Election 2010

Remember way back in 2008, during the big primary, when Rush Limbaugh was telling Republicans in Ohio and Texas to switch to Democrat just so they could vote for Hillary and screw up the primary? People listened and obeyed, and now it looks like it could be coming back to haunt them:

Victoria Robertson has been an avowed Republican for decades, working tirelessly for conservative candidates and causes.

That is until a typo by a pollworker changed her party affiliation, elections officials say. Now she can’t even run for re-election to the GOP central committee.

“You’re a Democrat as we speak until the primary, and that cannot be changed until you get the right box checked,” Butler County Board of Elections Chairman Tom Ellis told her at a board meeting Wednesday, Feb. 24 — the deadline to certify the May primary ballot.

Now I have no reason to not believe that this was an accident that happened to Robertson. As matter of fact, one of the Democrats on the board even believes so:

“I find it to be a very disturbing situation,” Democratic board member John Holcomb said. “I think it is really a situation that cries out for procedural reform to take that power away from pollworkers.”

I know John and if he believes that then so do I, but there is something else in this article that really got my curiosity going:

Robertson was one of seven candidates for Republican central committee who were disqualified for pulling Democratic ballots in the 2008 primary. She was the only one to contest it, officials said.

Now let me pretend I am a lawyer making some closing arguments. In these closing arguments I want to present all the facts again. Here they are in nice bullet point form:

• Butler County, Ohio has a population of 332,000
• Butler County is a very red county, voting for McCain over Obama in 2008 by 61%-38%
• In 2008 Butler County made national attention when people proudly proclaimed their obedience to Rush stating that they did exactly what he asked for.
• In 2010, the next election cycle, 7 Republicans have been disqualified from running for voting Democratic in the 2008 primary
• In 2010 0 Democrats have had this problem.

Coincidence? Sure, it could be, and unicorns could also roam the earth.

Now let’s think about this. Jumping parties in the primary like people did is actually a crime in Ohio. Out of 7 Republicans having this problem, only 1 has come forward to contest it. And keep in mind that these aren’t just your run of the mill Republicans, these are people who are involved in local politics. They are running for a position that is a foreign word to most people - “central committee”. That means they are devoted to party politics and now are considered to be on the enemy side, yet they aren’t contesting it? Something smells fishy here and I would go back to the plea by the GOP leader, Rush Limbaugh, asking his minions to jump party lines in Ohio in 2008.

Chalk this up a hard learned lesson. When you listen to a moron with a megaphone, some of that moron’s idiocy will rub off on you and cost you in the end.

Another blue dog bites the dust:

Sen. Evan Bayh will not run for re-election, a decision that will shock Democrats and Republicans alike in Indiana.

In prepared remarks, Bayh, 54, cited excessive partisanship that makes progress on public policy difficult to achieve as the motivation for his decision.

“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned,” he said.

“My decision was not motivated by political concern,” he added. “Even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for re-election.”

Ezra Klein, one of the most vocal bill-backers, has a really good plan – scrap the bill. But that doesn’t mean healthcare reform is dead. Instead he offers up items that could easily go through reconciliation:

Democrats could scrap the legislation and start over in the reconciliation process. But not to re-create the whole bill. If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. You also admit the limitations of the reconciliation process. So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy.

And that's it. No cost controls. No delivery-system reforms. Nothing that makes the bill long or complex or unfamiliar. Medicare buy-in had more than 51 votes as recently as a month ago. The Medicaid change is simply a larger version of what's already passed both chambers. This bill would be shorter than a Danielle Steel novel. It could take effect before the 2012 election.

Now that is a good starting point and something every American should be able to comprehend.

But reform shouldn’t stop there and now is the time for Democrats to appear bipartisan. Once they push this through reconciliation then it’s time to offer up even more legislation. Put in a new bill that would do the following:

• Address denials for pre-existing conditions.
• Open up competition nationally.
• Allow drug reimportation.
• Tackle tort reform.

Take opening up competition and capping lawsuits. Those two items have been Republican talking points for years. That would make this bill split about 50/50 between Democratic idea and Republican ideas. Now that is bipartisan. Will the Republicans vote against such a compromise? If they do try to filibuster it then Harry Reid needs to force them to filibuster. We need all the press we can get on it and that will become a gift to Democrats in November.

Put all this together and we got something America will understand. Let’s face it – people don’t understand things like “health exchanges” or “public options” like they do “death panels”. This gives a very controllable message for Democrats to use and it keeps a majority of the system the same, while fixing some of the larger pitfalls. 

Now’s your chance to shine in the atmosphere of doom Democrats. Let’s do this thing.

Greg Sargent has a couple of reports from his readers where they were given ballots and the bubble next to Scott Brown’s name was already filled in. Sounds like it could be an error, but to me these ballots should go from the voters hand into an evidence bag for forensic testing. Fingerprint the ballots, try to find out what prints may be on them, minus the voter, and start questioning.

The only way we can fix the problems with our voting is to become vigilant on issues like this.

If Massachusetts race ends up very close, I predict one of the 2 scenarios:

Brown wins:
Coakley will challenge it. This will spark outrage from the right as they start yelling how the election was stolen from them.

Coakley wins:
Brown will challenge it. The right will circle around Brown claiming he is standing up for democracy.

No matter what happens tomorrow it will be fun to watch. This is why I love politics – it’s the best sporting event out there.

As far as the future of health care, well I really don’t know. If it does go down then we can at least say we got closer than ever before. I also suspect if it fails we will see health care costs continue to sky rocket, and it will remain a good platform for Democrats to run on, but that’s only if the Democrats take some lessons in “message control” and don’t stand there like the old deer in the headlights when tea baggers show up.

And perhaps all this will be for the best. Democrats could put forth new legislation this year that doesn’t do public options, exchanges or any of that stuff. Instead put in regulation reform for health care. Open it up to national competition and tighten the reigns on what insurance companies can and can not do. Push the reform as a “consumer advocacy” type legislation and then it will become harder for Republicans to vote against it. That will be a good foundation that we can expand coverage upon at a later date.

There has been a lot of focus on the Massachusetts Senate race to replace the late Ted Kennedy and some are trying to paint it as a repudiation of President Obama and health care reform. One of the key findings in the new PPP poll released last night was that those planning on voting oppose the health care bill 48% to 40%.

This morning on Morning Joe, Chris Matthews brought up a really interesting point about this. He said that maybe the people of Massachusetts feel like they are getting a double punch by health care reform. They already have their own reform in the state, which they pay for through taxes, so having a federal system to them would end up leaving them feeling they are paying for others. There really could be a lot of truth for this.

So is the opposition to health care and the reason Brown is doing so well in Massachusetts because they already have their own reform? I’m sure not all people of the state feel or believe this, but there is a really good chance that enough of them do to propel Brown ahead and maybe even deliver him to the Senate. If that’s the case it will be a crappy deal for the rest of America.

Just now tweeted by them.

Full details of the poll here. Sounds like a lot of troubling numbers coming in for Democrats.

Fred Barnes, writing from his undisclosed la-la land location, is arguing that Paul Kirk won’t be able to vote after Tuesday. His argument:

But in the days after the election, it is Kirk’s status that matters, not Brown’s.  Massachusetts law says that an appointed senator remains in office “until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.”  The vacancy occurred when Senator Edward Kennedy died in August.  Kirk was picked as interim senator by Governor Deval Patrick.

[SNIP]

But based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period.  Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate.  “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.

Certification doesn’t mean qualification – sure. What certification does mean is that the election is finalized, complete, done.

And what precedent? We just have to look at recent history for precedent. Rolland Burris was appointed to the Senate, but the Senate couldn’t seat him until he was “certified” by the state. The election isn’t over until that process is complete.

The only precedent I can think of would be in the recent Franken/Coleman circus. One thing the lawyers seem to be overlooking is the basis for which Coleman could not serve any longer. Those are laid out in article 1 section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Coleman’s term was up per the U.S. Constitution, which trumps state constitutions.

Given the closeness of the polls in this race, we could end up with an election that will result in a challenge after Tuesday. They can’t just yank Kirk from office after this. It will take interaction from the courts, and they typically don’t like getting into Congressional business. So what Barnes is writing about is nothing more than a pipe dream. I don’t see any circumstance for his idea to come to fruition, and even if it does it will involve a battle within the courts.

A new mailer has surfaced in the Massachusetts Senate race:

This is absolutely brutal: Massachusetts Dems have dropped a mail piece accusing GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown of wanting hospitals to turn away “all” rape victims.

The mail piece — sent over by the Brown campaign — shows pictures of women who are supposed to have been raped, one of them in a wheelchair bent over with her head in her hands. It says: “1,736 WOMEN WERE RAPED IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 2008. SCOTT BROWN WANTS HOSPITALS TO TURN THEM ALL AWAY.”

Greg Sargent has all the details and explains why this is nothing but a false attack ad. I really don’t want to see Brown win on Tuesday, but if he does then the Democrats have only themselves to blame. The American people have rejected these kinds of tactics and it appears the Massachusetts Democrats didn’t learn a damn thing in 2008.

This is how sick the Republican Party has become, supporting a candidate who had no respect for the 9/11 workers what so ever:

One month after the September 11th attacks, Scott Brown was one of only three Massachusetts State Representatives to vote against a bill to provide financial assistance to Red Cross workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts, we’ve learned.

The Brown campaign acknowledged the vote to us, claiming the measure would have taxed already-strained state finances.

Put that into perspective with what we have seen from the tea party this week and you can quickly see that Brown is nothing but a tea bagger. I really hope the people of Massachusetts think twice before voting for this twit.

Chris Cillizza just tweeted the following:

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee buying time in Massachusetts Senate special election....developing...more soon on Fix...

It spells trouble for Democrats to have to keep dumping money into a race that should be solid Democrats. Even more troubling is that they are having to do it during a special election, when the mid-term election is less than 11 months away.

Think Progress is reporting that there are now 16 tea partiers that are challenging GOP incumbents and recruits. Most of the races appear to be in the House, so this is great news for Democrats. Last week it was reported that the NRCC is facing some serious troubles raising cash for the elections, and if they have primary battles to worry about then it will drain the already depleted coffers. I bet there is some bit panic going on now in the inner GOP circles.

(source)

Now imagine if that was a woman, or even a Democrat.

The big news yesterday was this “private” remark from Harry Reid, which appears on page 37 of Game Change

encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately.  Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.

An utterly stupid comment, which Harry Reid has apologized for, but still should cost him his career. I’ll get on to the reason it should cost him his career in a minute, but first I want to address the race issue.

While surfing the blogosphere for reactions to this, one post stuck out. It was by none other than Michelle Malkin, in which she asks the following question:

Trent Lott resigned his leadership post over his birthday party pandering in praise of Strom Thurmond’s racial segregationist presidential platform. Many conservatives (myself included) put pressure on him to resign. Where are the “progressive” Democrats who will apply the same standards to Reid?

Comparing a stupid comment to support of segregation is absolutely mind boggling. Does Malkin even know what segregation is and what it did to this country? I would hope so, but after reading that, it doesn’t seem likely.

Like I said, this should cost Reid his career. He made a stupid comment, but this type of comment is also very common from people in Reid’s generation. Face it – they grew up in a very different America. That’s not making an excuse, but rather stating a fact.

The best thing for Reid now is to follow in the footsteps of Byron Dorgan and Chris Dodd and hang up his soapbox. A new Mason-Dixon poll paints a very bad picture for Reid:

52 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Reid, 33 percent had a favorable view and another 15 percent said they're neutral. In early December, a Mason-Dixon poll put his unfavorable-favorable rating at 49-38. The lowest Reid's popularity had slipped before in the surveys was 50 percent -- in October, August and May of 2009, when Mason-Dixon started tracking the senate race for the Review-Journal.

The poll also took a snapshot of how Reid would do against three potential GOP opponents. In each case -- as in past Review-Journal surveys -- it showed the senator would lose with only four in 10 voters supporting him.

This isn’t the first poll to show Reid losing to all the Republican possibilities – it has become a trend. Chances are Harry is going to be gone after November.

This is why Reid should retire. Politicians never want their careers to end on a loss, but rather end when they say it is over. Reid would do his legacy a lot better if he took the same path and threw in the towel. Get with state Democrats and find a popular Democrat who is known state-wide and get them to run.

Republicans are looking at a big pickup in Nevada, like they were in Connecticut. If Reid follows his friend Chris Dodd, then it will become another big blow to Republicans. I don’t know enough about Nevada politics to know if there is any such candidate out there, but if there is then now is the time to talk them into running.

There has been a lot of polls come out over the past 48 hours showing the Massachusetts special election for Kennedy’s seat was turning a tide and heading towards a possible defeat for Democrats. Now there is a new poll that may give Democrats some breathing room:

A new Boston Globe poll shows Martha Coakley (D), "buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead" among likely voters over rival Scott Brown (R) in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, 50% to 35%.

In fact, Coakley's lead grows to 17 points -- 53% to 36% -- when undecideds leaning toward a candidate are included in the tally.

I can’t wait to see the outcome of this race. It will be interesting to see which poll gets it the closest. That will be a big indicator as to who to trust in the cycle this year.