The elephant in Massachusetts

Scott Brown has gone from an obscure state senator to US Senate seat could-win in a race, if held a year ago, would have replaced Senator Ted Kennedy with another liberal democrat. But in the latest polling, Mr. Brown is either within the margin of error or ahead of his opponent, the Bay State’s Attorney General, Martha Coakley.

Coakley’s campaign has been mismanaged from the beginning of the race, electing to rely on defacto support from the historical left-of-center electorate. But a little published fact is Massachusetts’ voters don’t have a majority of registered democrats, that belongs to independents (or non-affiliates)—51%, while democrats make up 37% and republicans a minute 11%—which dovetails precisely with national polling, showing independents’ falling support for President Obama.

Coakley seems to be suffering from Mr. Obama’s unpopularity. Her attacks on Mr. Brown as being a obstacle for the President’s health care reform has only led to more support for her opponent—apparently, the Bay State doesn’t much consider that a deficit. What’s more, Coakley has even gone so far as to attack Brown as being an appendage of Bush/Cheney. After fact checking, it appears Messrs. Bush and Cheney don’t hold any elected office currently, making the claim a bit difficult to believe.

Meanwhile, Mr. Brown hasn’t had to reach back to the past to find political affiliations—Deval Patrick, the democrat governor of Massachusetts is widely unpopular, as are the national party’s leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. That has translated into a seismic shift in the latest PJM/Cross Target poll, giving the conservative 10 point lead among likely voters, 52% to Coakley’s 42% and an out-of-margin-of-error lead in the latest PPP poll, 51% to 46%.

The special election is being viewed by conservatives as a referendum on the Obama Administration, but White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has state they “are not on the ballot” (even though the President has gone on a last minute push). Mr. Gibbs may technically be correct, but with GOP wins in both Virginia and New Jersey, the elephant in Massachusetts may stampede into the US Senate.

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

Reality versus academia, Cheney takes on hope with no change

Former Vice President Dick Cheney took a hard-line stance against the Obama administration for its unwillingness to face problems for what they are.

In a speech to Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C, Mr. Cheney lambasted the Obama administration for its public waffling on Afghanistan, “[sending] signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries…The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.”

Mr. Cheney also stated the President isn’t keeping the promise he made regarding in Afghanistan last March, “President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission”

So why is the former Vice President now being so critical of the Obama Administration? One would guess it was prompted by Rahm Emanuel when he stated on national television that, “…the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.”

But Cheney’s criticism of the Obama administration, while warranted, doesn’t address the deeper issue – and that is, Barack Obama is and always has approached issues from an academic standpoint. While Mr. Cheney has 40 years of public service as a congressman, Assistant to the President, a White House Chief of Staff, US House Minority Whip, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President, Mr. Obama has been a community organizer, a college professor, a state senator, and a US Senator (the former two lasted much longer than the latter or about 30 years less than Mr. Cheney.)

Candidate Obama and President Obama don’t seem to have much divergence, though reality is knocking, Mr. Obama prefers not to answer. In October 2007, Candidate Obama gave a speech to the Caucus for Priorities in which he stated, “As president, I will end misguided defense policies…” and continued, “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems, and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending…I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

Lofty promises indeed, but pre-2008 Candidate Obama and President Obama certainly don’t seem to differ; the only fly in the ointment of this agenda is a nuclear Iran and North Korea, a power-grabbing Russia, and those stubborn Islamic-fascists that populate Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, oh and FOX News.

Karl Rove and Dick Morris have both concluded the White House’s current course of action to war against a cable news network to be a political strategy to distract the American public from the administration’s failings, both foreign and domestic, but it might well be Mr. Cheney is right, that President Obama believes his words coupled with feel-good intentions and a cult of personality will cause the world to change; it isn’t – but here’s to hoping it will.

-- The Editors, Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact

3 for 1: The Veep Debate Bias; Bail-Out Boondoggle; What the Polls Mean

1) The Veep Debate Bias

If you've not yet heard, Thursday night's vice presidential debate is going to be moderated not only by a PBS correspondent, but one who has written a pro-Obama book due to be released on inauguration day.

Gwen Ifill, a managing editor and moderator for PBS's Washington Week and a senior correspondent for the network's News Hour has been accused of bias when moderating the Edwards' / Cheney 2004 veep debate.

PBS is notorious for it's hard-left bias and the news personality own instances of subtle bias are cause for republican pundits to cry fowl, but these indicators aside, would the mainstream media be so ambivalent if the moderator had written a pro-McCain book?

There's little here to analyze beyond the obvious and Palin should not expect any favors.

2) Bail Out Boondoggle

It's a bad deal now and there's little or no hope that it will get any better.

As the senate prepares to take-up a vote on a hybrid bipartisan pet-project goodie-bag, those that brought us to this economic impass are telling the American public they have the propriety to fix it.

It should be no secret that it was overwhelmingly democrats that pressured Fannie and Freddie to grant loans to those who would not otherwise qualify for one. Likewise, it's blantant that in holding the majority of the House (and the Senate) that the House Speaker was rendered ineffective by her own incompetence. Had the democrat majority wanted to pass a bill, they could have with very little republican support.

But since this has become a political timebomb, neither party wants to handle it for fear it might detonate in their hands. And with the election under 35 days away, each party is looking to score political points. So, cooler heads won't be able to prevail and the American people are going to be left holding the bag while each party asks them to vote with the other.

Because of the fever-pitch this crisis has reached during an election, there's really no point to delineate a better mousetrap fix.

3) What the Polls Mean

Now that the first presidential debate has been held and the nation's attention is turned to an economic crisis, the polls (finally) reflect a clear Obama lead.

Time to celebrate at Camp Obama?

Hardly.

Under the current circumstances, Barack ought to be up, but by more than he is now.

The Illinois Senator has demostrated in the primaries that he has trouble closing and not much has changed. With a huge domestic issue on his side, the democrat nominee should be up by 10 to 12 points and after the second debate, if he isn't up by that much, the last leg of the race is going to be the longest and hardest.

Senator Obama needs to get a grip on the voter's pulse and get a grip on what is really going on at his job. If he can manage to do those two things, he'll be able to frame the rest of the race. But if he stays on his current path, he may be doing John McCain a huge favor.