Globe reports that Martha Coakley has called Scott Brown to concede, according to a Brown aide.

Two Democrats confirmed the concession to POLITICO.

Her concession marks the most dramatic political upset in a generation, one that will be plumbed for meaning and spun over the next few days.

Please let me know what you think it means in the comments section, as I figure out what I think it means.

Scott Brown Leads in Massachusetts Senate Returns

Folks on Twitter are going wild! Check Matt Margolis!

And here's this from CNN, "GOP's Brown Leads in Early Massachusetts Senate Returns":

Republican Scott Brown grabbed a solid lead with almost a third of results counted in Tuesday's special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat controlled by the Kennedy family since 1953.

Brown, a Massachusetts state senator, had 52 percent of the vote to 47 percent for state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic contender, with 30 percent of precincts reporting in results from the National Election Pool, a consortium of media organizations including CNN. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy, a libertarian who is not related to the Kennedy political family of Massachusetts, had 1 percent.

At stake was President Obama's domestic agenda, including health care reform.

If Brown upsets Coakley, Republicans will strip Democrats of the 60-seat Senate supermajority needed to overcome GOP filibusters against future Senate action on a broad range of White House priorities.

Wolf Blitzer just report Brown up 53-46 as this post goes live @6:03PST!!

Coakley Campaign Got Early Start in Scott Brown Election Challenge!

This is interesting, "Coakley’s Press Release Charging Ballot Fraud Was Written Yesterday."

Also, from Ed Driscoll, "Future Shock Strikes The Coakley Campaign." And, at National Review, "Is the Coakley Campaign Laying the Groundwork for a Challenge?" (via Bittany Cohan).

Nice Deb has more on potential Democratic Party election fraud. And at Politico, "Coakley Campaign Casts Doubt on Election 'Integrity'." (Via Memeorandum.)

Down to the Wire in Massachusetts

I've been working all day, so little time to post. I should have some election analysis posted here later, as the returns come in from the Bay State. Meanwhile, check this out: It was t-shirt weather in Southern California when Robert Stacy McCain covererd the BCS championship earlier this month, but it's pretty wintery up in Massachusetts today:

Robert's got more at his post, "ELECTION DAY IN MASSACHUSETTS."

Plus, here's this, from Big Government, "Why Is This Woman Handing Out Absentee Ballots?":

More later, but check Allahpundit, "Four hours before polls close, Coakley advisor blames White House; Update: DNC official goes nuclear on Coakley camp."

From the OC GOP Central Committee Meeting...

As promised, here's a brief report from the Hyatt Hotel in Irvine, where the Republican Party of Orange County held its first central committee meeting of 2010. It was a little stuffy for me actually, and one of the local tea partiers got rowdy and was thrown out -- to the boos of many of my fellow grassroots patriots. Here's a bit of the party paraphernalia as I walked in the lobby:

Here's the scene as I walked into the ballroom:

The party cats were hip with the social networking technology. The GOP "Tech" website is here, with a video from tonight's livestream. The Twitter page is here:

The Party Chairman Scott Baugh gave the opening speech of the night. He attacked the Republican National Committee pretty agressively (which is uncharacteristic for a local party organization), but mostly gave a traditional speech on preserving liberty and promoting free markets, blah, blah...

Baugh did go on at some length about the Citizen Power Initiative, which is now being circulated by petition for qualification on the June ballot. There's a lot of anger at taxing, spending, and out of control government, and Baugh was pretty fired up about taking back power to the people.

My main interest, however, was in catching Mark Meckler's speech, who I mentioned previously. Meckler, seen below, is the National Coordinator and Board Member of the Tea Party Patriots, out of Sacramento.

Meckler announced right away that he's not a Republican, but an independent. But as the talk went on, it became clear that he's hoping that party activists adopt the super-disciplined fiscal conservatism that's been a top issue among tea party patriots. Bringing about a "Second American Revolution" was a major theme of both Chairman Baugh and Mark Meckler. I personally think the call for revolution goes over better out on the streets than in swank hotel ballrooms, but at least such exhortations fire up the faithful.

Meckler noted that as soon as he was done in the O.C. he was heading up to LAX to board a flight for Massachusetts. He announced he was going to be there for the "victory" of GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown. In that sense, it's clear that some in the tea party leadership see the road to political power through the GOP. (I wrote about this earlier, at my entry, "Tea Party 'Precinct Strategy' Seeks G.O.P. Takeover.") But it's pretty well-established that grassroots tea party activists are fed up with both parties, so it'll be interesting to see how efforts at synergy and coordination work out. I'm pretty optimistic that tea partiers will fold their agenda into the Republican establishment, in the raw interest of winning power. Representative Michele Bachmann's the model, of course, with her super-popularity among the patriots. And perhaps additional hardline-conservative Republicans will reach out more forcefully in courting right-wing/libertarian activists. Either way, it's going to be a rough year for the Democrats. My main concern, as always, is that the tea partiers don't frizzle-away their power through the formation of a formal third party movement. Tonight's event made me quite a bit more confident that the third-party option's increasingl seen as a losing proposition.

Coakley May Face Voters' Wrath

I've been busy all day, and haven't really kept up with the news online. (I did see some polls trending heavily for Scott Brown, and I read Andrew Sullivan's totally hysterical take on tomorrow's election -- it's basically end-of-times to hear him.) In any case, here's this from Tuesday's New York Times,"After Career as Their Advocate, Coakley May Face Voters’ Wrath":

Even during a fierce campaign for Senate, Martha Coakley speaks with quiet fervor, a serious woman who has been arguing issues since she was a standout on her Western Massachusetts high school debate team.

Ms. Coakley, the state’s attorney general, gained international recognition as a methodical county prosecutor during the 1997 trial of Louise Woodward, a British au pair convicted of killing a baby boy in her care. Her composed television appearances helped her become the first woman elected district attorney in Middlesex County, the state’s most populous, a year later. In 2006, just as easily, she swept the race for attorney general. Since then, she has won settlements from Boston’s Big Dig contractors and from Wall Street firms that engaged in deceptive practices.

A straightforward progressive on issues from abortion rights to same-sex marriage to the environment, Ms. Coakley, 56, has said she will be the 60th vote in the Senate in favor of health care legislation if she wins the seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy in Tuesday’s special election.

Ms. Coakley captured 47 percent of the vote in the Dec. 9 Democratic primary against three opponents. She was seen as rarely making a misstep, but since then she has been criticized for running a lackluster campaign until polls started showing her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, a state senator, was galvanizing independent voters.

He's surging alright!

And that discussion of Coakley sounds a whole lot nicer than what I've been reading!

See also, Howie Carr, "Want Payback? Vote for Scott Brown!"