To Be Blunt About It . . .

President Obama apparently didn't know how big a hornet's nest he was stirring up by advocating a contraception insurance coverage directive that required faith-based institutions to provide such coverage to their employees. Although he revised it to allow religious organizations to be exempted and have insurance companies fill the gap by mandate, and although Catholic groups are pleased with the compromise, the pro-life movement in the Republican party sees the revised version as forcing other employers to provide coverage contrary to their own moral objections.

In that spirit of ill will, Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican elected in 2010, has introduced an amendment that would allow all employers the right to refuse coverage to employees for any medical procedure they deem morally offensive. These procedures include maternity care, HIV/AIDS screenings, diabetes testing . . . any procedure involving treatment and care for a medical condition which could have been brought on by a lifestyle that the employer may find unhealthy and/or immoral. Thirty-seven Senate Republicans, including accidental senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, have signed on to the Blunt amendment, which would likely be mated to a transportation bill - the same transportation bill ending dedicated funding to non-automotive transportation modes and initiatives - currently up for consideration in the House.

Oh yeah, don't think Brown is shooting himself in the foot with his support of this amendment as he runs for a full Senate term in liberal Massachusetts. It will likely get him more support from national Republican and pro-life groups and win him favor with Catholic Democrats and independents in his state. Brown can't fend off the challenge he faces in November from Democrat Elizabeth Warren with only Republican votes; he needs to fool enough gullible Massachusetts voters with his manly pro-life positioning. Enough Bay Staters, after all, were taken in to elect him to the Senate once - and to elect Mitt Romney as governor in 2002.

Meanwhile, the Virginia state legislature is pushing a pair of pro-life bills that could conceivably (no pun intended) become law. One would require mandatory ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. But because most abortions are performed within twelve weeks, a transvaginal ultrasound - literally inserting the instrument into a woman's body - would be required. So what, says Virginia State Delegate Todd Gilbert (Republican- male caucus) - abortion isn't really medically necessary all the time, he argues, it's mostly just a "lifestyle convenience."

The other bill would recognize fetuses as persons, similar to the bills rejected in Colorado and Mississippi. Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, a Republican, has indicated that he will sign at least one of them, most likely to burnish his vice presidential prospects.

Apparently, it's not the American infrastructure, antiquated as it may be, that is severely outdated. It's the American political establishment. And the idea that a handful of reactionaries could win power at the ballot box and use it to deny rights to others with a technologically superior communications system and a ruthless organizational structure suggests that we're closer to fascism in America than any of us have ever imagined.

Democratic Brownout

Scott Brown's tell-all memoir revealing his history of child abuse may seem in part like a campaign device for the Massachusetts Republican's next U.S. Senate election campaign in 2012, but its early release suggests that he's getting the tale of his past out now to avoid the appearance of a campaign stunt later. And it would seem rather crass to tell about the abuse suffered as a child for purely political reasons. Some would disagree on the nature of the timing of Brown's book, though, suggesting that it's a way for Brown to get ahead of any potential Democratic challenger now. Indeed, the 2012 election campaign may have already begun. Six U.S. Senators to date - the latest being Democrat Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico - have announced that they will not seek re-election in 2012, allowing potential candidates in their states to prepare for the primary campaigns.

The field still looks dismal for Democrats, having to defend twice as many Senate seats next year with many vulnerable incumbents while the few Republicans up for re-election all but assured another six years in office. That includes Scott Brown. Despite Massachusetts being a heavily Democratic state, even Boston mayor Tom Menino, a Democrat, declares that the moderate, pragmatic Brown is unbeatable. In which case, the Democrats might as well run Martha Coakley against him again.

Among incumbent Senate Democrats, the most vulnerable ones for 2012 include Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who enthusiastically supported a health care law that only generates enthusiasm among its opponents, Sherrod Brown of economically depressed Ohio, and Jon Tester of Montana, who will likely face a Republican opponent - Denny Rehberg, the state's only House member - more popular than he is. Vulnerable Democratic seats in Florida and Nebraska have Republicans looking to execute a half Nelson (take out Bill of Florida or Ben of Nebraska) or a full Nelson (take out both). And, if not Brown, whom can the Democrats unseat on the Republican side? Roger Wicker of Mississippi? Bob Corker of Tennessee? Get real!

Democratic hopes for continued Senate control rest on open seats. Olympia Snowe's seat could open up if the Tea Party defeats her in a primary with one of their own candidates, but Democrats shouldn't assume that they would beat such a candidate. Look at Paul LePage, Maine's loudmouth Tea Party governor, who won that office in November. Right now, Democrats are considering the possibility of picking up Republican Jon Kyl's seat in Arizona. With former Arizona governor and current Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ruling herself out, though, there aren't that many other prospects for the Democrats. I was just thinking how, if only Gabrielle Giffords hadn't been shot, she could run for Kyl's seat. She'd be a slam dunk.

It turns out that Giffords, due to her steadily progressive recovery from the January 8 massacre in Tucson, is being considered, and there are many calls for her to seek the Senate seat. U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz,a Florida Democrat and a Giffords ally, is currently helping to raise money for Giffords's re-election campaign to the House, though, and says that any idea of a Giffords Senate candidacy is premature.

So, for that matter, is the idea of a Republican takeover of the Senate, as the number of retirements from both parties is changing the landscape in the coming races. But Democrats still have an uphill battle to keep control of the upper house, given the number of Democratic seats up and the fact that it was this volatile class of seats that gave Republicans the majority in 1994, rendered the Senate evenly divided in 2000 (until Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords became an independent and switched party caucuses), and gave Democrats the majority in 2006.

And God help losing Democratic incumbents and challengers, because the party won't. Unlike losing Republicans, they won't asked to come back (like George Allen) and they won't be asked to try again (like John Thune). Democrats who lose in 2012, be it for the Senate or for the House, will be forgotten quickly.

That goes double for the guy in the White House at the top of the ticket as well. :-O

Mr. Brown Goes To Washington

I was wondering how long it was going to take for noted centerfold model Scott Brown to be seated as a United States Senator from Massachusetts. Three weeks after the election, I asked myself, "Geez, the Republicans in the Senate have to delay this, too?" :-D

Actually, the Republicans had nothing to do with this. It took time for the Massachusetts Secretary of State to certify the results of the special election last month. Brown was sworn in today. Originally, he was scheduled to be sworn in on February 11, and he was willing to wait that long, but he ultimately changed his mind and asked to be seated sooner to take part on key votes. The Democrats - who haven't shown any spine since 1967 - were pleased to oblige. John Kerry and outgoing interim Massachusetts senator Paul Kirk escorted Brown to the Senate floor today, where he took the oath from Vice President Biden.

Kerry was off his crutches. I hope this is a good sign.

Without a supermajority, the Democrats have to work with Republicans in a spirit of bipartisanship to get things done. The majority party doesn't have the votes to overcome filibusters, and they expect the Republicans to offer solutions and cooperation to pass legislation, now that the GOP has a greater say in the lawmaking process. Republicans counter that they need the filibuster to block any sweeping legislation they feel the country is not ready to digest.

The conventional wisdom is that Senate Republicans can't keep saying no to everything without offering alternatives on the legislative issues of the day if they don't want to be accused of obstructionism. Yeah, right. All the public sees is a party with a large majority - 59 out of 100 is still pretty big - and if the Senate can't pass anything, that party, the Democratic party, is likely to bear the brunt of the blame. And when you consider that the Democrats have been offering opportunities to the Republicans to get behind legislation such as job programs, rather than just take the bull by the horns and pass something themselves (like health care reform), perhaps the Democrats will deserve the shellacking forecast for them in the November elections.

All eyes are on Scott Brown to see whether he can help bridge the gap between the two Senate caucuses and get things done. Until he manages to deliver - something the rest of the Senate hasn't been able to do - he's just going to be seen as a Cosmopolitan pretty boy.

To be fair, Brown was a legitimate fashion model in the 1980s, having done a good deal of print ad work through a Boston agency. In fact, here's an example from his former career, from when he was 31.

I must say, he does look senatorial. :-D

The Undistinguished Gentleman

After a comically endless and insufferably smug victory speech that made Bill Clinton's 1988 Democratic convention speech sound like Cicero, noted centerfold model Scott Brown made the obligatory talk show rounds as Massachusetts's new senator-elect, explaining his positions on taxation and fiscal discipline and vowing to be a different kind of Republican - as if Edward Brooke, the last Republican to represent the Bay State in the Senate, hadn't been so different. (A black liberal Republican sounded like a novelty even in the seventies.) Brownie did a heck of a job at his first post-election press conference, insisting that he supports health care reform but that he wants to see a better bill than the one we have now (you mean you support a public option, Brownie?), and that he wants to work with President Obama and the rest of Congress to make it happen.

All . . . right.then - if Scottzo is sincere about this, let's see him work with Democrats to make health care reform a reality! Who else would Obama go to in the Senate Republican caucus to work with? Ohio's George Voinovich? Maine's Olympia Snowe? Maybe even . . . George LeMieux of Florida? You can't be serious! Here's your chance to prove you're not just another Cosmopolitan superstud, Brownie - go out and get health care reform done for the people! Come on, Scott - show your stuff!

You did it in June 1982.

By the way, is it just me, or does anyone else get the vibe that Scott Brown's favorite song is "My Sharona?"

Meanwhile, I'd like to offer the following message to Martha Coakley. . . . I've been having a bad week, too. So don't be discouraged, Martha my dear - someone understands. :-(

Mr. Brown of Massachusetts

Congratulations, Massachusetts . . .

You just elected a rabid, reactionary tea-party-supporting, bigoted, truck-driving, graceless centerfold model and action hero who embarrassingly can't and won't shut up about himself without publicly disgracing his wife and daughters in the process as your new U.S. senator!

I hope the spirit of Massachusetts is not the spirit of America.

Make Massachusetts Scott-Free!

Scott Brown is a dangerous man. He's Sarah Palin in a suit and tie.

Scott Brown, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Massachusetts's special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy, more than opposes the Obama health care plan. He opposes taxing the banks to restore fairness to the economic system in this country. He opposes financial reform of any kind. He also opposes emergency abortions for impregnated rape victims. Martha Coakley favors more punitive taxes on the greedy bankers and no punitive restrictions on woman's reproductive rights - or any women's rights. You vote for Brown, you vote for reactionarism that sets the country back to the George Walker Bush days.

I reiterate this blog's endorsement of Martha Coakley for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts. Please make sure that the Coakley loss I predicted does . . . not . . . happen!

Martha my dear . . . you, go, girl! (Beatles title mixed with hip-hop slang - nice touch, huh?)

A Blue State To Go Brown?

I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling Martha Coakley is going to lose the special election to Republican state senator Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts.

The first indication of a "Brown-out" in Tuesday's election is that Coakley is a worse candidate then she appears to be. After seeing audioless clips of her campaigning, on MSNBC, I watched the PBS NewsHour, which played a clip of Coakley speaking - with sound. It was then that I finally got to hear her talk.

To say she's stodgy is like saying Atlanta is uncomfortable in July. She's one of the stiffest women I've ever seen, and her voice could cure insomnia. She needs John Kerry to campaign for her . . . for the charisma.

That's where the second telltale sign comes in. John Kerry, Obama aide Mitch Stewart, and Democratic operative (and Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank's sister) Ann Lewis had e-mails sent in their names today - that's right, today - asking for money to give Coakley a lift in the final three days of the campaign. I got all of them. This is the kind of desperation associated with the presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis in 1988, Dukakis, of course, was the governor of Massachusetts.

The thing is that even if Coakley were as glamorous or as charismatic as, say, Scarlett Johansson, it wouldn't help. She's the Massachusetts Attorney General, making her look like an incumbent in a year where being an incumbent officeholder isn't so advantageous right now. Also, Scott Brown has made some key tactical moves that has put him in good standing with voters. Asked by David Gergen in this past Monday's debate if he thought it was plausible that such an arch-conservative Republican like himself could take over Ted Kennedy's seat, Brown retorted that the seat doesn't belong to the Kennedys or the Democrats, but rather to the people. And all across Massachusetts, you could hear voters say, "Ooh, good answer - good answer!"

On top of that, Brown ran an ad featuring a clip of John F. Kennedy - who also held that seat - arguing in favor of tax cuts, which Brown supports. Brown conveniently left out the fact that Kennedy also believed in giving something back to your country, selectively using elements of the thirty-fifth U.S. President's record to make himself look like an appropriate heir to the Kennedy legacy.

Except for one thing - Brown promises to oppose the health care reform bill currently being hammered out in Congress. As noted, a forty-first Republican vote in the Senate to block passage of the bill will effectively kill it, making health care reform a dead issue for another generation. That the fatal vote could come from a senator holding Ted Kennedy's seat is, of course, ironic. But many Massachusetts residents may not care much because the state already has universal health insurance, courtesy of the gubernatorial administration of Mitt Romney, who in 1994 almost won the Senate seat of . . . Ted Kennedy. Brown isn't just a conservative Republican - he's even more reactionary than the last Republican to hold that seat, Henry Cabot Lodge II . . . and possibly even more so than the original Henry Cabot Lodge.

Which is why this blog endorses Martha Coakley for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts. Yes, she's boring, but, in regard to health care, if we don't get boring we're going to get screwed. Brown is a more exciting candidate, no doubt about that - that centerfold photo he did for Cosmopolitan certainly generated heat - but a hostage crisis is also exciting. I don't want excitement from my government. I want a shot at buying some decent medical insurance.

Another reason to vote for Coakley. . . . If you thought that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck were gloating insufferably over the failure of President Obama to get the 2016 Olympics for Chicago, well, if Brown wins this election Tuesday, you ain't seen nothing yet!

I said that I think Coakley will lose. So come on, Bay State voters, prove me wrong.

Martha My God!

You would think that a nice Irish Catholic girl like Martha Coakley, a woman who's a loyal Democrat, a lifelong resident of Massachusetts (Massachusettian? It doesn't come up correct on my spellchecker), and an accomplished state attorney general, would be a lead-pipe cinch for wining next week's special election to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy for the next three years. You'd think the Republican opponent, a tea-party conservative candidate named Scott Brown, wouldn't stand a chance.

You'd be wrong.

Coakley, who led Brown in Massachusetts polls only recently, is now in a dead heat with Brown in one poll and in serious danger of losing. Seeking a chance to gain the most prestigious Democratic seat in the United States Senate, Republicans have been dumping negative ads against Coakley the way Bostonians dumped tea in the harbor on a cold December night in 1773. Brown has been emphasizing the need to rein in government, campaigning on lower taxes and in opposition to the health care plan before Congress today. This contrasts sharply with Coakley's support for targeted tax cuts for the middle class, as well as her support for an individual mandate and a public option to lower health insurance costs. So what's going wrong for Martha Coakley?

Maybe it's that she's a flawed candidate. As Massachusetts Attorney General, she has refused to investigating Boston mayor Tom Menino for allegedly destroying public e-mail records in violation of the law. When state district attorneys made allegedly inaccurate and misleading charges about a marijuana policy initiative up for a referendum in an effort to defeat the law, such as suggesting anyone could carry pot any time (it passed), Coakley replied that "nothing in the proposed law explicitly forbids public use of the drug." In fact, the law still levies a $100 fine and confiscation for adults and mandatory community service for minors, suggesting Coakley, who as the state Attorney General should know what she's talking about, didn't read the bill.

Even Coakley's actions as a district attorney have been under attack A Somerville, Massachusetts police officer was charged with sexually abusing a 23-month-old girl in 2005. Coakley, serving on the grand jury in the case, decided not to indict him and allowed him to be released without bail. (Coakley's successor in that office charged him and got a conviction; the policeman is now serving two life sentences. Coakley defended her actions in the sexual abuse, insisting her decision was based on all the evidence available to her. How did the evidence that allowed the conviction to go forward, though, suddenly show up after she left that DA office?

Coakley's candidacy smacks of complacency among Massachusetts Democrats. After all, the state's entire congressional delegation is Democratic, and the Bay State hasn't sent a Republican to the Senate since re-electing Edward Brooke in 1972. But Massachusetts voters will elect a Republican for pragmatic reasons; as recently as 2002, they elected a Mormon businessman as governor because a skilled capitalist with moral rectitude who also rescued the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was seen as the right man for the job. (Mitt Romney's election was the fourth straight Republican victory in a Massachusetts gubernatorial contest.) Even Massachusetts's reputation as a liberal state is inflated. The Boston busing controversy of 1974 had a lot of racial overtones, many white Boston residents angered by the plan to integrate their kids with black children in black schools that were seen as inferior. Scott Brown's success so far suggested that the people of Massachusetts are no more enamored with President Obama's agenda that residents of other states. It's typical of Democrats to take something for granted and put up anyone for office thinking nomination is tantamount to election.

So what does this have to do with everyone outside Massachusetts? Everything. The health care bill, flawed as it is, is the best chance for reform we're likely to get for another fifteen years. Brown opposes it. If he wins the special Senate election next week, he will be the forty-first Republican vote in the Senate needed to block the bill from proceeding. That is, if Coakley loses, health care reform loses.

The silver lining is that Coakley is a ahead of Brown by fifteen points in a Boston Globe poll, and she has a chance to turn things in her favor in a debate with Brown tonight. But even if she wins next Tuesday, I hope this serves as a lesson to Democrats in states where the party is dominant that a Democratic nominee only has to stay alive until Election Day to win.