[Ed.8] In this edition → → → → →

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...

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

[Ed.7] In this edition → → → → →

The pathetic state of health care reform

This publication has not directly addressed health care reform, other than to state its unpopularity in the polls and a cite for the President’s continually sliding approval rating…

The climate’s new clothes

Climate scientists in Britain and America have been caught red-handed bragging about manipulating data, stonewalling peer-review, and going so far as to state if a FOI request is granted they’d just…

A war on terror by any other name

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23 year-old Nigerian national, bored a plane with no baggage, after paying cash for a one way ticket; once over US soil, he attempted to detonate a bomb. Did the system work…

The pathetic state of health care reform

Some observations about health care legislation...

This publication has not directly addressed health care reform, other than to state its unpopularity in the polls and a cite for the President’s continually sliding approval rating; but there are far more perturbing facts about so-called “health care reform” than just the enormous price tag.

In the latest Real Clear Politics average, 50.7% of the American people oppose health care reform while 38.6% are in favor. To this publication’s editors/contributors (which are composed of conservatives and libertarians) these numbers reflect a sad state-of-affairs in the nation’s history. That nearly 40% favor more government control or at the very least intervention is as disturbing as the fact that only 51/52% oppose it – if one was to turn back the clock just sixty years, the very thought of relying on the government to provide anything but national defense and a system of jurisprudence would insult the average American’s intelligence and self sufficiency.

Today however, is a very different time in American history – a sense of entitlement has become the last two generations and will likely besiege the current generation. This is in no small part the fault of voter apathy compelled by political betrayal. The last three presidents ran on platforms as something they simply were not – Bill Clinton ran as a moderate middle-class tax cutting candidate but within his first term, raised taxes on the middle class and tried to enact a nationalized health care system. George W. Bush ran as a fiscal conservative, but in his second term, spent a then-record amount. Barack Obama copied Bill Clinton’s campaign rhetoric and within his first year has already spent $787 billion on a flat-lining stimulus and is seeking to turn one-sixth of the American economy over to the federal government. With examples like these, it is little wonder why voter turn-out has been dwindling since World War II.

Another factor that cannot be discounted is the overall culture in which we reside in the United States. And that culture is indulged by immediate gratification. The federal government has set an example too many Americans in years past have loathed – buy now, pay later. As the federal debt grows Americans have come to contrast with their personal and business situations. Born of this frustration is a common observation I have come to dislike considerably, “If I ran my household/business like the government, I’d be broke/bankrupt”. I do not enjoy this reflection because firstly, the government is not a business and second, because it is only half true – the government is bankrupt, relying on foreign countries to buy our debt – an option credit card holders do not have.

But I use the past tense purposefully in writing too many Americans in years past because that attitude is being lost in the latest cell phone texting, credit card debt piling generations. From their vantage, it is only fair or even just the federal government provide “free” health care. Too those I share an anecdote: years ago, a friend of mine from Quebec was telling me about attending and graduating from “University” in comparison to paying tuition as we do here in the United States. He stated that in Canada, college was “free”. When I asked if it was paid for in the form of higher taxes, he just again stated it was “free”. And that is precisely where America is heading, a conventional acceptance that if the government provides it, others are paying for it.

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact