Not that I’m enamored by the current administration, either…

Nobody could have predicted this a month ago:

Republican Scott Brown has won Tuesday’s special election for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy, CNN projects based on actual results.

With more than three-quarters of results counted, Brown had 52 percent of the vote to 47 percent for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, according to the the National Election Pool, a consortium of media organizations including CNN.

I predicted a Brown victory, but didn’t expect such a substantial win. It’s pretty amazing that a seat so reliably Democratic could go so decisively red. The president’s party usually loses seats in midterm elections, but this is a real surprise.

So what does it mean? Certainly it indicates that Obama’s star is not as bright as it was only a few months ago. Coakley was a lousy candidate, as most Democrats suggest, but in a state as blue as Massachusetts, she should have won. That she didn’t is a major victory for Republicans and a psychological blow to Obama and Democrats. It’ll be interesting to see how the respond.

I’m sure everyone is on pins and needles waiting for my prediction on the special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy. Well, here it is:

Scott Brown will defeat Martha Coakley in a tight race.

I haven’t blogged about Haiti because I don’t really know what to say. The level of tragedy can’t be put into words, and to the extent that it can, people have already done so far better than I could hope to. All I can say we should keep the people of this unfortunate nation in our prayers, and we should help in any way we can. Even if it’s only giving a few dollars to a reputable charity, it could mean the difference between life and death for someone. Every little bit helps.

We should also be grateful to be Americans. Even with the economy in bad shape, we remain incredibly lucky. We should never forget that.

UPDATE: I should mention that Catholic Relief Services and Food for the Poor are good and reputable organizations doing great work in Haiti.

But not as liberal as his opponent, Martha Coakley. Boris Shor determines that Brown, who is attracting lots of positive attention from conservatives activists and tea party types, to be to the left of Dede Scozzafava, whom conservatives despised.

So why the apparent double standard? Shor believes it simply indicates that the conservative base is rational:

What this shows, however, is that the conservative base in the United States, far from dragging their party moblike into an unelectable extreme, has made the decentralized decision to support the realistically best candidate they can relative to the context in which he’s being elected. The 23rd special district election can also be seen in this light; throwing Scozzafava overboard made far more sense in the context of that electorate.

Via James Joyner

Donn Jones, candidate for Congress in Tennessee’s 8th district, announces he will not run in the Republican primary, instead switching to an Independent to run as a ‘Tea Party’-aligned candidate in the general election. In his press release, Jones is critical of the two party system and of the GOP’s lack of commitment to conservative values.

I’m not sure what Jones’s motives are. If he is attempting to advance the conservatism in Congress and defeat the Obama agenda, then this move will probably have the exact opposite effect, as he’s likely to  siphon votes away from the Republican nominee, ultimately helping the Democrats to retain this seat. If, however, Jones’s goal is simply media attention and self promotion (the more likely scenario, in my opinion), well, he’ll certainly succeed at that.

As you’ve probably heard, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said some decidedly un-PC things about candidate Barack Obama back in ‘08:

Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader and the national government’s highest-ranking Mormon, has admitted now remarking apparently with some amazement on the nation’s highest-ranking black Democrat as being notably “light-skinned” and having “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

Reid has already apologized, and Obama has forgiven him. Republicans are calling on Reid to step down, arguing, correctly, that a Republican in a similar situation would not be so easily forgiven.

So what are we to make of this–that Reid is an idiot? It sure seems that way. What baffles me as much as Reid’s stupidity is his use of the word ‘negro’. Seriously, who uses that word in 2010 (or 1985, for that matter)? It might not be racist, but it’s certainly antiquated. I don’t recall ever hearing it in casual conversation.

It’ll be interesting to see the fallout from this. Can Harry Reid weather the storm? My guess is given that Reid was in struggling in the polls to begin with, Democrats will use this opportunity to ditch Reid and field a candidate in Nevada with a better chance of winning in November. Look for intense pressure on the Senate majority leader to retire at the end of his term, if not step down from his leadership position.

Read the comments on this Free Republic post and tell me certain members of the Religious Right aren’t batsh*t crazy.

A shocking new poll from Gallup suggests that Americans might not view Congress as the most honest and ethical institution around:

For the first time in Gallup’s annual Honesty and Ethics of Professions poll, a majority of Americans — 55% — say the honesty and ethical standards of “members of Congress” are low or very low — slightly worse than “senators,” whose ethics are rated low by 49%.

To be honest, I’m surprised that the percentages of Americans who view “members of Congress” and “senators” as unethical and dishonest are only 55% and 49%, respectively.

Via Politcal Wire

Longtime East Tennessee residents probably remember the controversial Tellico Dam, built by the TVA during the 1970s as a means of bringing economic development to Loudon County and the Tennessee Valley. This was the first–and only–TVA dam built for this reason; those previously constructed were for flood control.

The Tellico Dam is probably best remembered today, and least outside the Tennessee Valley, as being nearly torpedoed by the infamous snail darter, a small fish whose habitat was said to be threatened by construction. The snail darter would delay construction for several years, and became a symbol of dogmatic environmentalists standing in the way of progress.

Small fish weren’t the only obstacles to construction, however. Native Americans argued that the land flooded held religious significance, and environmental groups questioned the ethics of radically changing the Little Tennessee River, especially for the sole purpose of possible economic development. They too fought the good fight, but only succeeded in delaying the inevitable. The Native Americans fought the White man and lost, a recurrent theme of American history.

Then there were the property owners themselves, whose land was slated to be flooded. Since politicians rarely ever care much about the little guys who get in the way of their master plans, these people were kindly informed they would have to leave, and generously offered money for their troubles. This was done under the guise of eminent domain, and surely would have made supporters of the Kelo vs. New London decision proud.

Some of the property owners sold willingly; others held out to the bitter end. The most famous holdout was Nellie McCall, an elderly woman who had lived in the area her whole life, and who became a powerful symbol for the holdouts. She refused to sell out and refused to budge, but was eventually evicted by federal marshals.

Though the critics lost that battle, they may have eventually won the war: prior to the controversy, few questioned the construction of new dams, seeing them as progress, a sign of technological advancement and an enlightened society. Those who stood up to the TVA helped change this perception (it’s hard to win a PR battle while forcibly removing poor, elderly women from their homes), and no TVA dams have been built in the three decades since.

WBIR notes that it was been 30 years since the Tellico Dam opened its gates on the Little Tennessee River, and features some remarks from a man who initially opposed its construction and lost some property as a result, but has since come around to accept the dam as an advantage for the region. Perhaps he’s right, but I’m not so sure.

The War on Drugs, that is. Here’s a policy on which Obama would get complete support from me, if he decided to pursue it:

There is good money to be made by selling drugs on the street, because they are illegal and prosecuted, driving up the profit margin. And that means that details aside, we can all agree that what happened in the Bronx on Monday would have been very different if there were no War on Drugs. In fact, it probably wouldn’t have happened at all.

It’s one more indication of what a tragedy this modern replay of the disaster of the Volstead Act currently is. The simple fact is that if there were no profit to be made in selling drugs on the street, no one would bother. For all of the “root causes” reasons so many young black and Latino men turn to this trade instead of seeking legal work, if there were no War on Drugs, they would seek other solutions to the obstacles that face them. And whatever those were, they would involve less murder, fewer crossfire injuries and killings of the kind that have likely ruined Ms. Vasquez’ life at 15, fewer men in prison for long periods, and fewer of their children growing up fatherless and on their way to repeating their father’s mistakes.

Insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” a quote famously attributed to Einstein. We’ve been fighting this “war” for forty years, and yet the drugs continue to win. Most research not sponsored by the government indicates our policies have failed. Experience and common sense suggests the same: anyone who wishes to buy drugs can find them with little problem.

And yet, the “war” rages on. It’s become part of the bureaucracy, with thousands of government employees paid to fight the battle. They have no incentive to actually “win”, of course; winning the “war” would mean their services were no longer needed.

Politicians are afraid to touch the matter. Nobody wants to be labeled “soft on crime” or pro-drug. It may be a total waste of money, but then again, isn’t most of what government does? The “war” on drugs makes us feel like we’re doing something, and in politics, perception is reality.

Obama made a baby step in the right direction by announcing his administration will not arrest medical marijuana users in states in which it’s legal. Though I’m not holding my breath, I hope he will take an even more courageous step and announce a ceasefire in the “war” on drugs.

Given that Media Matters could fairly be described as an uber-left outfit, I was a little surprised to find this:

This is just the latest in a pattern of the media’s sexist coverage of female politicians. With regard to Palin, Media Matters documented the sexist treatment both Palin and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received throughout the 2008 campaign. For instance, after McCain announced Palin as his VP, sexist commentary on cable news soon followed.

Via Silence.

James Joyner makes the best, most unemotional case against trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York:

First, these men are not citizens of the United States. Second, they’re accused war criminals. They simply should not be tried in U.S. civilian courts. Rather, they should either be held accountable in a Nuremberg-style international forum or treated as war criminals by a U.S. military tribunal under the mechanisms provided by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court.

Aside from the virtual certainty that the trial will devolve into a media circus, there’s an incredibly good chance that Mohammed and his comrades will go free. The fact that KSM was repeatedly waterboarded would seem to taint any subsequent evidence, including his own confession.

Lord knows I’m not a huge fan of Sarah Palin, but honestly, I’m starting to wonder if there’s something seriously wrong with Andrew Sullivan.

Sarah Palin claims she was billed $50,000 by the McCain campaign for her own vetting process. The McCain camp says it ain’t so. I don’t know which story to believe, but I do know this: Whoever paid $50,000 for Palin’s vetting process deserves a refund in full.

At a press conference on October 29, a reporter asked Speaker Pelosi from where in the Constitution Congress was authorized to force Americans to buy health insurance. Pelosi asked if the reporter was serious. The reporter replied that he was. Pelosi did not respond, and later, through a spokesman, said “that is not a serious question.”

Dr. Walter E. Williams looks at the Constitutional contempt of most of our leaders. Money quote:

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance? If Congress gets away with forcing us to buy health insurance, down the line, what else will they force us to buy; or do you naively think they will stop with health insurance? We shouldn’t think that the cure to Congress’ unconstitutional heavy-handedness will end if we only elect Republicans. Republicans have demonstrated nearly as much constitutional contempt as have Democrats. The major difference is the significant escalation of that contempt under today’s Democratically controlled Congress and White House with the massive increase in spending, their proposed legislation and the appointment of tyrannical czars to control our lives. It’s a safe bet that if and when Republicans take over the Congress and White House, they will not give up the massive increase in control over our lives won by the Democrats.

You really owe it to yourself to read the whole article.

My pal Adrienne Royer ponders the responsibility of pro-life forces in passing Obamacare, concluding:

It was the fault of the Republican party and Republican House members for not doing a better job in presenting their arguments. Pro-lifers should not be blamed for the failure of the party.

I generally agree. Right to Life exists to reduce and/or eliminate abortion; nothing more, nothing less. It’s their job to focus solely on abortion. Republicans and conservatives, on the other hand, took the easy way out by arguing the bill would fund abortions and health care for illegal immigrants instead of making broader arguments against government health care. Abortion and illegal immigration, of course, are emotional issues and are much easier to boil down to pure populism than are the constitutional ramifications and long-term impact of socialized medicine.

So instead of trusting people to grapple with the bigger issues, opinion leaders were lazy and latched onto abortion as a reason for opposition. The result was predictable enough: Democrats passed an amendment banning federal funds for abortion, giving the Blue Dogs enough cover to support Obamacare. If it is to be defeated in the Senate, a more comprehensive case against Obamacare will have to be made. Here’s hoping it is.

A new SurveyUSA poll finds Rand Paul leading the GOP primary with 35%. Trey Grayson is next with 32%.

If I lived in Kentucky, I’d definitely vote for Paul.

I went 0.67 on my projections: McDonnell and Christie won the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey, respectively, but Hoffman fell in NY-23. When when making my predictions, I thought I was going much farther out on a limb in picking Christie than in picking Hoffman, as most polls showed Hoffman in the lead.

So what happened, and what does it say about the teabaggers? Eric Erickson argues that it’s, like most every event in his view, a big win for conservatism:

I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy. A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do — crush the establishment backed GOP candidate.

<…>

So we have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted. The GOP spent $900,000.00 on a Republican who dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. Were we to combine Scozzafava and Hoffman’s votes, Hoffman would have won.

Chris Lawrence is closer to my own view:

Would Hoffman have been a more reliable Republican vote than Scozzafava? Probably. But Owens, if he’s anything like the vast majority of his future colleagues, will almost certainly vote with the Democrats more than 90% of the time; even the most “disloyal” Republicans only break from their party around 35% of the time while the vast majority only defect less than 10% of the time. In other words, conservatives have probably traded a reasonably Republican vote in the House for a reliably Democratic one, which in the grand scheme of things is not likely to be smart politics.

For what it’s worth, it’s obvious the Republican established erred big time in choosing Scozzafava as the party’s nominee, and it’s perfectly understandable that conservatives were angered. Scozzafava is a pretty liberal Republican, after all. Heck, if I’d lived in NY-23, I probably would have voted for Hoffman as well, once it became clear he had a decent shot at winning. Scozzafava’s endorsement of Owens should tell us something, after all.

If Hoffman had won it would have been a major victory for conservative activists. The lesson to be drawn from this race is that, while powerful within the GOP, the tea party activists cannot win general elections in New York. Their power and influence was overestimated. Perhaps they will reveal themselves to be able to win in other states. New York is reliably Blue, after all.

A fair observation of tonight shows this race is not a win for conservatives, if victory is defined by the election of candidates likely to pursue conservative policies. On the contrary, a seat held for more than a century by Republicans has been handed over to a Democrat who will almost certainly pursue the liberal agenda. It’ll take quite a bit of spin to convince anyone this constitutes a victory for the Right, though I’m sure plenty of folks will try.

As for the races in New Jersey and Virginia, here is how both sides will react:

From the Right:

The election of McDonnell in Virginia and Christie in New Jersey are a clear rebuke of Obama and everything he stands for. The American people are fed up with the radical liberalism of the Obama administration and made their voices heard tonight. This will certainly end up being Obama’s Waterloo.

From the Left:

The defeats of Deeds in Virginia and Corzine in New Jersey were the results of local issues and poor candidates. It reflects only on Deeds and Corzine themselves. It says nothing at all about the Obama Administration, whose policies are widely supported by the American people. If Corzine and Deeds had done more to associate themselves with our wonderful president, they would have certainly been victorious in their races.

Well, as politically big as days get in odd-numbered years. Three elections will be decided today in three states: the Virginia and New Jersey governors’ races and a special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional district.

NY-23: A rather bizarre special election in that it pits a Democrat, Bill Owens, against a Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman. The Republican, Dierdre Scozzafava, dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. Scozzafava, a liberal Republican, was chosen by a special committee of party leaders and didn’t go through the normal primary process, helping explain Republican disenchantment with her.

Though New York is a blue state, this district is reliably Republican. If Hoffman wins it’ll be a major victory for the tea party activists. Aggregation of recent polls show Hoffman with a small lead.

New Jersey: Jon Corzine, the unpopular incumbent, is facing a tough challenger in Republican Chris Christie. Though New Jersey is one of the bluest states, Christie is a strong candidate and Corzine is widely unpopular and considered corrupt. Thus, Republicans have a rare opportunity to win the the governorship of one of the most Democratic states.

This election could not get much closer. All polls from the past few days show the race within the margin of error, though the RCP average shows Christie with a one-point advantage.

Virginia: Last year Virginia voted Democrat for president for the first time since 1964. This year it looks like the Old Dominion State will return to its roots. Though early on the race between Republican McDonnell and Democrat Deeds appeared competitive, polls today show this one to be a landslide: the RCP average has McDonnell with a 13-point lead.

My Projection: Democrats probably hit the highwater mark last year, and if history is any indication, the GOP should begin to make a comeback. Though I wouldn’t read too much into these results (New York and New Jersey are not likely to go Red anytime soon), Republicans/Conservatives are in good shape in all these races. Thus, I predict a Republican/Conservative sweep: Hoffwin will win NY-23, Christie will win New Jersey, and McDonnell will win Virginia.