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).

Obama to Write Haiti Earthquake Cover Story for Newsweek

I can't ever recall a sitting president publishing a cover story at one of the national newsweeklies, but there's always a first. See, "Obama to Pen Cover Story on Haiti and the Earthquake for Newsweek."

I look forward to Newsweek going out of business. And if Obama's tanking approval levels have any relation, maybe that'll be sooner than later.

See Rasmussen for January 15th, "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll":

Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14 (see trends).

Fifty percent (50%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 66% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 18% Strongly Approve and 43% Strongly Disapprove.

My Sister Chris!

This is my older sister, Chris. She's 50 (with a figure like Cindy Crawford's). This was a couple of days before Christmas, at my mom's house:

Chris and my Uncle Doug are here. (I wrote about Doug here.

Charli Carpenter Joins Lawyers, Guns and Money

Actually, this can't help Charli's reputation.

For something more respectable, see, "What to Read on Gender and Foreign Policy":

Feminists have long argued that it is wrong to ignore half the population when crafting policies meant to secure a stable world order. Now foreign policy experts are beginning to grasp a different point: a "gender perspective" is relevant not only to those concerned with making the world better for women, but also to anybody who cares about military effectiveness, alliance stability, democracy promotion, actionable intelligence, the stem of pandemic disease, or successful nation building. The following sources are essential reading for anyone interested in the connections between gender relations -- norms and assumptions about men and women, masculinity and femininity -- and the practice of foreign policy.

She's a nice woman and an excellent scholar. Here's hoping Charlie avoids the descent of Robert Farley.

Althouse 6-Year Blogiversary

Ann started blogging January 14, 2004.

I've posted at least once, each day in these 6 years, an average of 8+ posts a day. I've never had a guest blogger (or a ghost blogger), and I've written — with real enthusiasm — on the hardest work days, on the day I wrecked my car, the day I had surgery, the day I drove 1235 miles in one day, and the day I got married. And over 2,000 other days.

The picture's from Austin, "At the Caffeine Dealer":

Tea Party 'Precinct Strategy' Seeks G.O.P. Takeover

This is exactly what I've argued all along. From the New York Times, "In Power Push, Movement Sees Base in G.O.P.":

The Tea Party movement ignited a year ago, fueled by anti-establishment anger. Now, Tea Party activists are trying to take over the establishment, ground up.

Across the country, they are signing up to be Republican precinct leaders, a position so low-level that it often remains vacant, but which comes with the ability to vote for the party executives who endorse candidates, approve platforms and decide where the party spends money.

A new group called the National Precinct Alliance says it has a coordinator in nearly every state to recruit Tea Party activists to fill the positions and has already swelled the number of like-minded members in Republican Party committees in Arizona and Nevada. Its mantra is this: take the precinct, take the state, take the party — and force it to nominate conservatives rather than people they see as liberals in Republican clothing.

Here, in a perennial battleground district outside Philadelphia, Tea Party activists are trying to strip the local committee of its influence in choosing the Republican nominee to run against Representative Patrick J. Murphy, a Democrat who won the seat in 2006 by about 1,500 votes.

After the local party said it would stick to its custom of endorsing a candidate rather than holding an open primary, Tea Party groups decided to hold their own candidate forum where people could cast a ballot. If the party does not yield, the groups say they will host a debate, too.

“We kind of changed the rules,” said Anastasia Przybylski, one of the organizers.

The Tea Party movement, named the original tax revolt in 1773, might be better described as a diverse, rambunctious and Internet-connected network of groups, powered by grass-roots anxiety about the economy, bailouts and increasing government involvement in health care. At one extreme are militia members who have shown up at meetings wearing guns and suggesting that institutions like the Federal Reserve be eliminated. At the other are those like Ms. Przybylski, who describes herself as “just a stay-at-home mom” who became agitated about the federal stimulus package.

And if the Democrats are big-government socialists, the Republicans, in the Tea Party mind, are enablers.

In some recent polls, a hypothetical Tea Party wins more support than Democrats or Republicans, and the most anti-establishment Tea Party activists push to fight as a third party. But as the movement looks toward the midterm elections in November, a growing number of activists argue that the best way to translate anger into influence is to infiltrate the Republican establishment (Democrats being, for the average Tea Partier, beyond redemption).

“If you want to have revenge against the Republican Party for using you for so many years, the best way is to turn around and use the Republican Party to your advantage,” said Eric Odom, a Tea Party activist in Chicago who recently started a political action committee, and on his blog urged Tea Partiers to stop complaining about the Republican Party and “move in and take it over” ....

The precinct strategy, like the Tea Party movement itself, has spread via the Internet, on sites like Resistnet.com. A National Tea Party Convention in Nashville next month will feature seminars on how to take over starting at the precinct level.

RTWT at the link.

I just received this note from Orange County Tea Party organizers:

It is VERY important for all Tea Party Patriots to attend this Monday's GOP Orange County Central Committee Meeting. Scott Baugh, Chairman of the OCGOP, will be giving a "barn burner" of a speech and will be outlining the direction of our county's party for the 2010 elections ... He provided some details of his speech and ... you DO NOT WANT TO MISS IT. It is so very important for us to be strong and unified for the 2010 elections. So, please, if you have an hour Monday night, please come ....

Also, that Monday night, Mark Meckler, National Coordinator and Board Member of the Tea Party Patriots ... He is flying in from Sacramento and Dawn Wildman, and other tea party patriots, will be driving up from San Diego. We need to be let the OCGOP know that we are unified, we care, and we are committed to a party of principles with action and not to a party of empty words.

I should have a report on the event late Monday or early Tuesday.

SUFFOLK POLL: Scott Brown Up By Four in Massachusetts Senate!

William Jacobson has it, "Brown Up 4 In Suffolk Univ. Poll."

The Suffolk poll is at the Boston Herald, "Poll Shocker: Scott Brown Surges Ahead in Senate Race."

The internals are here, "Poll Results Highlighted." Of special note are Martha Coakley's high negatives:

Is your opinion of Martha Coakley generally favorable or unfavorable?

Never heard: 0%

Favorable: 49%

Unfavorable: 41%

Heard of/Undecided: 10%

*****

Is your opinion of Scott Brown generally favorable or unfavorable?

Never heard: 5%

Favorable: 57%

Unfavorable: 19%

Heard of/Undecided: 19%

See also, Big Journalism, "Martha’s Greatest Hits: The Things the Democrats Would Like You to Forget About Candidate Coakley." (Via Memeorandum.)

Scott Brown Sends Shock Waves Through Democratic Party!

From IBD, "Democratic Party Pouring Cash Into Mass. to Stop GOP Upset":

GOP state Sen. Scott Brown may be able to win Tuesday's special election to fill Ted Kennedy's old seat. Even if he loses, it's clear that his campaign's momentum has sent shock waves through the Democratic Party.

"No one thought this would be closer than a blowout of at least 15 percentage points," said Tobe Berkovitz, professor of advertising at Boston University. Though Berkovitz thinks Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley will pull it out, he added, "A lot of Democrats won't have much in the way of fingernails left after this."

Rasmussen Reports first gave hope to Brown last week when its survey found Brown trailing Coakley by nine points, 50%-41%. A subsequent Rasmussen poll found Brown narrowing that gap to two points — with Brown leading by two points among people committed to voting.

Could Be Narrowing

The Rothenberg Political Report on Thursday moved the race from "narrow advantage of incumbent party" to "toss-up."

"Democratic desperation and other compelling evidence strongly suggest that Democrats may well lose the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's Senate seat in Tuesday's special election," the Report said.

Brown has capitalized on growing conservative grass-roots support, raising $1.3 million online in a 24-hour period this week.

This has garnered the notice of national Democrats and unions. The Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee each donated $500,000 for ad buys on Coakley's behalf. The Service Employees International Union is spending $685,000 to boost Coakley.

But energy and enthusiasm seem to be with the Brown campaign.

"I volunteered with the campaign over the weekend," said William Jacobson, a Cornell law professor who has been covering the race on his Legal Insurrection blog. "Loads of volunteers, phones ringing, people coming in to ask if they can help — it was bustling with activity."

That's our William!

The video's posted at his entry, "Brown Hip Checks Coakley On Fenway Insult."

Whoo hoo!

See also, Gateway Pundit, "MASSACHUSETTS SENATE RACE MOVED FROM “LEAN DEM” TO “TOSS-UP”." And Rothenberg's report is here: "MA Senate moved to Toss-Up" (via Memeorandum).

Haiti's Tragedy

From the Wall Street Journal, "Haiti's Tragedy: The U.S. Military Will Provide Relief, As Ever":

A man surveys hundreds of bodies of earthquake victims at the morgue in Port-au-Prince, Thursday, Jan. 14, 2010. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)

The hand of a dead student is seen under the rubble of St. Gerard church and school that collapsed in an earthquake in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Thursday, Jan. 14, 2010. Teachers and students are trapped underneath the rubble since Tuesday when a 7.0-magnitude earthquake struck Haiti. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

*****

The world has had sufficient experience with earthquake relief to know that the first 72 hours are critical. There may be hundreds of people or more buried alive in the rubble; their lives now depend on the speedy arrival of professional rescue teams. Thousands of people urgently need medical help, and many more will soon require tenting, clean water, food, toilets and other necessities if a secondary disaster is to be prevented. U.S. military assets are likely to play a crucial role in these efforts, as they did after the tsunami and the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir—a fresh reminder that the reach of America's power coincides with the reach of its goodness.

The earthquake is also a reminder that while natural calamities do not discriminate between rich countries and poor ones, their effects almost invariably do. The 1994 Northridge quake was nearly as powerful as the one that struck Haiti, but its human toll was comparatively slight. The difference is a function of a wealth-generating and law-abiding society that can afford, among other things, the expense of proper building codes.

In the long term, the best defense against future natural disasters is to promote the political and economic conditions that can move people out of the slums and shanties that easily become death traps. For now, however, we wish godspeed to the armies of relief headed for Haiti's desperate shore.

See also, Laura Rozen, at Politico, "Ships, Troops Arriving in Haiti." And Tracy Kidder, at the New York Times, "Country Without a Net." (Via Memeorandum.)

Photo Credits: The Big Picture, "Haiti 48 Hours Later."