Tag Archives: massachusetts senate race

If you followed the news out of Nashville, you probably heard that some Tea Party folks are creating a Political Action Committee that will win 15 to 20 key Congressional races in 2010 and, perhaps, in years beyond. What you didn’t hear at the press conference was that several grassroots tea party organizers are so strongly in favor of this move that we have agreed to serve Ensuring Liberty PAC through its organizing parent, the Ensuring Liberty 501.c(4). Our local tea parties will continue unchanged.

Who Comprises the ELPAC

Very simply, ELPAC is led by six people from some of the most effective local Tea Party organizations in America:

• Mark Skoda of The Memphis Tea Party
• Steve McQueen of The Quincy Tea Party
• State Sen. John Loudon (MO-Ret.) of St. Louis Tea Party
• Rose Corona, a California farmer and Patriot
• Brad Ehmen of The Quincy Tea Party
• Bill Hennessy of St. Louis Tea Party

While you might not recognize all of these names, I do. These are the people who have been in the fox holes with us since day one. They are bold and resilient fighters for freedom. They are the men and women we turn to for counsel, support, advice, strength, and help across the Mid-West and across the the nation. We share mutual faith in each other. The men and women on this list have skills to win elections with grassroots activism. They embody what happened in NY-23 and Massachusetts.

Why the PAC’s Work is Crucial

When we launched our local tea parties last spring, none of us had any idea we were creating the political stir it did. We did not know there would be more events. We did not know we’d slow down the socialist tsunami that was descending on America. Some might have hoped for such an outcome, but none of us was so arrogant as to expect it.

The Ensuring Liberty PAC is one critical piece of the puzzle that will cause a massive change in the makeup of the U.S. Congress in 2010.

How the ELPAC Will Help Change Congress

Traditionally large donors contribute large sums to large PACs operated by the two major parties. Those organizations (like the National Republican Congressional Committee) hire K Street consultants to help favored candidates win their elections. When K Streeters and the GOP brass win your election for you, you better do as they say.

The ELPAC will perform services for candidates similar to those previously performed by NRCC and the like. We will identify candidates who arose from the Tea Party movement and who espouse our values on fiscal responsibility, limited government, national security, and low taxes. If a candidate strays from our values during the election, we will exit that race and let everyone know why. This PAC is modeled after the successful approaches of the Quincy and St Louis Tea Parties, as well as others.

Candidates whom we help win can and should feel an obligation to remain true to our values throughout their term in Congress. If they do not, we will target their careers for political destruction as surely as we target certain incumbents now. For the first time in my memory, we will have members of Congress beholden to . . . the people they represent.

Who the ELPAC Will Support

Back in February 2009, we thought, as did many of you, that we might need a new party in America—one comprised of the great many people who were fed up with business as usual. As time wore on, two factors disabused us of that notion:

1. The urgency of direct action required that most of our energies in 2009 go into stopping the White House and Congressional leadership from flipping the USA into a socialist empire. Remember, Obama expected to takeover healthcare, impose the Cap and Trade multi-trillion dollar tax scheme, and eliminate the secret ballot for workers before Congress recessed in August. We put all of our energy and time into stopping those atrocities. Frankly, I believe that the urgency of our actions in 2009 were a blessing when combined with the second point.

2. A third party would have created a permanent ruling majority of statist and progressives. As I studied the matter and spoke to people smarter than I am, I realized that the 3rd party move could only help those who want socialism. Just creating a 3rd party would consume most of the center-right’s energy, time, and money for at least 2 years. And after that, at best, the 3rd party would pick up a few seats in Congress while splitting the center-right vote in hundreds of other states and districts giving Democrats a massive majority in both houses. Sorry, people, but that’s not standing on principle: it’s standing on our brains.

ELPAC will mostly support conservative candidates running as Republicans who have a reasonable chance to win with our help. For candidates like Doug Hoffman, we will provide the third element he lacked: a serious, well-coordinated ground game. In these races, we believe ELPAC will be THE difference. In this election, we believe all of us will be part of the margin of freedom’s victory.

How ELPAC Measure Success

Some of us have heard that we must not support candidates affiliated with a party. That’s great. But it’s a recipe for disaster. Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts felt so good because politics is a game measured by wins and losses, just like any other game. We keep score in this world. And political success means WINNING ELECTIONS.

We will measure ELPAC’s success when some conservative—most likely a Republican—accepts the gavel from Nancy Pelosi’s trembling hand in January 2011. If that does not happen, we fear that the forces of socialism and tyranny will use their power to silence all dissent in America. That’s not fear-mongering; that’s history.

How the ELPAC Evolved

ELPAC is the natural and necessary next step in the Tea Party’s progression. The Boston Tea Party led to stronger colonial legislatures that led to a strong Continental Congress that drafted the Declaration of Independence. The rag-tag Minutemen led to state militias that led to well-trained professional Army under George Washington, and that Army defeated the British.

The “Nationwide Chicago Tea Party Protest” of February 27, 2009, led to a multitude of Tea Party coalitions that led to formal Tea Party groups. Some of those groups have formed PACs, non-profits, and even LLCs. ELPAC is one of these. ELPAC is a professional army seeking to wage political war against a corrupt and corrupting leftist government. By God’s grace, we will prevail.

How Tea Partiers Can Help

The millions who rode to the sound of the drums in 2009 will continue doing exactly what they started last year: attend the rallies, call the radio stations, write the newspapers, march in the parades, make your signs, tell your neighbors, knock on doors, send out emails, fill the town halls, register conservative voters, canvass for the right politicians, sing the praises of liberty and low taxes, pursue happiness and good government, fight for your right to live free . . . or die.

In 2009, we asked for very little in the way of donations. We told our patriots that the time would come for them to invest their dollars in political campaigns. That time is just around the corner. ELPAC will use their donations to win critical races, replacing the current Congress with one responsive to the Tea Party’s agenda. It’s as simple as that.

Finally, we ask Tea Partiers to pray. ELPAC is not the only Tea Party PAC trying to take back Congress from the statists and progressives. Together with these other PACs –and with you—we will win. But we need the prayers, the strength, and the devotion of everyone who has attended a Tea Party or 9-12 event. Six folks, however dedicated, cannot win this war without undying help from millions of others. The Tea Partiers have stood by this country and this cause for a year. We ask for their prayers that ELPAC and its cousins fulfill our missions to save America from the hellfire of socialism and tyranny.

The Massachusetts Special Election last week upended “conventional wisdom” about “who can/might/should/ or will win” and how traditional voting blocs may cast their ballots in upcoming elections.  This is not simply a look at “what happened,” but also what it means for the legislative agenda in Washington. In this poll, actual voters provide a roadmap for reform as Washington continues to debate how best to fix the economy, jump-start entrepreneurship, and shore up national security.

Some highlights from the poll:

*       Independent Women Voters: This demographic was key to the electoral outcome. They bucked their gender, with 67% of them supporting Scott Brown.  Majorities say that Congress should stop the current levels of spending and call for enacting provisions that make it more affordable for people to buy health insurance on their own, instead of through their jobs, in the same way people buy homeowners’ and life insurance (56%). Two-thirds of Indie women would allow small businesses to form groups to buy healthcare coverage at lower rates, and 45% want Congress to “start over” on healthcare reform; just 2% say continue with the reform “as is.”

*   Those who had frequently voted for Ted Kennedy in the past (63% of the sample) had some surprising opinions: 79% of them said providing tax cuts to small businesses for job creation will speed up the nation’s economic recovery; 47% say Congress should open healthcare negotiations for the public to observe.

*     Healthcare Plays the Heaviest Hand: Nearly two-in-five (38%) actual voters said they had healthcare on the brain when deciding between candidates; of those, 57% said in a later question that they support current efforts being undertaken in Washington.  Other issues of importance were the economy (16%), jobs and unemployment (13%), government spending (7%), and taxes (3%), meaning that fiscal issues summed statistically-equal to healthcare (39%).  Among the 29% of respondents who said that healthcare was their top concern, the majority (51%) said it was because they oppose the current legislation being considered in Washington, D.C., 46% because they support it.

*National Security: Because the Christmas day near-miss terrorist attack happened during the campaign, the issue of national security presented itself.  During a rally, then-candidate Scott Brown said, “In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”  Sixty-four percent of voters indicated that hearing Scott Brown say this was “very” (42%) or “somewhat” (22%) important when deciding which candidate to support.  Seventy percent of voters who said the statement had importance cast ballots for Brown.

*       National Consequences: Whereas 72% of Brown voters said they cast votes “mostly for” him and 60% of Coakley voters said theirs were also “mostly for” her, voters had not forgotten the consequences of their voting decisions.  Consider that 80% of Brown voters said that their “all” or “some” of their votes were “to oppose President Obama’s agenda in Washington” and, similarly, 82% of Coakley supporters said that their “all” or “some” of their support was “to advance President Obama’s agenda in Washington.”

*       When asked which candidates they supported in the past – Democrats or Republicans – for United States Senate and then asked to anticipate how they will vote in the future, there was a seven-point difference between the percentage of voters saying they have always or mostly voted for Democrats and the percentage saying they will do so in the future

IWV — Massachusetts Post-Election Survey TOPLINE DATA to CLIENT 1.26.10 –

The poll, conducted for IWV by Women Trend, a division of the polling company™ inc. surveyed 411 Massachusetts voters from January 23rd-24th, 2010.

IWV — Massachusetts Post-Election Survey Release to CLIENT 1.26.10 –

As Democrats are grieving their lost super-majority in Congress, some special interests are trying to spin the loss in ridiculous ways. The latest: Union boss Leo Gerard writes that “The message of Massachusetts should be clear: If Democrats want to save their own jobs in the midterm elections this fall, they must create jobs now.”

Create jobs? Create jobs?! It’s truly a fundamentally different worldview — and the kind that led Democrats off the cliff in the first place — to believe the government, rather than American entrepreneurs create jobs. (Here’s just one retort to that kind of logic.)

In one sense, there is a way Democrats could create jobs: They could quit trying to kill job-creating employers. Shred cap and trade. Hit the reset button on health care legislation. And, particularly important given the disastrous push by labor bosses, toss card check. Quit trying to force “green jobs” by killing other jobs. Stop the devastating machine of regulation from steamrolling any hope of economic recovery.

The point of Massachusetts, and the point of mass protest, has been that the government is trying to do too much, control too much. It can only “create” economic growth by getting out of the way.

Lost in the pre and post-election analysis out of Massachusetts has been the major policy differences between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown over foreign policy and defense.  The issue garnered some attention briefly during their final debate, when Coakley erred saying terrorists “were gone from Afghanistan.”  But then the attentions of the media quickly turned back to the health care debate.

In campaigning with Brown in the final days, Rudy Giuliani mapped out the battle lines: “This election will send a signal, and a very dramatic one, that we are going in the wrong direction on terrorism, and we need to change it, and change it now.”  Giuliani added: Scott’s background in the military speaks volumes about his understanding of what we face.  And frankly his opponent’s ignorance about the issues facing us is astounding.”

From the start candidate Brown was unequivocal on defense matters.  A 30-year Veteran of the National Guard, still serving as a lt. colonel, Brown unashamedly backed the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.    It’s notable that not once did he seek to separate himself from the Bush foreign policy agenda.

He repeatedly criticized his opponent, an attorney general, for her support of Obama’s policy of trying Khalid Sheikh Muhammed in a civilian trial in New York City.

Scott Brown refusted to back away from allowing the CIA and the Military to use strong interrogation techniques, including water-boarding, after being accused of supporting “torture” by Coakley and her supporters.

In contrast, candidate Coakley took a Ron Paul almost isolationist view on foreign policy.

Coakley called for a complete and immediate pull-out of Afghanistan:

“I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan.  I think that we should plan an exit strategy.  Yes.  I’m not sure there is a way to succeed.”

Coakley on her campaign website, like Paul, took a straight Anti-War in Iraq stance:

“Had Martha been in the Senate at the time, she would have voted against the Iraq invasion. It is now crucial that American troops leave the country.

Martha supports President Obama’s plan to fully withdraw from Iraq…”

I served as Congressman Ron Paul’s Senior Aide from 1997 to 2003. I can remember his early noises made to his policy advisor circle immediately after the 9/11 attacks, not to vote for the resolution to go into Afghanistan.  He finally relented after much pressure from the district, and even his staff.  It was his decision in 2003 not to back the President Bush and the War in Iraq that finally led to my resignation.

Looking back, with the Iraqi people fully liberated, and a stable pro-American democracy developing, we can see that George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani were right. Ron Paul got it wrong.

Perhaps Massachusetts voters sensed that Coakley’s Ron Paul-esque approach to fighting Islamic terrorism was rather weak like Paul’s.  Perhaps the seriousness of the terrorism issue, came back to the fore in the minds of these voters, after the shocking Ft. Hood shooting, followed by the Christmas Day bomber.

Yes, health care was front and center.  But it is notable that voters of one of the most dove-ish of states, chose to side forthrightly with the candidate of the Bush foreign policy agenda, over Obama/Paul.

As many of you know, I ran for Massachusetts State Representative in the 2nd Franklin District in 2008. Miss Kim joked on Monday that maybe I ran two years too early.

Apparently  not.

In the six towns that make up the 2nd Franklin, Democrat Martha Coakley beat Republican Scott Brown 6776 to 6070. It’s even more clear my home district is as dysfunctional as the black community, and my saying this is going to really irk them.

The truth hurts.

You know how your car drives; how it feels.

Let’s say you notice something feels very wrong with your car and you take it to the shop. You tell the mechanic what feels wrong and he tells you to leave it with him. He later calls, you pay him and begin to drive off, when you feel the same thing wrong with your car.

You take it back to the mechanic, tell him he didn’t fix the problem, describe the symptoms, and leave it again. You get another call later, pick up the car and when you’re driving away feel the same problem with the car.

The question is, would you ever take your car back to that mechanic again?

Blacks would, and so would the majority of voters in my home district.

In the black community (and most of the 2nd Franklin), Democrats hold almost every elected office from clerk to congressman. According to the hype, both communities should be utopias on Earth. However, both suffer from a chronic lack of economic development, questionable or outright failing schools, lackluster home sales, high foreclosure rates, and no end to that pattern in sight.

Despite what many of you may think, I’m not looking for everyone to become Republicans tomorrow. That’s quite unrealistic. But I look forward to a day of political competitiveness and accountability, because when politicians know they don’t have to produce to keep their jobs, they get lazy and don’t. I invite any of you living in either area to think of ONE meaningful thing that an entrenched Democrat has done to put one meal on your table (not including welfare or unemployment benefits).

Texas is a state that’s weathered the recession storm better than almost any other. What do they have that others don’t? A politically competitive climate. If a politician doesn’t deliver, next election the people give someone else a try.

I’ve talked to people in the 2nd Franklin who tell me their representation hasn’t done anything for them in the many terms they’ve been returned to office, yet they keep getting reelected. This is not the politicians’ fault. It’s the fault of those who refuse to hold them accountable, and both my district and the black community will not. For that, your complaining will continue to fall on deaf ears.

While the rest of the state issued a clear warning to Washington, D.C. after the special election, most of the 2nd Franklin District of Massachusetts chose continued unemployment, almost non-existent economic development, and a political class that’s been given a pass so they don’t have to work to improve anything.

As much as I love that area, you can lead a horse to water….

As I said during the campaign, “If you like the way things are, by all means, vote for the incumbent… and don’t complain.”

They did, so don’t.

Suddenly, all the condescending ‘tea-bagger’ jokes must not be quite so funny in liberal circles.  Serves them right.

Losing the seat formerly held by the champion of socialized medicine – in the bluest of states – apparently hasn’t phased the radical left.  SEIU president Andy Stern put the blame on the fact that Democrats in Washington, DC, who the union spent tens of millions of dollars electing, haven’t done enough to pass the progressive agenda.  From a SEIU statement:

“The reason Ted Kennedy’s seat is no longer controlled by a Democrat is clear: Washington’s inability to deliver the change voters demanded in November 2008. Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure,” Stern said.

“During the past year, Republicans refused to do anything but stand in the way of change and Democratic Senators took too long to do too little. And tonight, the Senate bears the consequences for its failure to act decisively but the American people are the ones left paying the price…

“The Senate may have squandered the trust the American people gave to Washington in 2008. But now, every member of Congress and the Administration must act with a renewed sense of purpose to show working families whose side they are on and deliver meaningful change to every American. This is not the time for timidity. It starts by passing health insurance reform and giving Pat [DeJong] and millions of people like her the security and peace of mind they deserve.”

Massachusetts voters stood at the borders of their state – and the polling places – with virtual pitch forks telling politicians, to paraphrase Johnny Paycheck, “take this agenda and shove it.”

But yet, the field marshals of the liberal army (I know, I know, “liberal” and “army” don’t really go together) are actually saying that those in Washington, DC haven’t done enough.

News to Andy: the Democrats may follow your lead and plow ahead with an agenda that Americans clearly don’t want, but instead of a Second Tea Party limited to Massachusetts, radicals will experience a full-blown national Tea Party come November.

So the paradox facing the left is this: do they allow Field Marshal Andy Stern to order them off the cliff, or do they tell Andy that his investment in spending tens of millions electing Democrats to implement a Marxist agenda was little more than buying fool’s gold.  Either way, radical liberals face one ugly year ahead.

These may well be the times that try the souls of Democrat politicians.

In the year since Obama took the oath of office, the fortunes of the Democrat Party have changed substantially. Voters, especially Independent voters, now favor Republicans on many issues and in Rasmussen’s Generic Congressional Ballot by 9%. Entrenched Senate Democrats like Christopher Dodd and Byron Dorgan are retiring and now – in no small irony – in the election heard ‘round the world, Scott Brown, campaigning against ObamaCare was elected to “Kennedy’s seat.”

It has been a remarkable turnaround – yet the worse is yet to come for Democrats in office.

Keep in mind that voters turned out the Republicans in 2006 and 2008 in large part because they spent too much, reformed too little and ran up the deficit into the $400 billion range. By the end of the Bush Presidency, economic troubles were mounting and the Republicans had no clear plan for a national recovery.

Today, the incidence of buyer’s remorse for voters over Barack is mounting for all the same reasons and more. Unemployment is at double digits, government reform has been abandoned in favor of unprecedented government spending and the deficit is in the $1.5 trillion range. All of that, with no meaningful recovery in site.

Beyond that, the President has his Party in the stickiest of wickets known to you as the Health Care debate. By allowing Pelosi and Company to write the bill, Obama lost control of the process and now public opposition to the bill is at an all time high.  Even so, the Democrat leadership still promises to push it – whether we like it or not.

That is, at least until Scott Brown came around – which begs the questions:

So what’s a Coercive Utopian to do? And what is a sensible Democrat to do? And of the two, who will prevail?

In the months ahead, the coercive utopian Democrats, who control government, i.e. Pelosi & Reid et. al., now know they may be out of power in 10 months – but not because of the Scott Brown election or The Lessons of ’66 and ’94 that Loom Over the Democrats.  They have been repeatedly told, by Bill Clinton and others, that the failure to pass HillaryCare in the ‘90s was the reason they lost in ‘90s, because their base became discouraged.  Beyond that, they will have to provide an answer to the country for solving the deficit.  Given their reflexive answer to that enduring question, i.e. raising tax rates, the Obama, Reid and Pelosi may well force their Democrats supporters in Congress to vote for higher taxes.  If anyone thinks that’s a good idea, (besides the coercive utopians), ask the 54 House seats that went from Democrat to Republican in ’94 how that worked for them.

So what’s a sensible Democrat in Congress to do? As a Shakespearean politician may have said: To Be Re-Elected or not to Be Re-elected, that is the question. Of course, that would require them to break company with Barack and the hard place in which he is forcing them – thereby splitting the Democrat Party.

Who will win that battle?  Perhaps the Lessons of ’68 are relevant here.  During that election year, the Vietnam War badly split the Democrats between the pro-war Johnson/Humphrey faction and the anti-war faction led by Senator McCarthy.  A split of that magnitude simply could not be mended within a single election year.  Their political civil war was  so bad that even the Republican Presidential nominee, who once declared that we would no longer have him to kick around just 8 years before, Richard Nixon, was able to make the ultimate comeback and win the Presidency.

In other words, for the Democrats, there probably will be no victor in this inter-party war – all of which amounts to one gigantic opportunity for the Republicans – if they would just do these 4 things . . . The Top 4 Things Congressional Republicans Must Do In 2010.

I want to start off by saying congratulations to Massachusetts new U.S. Senator Scott Brown.

Secondly, as I stated at the beginning of the campaign trail. Either way this election went, it was going to be an historic one. Coakley and the Democrats would have changed healthcare forever behind closed doors. Brown has a chance to stop Obamacare, and is the 41st vote that would be cast against the bill.

My four day trip to Massachusetts was a great one. I was proud to volunteer for Scott Brown, and I would do it again in a second. I met a lot of nice people along the way, and left with some lifetime friends. This campaign taught me that anything is possible, and anything can change in a second.

Congratulations to Scott Brown and his campaign for this historic election.

With the upset victory (understatement of the day) in Massachusetts of Republican Scott Brown over shoo-in Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley, the pundit establishment will be giving their political pals a tip: move to the center, and I really hope my Bay State brethren don’t let their guard down.

As someone who ran for State Representative (12th Franklin District) in 2008 and for Massachusetts Republican Party chair in 2006, I know how Democrats think.

While enjoying an 87% super majority on Beacon Hill, Massachusetts Democrats weren’t satisfied. They had their feet on our necks and their mission was to squeeze the life out of us. Thanks to Brown’s victory last night, Democrats nationally know that their lifeclocks are ticking and are now trying to figure out what to do about it.

Their immediate goal will be to put on a front of being moderate and you’ll hear the phrase “move to the center” more than you can stomach over the coming months. Democrats will attempt to make the America people believe they get it and will slow their arrogant leftward lurch.

They will ask for forgiveness, attempt to have us give them another chance. Then again, they may just try and ram through everything they can, while they can.

The bottom line is this: Republicans now have their feet on the necks of Democrats and it’s not a good time to let them breathe.

If the American people fall for the Democrat move center, just what do you think they’ll do if they save their majority status? I predict, knowing Democrats as I do, they’ll go right back to the arrogance we all know and love to hate.

Trust them at our nation’s peril. Squash them while we can and ignore their assurances of “getting it”, because they don’t. They just got caught with us seeing them for who they really are. A move to the “center” will not be sincere, but just their way of showing continued contempt for the American people with their assumption we’re all to stupid to know that their new-found moderation is just for public consumption and totally insincere.

The polls have closed, the votes are counted, and Massachusetts voters have sent the “Scott heard ’round the World”.  All day long, pundits have been giving their assessment regarding why Scott Brown would win.  All day long, too many of these pundits have proven that they still have not learned to listen to the clear message being sent by the American people.

Like rats fleeing a sinking ship Democrat pundits have been blaming Coakley for running a failed campaign.  While it is true that the path to victory checklist laid out by her strategists probably did not include insulting Catholics and Red Sox fans, to blame a Democrat for losing in the bluest blue state in this environment is a convenient oversimplification.  Further, it is incredibly insulting for the political class to dismiss the voters as being that petty.

For their part, Republicans who argued that it is not about Coakley’s gaffs offered up disturbingly similar alternative explanations.  Mitt Romney speaking on Fox news said it was:

Overwhelmingly an outpouring of support for Scott Brown and his vision”.

No, it is not about Scott Brown.  Or his vision.

This election result is not about personality it is not even about policy.  It is more.

It is true that the poll numbers began the dramatic swing the more the Democrats in Congress pushed the health care bill.  Brown was down 9% before the Senate passed the bill.  As the Democrats pushing the bill made shocking statements like “they need any bill’ or in the case of Obama advisor David Axelrod opponents of the bill are “insane,” Coakley numbers continued to shrink.

Health care reform policy was the backdrop.  It would be fair to stop there and say the voters rejected the policy of health care reform.  I believe it goes a step deeper.

If Massuchusetts voters looked beyond the personalities and were troubled by the policy of health care, did those blue staters who embraced universal health care in their state, suddenly reject the idea of universal health care done by their fellow Democrats in Congress?

I believe the voters rejected the operating principles of the Reid, Pelosi, Obama oligarchy.  Just as Republican voters lost faith in their leaders for the bloated spending, Democrats and Independents have looked with horror at the principles dominating this Congress that said any health care bill is a good bill.  They were shocked when taxing “Cadillac” plans suddenly did not include union Cadillac plans.  Most of all they were dismayed that all of these discussions were occuring not in the transparent way, on C-SPAN that candidate Obama had promised, but behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms–probably not cigar smoke, but clove or “medical marijuana” smoke filled rooms.  The voters found this disgusting.

So was this a victory for Republicans?

Before the GOP celebrates the personality of Brown, or the victory for moderates or begins believing the GOP is back, they need to consider that the same body politic that now distrusts the Democrats is the body politic that reviled the GOP just 14 months ago.

The Democrats have lost three major battles because the voters saw the incongruity between the stated policies and the actions.  Similarly, they rejected Republicans in 2008 because the Party, my Party, dominated by moderates calling themselves “fiscal conservatives,” grew entitlement spending,  war spending, and deficits in a way that contradicted their public pronouncements.   In short, both parties suffer a huge credibility gap.  The American public has not so much rejected personalities or even policies, they have rejected the lack of principles.

So now begins a new race.  A race for credibility.  The Party that hears the voters and regains the trust of the American people will be in control in 2011.

The first step to regaining trust begins with an apology.  I have heard a number of hapless GOP incumbents make statements like “we probably spent a little too much”, or “we should have said ‘no’ a little more”,  or “except for the war on terror, we only grew Federal spending by 5% on an annualized basis before factoring in inflation,” blah blah blah.  Just once I want to hear a Republican leader say this:  ”Yes, we spent like (pick your metaphore) a. drunken sailors, b. college girls with a new credit card, c. lotto winners on Rodeo drive, and you took the credit card away from us, you were right, and we are sorry.”  The emphasis needs to be on a heart felt, full out mea culpa apology.   Admit you did a terrible job carrying out the duties we elected you to do!  Admit it, dammit!  You overspent.  You were wrong. You need to own up to it.

If the GOP will do that, and beg for another chance, we may be able to save this Country from the economic collapse driven by the leftists elected by the reaction to the wayward Republicans.  They need to swear to cap the spending, cut failed programs and guarantee that they will shrink the federal government back to its Constitutional limits.

If they do that, we just might have a chance to leave this country just as our forefathers left it for us-better.

The polls have closed, the votes are counted, and Massachusetts voters have sent the “Scott heard ’round the World”.  All day long, pundits have been giving their assessment regarding why Scott Brown would win.  All day long, too many of these pundits have proven that they still have not learned to listen to the clear message being sent by the American people.

Like rats fleeing a sinking ship Democrat pundits have been blaming Coakley for running a failed campaign.  While it is true that the path to victory checklist laid out by her strategists probably did not include insulting Catholics and Red Sox fans, to blame a Democrat for losing in the bluest blue state in this environment is a convenient oversimplification.  Further, it is incredibly insulting for the political class to dismiss the voters as being that petty.

For their part, Republicans who argued that it is not about Coakley’s gaffs offered up disturbingly similar alternative explanations.  Mitt Romney speaking on Fox news said it was:

Overwhelmingly an outpouring of support for Scott Brown and his vision”.

No, it is not about Scott Brown.  Or his vision.

This election result is not about personality it is not even about policy.  It is more.

It is true that the poll numbers began the dramatic swing the more the Democrats in Congress pushed the health care bill.  Brown was down 9% before the Senate passed the bill.  As the Democrats pushing the bill made shocking statements like “they need any bill’ or in the case of Obama advisor David Axelrod opponents of the bill are “insane,” Coakley numbers continued to shrink.

Health care reform policy was the backdrop.  It would be fair to stop there and say the voters rejected the policy of health care reform.  I believe it goes a step deeper.

If Massuchusetts voters looked beyond the personalities and were troubled by the policy of health care, did those blue staters who embraced universal health care in their state, suddenly reject the idea of universal health care done by their fellow Democrats in Congress?

I believe the voters rejected the operating principles of the Reid, Pelosi, Obama oligarchy.  Just as Republican voters lost faith in their leaders for the bloated spending, Democrats and Independents have looked with horror at the principles dominating this Congress that said any health care bill is a good bill.  They were shocked when taxing “Cadillac” plans suddenly did not include union Cadillac plans.  Most of all they were dismayed that all of these discussions were occuring not in the transparent way, on C-SPAN that candidate Obama had promised, but behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms–probably not cigar smoke, but clove or “medical marijuana” smoke filled rooms.  The voters found this disgusting.

So was this a victory for Republicans?

Before the GOP celebrates the personality of Brown, or the victory for moderates or begins believing the GOP is back, they need to consider that the same body politic that now distrusts the Democrats is the body politic that reviled the GOP just 14 months ago.

The Democrats have lost three major battles because the voters saw the incongruity between the stated policies and the actions.  Similarly, they rejected Republicans in 2008 because the Party, my Party, dominated by moderates calling themselves “fiscal conservatives,” grew entitlement spending,  war spending, and deficits in a way that contradicted their public pronouncements.   In short, both parties suffer a huge credibility gap.  The American public has not so much rejected personalities or even policies, they have rejected the lack of principles.

So now begins a new race.  A race for credibility.  The Party that hears the voters and regains the trust of the American people will be in control in 2011.

The first step to regaining trust begins with an apology.  I have heard a number of hapless GOP incumbents make statements like “we probably spent a little too much”, or “we should have said ‘no’ a little more”,  or “except for the war on terror, we only grew Federal spending by 5% on an annualized basis before factoring in inflation,” blah blah blah.  Just once I want to hear a Republican leader say this:  ”Yes, we spent like (pick your metaphore) a. drunken sailors, b. college girls with a new credit card, c. lotto winners on Rodeo drive, and you took the credit card away from us, you were right, and we are sorry.”  The emphasis needs to be on a heart felt, full out mea culpa apology.   Admit you did a terrible job carrying out the duties we elected you to do!  Admit it, dammit!  You overspent.  You were wrong. You need to own up to it.

If the GOP will do that, and beg for another chance, we may be able to save this Country from the economic collapse driven by the leftists elected by the reaction to the wayward Republicans.  They need to swear to cap the spending, cut failed programs and guarantee that they will shrink the federal government back to its Constitutional limits.

If they do that, we just might have a chance to leave this country just as our forefathers left it for us-better.

With 70% in, Brown leads Coakley 53-46%. From what we’ve seen, there is no scenario where Coakley can win. Also no scenario to prolong the race with a long legal fight. Ladies and Gentlemen, Senator Scott Brown.

**Update**

Full text here.

The polls have closed in Massachusetts. Check back for updates throughout the night.

From Kansas City Star:

The Massachusetts secretary of state is discounting reports of voter irregularities in the state’s Senate special election.

A spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin said Tuesday two reports of spoiled ballots could not be verified or found to be widespread.

In another case, a person in Boston reported finding a ballot inside a privacy folder also marked for Brown. Officials say it may have been left inadvertently by an earlier voter.

Read the whole thing here.

This afternoon, the Coakley campaign convened a press conference to say they had received reports of voters receiving ballots, pre-marked for her opponent, Scott Brown. It would be a serious charge.

But we’re skeptical. Below is a screenshot of Coakley’s website taken this afternoon. The press release making the ballot fraud charge is dated yesterday, before any ballots were issued to voters. (Click Full Screen to view properly)

With such seers working on the campaign (able to foresee possible ballot fraud before it happened), you’d think the Coakley campaign would have been able to anticipate Brown’s campaign surge.

The Coakley release on the allegations now has the correct date on it. It can be found here.

I believe that Scott Brown will win the senatorial election being held in Massachusetts today and that he will do so not by an eyelash but by a landslide. We are about to witness the Massachusetts Miracle.

I have three reasons for being so confident. First, the polls — with admirable consistency — suggest that he is ahead. Second, the Coakley campaign and the Democratic Party nationally have panicked. Coakley’s minions have sent out a flier accusing Scott Brown of wanting to turn rape victims away from Massachusetts hospitals, and the DC apparatus has sent in Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for last-minute campaigning. Both moves are likely to backfire.

First, the claims in the flier are ridiculous and demonstrably false, and voters in Massachusetts have the wit to recognize that fact. Second, the bloom is off the rose. Clinton is a has-been, and Obama inspires little in the way of adulation these days. Their appearance in Massachusetts under these circumstances is a public confession that Martha Coakley is herself a loser. In special elections, turnout is everything. Scott Brown commands enthusiasm; no one — even within the Democratic establishment — has expressed any genuine excitement regarding his opponent.

There is, then, if I am right, one crucial matter left to consider. This evening Scott Brown will be called upon at some point to address his supporters, and the whole nation will be watching. Here is what, I think, he should say:

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a turning point — not only in Massachusetts politics, but in the politics of the United States. We have won a great and unexpected victory against a well-entrenched political machine, and I want to thank all of you for the help that you have given my campaign. I know how hard you and many others not present in this room have worked, and I promise to do my best to justify the hopes that you have lodged in me.

Tonight marks the end of a long, hard campaign. But it also marks a beginning. The people of Massachusetts have a way of speaking for the American people as a whole. They did so at the time of the Boston Tea Party; they did so again when a shot was heard around the world; and they did so today. For this election was a referendum on the conduct of the Obama administration in Washington. It was an anticipatory tremor — a harbinger of the electoral earthquake that is going to take place throughout the United States in November.

President Obama was in Massachusetts on Sunday campaigning for my opponent. Your rejection of her candidacy was, as he well knows, a rebuke of his administration. What you have said is simple and straightforward, and I will do my best to put it into words.

First, Mr. President, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, there is this: You promised us transparency in government, and you have done the opposite. We in Massachusetts demand that you deliver what you promised. No more deals behind closed doors. No more corrupt bargains. No Gator Aid; No Louisiana Purchase; No Cornhusker Kickback; no special deal for union members. What we want is a fair deal for all Americans!

Second, Mr. President, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, there is this: We do not want healthcare rationing; we do not want to gut Medicare; and we do not want a middle-class tax increase under any disguise.

Please understand, it is not our view that the existing healthcare system is perfect. We believe that costs could be reduced and access encouraged by four simple expedients.

First, we urge the adoption of tort reform — which would result in a reduction in the costs of malpractice insurance and an elimination of the pressures on physicians to order unnecessary medical tests.

Second, we urge a repeal of the measures which consign health insurance to state regulation. We want a national market for health insurance — we want to increase competition and thereby lower costs.

Third, we urge that hospitals, clinics, and physicians be required to post their prices — so that consumers can shop around.

Fourth, we urge that legislation be passed eliminating the connection between employment and the formation of pools for the purchase of health insurance so that voluntary associations — churches, clubs, professional societies, unions, and other comparable organizations — can form pools to negotiate discounts and health insurance arrangements on behalf of their members.

Mr. President, when you were inaugurated, you promised to “roll back the specter of a warming planet” and “restore science to its rightful place.” This past Fall, we learned that what many have long suspected is sadly true: that the work done by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which formed the basis for the four reports issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a fraud — that the data was doctored, that the computer simulation was a scam, and that systematic efforts were made by prominent climate scientists to corrupt the peer-review process and suppress legitimate criticism — all for the purpose of imposing a socialist strait jacket on the world economy.

We remind you, Mr. President, that a specter is “an apparition inspiring dread” and that one of the principal functions of science is to dispel illusions of this very sort. We demand that you now be true to your word; that you act to “roll back the specter of a warming planet” and “restore science to its rightful place” by sponsoring an impartial reconsideration of the evidence both for and against man-made climate change.

Finally — and most important — Mr. President, we remind you that this country faces an economic crisis and that a great many Americans are unemployed and underemployed.

It is not our opinion that a massive expansion in the federal bureaucracy is conducive to a recovery of the private sector. Nor do we do believe that a massive increase in the national debt is favorable to the long-term well-being of the American people. We call upon you to balance the federal budget by reducing dramatically the size of that bureaucracy and by eliminating unnecessary programs reflective of corrupt bargains negotiated in the past.

We also call upon you to make the tax cuts introduced by President Bush permanent — so that Americans have a compelling reason to work long hours and risk their savings by investing them in new ventures likely to produce jobs.

We have one more thing to say. Not long after the spontaneous formation of the Tea-Party Movement, Anderson Cooper of CNN disgraced himself by applying to those who joined that movement the obscene phrase “tea-baggers.” Since that time, Mr. President, you have demeaned your office and others, such as Senator Schumer of New York, have demeaned theirs by deploying the same vile phrase. We call upon you to stop this practice, to apologize to the American people for your misconduct, and to conduct debates concerning public policy in a civil fashion from now on.

If, in his victory speech, Scott Brown were to say something along these lines, I am confident that it would electrify the nation, put both the Obama administration and the Democratic Party on the defensive, and set the Republican Party on the right path. The country is beginning to mobilize; the first Tuesday in November is just a few months away; and now is the time for the campaign to begin.

There has been much speculation that today’s Massachusetts Senate race is a referendum on health care. That may be an understatement.  My guess is that this senate race could have even larger repercussions.

During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” this past week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put it well when he said that President Obama’s plan to bring about “change” to America wasn’t merely limited to health care.  As McConnell noted,

“This arrogant attempt to have the government take over one-sixth of the economy on the heels of running banks, insurance companies, car companies, taking over the student loan business, doubling the national debt in five, tripling in 10. You’ve got … sort of widespread public revulsion.”

Indeed, health care is not all that hangs in the balance.  A September Wall Street Journal columnoutlined President Obama’s next move (presumably, after passing health care): A $100 billion a year government takeover of school loans.

Obama’s allies already pushed the bill through the House, and it now resides in Sen. Tom Harkin’s Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, where hearings are soon to be scheduled.

What is more, a Scott Brown victory, which would deprive Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority, may still not be enough to deter the liberals from passing it.

Harkin has threatened to “fast track” the legislation by using the reconciliation process, a maneuver which would allow Democrats to pass a bill with a simple majority (as opposed to 60 votes).

Still, while a Scott Brown victory wouldn’t mathematically eliminate the possibility of a student loan takeover, it would greatly deter liberal Senators from pushing for yet another unpopular big government grab – especially via the controversial method of reconciliation.

Regardless, should Harkin and Obama succeed, all private lenders would be excluded from making government-guaranteed student loans.  There will be no government-guaranteed loan option for students other than federal loans (and, as the Journal notes, “The remaining 20% of the market that is now completely private will likely shrink further as lenders try to comply with regulations Congress created last year.”)

Democrats claim the bill would save millions, but they fail to mention it will cost jobs — tens of thousands of private sector jobs — (as if we could stand to lose jobs right now).  Aside from that, the bill would obviously transfer even more control from the private sector to the government.

It’s also worth pointing out that this move contradicts previous statements made by both President Obama and Senator Harkin.  For example, during his September 9, 2009 speech to Congress, President Obama said, “My guiding principle is and always has been that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works.”

Likewise, during a July MSNBC appearance regarding the public option, Senator Harkin said, “The one thing, I think, the people understand that we have to have is, we have to have choice and competition.”

The question, of course, is whether or not all this talk about “choice” and “competition” is just talk.

Most likely, the threat of electoral defeat will have a greater impact on whether or Senators support this bill than the need for rhetorical consistency.  As such, it’s fair to say that Scott Brown’s campaign transcends even the health care debate – his victory on Tuesday could dramatically impact Obama’s entire effort to “transform” the American system.  It would send a message loud and clear.

The folks at  Election Journal caught up with Isabel Melendez handing out absentee ballots in Lawrence, Massachusetts. She also helpfully explains how she can mark the ballot for the voter:

“My candidate is Martha…so I can mark it”

If one were trying to manufacturing fraudulent votes, absentee ballots would be a great place to start. In many cases stacks of these have been turned in at one time, making it impossible to verify that an individual voter submitted each ballot.

Check for more updates throughout the day.

UPDATE: This Boston Globe story reports that Isabel Melendez is a community activist in Lawrence. She ran for mayor of the city in 2001, losing out by just over 900 votes.

Often people write to me asking, “Pamela, what can I do? The problems are overwhelming.”

Well, here is an easy and immediate fix: if you are in Massachusetts, vote for Scott Brown. If Brown makes it, the Democrats lose their super majority. Scott Brown in the Senate would break the filibuster-proof Congress. He can save America from imminent ruin from statists and socialism.

Yes, the election in Massachusetts today is that big. The Brown/Coakley face-off is arguably the most critical and historic race in the already monumental 2010 election year. We can stop, with one election, America’s race off the cliff, a race that comes to us courtesy the Obama Administration. The stakes could not be higher.

Scott Brown faces enormous odds, in the form of the enormous and corrupt Democrat Massachusetts political machine. And yet the Democrats are clearly running scared. A blue state for decades, the union thug-owned Democrat machine in Massachusetts is pulling out all the racketeering stops to destroy democracy and keep their party’s Congressional filibuster-proof majority. They are scared witless, as evidenced by the array of dirty tricks they are playing against Brown. The vicious attack ads are just the beginning. Brown has filed an ethics complaint with Massachusetts’ State Ethics Commission after the Service Employees International Union, which supports Coakley (of course), used state resources to aid her campaign.

Not coincidentally, the SEIU is closely linked to Barack Obama. According to the Federal Election Commission, the SEIU’s Committee on Political Education spent $18,818,358.97 on Obama’s behalf through December 2008. Some of this money paid for door-to-door canvassing for Obama, voter identification and registration, and phone banks. Andy Stern, the Service Employees International Union president, said in May 2009: “We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it.” And Obama remembered to thank the SEIU, paying at least $2,250,000 to the SEIU over the last few months of his election campaign.

And now the same organization is pulling out all the stops to elect Martha Coakley and protect the Democrats’ anti-democratic super majority. And while it’s important to focus on the exceptional qualities and skills that Scott Brown will bring to the Senate, it is just as important to expose the ugly and disturbing resume of his unworthy opponent, Martha Coakley.

The thing is, the Democrats are so cocksure of their control, of the absolute corruption of the system and of the efficiency of their systemic voter fraud apparatus (the latter largely operated by ACORN), that they think they can run anyone, no matter how awful his or her record may be, or even someone with a mysterious opaque history (i.e., Barack Obama), and still win. They are not altogether wrong in that. If Martha Coakley wins today, their assumption will be proven right again.

Coakley, as Attorney General of Massachusetts, once advocated for the release without bail of a man who raped a 23-month-old baby girl with a hot curling iron. The rapist’s father had made a hefty contribution to Coakley’s campaign. And that is not the only ugly episode in the checkered career of Martha Coakley. You may remember the Amiraults, who were among the foremost victims of the bizarre “witch hunts” that went on in the 1980’s: people who ran daycare centers were accused of ritual rapes, devil worship, even baby sacrifices, etc. — all of it based merely on the weird testimony of obviously coached and manipulated children. And in spite of the egregious nature of the alleged crimes, there was no physical evidence to establish that they had happened at all. These were terrible persecutions of scores of innocent people in a sort of fashionable prosecution spree.

Yet even after Gerald Amirault had served fourteen years in prison despite the lack of a shred of evidence supporting the charges against him, and after the Massachusetts Governor’s Board of Pardons and Paroles had voted unanimously to commute his sentence, Martha Coakley lobbied hard against his release, and succeeded in keeping him in prison for four more years.

Martha Coakley is all for releasing true rapists with hot curling irons, but as for innocent people, that is a different story.

Maybe Gerald Amirault should have made a contribution to the Coakley campaign.

Vote for Scott Brown. So much of America’s future depends upon it.

Often people write to me asking, “Pamela, what can I do? The problems are overwhelming.”

Well, here is an easy and immediate fix: if you are in Massachusetts, vote for Scott Brown. If Brown makes it, the Democrats lose their super majority. Scott Brown in the Senate would break the filibuster-proof Congress. He can save America from imminent ruin from statists and socialism.

Yes, the election in Massachusetts today is that big. The Brown/Coakley face-off is arguably the most critical and historic race in the already monumental 2010 election year. We can stop, with one election, America’s race off the cliff, a race that comes to us courtesy the Obama Administration. The stakes could not be higher.

Scott Brown faces enormous odds, in the form of the enormous and corrupt Democrat Massachusetts political machine. And yet the Democrats are clearly running scared. A blue state for decades, the union thug-owned Democrat machine in Massachusetts is pulling out all the racketeering stops to destroy democracy and keep their party’s Congressional filibuster-proof majority. They are scared witless, as evidenced by the array of dirty tricks they are playing against Brown. The vicious attack ads are just the beginning. Brown has filed an ethics complaint with Massachusetts’ State Ethics Commission after the Service Employees International Union, which supports Coakley (of course), used state resources to aid her campaign.

Not coincidentally, the SEIU is closely linked to Barack Obama. According to the Federal Election Commission, the SEIU’s Committee on Political Education spent $18,818,358.97 on Obama’s behalf through December 2008. Some of this money paid for door-to-door canvassing for Obama, voter identification and registration, and phone banks. Andy Stern, the Service Employees International Union president, said in May 2009: “We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it.” And Obama remembered to thank the SEIU, paying at least $2,250,000 to the SEIU over the last few months of his election campaign.

And now the same organization is pulling out all the stops to elect Martha Coakley and protect the Democrats’ anti-democratic super majority. And while it’s important to focus on the exceptional qualities and skills that Scott Brown will bring to the Senate, it is just as important to expose the ugly and disturbing resume of his unworthy opponent, Martha Coakley.

The thing is, the Democrats are so cocksure of their control, of the absolute corruption of the system and of the efficiency of their systemic voter fraud apparatus (the latter largely operated by ACORN), that they think they can run anyone, no matter how awful his or her record may be, or even someone with a mysterious opaque history (i.e., Barack Obama), and still win. They are not altogether wrong in that. If Martha Coakley wins today, their assumption will be proven right again.

Coakley, as Attorney General of Massachusetts, once advocated for the release without bail of a man who raped a 23-month-old baby girl with a hot curling iron. The rapist’s father had made a hefty contribution to Coakley’s campaign. And that is not the only ugly episode in the checkered career of Martha Coakley. You may remember the Amiraults, who were among the foremost victims of the bizarre “witch hunts” that went on in the 1980’s: people who ran daycare centers were accused of ritual rapes, devil worship, even baby sacrifices, etc. — all of it based merely on the weird testimony of obviously coached and manipulated children. And in spite of the egregious nature of the alleged crimes, there was no physical evidence to establish that they had happened at all. These were terrible persecutions of scores of innocent people in a sort of fashionable prosecution spree.

Yet even after Gerald Amirault had served fourteen years in prison despite the lack of a shred of evidence supporting the charges against him, and after the Massachusetts Governor’s Board of Pardons and Paroles had voted unanimously to commute his sentence, Martha Coakley lobbied hard against his release, and succeeded in keeping him in prison for four more years.

Martha Coakley is all for releasing true rapists with hot curling irons, but as for innocent people, that is a different story.

Maybe Gerald Amirault should have made a contribution to the Coakley campaign.

Vote for Scott Brown. So much of America’s future depends upon it.

Earlier today, two independent reporters in Springfield, Massachusetts attended a Martha Coakley for Senate event. Prior to the candidates arrival, several union members surrounded the two reporters. From one of the reporters, Erich Heyssel:

The mood when we arrived was tense. They seemed to be an unhappy group of people. Dour, even. There were about 100 people outside the Teamster’s Local 404 building and, another 100 or so inside. We started trying to film the gathering and asked some basic questions. We were told we had to leave.

When the reporters approached the headquarters, several individuals tried to intimidate and  prevent the reporting of the event. The union officals refused to identiy themselves and kept pushing the journalists, while taunting them to leave. Again, from Mr. Heyssel:

We told them we were reporters. They didn’t seem to care. They just kept saying it was a closed meeting and we had to leave. It was weird. Even their attempts at intimidation were pretty weak. They just didn’t seem to have their hearts in it.

Unfortunately for these union activists, their disorderly and harassing behavior was all captured on film, from two points of view. Americans for Limited Government Foundation is responsible for providing non-partisan poll watchers and observers. The goal of the “Fifty Plus Individuals” is to observe and report fraud and abuse

Earlier today, two independent reporters in Springfield, Massachusetts attended a Martha Coakley for Senate event. Prior to the candidates arrival, several union members surrounded the two reporters. From one of the reporters, Erich Heyssel:

The mood when we arrived was tense. They seemed to be an unhappy group of people. Dour, even. There were about 100 people outside the Teamster’s Local 404 building and, another 100 or so inside. We started trying to film the gathering and asked some basic questions. We were told we had to leave.

When the reporters approached the headquarters, several individuals tried to intimidate and  prevent the reporting of the event. The union officals refused to identiy themselves and kept pushing the journalists, while taunting them to leave. Again, from Mr. Heyssel:

We told them we were reporters. They didn’t seem to care. They just kept saying it was a closed meeting and we had to leave. It was weird. Even their attempts at intimidation were pretty weak. They just didn’t seem to have their hearts in it.

Unfortunately for these union activists, their disorderly and harassing behavior was all captured on film, from two points of view. Americans for Limited Government Foundation is responsible for providing non-partisan poll watchers and observers. The goal of the “Fifty Plus Individuals” is to observer and report fraud and abuse

Originally published December 9, 2009.

In Tuesday’s primary election, Massachusetts Democrats chose as their Senate nominee a woman who kept a clearly innocent man in prison in order to advance her political career.

Martha Coakley isn’t even fit for the late Teddy Kennedy’s old seat. (What is it about this particular Senate seat?)

During the daycare/child molestation hysteria of the ’80s, Gerald Amirault, his mother, Violet, and sister, Cheryl, were accused of raping children at the family’s preschool in Malden, Mass., in what came to be known as the second-most notorious witch trial in Massachusetts history.

The allegations against the Amiraults were preposterous on their face. Children made claims of robots abusing them, a “bad clown” who took the children to a “magic room” for sex play, rape with a 2-foot butcher knife, other acts of sodomy with a “magic wand,” naked children tied to trees within view of a highway, and — standard fare in the child abuse hysteria era — animal sacrifices.

There was not one shred of physical evidence to support the allegations — no mutilated animals, no magic rooms, no butcher knives, no photographs, no physical signs of any abuse on the children.

Not one parent noticed so much as unusual behavior in their children — until after the molestation hysteria began.

There were no witnesses to the alleged acts of abuse, despite the continuous and unannounced presence of staff members, teachers, parents and other visitors at the school.

Not one student ever spontaneously claimed to have been abused. Indeed, the allegations of abuse didn’t arise until the child therapists arrived.

Nor was there anything in the backgrounds of the Amiraults that fit the profile of sadistic, child-abusing monsters. Violet Amirault had started the Fells Acre Day School 18 years before the child molestation hysteria erupted.

Thousands of happy and well-adjusted students had passed through Fells Acres. Many returned to visit the school; some even attended Cheryl’s wedding a few years before the inquisition began.

It’s one thing to put a person in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. It’s another to put an entire family in prison for a crime that didn’t take place.

In the most outrageous miscarriage of justice since the Salem witch trials, in July 1986, Gerald Amirault was convicted of raping and assaulting six girls and three boys and sentenced to 30 to 40 years in prison. The following year, Violet and Cheryl Amirault were convicted of raping and assaulting three girls and a boy and were sentenced to 8 to 20 years.

The motto of the witch-hunters was “Believe the Children!” But the therapists resolutely refused to believe the children as long as they denied being abused. As the police advised the parents: In cases of child abuse, “no” can mean “yes.”

To the children’s credit, they held firm to their denials for heroic amounts of time in the face of relentless questioning.

But as copious research in the wake of the child abuse cases has demonstrated, small children are highly suggestible. It’s surprisingly easy to implant false memories into young minds by simply asking the same questions over and over again.

Indeed, the interviewing techniques in the Amirault case were so successful that the children also made accusations against three other teachers, two imaginary people named “Mr. Gatt” and “Al” and even against the child therapist herself — the one claim of abuse that was provably true.

But only the Amiraults were put on trial for any alleged acts of abuse.

Coakley wasn’t the prosecutor on the original trial. What she did was worse.

At least the original prosecutors, craven and ambition-driven though they were, could claim to have been caught up in the child abuse panic of the ’80s. There had not yet been extensive psychological studies on the suggestibility of small children. A dozen similar cases from around the country had not already been discredited and the innocent freed.

Of all the men and women falsely convicted during the child molestation hysteria of the ’80s, by 2001, only Gerald Amirault still sat in prison. Even his sister and mother had been released after serving eight years in prison for crimes that never occurred.

In July 2001, the notoriously tough Massachusetts parole board voted unanimously to grant Gerald Amirault clemency. Although the parole board is not permitted to consider guilt or innocence, its recommendation said: “(I)t is clearly a matter of public knowledge that, at the minimum, real and substantial doubt exists concerning petitioner’s conviction.”

Immediately after the board’s recommendation, The Boston Globe reported that Gov. Jane Swift was leaning toward accepting the board’s recommendation and freeing Amirault.

Enter Martha Coakley, Middlesex district attorney. Gerald Amirault had already spent 15 years in prison for crimes he no more committed than anyone reading this column did. But Coakley put on a full court press to keep Amirault in prison simply to further her political ambitions.

By then, every sentient person knew that Amirault was innocent. But instead of saying nothing, Coakley frantically lobbied Gov. Jane Swift to keep him in prison to show that she was a take-no-prisoners prosecutor, who stood up for “the children.” As a result of Coakley’s efforts — and her contagious ambition — Gov. Swift denied Amirault’s clemency.

Thanks to Martha Coakley, Gerald Amirault sat in prison for another three years.

Remember all that talk about President Bush shredding constitutional rights? Overzealous liberal prosecutors and feminist do-gooders allowed Gerald Amirault to sit in prison for 18 years for crimes that didn’t exist — except in the imaginations of small children under the influence of incompetent child “therapists.”

Martha Coakley allowed her ambition to trump basic human decency as she campaigned to keep a patently innocent man in prison.

Anyone with the smallest sense of justice cannot vote to put this woman in any office. If you absolutely cannot vote for a Republican on Jan. 19, 2010, write in the name “Gerald Amirault.”

Consider this irony: Democrats and their special interest allies are in the fight of their lives to keep the seat formerly held by the champion of socialized medicine in the bluest of states.  Democrats should be tap dancing on the foreheads of Republicans in Massachusetts.  But instead, they’re racing against the clock for a deal on health care reform because they run the risk of losing their critical 60^th vote in just a few days.

So the Democrats strategy is clear:  seek forgiveness of American voters in November instead of permission now because the probable message from Tuesday’s election will not be in favor of ObamaCare.  Democrats are “hoping” to have an overall deal on health care reform, the tax-dodging Ways and Means committee chairman Charlie Rangel told NationalJournal.com, just in time to avoid the Tuesday Massachusetts vote.

The Huffington Post quoted SEIU vice president Anna Burger as saying, “Let’s go on and actually pass this bill.”  Anna’s wish is, of course, this White House’s command.

The special election this week in Massachusetts can easily be viewed as a referendum on Obama, his policies and specifically government-run health care.  And in a state that is navy blue, it’s a dog fight, with SEIU stepping in to plop down over $600,000 for TV ads savaging Republican candidate Scott Brown.  And RedState.com reported House Democrats are spending beaucoup bucks to elect a Democrat to the Senate.  It’s pure panic time for Democrats in Washington.

But they’re working as fast as they can to make health care reform a non-issue by the time the newest senator from Massachusetts is seated.

And worse still, more giveaways are emerging from Washington, DC but this time, not to lawmakers but to campaign-funding special interest groups.  News broke Thursday afternoon that Democratic leaders had “negotiated” a compromise with labor leaders over the so-called “Cadillac” tax.  They must have made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.

The New York Post said it well in Friday’s edition:

Big Labor got some big love from President Obama and congressional Democrats yesterday after they agreed to exempt union workers from the whopping “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health-care plans until 2018.

The sweetheart deal, hammered out behind closed doors, will save union employees at least $60 billion over the years involved, while others won’t be as lucky — they’ll have to cough up almost $90 billion.

So Andy Stern can go back to his members and say, “See what our $60 million investment in electing Obama got us?”

And CNN.com reported that, “AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka has made looking out for all workers — not just union members — a big part of his platform.”  What a peach!  That must be why benefits negotiated through collective bargaining were exempted but not those for non-union workers.  Way to look out for everyone, Richie!

The Post also reported:

Powerful unions were well-represented around the bargaining table.

Participants included AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Andy Stern, head of Service Employees International Union; Anna Burger, head of Change to Win [and SEIU vice president]; and the leaders of unions representing teachers, government workers, food and commercial workers, and electricians.

Isn’t that great?  Obama’s pledge to rid the special interests from the halls of power seems to be more than a little phony these days – it’s bordering on insulting.

This Christmas Tree for campaign funders and liberal groups is the skunk at the garden party for Americans.  And the bad thing for Democrats is this time, Americans know it.  And in all likelihood, the Democrats know it too and that’s why they’re scrounging up a compromise because the wheels may fall off Tuesday.

Republican Scott Brown has been running ads in Massachusetts where he is out driving around in his old pickup truck while campaigning for US Senator something Marcia Martha Coakley refuses to do.

On Sunday Barack Obama slammed Scott Brown and his truck several times in his Bush-bashing campaign speech for Martha Coakley.

Maybe Barack Obama didn’t notice that Scott Brown’s truck is a GM truck.

A GMC Canyon
Hat Tip ebayer

Maybe Obama forgot that the US now OWNS General Motors. You’d think he’d want Americans to “Buy GM” not “Bash GM”? You’d think.

More… Scott Brown gave an excellent rebuttal to Obama’s truck bashing.

I guess his question as to why she could say, during her debate with Scott Brown, that the “Taliban are gone” in Afghanistan after Taliban blew up eight CIA officers in Afghanistan was too tough for her.

From the Weekly Standard reporter himself:

A tipster tells me that the man who was pushing me outside of a Capitol Hill fundraiser Tuesday night for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley is Michael Meehan.

Meehan heads up a firm called Blue Line Strategic Communications along with his partner David DiMartino, who was outside the fundraiser with Coakley tonight and introduced himself to me there. TheAP reported on Monday that Meehan is also working for Coakley: “The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also dispatched Michael Meehan, a media consultant with ties to Massachusetts, to assist the Coakley camp with messaging.”

Though I can’t say with 100 percent certainty, I think that Meehan is the man who shoved me into a metal railing Tuesday night.

Coakley’s strongarm appears to be a longtime Democrat party hack. No surprise there.

This, the video of the Coakley thug visibly knocking down, shoving, and harassing reporter John McCormack:

The thug appeared to shove McCormack back and prevent him from asking Coakley any questions. More:

McCormack said Coakley blew him off, and then he followed her for a few blocks until he was shoved by a man he believes was Meehan, who is working with the Coakley campaign.

“I ended up on the sidewalk. I was fine,” McCormack wrote in the Weekly Standard. “He helped me up from the ground, but kept pushing up against me, blocking my path toward Coakley down the street.”

When McCormack asked the man whom he worked for, he replied, “I work for me,” demanding to see McCormack’s credentials on a public street. After McCormack showed him his ID, he said he met up with Coakley halfway down the block, asking her question that she declined to answer.

Coakley is definitely amping up the negativity, suggesting that Brown’s grassroots supporters are “hate groups,” tossing around grandiose statements about her political stature (”If I don’t win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats“), apparently hiring union workers to rally for her:

The heat of Brown’s success online and his record $1 million dollar-in-a-day fundraising – coupled with the ethics complaint Coakley faces over the charge that she used state resources on her campaign, relying on SEIU to phone bank for her, her sagging poll numbers, (not to mention the embarrassing misspelling of the very state for which she’s campaigning in one of her commercials), are all taking a toll on her manufactured-to-win countenance.

She and the Democratic party are quickly learning that through Massachusetts, the American people are beginning to say “no.”