It’s still too early and murky to say one way or the other how the Massachusetts special senate election is going to go on January 19th but Rasmussen released a new poll today that shows Coakley’s lead over Brown has shrunk to less than ten percent.

That’s amazing….

State Attorney General Martha Coakley holds a nine-point lead over her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, in Massachusetts’ special U.S. Senate election to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Coakley ahead of Brown 50% to 41%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

The special Senate election will be held on January 19 and special elections typically feature low turnout. That’s one reason the race appears to be a bit closer than might typically be expected for a Senate race in Massachusetts. Kennedy carried 69% of the vote when he was reelected in 2006.

Massachusetts voters in the Boston Metro area tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, but this is a special election in more ways than one. There are at least 3 good reasons why MA voters could defy history and give the election to Scott Brown.

1. Many MA voters are just as fed up as the rest of the country with the Democrat agenda of big spending, big government and big bills rushed through in the middle of the night. They know that a win for Scott Brown pulls an emergency brake on the Democrat runaway train.

2. MA Governor Deval Patrick is very unpopular with MA voters right now. He has broken pledges not to raise taxes and doesn’t have a lot to show for his time as governor. People in MA are not happy.

3. Martha Coakley doesn’t really have much to show for her record. If people were excited about her as a candidate, she would have a much more commanding lead over Brown. She’s trying to coast into office based on the “D” after her name. Under normal circumstances, that might work. These are not normal circumstances.

We’ll know how this story ends on January 19th. Scott Brown is campaigning like a trooper, traveling the state and doing lots of media interviews. As someone who lives in the Bay State, I can tell you that I hear a lot of people talking about Scott Brown, not his opponent.

More at Memeorandum.

I’m just asking because it seems to me that every single time someone criticizes President Obama, you guys scream racism.

Yet you seem to have no problem targeting and calling for punishments of Joe Lieberman or even his wife for not toeing the liberal party line.

By your own rules, doesn’t that make you Anti-Semites?

As a student of the world, I am eager to know…

How are these things different?

What does the left do when Obama can’t close the deal on their Progressive agenda?

They make lame excuses like “America has become ungovernable.”

“We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.”

Earth to Democrats: You control everything. The White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. If you can’t force your unpopular agenda items down the throat of America you need look no further than the nearest mirror to discover the root of the problem.

Furthermore, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. If a neocon had made the same suggestion Yglesias makes above while Republicans controlled the whole show, progressives would collectively howl cries of fascism from the rooftops.

Maybe if The Annointed One made the economy and jobs his priorities instead of trying to take over the American health care system and and trying to control the weather, you wouldn’t meet such resistance.

America is perfectly governable. The problem is your stupid ideas.

Not that the Tea Party and the GOP are automatically joining forces, they’re not… yet. But if and when they do, they spell certain doom for Dems.

A new Rasmussen Poll on the generic ballot has the math:

“Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.”

“In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.”

“Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top.”

The Tea Party is made up of Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and Independents who have a few things in common: Love of country, love of liberty, a desire for fiscal conservatism in Washington, DC and a rejection of government expansion.

If a candidate can piece those items together and unite those factions, he or she will be unstoppable.

Via Memeorandum.

ANSWER: They attack the people they perceive to be the leaders of their opposition. Even if they’re not elected officials.

As the left finds itself unable to defend Barack Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, they’re in a desperate scramble to somehow blame ANYONE but Obama for the decision.

Who are the most obvious targets? To whom can the left quickly assign blame for the failure of their elected leaders?

(pant-pant-pant)

Aha!

PALIN!!!!!!

BECK!!!!!!!!

Pay no attention to the economy, unemployment or the wars, America!

(pant, pant, pant)

Sarah Palin has a retarded son!

Glenn Beck didn’t sell alot of movie tickets!

THAT’S the real problem with America.

Ignore the fact that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck aren’t elected officials with no power in American government. Ignore the fact that Obama is the President of the United States. Ignore the fact that Nancy Pelosi runs the House of Representatives. Ignore the fact that Harry Reid runs the United States Senate.

It’s all Palin and Beck’s fault!

It’s all Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck’s fault!!!

American pundits, bloggers and politicians give way too much credit to Andrew Sullivan. He is irrelevant to American politics.

Andrew Sullivan is not a United States citizen.

He can’t vote in our elections.

He can’t legally cast a vote for his local dog catcher in Washington, DC.

Back in the early 2000’s, Sullivan made a name for himself as a blogger and supported George W. Bush. He portrayed himself as a “gay Catholic conservative.” His fame quickly rose with his blog stats.

Sometime in 2007 or 2008, Sullivan became an Obama supporter, presumably because he thought (wrongly) that President Obama would legally sanction his marriage to Mr. Aaron Tone, an American citizen, which would automatically make Sullivan an American citizen.

For the record, I’m a conservative libertarian who supports gay marriage. I believe in the right of free adult American citizens to marry whomever they choose. It’s none of the federal government’s business.

However…

Andrew Sullivan clearly cares more about his own self interests than he does about the United States of America. Therefore, I don’t care about him.

Until Andrew Sullivan is a United States citizen, he has no business claiming any authority in American politics.

Until Andrew Sullivan can vote in our elections he has no business insinuating himself in American policy.

Until Andrew Sullivan is an American, I don’t care what he thinks. He’s irrelevant.

If he disagrees with me I hope he’ll let me know when I, as an American citizen, can cast a vote for the next king or queen of England.

Until then, I wish he’d just shut up.

David Neiwert of Crooks and Liars is suddenly concerned about domestic terrorists who are anti-government and make bombs.

Neiwert has had his panties in a twist since last fall when Sarah Palin brought up Obama’s association to Bill Ayers and he’s still angry about it.

He has tried to point out that there are right wing domestic terrorists, which is true. Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh are the examples Neiwert has used most frequently.

Unfortunately for Neiwert’s argument, Sarah Palin wasn’t friends with them. Nor did she launch her career in one of their living rooms.

Nice try, Dave.

More at Memeorandum.

It’s a cold day in Hell, folks.

Media Matters, the super liberal outfit that spends its days cowering in a fetal position under a desk while foaming at the mouth over Glenn Beck’s latest broadcast is defending Sarah Palin from their brothers in arms at Newsweek.

Why? For sexist attacks on Sarah Palin…

“There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Sarah Palin, her new book, and her policies, but you don’t have to stoop to sexism to do it. Newsweek’s November 23 issue, however, does just that by publishing on its cover a photo of Palin in short running shorts and a fitted top, leaning against the American flag. Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo — “How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?” — presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, “Maria,” in which nuns fret about “how” to “solve a problem like Maria,” a “girl” who “climbs trees” and whose “dress has a tear.”

As if that wasn’t enough to knock you out of your chair, they go on…

“Like her or not, Palin is a former governor and vice presidential candidate. She deserves the same respect every single one of her male counterparts receives when they are featured on the cover of the magazine. I must have missed the cover of Vice President Joe Biden in short shorts or of Mitt Romney in a bathing suit.”

In related news…

- Barack Obama has ordered a surge of troops in Afghanistan.

- Nancy Pelosi has placed a moratorium on all congressional spending.

- Blogger Andrew Sullivan has admitted himself to Bellevue.

- Dick Cheney has been recognized by NBC for his life in public service.

- Keith Olbermann announced his intent to run for office as a “Tea Party” candidate.

It has been a very big day in news. I would report more but I’m late for a snowball fight with the devil & Robert Stacy McCain.

Plus, my flying pig hasn’t been feeling well.

Maybe he has the swine flu.

Yesterday as the horrific events unfolded at Fort Hood, President Obama was informed and news organizations reported that the president was going to make a statement. Americans tuned in and heard this:

Obama delayed his remarks on Fort Hood for over two minutes for thank yous, smiles and a “shout-out” to a member of the audience before addressing the murder of twelve American soldiers on American soil.

This was picked up by the blogosphere almost immediately and many bloggers noted that news organizations started editing the clip, cutting off the introduction. Today, this shocking blunder has been picked up by other news media.

Robert George at NBC in Chicago writes:

“President Obama didn’t wait long after Tuesday’s devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.”

“…instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a “shout-out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.”  Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?”

“Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter.”

“Did the president’s team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on — and the initial words coming out of their president’s mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.”

“All the president’s men (and women) fell down on the job Thursday.  And Democrats across the country have real reason to panic.”

I disagree with the last point. I think we all have reason to panic.

More on this can be found at Memeorandum.

Senior Obama advisor, Valerie Jarrett was on ABC’s “This Week” today. When asked about the GOP, Doug Hoffman and the NY-23 congressional race, she said the following:

“It’s rather telling when the Republican Party forces out a moderate Republican and it says, I think, a great deal about where the Republican Party leadership is right now,” Jarrett said when asked about the GOP candidates’ decision to suspend her campaign, making it more likely the Conservative will win Tuesday’s special election.”

“Asked what the New York development shows about the Republican Party leadership, Jarrett said: “I think it’s becoming more and more extreme, and more and more marginalized.”

Oh, OK Valerie. Are you suggesting that it was “middle of the road” for you & your Progressive friends to hire a self described Communist and 9/11 Truther to work in the White House?

More at Memeorandum.