Real trouble for the Democrats

I keep repeating the dangers of saying Scott Brown is a "prolife vote" or a person we're sending to Washington to "stop" Obamacare because not only is it delusional, ill-advised and dangerous to the lives of the unborn and the efficacy of real pro-life lobbying - it is creating a monster the GOP will use as a model for the future.

Brown run may be model for the future.

GOP strategist Ed Rollins said that if Brown even comes close to defeating Democrat Martha Coakley, who just weeks ago was seen as a shoo-in, Brown’s campaign “could be viewed as a model’’ for GOP contenders nationwide, and strategists would scrutinize “what did he say, and how was he saying it.’’

The GOP is also paying attention to what the large and effective prolife lobby said and did and they'll incorporate that some were willing to call a proabort a "pro-life vote".

Given there could be 30 seats up for grabs, the ramifications, i.e., the GOP sending 30 more proaborts for prolifers to stump for, in terms of a body count for the unborn, the math isn't lucid enough for me to say voting for proabort Brown is the 'the lesser of two evils'.

I'd much rather hold onto the definition of what a real "pro-life vote" is, and hold the feet of the GOP to the fire for the 30 seats.

Yet, I take great pleasure in the possibility of seeing "Ted Kennedy's seat" being swiped by the Republicans.

Even with the beautiful, gracious, articulate Victoria Kennedy stumping to preserve the monarchy, the momentum for a Republican sitting in the liberal lion's seat actually went


It's real trouble for the Democrats the seat Ted Kennedy's formerly held in Massachusetts is so threatened.

And if the Democrats lose, they'll be in store for a rough 2010 at the hands of an energized GOP, which would use Brown's win as a model for congressional races nationwide.

With all the democrats registered in Massachusetts, and the seat thought to be perpetually reserved for appointments made by the Kennedy family, a republican is in the lead.

What's really surprising is the dems have decided to bring Obama up to stump for Coakley.

The dems know the momentum they had a year ago has dramatically shifted in the country. Why would they think bringing Obama into the political fistocuffs seems strangely naive.

Sorta like bringing Dick Cheney up to help Brown?

How quickly Obama responded to Coakley's 911 is something else.

When our commanders in the armed forces asked Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan, Obama hemmed and hawed for three months about sending in back up. Obama was asked Thursday to come to the trenches and bail Martha out and he's coming to Massachusetts on Sunday. Where are this guy's priorities?



This article, quotes an unnamed political strategist for the Dems:

"I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

The climate is difficult in Massachusetts to keep Kennedy's seat for Democrats?

Where is a democratic seat safe if the Kennedy monarchy is in trouble?

With all the money pouring in from all over the country behind a man who didn't have two nickels to rub together a month ago, the Kennedy School of Government here in Boston and the history of the MA voting population, they're inoculating Obama by saying she's lackluster?

Good luck with that.

Is Obama in trouble?

Only 26 percent of respondents said they strongly approved of the president’s performance, compared to 38 percent in April. Just 39 percent said they would probably vote to reelect him, just 23 percent definitely

Harry Reid faces big trouble.

"I think he's gone," says Patty Pennise, 46, an unemployed hotel worker and independent voter. "There's a mentality out there, 'Throw them all out.' "