Knocking Down the Dems Ahead of Schedule

A couple of weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh made some particularly interesting comments:

[N]ationalize every House race in 2010, nationalize every Senate race in 2010, just as those elections were nationalized in 1994.

...Position these people as nationwide leftist radicals with their impact not just in the district but throughout the country. That worked magic in 1994. That's part of the strategery next November. That's going to have to be done.

[emphasis added]

We don't have to wait until November to begin clawing back power from the Democrats. Our first opportunity comes on January 19, when Massachusetts voters will choose Ted Kennedy's replacement in the U.S. Senate. Scott P. Brown, a Republican, is opposing Martha M. Coakley, a Democrat.

If Scott Brown wins, Obama loses his 60th vote in the Senate. The Democrat's filibuster-proof majority would be history.

Introducing Scott Brown:

Mr. Brown, 50, is a lawyer and a lieutenant colonel in the Massachusetts National Guard who has served in the state legislature since 1996. He opposes same-sex marriage and the health care legislation being debated in Congress, and supports President Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Some thoughts from an optimist from Massachusetts:

• With local media outlets already declaring Coakley our next senator, Martha’s infamous coasting will become even more pronounced. She will put next to nothing into her effort from here, saving campaign funds for future purposes.

• Since Coakley’s supporters now assume the race is over, they will do little campaigning over the holidays.

• Given that backdrop, turnout on January 19 will be even lower than today’s. We could be well into single digits across the Commonwealth. Motivating your base, even one as small as the GOP’s, makes it possible to overcome that.

• At the national level, Democrats are busy alienating almost every group, from the far-left to moderates, which further depresses turnout as supporters become disillusioned.

• Oddly enough, the one media outlet seeing a potential victory path for Brown, if remote, is the New York Times

In the midst of the major holidays, a terrorist attack, the health care fight, a dreary economy and a recent disappointment in NY-23, many conservatives and Tea Party activists might not have the time, money or inclination to invest in a Hail Mary pass in Massachusetts.

Perhaps persuading voters in the People's Republic of Massachusetts* to replace Ted Kennedy with a Republican is the mother of all long shots...but I see it as an opportunity. Even with a Coakley victory (if it follows a tougher-than-expected race), conservatives could send an important message to the Democrats: "Take nothing for granted."

*Actually, conservatives are as plentiful as liberals in Massachusetts. Gallup's numbers: 30% conservative, 29% liberal, 38% Moderate.

More

Three Reasons to Vote for Scott Brown

Scott Brown on the issues

Three action items for those supporting Scott Brown outside of Massachusetts

The Weekly Standard: An Intriguing Long Shot: Could Massachusetts Save Us From Obamacare?

Yes, yes, all politics are local. Except when they’re not, like in the case of being a deciding vote on fauxcare.

Think Scott Brown can't win? Here's why he can.**

Scott Brown for Senate in Massachusetts (if you want to kill health control bill)

Brown and Coakley Debate (video)

Wednesday is the last day for voters to register for the special Senate election

Jan 11 Scott Brown Money Bomb

Oops, Democrats don't have 60 votes anymore...

Two special elections getting Tea Party attention

Coakley Ducking Debates

Scott Brown Says Airplane Bomber Should Be Treated As Enemy Combatant

Homeland Security Secretary is doing a "heck of a job." Janet's assessment of the terrorist attack: “...the system worked.” Mission Accomplished!

**Welcome, sisu readers...and thanks to Sissy Willis for the link/mention.

Proof Is Not Enough

Liberals will not let facts or reason get in the way. Show them the dire reports from the Congressional Budget Office or the Congressional Research Office and they just snort. Tell them about the horrors of government-run medicine in Canada or Great Britain and they change the subject. Show them the failures of health insurance mandates and the public option in Massachusetts...they'll call it a success.

As I've noted repeatedly, we've seen enough in Massachusetts with the skyrocketing increase in health care expenditures, the increasing waiting times and the decreasing supply of health care providers to know exactly what will happen with ObamaCare. And as if we didn't already know enough, now there's this:

A study just published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine shows a 9% increase in emergency room visits since the commonwealth [of Massachusetts]’s universal health-care plan was signed into law in 2006.

Obama and the Democrats have had quite a bit to say lately about improving the tone and quality of the debate over health care reform. If they really want a civilized debate, it would help if they would actually listen, and accept the facts for what they are.

More

Emergency Room Visits Increase Under Universal Coverage

Massachusetts Is a Health-Reform Model (for failure)

Obama Calls for 'Civil' Tone on Health Care

Universal Coverage Does Not Mean Universal Care

Universal coverage does not mean universal care.

What good is health insurance if you can't get medical attention? This is the question that arises when politicians ration health care. Residents of Massachusetts are learning about all this the hard way. Will we learn from their mistakes? Let's break down Massachusetts' sad story:

• Chapter 58, Massachusetts' universal health care plan, was signed into law by Mitt Romney in April 2006. It is seen as a model for nationwide healthcare reform.

• Under Massachusetts law, any individual earning at least $32,508 a year must purchase health insurance. Those who earn less are eligible for subsidized coverage.

• Residents who obtain no coverage incur a state-imposed fine of approximately $1000/year.

• Physicians who care for patients on state-subsidized plans lose money. "In effect," one physician says, "I hand them $20 when they walk out the door."

• Chapter 58 created an estimated 400,000 newly insured residents in less than two years and Massachusetts' glut of doctors quickly became a critical shortage.

• More than 41% of primary care practices in the state did not accept new patients in 2008, up from 28% in 2006

• Wait times for new-patient appointments rose from four weeks in 2006 to nearly eight weeks in 2008 for general internal medicine doctors. (Nationally, average wait time is slightly under three weeks.)

• Universal coverage has resulted in universal price hikes. By some estimates, costs of covering the state's newly insured are rising by almost 10% each year

• Overall healthcare spending on state-sponsored insurance has risen 23% since 2006.

• "If the problem is cost, reform has failed. Costs have gone up, not down. Since Massachusetts reformed their system, health costs have followed the same path as the U.S. as a whole: a steady upward climb, faster than inflation or wages."

• Doctors are miserable. "Anyone who can is leaving the state"

(From Medical Economics)

"If universal care in Massachusetts cannot stem the tide of rising costs [or deliver the care people need] is there hope for similar plans on the national stage?" We will soon know the painful answer to that question if the Democrats manage to pass a health care bill.

More

O's latest healthcare press conference: same old lies, same tired talking points

It is hard to think of a more obvious sign of weakness than attacking members of your own party.

Jim DeMint is under attack from Obama. Lend DeMint your support!

Set the record straight: Obama & Democrats voted AGAINST healthcare reform

37% strongly oppose Obamacare; 24% strongly favor Obamacare.

Waterloo!